Wisdom of the Infinite - Part One by David Quinn

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: Your "richness" is a result of you not knowing how to discriminate.

Bird: I discriminate all day long. <hr>

I'm sure you do, but nevertheless I don't see any evidence that you are able to discriminate between truth and falsity - at least not on a consistent basis.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> No, I think my richness, actually, is a result of my ability to see patterns. But you didn't answer the question - how is my conception of wisdom and spirituality different than yours? <hr>

Here is something that you wrote to Rhett which illustrates one of the differences:

I didn't say you don't know where to look for enlightenment. I said you don't know how to look for a spiritual realm. Although QRS mention a spiritual life, and it is after a fashion, they are (at least Solway is) pure materialists, so by definition they don't really believe in a spiritual realm.

It is evident that you conceive of spirituality in a supernatural, Christian sense, rather than in the pantheistic sense of enlightenment. Kevin is probably the least materialistic person of the lot of us.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Anyway, I'm not sure what sorts of thoughts are mystical and which aren't. Are all my contemplations mystical? At what point in contemplating Reality do your thoughts cease to by mystical? <hr>

They cease to be mystical when you finally comprehend the nature of Reality and cease to rely on altered states of consciousness to bring it into awareness.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I didn't say you don't know where to look for enlightenment. I said you don't know how to look for a spiritual realm. Although QRS mention a spiritual life, and it is after a fashion, they are (at least Solway is) pure materialists, so by definition they don't really believe in a spiritual realm.

It is evident that you conceive of spirituality in a supernatural, Christian sense, rather than in the pantheistic sense of enlightenment. Kevin is probably the least materialistic person of the lot of us.<hr>

The post was to Biggie. There is some bit on this website in which Kevin has an imaginary conversation with someone about whether a person is any different than a machine. Based on this I conclude Kevin is a materialist. I have stated more than once over a long period of time that the word supernatural has no meaning. I expect that events like ESP or reincarnation and a soul are physical and explainable.

I am indeed a pantheist, but I am also an animist. The difference seems to be that my god is alive, and yours is not. Is there any possibility for a completely nonmaterial "thing" to exist? There is something at the core of life that I haven't comprehended and it is Life itself.

At any rate, I don't think you've understood me.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>They cease to be mystical when you finally comprehend the nature of Reality and cease to rely on altered states of consciousness to bring it into awareness.<hr>

I believe what you mean here is that the altered state becomes permanent.

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: It is evident that you conceive of spirituality in a supernatural, Christian sense, rather than in the pantheistic sense of enlightenment. Kevin is probably the least materialistic person of the lot of us.

Bird: The post was to Biggie. There is some bit on this website in which Kevin has an imaginary conversation with someone about whether a person is any different than a machine. Based on this I conclude Kevin is a materialist. <hr>

If the Universe itself is the spiritual realm, Kevin would in fact be a spiritualist, and all those who posit a supernatural soul would be materialists.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I am indeed a pantheist, but I am also an animist. The difference seems to be that my god is alive, and yours is not.<hr>

Why? Does he eat and breathe?

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Is there any possibility for a completely nonmaterial "thing" to exist? <hr>

Square circles, irrational numbers, rational Christians, ........

Quote:

Quote:<hr> There is something at the core of life that I haven't comprehended and it is Life itself. <hr>

You haven't yet learned to open yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> At any rate, I don't think you've understood me. <hr>

Naturally. For a man to understand a woman is simply bad manners.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: They cease to be mystical when you finally comprehend the nature of Reality and cease to rely on altered states of consciousness to bring it into awareness.

Bird: I believe what you mean here is that the altered state becomes permanent. <hr>

The irrelevancy of altered states becomes permanent.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>If the Universe itself is the spiritual realm, Kevin would in fact be a spiritualist, and all those who posit a supernatural soul would be materialists.<hr>

You are saying there is no division, which is good enough for me, but I call him, or QRS, materialist, because, as far as I understand, you believe that life evolved by accident from dead matter, with no inherent "aliveness" in the universe. If the universe itself is inherently alive, I can accept that. Kevin seemed to rather carefully explain that we are just matter in motion, a set of chemical reactions. You can call it spiritual if you like, but frankly, I'd like to know why.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Why? Does he eat and breathe?<hr>

I think of God as the life force, that which is necessarily and inherently alive, and which generates life.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>You haven't yet learned to open yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.<hr>

That is wild speculation. Just because I tend to be somewhat mystical, does not mean that is all there is. In fact, I haven't thought deeply enough on this; I've been using the term somewhat loosely. I'm not understanding the difference.

Nor am I convinced mysticism is lower. After all, the mystical experience is one of union with the divine, whereas your concepts are mental concepts, in which you understand the reality that you must be indeed united with the divine. And Kevin's recent argument with Thomas about meditation says that the experiences that people want can be better obtained by a mind which loves to contemplate truth more than by stilling the mind with boring techniques. Let us say he is right, what happens is that the understanding thus obtained leads directly and necessarily to a full-on experience of the reality of it, which I would call mystical.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Naturally. For a man to understand a woman is simply bad manners. <hr>

Of course it is best to put a humerous spin on the tragic situation men find themselve in vis a'vis women.


DQ: They cease to be mystical when you finally comprehend the nature of Reality and cease to rely on altered states of consciousness to bring it into awareness.The irrelevancy of altered states becomes permanent.

If you use altered states to bring it into awareness, those altered states are sort of where reality is at, no? What is an altered state, anyway?

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: If the Universe itself is the spiritual realm, Kevin would in fact be a spiritualist, and all those who posit a supernatural soul would be materialists.

Bird: You are saying there is no division, which is good enough for me, but I call him, or QRS, materialist, because, as far as I understand, you believe that life evolved by accident from dead matter, with no inherent "aliveness" in the universe. If the universe itself is inherently alive, I can accept that. Kevin seemed to rather carefully explain that we are just matter in motion, a set of chemical reactions. You can call it spiritual if you like, but frankly, I'd like to know why. <hr>

You're still approaching these issues in a limited dualistic manner, which is causing you to misunderstand "QRS thought" and indeed the nature of wisdom itself. The very idea that Nature (God) is either alive or dead is deluded. In truth, it is neither.

One of the reasons why you're finding it impossible to make the all-important breakthrough into the highest wisdom is that you're too attached to a preconceived notion of what God is. You want God to be a particular way (i.e. in a way that delights your mind and provides security for your ego), and this is preventing you from taking the steps needed to find out what God actually is.

The following passage from Kierkegaard addresses this point:

Anyone who has the remotest idea of what it actually is to die to the world
also knows that this does not take place without frightful agonies. No wonder,
then, that he cries out, sometimes also rebels against God, because it seems to
him as if God has deceived him, he who from the beginning became involved
with God on the understanding that God would love him according to man's
idea of love and now sees that it is God who wants to be loved, and according
to God's idea of what love is . . . . .

When a person approaches God for the first time, he does so with the idea that seeing God and being with Him will be heaven. This is a perfectly natural outlook given that the initial approach to God is always ego-driven. But there comes a time when he needs to shed this outlook if he wants to make further progress. Otherwise, he will only end up stagnating in an egotistical heaven (or hell) of his own making. He needs to bite the bullet and learn to recognize and accept God for what He really is, and not only this, but to love Him unconditionally as well. Only then will he begin to leave the mystical realm behind and start to become a sage.

That's not a bad definition of a mystic, actually - "someone who claims to be spiritual and yet unconsciously hates God."

Quote:

Quote:<hr>DQ: You haven't yet learned to open yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.

Bird: That is wild speculation. <hr>

Dearest Anna, you give yourself away in everything that you write.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>DQ: They cease to be mystical when you finally comprehend the nature of Reality and cease to rely on altered states of consciousness to bring it into awareness.The irrelevancy of altered states becomes permanent.

Bird: If you use altered states to bring it into awareness, those altered states are sort of where reality is at, no? What is an altered state, anyway? <hr>

In the way that I've been using the term, an altered state is a significant altering of consciousness in which the mind believes it has entered a spiritual realm and is able to discern hidden, but vitally important, forms of knowledge. It usually, but not always, involves great clarity of mind, experience of bliss, a sense of timelessness, a feeling that everything is divine, etc.

People who are starting out on the spiritual path need these altered states, and the clarity of mind they provide, to unearth profound knowledge, and later on, insight into the nature of Reality. But as a person progresses and he becomes increasingly more wise and rational in every aspect of his existence, his need for altered states diminishes. The final fruition is the ability to see God everywhere, regardless of one's state of mind.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>You're still approaching these issues in a limited dualistic manner, which is causing you to misunderstand "QRS thought" and indeed the nature of wisdom itself. The very idea that Nature (God) is either alive or dead is deluded. In truth, it is neither.<hr>

Sometimes I can get beyond duality, sometimes not. This is a not. I can at least say that I had assumed QRS are no different than the modern scientist who thinks evolution theory is sufficient to explain the appearance of LAWKI (life), which I do not accept. In my opinion that belief system necesarily means that life in fact does not exist.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>One of the reasons why you're finding it impossible to make the all-important breakthrough into the highest wisdom is that you're too attached to a preconceived notion of what God is. You want God to be a particular way (i.e. in a way that delights your mind and provides security for your ego), and this is preventing you from taking the steps needed to find out what God actually is.<hr>

I'm not that attached, as evidenced by the large difference in the way I conceive of God compared to years ago. When I lost my religion in the space of one weekend, and that rather soon after receiving a visitation of the Holy Spirit that left me so utterly in love with God that I can hardly express it, that was a dark night of the soul, rather like the 23rd psalm. That was when I learned what faith is.

It's also why I was rather excited when Kevin recently wrote that it is more productive for the mind to dwell on truth than the breath. (But I do think meditation has value - I just personally don't want to do it.)

But I must say that I don't worry a whole lot that God can turn out to be disappointing or undelightful! As to the security of my ego, I admit that is a major concern of mine, yet I have faith about that as well.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>That's not a bad definition of a mystic, actually - "someone who claims to be spiritual and yet unconsciously hates God." <hr>

Darn, I was planning to use that for a Christian.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>DQ: You haven't yet learned to open yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.
____
Bird: That is wild speculation.
-------
Dearest Anna, you give yourself away in everything that you write.<hr>

Them's fightin' words! You think you know something I don't. Well I won't have it. You'd better explain. (Look what a crappy student you have, pretending to have a spiritual drive when it is really just a cover for her feminine curiosity!)

It isn't necessarily neccessary to suffer as much as Kierkgaard did,because we live in a different era and don't need to resist as much. Christianity is a heavy handicap, spiritually.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>But as a person progresses and he becomes increasingly more wise and rational in every aspect of his existence, his need for altered states diminishes. The final fruition is the ability to see God everywhere, regardless of one's state of mind.<hr>

I can only reiterate from what you have written, that it seems to me the process you are describing is one of slow integration of those altered states and the insights provided by them.

If odd you would describe a mystical process whereby one approaches enlightenment, and then describe it in such, well, hateful terms.

That fruition, I believe, is literally a result of altering the structure, the neural pathways, and even the brainwaves, in one's brain.

I wonder if, by "see God everywhere" you really mean "feel the reality that God is everywhere" regardless of one's state of mind. Because, once having seen it, intellectually, I never really departed from it, but as to feeling and responding to the world, I of course forget and fall into lower behavior and response patterns. But once having "seen" it, one can never go back.

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr>DQ: You're still approaching these issues in a limited dualistic manner, which is causing you to misunderstand "QRS thought" and indeed the nature of wisdom itself. The very idea that Nature (God) is either alive or dead is deluded. In truth, it is neither.

Bird: Sometimes I can get beyond duality, sometimes not. This is a not. I can at least say that I had assumed QRS are no different than the modern scientist who thinks evolution theory is sufficient to explain the appearance of LAWKI (life), which I do not accept. In my opinion that belief system necesarily means that life in fact does not exist. <hr>

I agree that it is debatable whether or not evolution, as scientists describe it, is sufficient to explain the apearance of life. What is certain, however, is that life is a product of an infinite number of causes, most of which stretch far beyond the confines of life itself. In other words, life is necessarily a product of non-life. (Keeping in mind there is ultimately no such thing as life. Or non-life.)

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: You haven't yet learned to open yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.

Bird: That is wild speculation.

DQ: Dearest Anna, you give yourself away in everything that you write.

Bird: Them's fightin' words! You think you know something I don't. Well I won't have it. You'd better explain. (Look what a crappy student you have, pretending to have a spiritual drive when it is really just a cover for her feminine curiosity!)

It isn't necessarily neccessary to suffer as much as Kierkgaard did,because we live in a different era and don't need to resist as much. Christianity is a heavy handicap, spiritually. <hr>

My observation has nothing to do with this. It's more to do with the fact that your words don't convey the transparent clarity, deep knowledge, and freedom of non-attachment which characterizes enlightenment.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: But as a person progresses and he becomes increasingly more wise and rational in every aspect of his existence, his need for altered states diminishes. The final fruition is the ability to see God everywhere, regardless of one's state of mind.

Bird: I can only reiterate from what you have written, that it seems to me the process you are describing is one of slow integration of those altered states and the insights provided by them. <hr>

Not really. Altered states can certainly change a persons 's life, but what really propels the mind towards enlightenment is the slow integration of intellectual truth about Reality into one's brain. This intellectual truth can sometimes be acquired to a degree through altered states, but most of it is acquired by good old-fashioned thinking.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> If odd you would describe a mystical process whereby one approaches enlightenment, and then describe it in such, well, hateful terms. <hr>

Because people tend to become very attached to their experiences of altered states, a bit of force is sometimes needed to help free them.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I wonder if, by "see God everywhere" you really mean "feel the reality that God is everywhere" regardless of one's state of mind. <hr>

No, I mean an awareness of the nature of Reality which is so crystalline and full that it seizes the intellect and completely infuses the faculty of direct perception.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>In other words, life is necessarily a product of non-life.<hr>

Why is life a product of non-life, and why is there no such thing?

Quote:

Quote:<hr>My observation has nothing to do with this. It's more to do with the fact that your words don't convey the transparent clarity, deep knowledge, and freedom of non-attachment which characterizes enlightenment.<hr>

That is perhaps because I am not enlightened. I am merely awake.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Altered states can certainly change a persons 's life, but what really propels the mind towards enlightenment is the slow integration of intellectual truth about Reality into one's brain. This intellectual truth can sometimes be acquired to a degree through altered states, but most of it is acquired by good old-fashioned thinking.<hr>

Thinking can also bring about an altered state so it goes both ways. This integration, though - what is it? It is an invisible process within the brain. I'm thinking there are changes in the brain that become permanent.

The gurus get their breakthroughs and they are sure it's the only way to go. But you can have a powerful mystical state, that rightly used, enables you to use its momentum for more and more rational thinking. You can ponder truth and get a burst of deep meditation brain waves and you can sit and meditate for 6 hours a day and get the same thing. Some people, the cheaters, just get a glimpse of deeper reality out of the blue.

I still am not clear on what you mean by the Infinite as opposed to mysticism. But enlightenment surely must go deeper than just intellectual understanding.

In honor of the little glimpse I got today, BirdofHermes will from now on refer to herself in the third person.

[Dave Toast]

Altered states of consciousness are ten-a-penny, we flit from one to another constantly. Some are of more use than others.

Only altered modes of consciousness can offer permanent transcendence. And there are many more modes of altered consciousness and transcenence than 'ego' transcendence, although it's obviously a biggie. Still, it's not the end of the road, there will always be a higher mode of consciousness to push onto.

[birdofhermes]

And what is an altered mode of consciousness?

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: In other words, life is necessarily a product of non-life.

B: Why is life a product of non-life, and why is there no such thing? <hr>

I went into all that in my book.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: My observation has nothing to do with this. It's more to do with the fact that your words don't convey the transparent clarity, deep knowledge, and freedom of non-attachment which characterizes enlightenment.

Bird: That is perhaps because I am not enlightened. <hr>

I know that. That is why I say that you have not opened yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I am merely awake. <hr>

Even cows can claim that.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I still am not clear on what you mean by the Infinite as opposed to mysticism. But enlightenment surely must go deeper than just intellectual understanding. <hr>

It is the practice of intellectual understanding which leads to enlightenment. The constant focus upon, and development of, one's deepest understanding; the assimilation of this understanding into every pore of one's being; the discarding of everything false inside one which conflicts with it; the gradual transformation of one's relationship to everything in the Universe that this engenders. It is the continual improvement of one's entire mind, both the intellectual and non-intellectual parts, until every aspect of it transparently reflects the nature of Reality. It is the greatest fruit of rationality.

[Dave Toast]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Bird: And what is an altered mode of consciousness?<hr>

The mode would describe the most permanently dwelled in habitual state, which the altered state temporarily deviates from.

The altered state entails temporary transcendence of the mode, and the accompanying expansion or contraction of consciousness. It can necessarily be no more than the archetypal glimpse. The attempt to more permanently dwell in the consciousness of such an altered state and transcend the habitual mode of consciousness, via control of the neural system, is the route to an altered mode of consciousness which becomes the habitual and most permanently dwelled in state.

Being as consciousness is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, there are a myriad of dimensions along which it may be expanded, and therefore a myriad of transcendent states which can become modes. Labelling such transcendent states and modes as nirvana, samdhi, ego-death, Buddah-consciousness, etc. just reinforces the idea that there is only one type of transcendent consciousness.

[David Quinn]

Transcendent consciousness transcends both one-dimensionality and many-dimensionality.

[Dave Toast]

How very one-dimensional of it.

I'd go along with your expression if you were speaking metaphorically. If you were speaking literally, I'd enquire as to your justification for this supernatural claim. Are you saying that consciousness is anything other than a physical phenomenon?

[birdofhermes]

quote]The attempt to more permanently dwell in the consciousness of such an altered state and transcend the habitual mode of consciousness, via control of the neural system, is the route to an altered mode of consciousness which becomes the habitual and most permanently dwelled in state.[/quote]

Is that as interesting as it sounds? Please elaborate about controlling the neural system.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Being as consciousness is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, there are a myriad of dimensions along which it may be expanded, and therefore a myriad of transcendent states which can become modes. Labelling such transcendent states and modes as nirvana, samdhi, ego-death, Buddah-consciousness, etc. just reinforces the idea that there is only one type of transcendent consciousness.<hr>

Which you are saying is an error?

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>B: Why is life a product of non-life, and why is there no such thing?

I went into all that in my book. <hr>

Don't remember that. Will have to reread.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>That is why I say that you have not opened yourself up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism.<hr>

What would be the hallmarks of a person who dwells in the infinite? It is still unclear how it is beyond mysticism.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I am merely awake.

Even cows can claim that. <hr>

You are well aware of the more conscious meaning of that phrase; indeed, most people cannot claim to be awake in the sense in which it was meant. You become petulant when tired.

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr>The only reason we have a world and universe and a brain as we have them, is because of boundaries, and because all systems recognize them, and act upon the delusion of their existence. It is only partially true that the boundaries are nonexistent. It is a relative thing. Your enlightenment could not occur without them, and your superior male brain is particularly geared toward spotting them. So, once having seen the unity, a crucial insight admittedly, why is it necessary to swing all the way on the pendulum to that end of perception?<hr>

I've never said forms don't exist, only their boundaries.

The form of an eddy continues to appear to our senses even after we perceive the truth that it has no boundaries.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: This is a key issue and seperates those who are able to open themselves up to the Infinite, which is beyond mysticism, and those that can't.

Bird: Let's see, now, mysticism is a direct experience of God, yet we are to move beyond it. <hr>

I dispute the idea that mysticism is a direct experience of God. Mystics might say it is, but they are mistaken. What they actually experience are egotistical heavens, which seem profound and timeless to their gullible and all-too-ready-to-believe minds.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Perhaps what you mean is that the experience needs to be intellectually integrated and understood. Or perhaps what you mean is that you prefer the high of a light and pure intellectual vision, without immersing your whole being in a direct experience - which has an emotional element and is more draining. <hr>

Funnily enough, precisely the opposite is the case. While emotions easily arise through the mystical experience, they are entirely absent during true enlightenment. This is because the person entering true enlightenment really does give all of himself, such that there is no longer any room for emotion to arise. The contrast between self and other disappears, and he literally becomes the All.

The mystic, on the other hand, doesn't fully sacrifice himself. He hangs back a bit. He preserves a part of himself. This is because what he really wants is, not God, but the experience of an egotistical heaven, together with the blissful emotions it arouses.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Nor can I understand why agreeing or seeing that all items are appearances to mind is so crucial to enlightenment. <hr>

This is something you'll have to work out for yourself. It goes to the heart of the nature of existence.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: That is not Kevin's position, nor is it the position outlined in my book. The world certainly does exist beyond our brains when it appears to do so.

Bird: When it appears to whom? <hr>

On a practical level, we can say the "observer" that the brain constructs as a centre for its field of perceptions. On a deeper level, there is ultimately no observer, just as there are ultimately no appearances. That's why I stated in my book that the word "appearance" is just a term of convenience, that appearances are not really appearances at all but direct manifestations of Reality.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I meant consciousness existing outside of physical brains, which it must according to what you said about Nature, and according to the idea that physical things cannot exist without consciousness. <hr>

All we can know for sure is that consciousness is necessary to the existence of anything at all. Whether the total sum of all consciosunesses in the Universe confines itself to that of the human race, or of the animal kingdon, or whether there are other larger kinds of consciousness around is impossible to determine - and ultimately irrelevent to the experience of enlightenment.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I've never said forms don't exist, only their boundaries.
The form of an eddy continues to appear to our senses even after we perceive the truth that it has no boundaries.<hr>

Well, an eddy is certainly an interesting example. At first it seems a poor one, as water is so fluid, no one thinks it has any real boundaries, unless frozen. The beauty and usefulness of water flows from its unboundedness. It was a good choice for comparison with the Tao. But, given large enough stretches of time, the mountain ranges and continents themselves would flow like ripples and waves. As does glass.

At the same time, to deny boundaries is to deny the world of forms. It even denies that A equals A, (excepting the one A of the totality.) A form exists because of everything that it is not. How can we way "that is a pencil" if the pencil never ends? Now, I understand that if all forms are really delusion, leaving only one A, that it means all is empty. Form is empty. Well and good, but it is only one way of looking at reality, and forms are another.

Despite that when you look too closely, boundaries cannot be totally pinned down, that is merely a temporal problem. You cannot be both a form and eternal, you see.

No one knows better than the student of alchemy that forms are chimerical. At bottom, according to alchemy and string theory, there is only one "substance." And from it are all forms, all pretending to be the ten thousand things, and all are actually the one thing.

Yet still I insist, forms are real, and boundaries, while not the end of the story, are real and functional enough, and without them there would be no evolution, no experiences.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>I dispute the idea that mysticism is a direct experience of God. Mystics might say it is, but they are mistaken. What they actually experience are egotistical heavens, which seem profound and timeless to their gullible and all-too-ready-to-believe minds.<hr>

Well, if you dispute that then your arguments make sense. As to whether you are right, that is another question. There is not any fault in experiencing a heaven, and its truths are much higher than the mundane ones. Truth is vast and it is a never-ending ascent, or at least, the end is nowhere in sight. One can only get and assimilate more and more and more of it. There is only one fault, and that is loss of appetite.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>This is because the person entering true enlightenment really does give all of himself, such that there is no longer any room for emotion to arise. The contrast between self and other disappears, and he literally becomes the All.<hr>

This I'd say is true.

I was thinking yesterday about my craving to know absolutely everything, and I realized that the only way to accomplish that is to BE everything, which makes it rather difficult to keep a self at the same time...yet what is the satisfaction of being everything if one then knows not that one knows...nor can I ever be satisfied until I know everything...I've no idea how to pull it off, but I have every confidence that Reality has some trick up its sleeve.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>The mystic, on the other hand, doesn't fully sacrifice himself. He hangs back a bit. He preserves a part of himself.<hr>

!!!

Quote:

Quote:<hr>This is because what he really wants is, not God, but the experience of an egotistical heaven, together with the blissful emotions it arouses. <hr>

No, mainly it's because she doesn't want to die!

Quote:

Quote:<hr>Nor can I understand why agreeing or seeing that all items are appearances to mind is so crucial to enlightenment.
------------------------------------------------------

This is something you'll have to work out for yourself. It goes to the heart of the nature of existence.<hr>

Hmm, well your example of the leaf didn't do much for me. I can see how the leaf and its leafness will vary tremendously on who the observer is. What I don't see is that nothing exists unless it appears to some consciousness, or that it doesn't exist just because of the fact that it is utterly transormed *in appearance* (but not in its molecules.) Logistically. And you say its crucial to enlightenment but what the nature of consciousness might be so as to bring about these forms or appearances is not important to enlightenment.

Quote:

Quote:<hr>On a deeper level, there is ultimately no observer, just as there are ultimately no appearances.<hr>

Can you explain that a little more?

Quote:

Quote:<hr>That's why I stated in my book that the word "appearance" is just a term of convenience, that appearances are not really appearances at all but direct manifestations of Reality.<hr>

Everything is a direct manifestationof Reality! What else could it be?

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: I've never said forms don't exist, only their boundaries. The form of an eddy continues to appear to our senses even after we perceive the truth that it has no boundaries.

Bird: Well, an eddy is certainly an interesting example. At first it seems a poor one, as water is so fluid, no one thinks it has any real boundaries, unless frozen. The beauty and usefulness of water flows from its unboundedness. It was a good choice for comparison with the Tao. But, given large enough stretches of time, the mountain ranges and continents themselves would flow like ripples and waves. As does glass.

At the same time, to deny boundaries is to deny the world of forms. It even denies that A equals A, (excepting the one A of the totality.) A form exists because of everything that it is not. How can we way "that is a pencil" if the pencil never ends? <hr>

There is certainly the appearance of boundaries, which denote where things seem to begin and end. But as I explained in the book - using the example of a cloud in the sky - they are as much a creation of our perspective and conceptualizing minds as they are of the actual cloud in question. A cloud's boundaries can no more exist in the absence of the observing mind as they can in the absence of the cloud itself.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: I dispute the idea that mysticism is a direct experience of God. Mystics might say it is, but they are mistaken. What they actually experience are egotistical heavens, which seem profound and timeless to their gullible and all-too-ready-to-believe minds.

Bird: Well, if you dispute that then your arguments make sense. As to whether you are right, that is another question. There is not any fault in experiencing a heaven, and its truths are much higher than the mundane ones. Truth is vast and it is a never-ending ascent, or at least, the end is nowhere in sight. <hr>

Another myth created by over-bloated mystics, who do everything possible to put the real Truth out of their minds so that they can continuing gorging on their never-ending ego heavens. When will they ever stop?

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I was thinking yesterday about my craving to know absolutely everything, and I realized that the only way to accomplish that is to BE everything, which makes it rather difficult to keep a self at the same time...yet what is the satisfaction of being everything if one then knows not that one knows...nor can I ever be satisfied until I know everything...I've no idea how to pull it off, but I have every confidence that Reality has some trick up its sleeve. <hr>

We don't have to "be" everything, or indeed "be" anything. We are already everything. It is an already accomplished fact. We just have to stop blocking it out of our minds.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: The mystic, on the other hand, doesn't fully sacrifice himself. He hangs back a bit. He preserves a part of himself.

Bird: !!!

DQ: This is because what he really wants is, not God, but the experience of an egotistical heaven, together with the blissful emotions it arouses.

Bird: No, mainly it's because she doesn't want to die! <hr>

Yes, as I say, she hangs back a bit. She preserves a part of herself, so as to continue enjoying life.

"Whoever does not give up his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for my sake will receive eternal life." - Jesus

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Bird: Nor can I understand why agreeing or seeing that all items are appearances to mind is so crucial to enlightenment.

DQ: This is something you'll have to work out for yourself. It goes to the heart of the nature of existence.

Bird: Hmm, well your example of the leaf didn't do much for me. I can see how the leaf and its leafness will vary tremendously on who the observer is. What I don't see is that nothing exists unless it appears to some consciousness, <hr>

It is literally what existence means. To exist is to appear.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> or that it doesn't exist just because of the fact that it is utterly transormed *in appearance* (but not in its molecules.) <hr>

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: On a deeper level, there is ultimately no observer, just as there are ultimately no appearances.

Bird: Can you explain that a little more? <hr>

Imagine that instead of normal eye sockets, we had two long tentacles extending out of our heads with an eyeball at the end of each one. Imagine that you can curve these tentacles in such a way that you are able to look down on top of your head.

Note what is happening here. The "observer" in you is looking down on top of your head from behind your eyes, as it were, even though there is nothing physically there behind the eyes. There is just empty space and no sign of any observer at all. This demonstrates that the "observer" is a fictitious creation of the brain, which automatically implies that appearances towards this non-existent observer are not really appearances.

Or to put it another way, the illusion of the observer is inherently wrapped up in the very appearances of themselves.

[mowk]

I haven't digested your entire paper yet, I keep running into assumptions that you present as truth as basis to your argument.

ALL Exists, everything that is imagined or not is in existence NOW. The very concept of ALL is inclusive of everything, save one, "Nothing" The absence of ALL. Even the concept of "Nothing" is included in ALL but not what that concept refers to. The states of existences and nonexistence can not occur together. The State of "Nothingness" has never existed, for it to be, it would have to be something.

The idea of cause and effect is dependent on time, on the linear quantity of past, present and future. Show me past. Show me future. It is impossible, what you end up showing me is your awareness. You may look up into the night sky, and based on your concept of light travel and the theory of space, say the light from that star is 18 billion years old and then remark, there is your past. I will respond, that light is present right now. You have not showed me something that is the past you have shown me something that is now.

The idea of the "past" is a concept that is based on ones perception of memory. The idea of "future" is nothing more than the extrapolation of this sequential linearity. As concepts, they can be used by the mind but they do not exist as objects outside of the mind. The mistake is to think that what is conceptualized by the mind must exist outside the mind. As soon as you do that then time exists and gives your ideas of causality something to explain.

If All is in existence now and you do not see it's expression that is not definitive that it does not exist it is only definitive that you're unaware of it.

ALL possibility is like a still frame from an infinity of possibilities, our awareness assembles these still frames into a process and the process becomes the notion of time and the notion of time gives rise to the idea of causality. If everything that is ALL, exists now, then the idea of causality is moot. The very idea of causality is dependent on time. Time becomes a structure by which we measure awareness but is not a thing that exists of which we can be aware of other that within it's own context.

So what you have seemed to do in my mind is create a notion of time to explain your ability to remember the previous. Then you extrapolate that previous into it's opposite direction because of the limits of linearity. And propose that causality is explained by this.

Causality is the perception of awareness based in time. But awareness is not time limited. Time is simply a construct we use to explain what we are aware of.

If there is only now, and our sense of time is merely a representation of limited awareness, as is the conception that something does not exist, for no one, of which I am aware, is aware of it's presence. This does not mean it does not exist it just means that the awareness of it's existence is not present. The notion of causality has now become not the root of all things but merely one of our constructs we use in an attempt to become aware, because of limitations of awareness of All that is.

That with which we attempt to use as a tool of awareness becomes a stumbling block to awareness itself. If time and as a result space, factor into this construction then as long as you are limited by these constructions then the truth of All that is being now existent will elude you.

Time and space too, don't exist other than in our ability to use them as a measure. As long as we use them they will continue to affect our ability to be aware of all that is, now. If the measure of time were not kept by man it would not exist.

The thread we put together of “now’s” is created by our attempts to have it make sense. It's ability for explanation, is limited by the very requirements of what it is to explain it.

An idea that is simpler is, time does not exist and ALL that is, is now. We are simply unaware of it. Some of our attempts to "grow" this awareness, increase our awareness and some hamper it; which is part of the awareness of that with which we are aware.

I have not done what I have set out to do or maybe I have. In the attempt, to write of it, I lost the now and simply created a past that fits into my conception of it.

How long is the present; this instant between our conceptions of past and future? It would seem that the now, that moment free of past and future is the true infinite. And in "it" is the gate to the awareness of ALL THAT IS, not all of our conceptualized pasts and extrapolated futures.

Obviously, as conceptualization It has doomed me to the awareness that I have not yet found the infinite now. The further you go in your conceptualization from the now, the less clear your awareness becomes.

Just my thinking on your thinking, on what has become, in my mind, our way to no where. Our very existence as experiential beings prevents us from getting stuck in the infinite of now, as it would end our nature as experiential being. We would be; all knowing and any experience is impossible in that absolute. There are instances we glimpse it, and that provides the wonderful inspiration for all these marvelous discussions.

Mark

I don’t know how “genius” this thinking is, or if it will be deemed as belonging here, but heck, if I really knew everthing, I wouldn’t have the ability to experience it.

[David Quinn]

Mowk wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I haven't digested your entire paper yet, I keep running into assumptions that you present as truth as basis to your argument.

The idea of cause and effect is dependent on time, on the linear quantity of past, present and future. <hr>

Not really. One particular aspect of causality does involve time - namely, the casual succession of physical events. But that is only one aspect of causality. Causality also refers to the logical dependency of things, which is beyond time. For example, the fact that a tree is logically dependent upon the existence of its parts.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Show me past. Show me future. It is impossible, what you end up showing me is your awareness. You may look up into the night sky, and based on your concept of light travel and the theory of space, say the light from that star is 18 billion years old and then remark, there is your past. I will respond, that light is present right now. You have not showed me something that is the past you have shown me something that is now. <hr>

Even so, the concept of the past is a meaningful one because we can remember events that happened in the past. However, I do agree with you that memories are but manifestations of the present.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> If All is in existence now and you do not see it's expression that is not definitive that it does not exist it is only definitive that you're unaware of it.

ALL possibility is like a still frame from an infinity of possibilities, our awareness assembles these still frames into a process and the process becomes the notion of time and the notion of time gives rise to the idea of causality. <hr>

The mind only does these things when it is caused to do so.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> If everything that is ALL, exists now, then the idea of causality is moot. The very idea of causality is dependent on time. Time becomes a structure by which we measure awareness but is not a thing that exists of which we can be aware of other that within it's own context. <hr>

I assume you're trying to argue that time too is a causally-created, dependent entity, and not an absolute in itself. And I agree.

I also agree that the causal succession of physical events requires the existence of time, just as the existence of time requires the causal succession of physical events. They are two side of the one coin.

[mowk]

"Not really. One particular aspect of causality does involve time - namely, the casual succession of physical events. But that is only one aspect of causality. Causality also refers to the logical dependency of things, which is beyond time. For example, the fact that a tree is logically dependent upon the existence of its parts."

Hi David,

I sense that a tree is a tree and we think of it in terms of its parts in an attempt to quantify it, therefore the parts can be thought of, constructed into it, by our attempt to understand what a tree is. Does not a tree have some quality that is "tree"?

As an artist I was admonished to see the apple, it has qualities that are common to the idea of apple, but there is also an ineffable quality to that one apple that makes it singular.

I get the sense that you would say Aha! it is the result of causal effect, and I would say it's presence would lead one to try to explain it causally. "It" requires no explanation to be. Yet causality requires "IT" for causality to be.

What we use as constructs to understand things, seem to become limitations to that understanding. The historical explanations of the Universe seem to follow a pattern of; new thought, followed by criticism, followed by vindication, followed by a period of status quo. Until the next "new" thought comes along. The idea of a "true" causal relationship to the mechanism of the universe would present itself in a more consistent model of growth toward understanding. Periods of stagnation in our understanding would not exist as growth would be caused by the natural progression of a causal experience. (that just sprung into my mind now, so I haven't had a opportunity to look at the rationale behind it critically. But it seems like the raw data of scientific growth supports a more quantum leap in understanding approach than causality can explain. I will think on this more.)

Quote: "If All is in existence now and you do not see it's expression that is not definitive that it does not exist it is only definitive that you're unaware of it.

ALL possibility is like a still frame from an infinity of possibilities, our awareness assembles these still frames into a process and the process becomes the notion of time and the notion of time gives rise to the idea of causality."

"The mind only does these things when it is caused to do so."

This will fast deteriorate into the age old argument between determinism and free will or any of it's similarities.

So let me spin it a bit. Based on your idea of causality there is no possibility to create a truly random generator. If we carry the variables that generate the randomness one decimal further then we can predict the result and it is no longer random. Is that a fair extrapolation of your thesis? Understand the conditions of an event to the Nth degree and the idea of randomness no longer exists?

So the idea of analog is an illusion up to the point that we reveal the binary nature of true reality. At some point in time we will come to the place where the distance between here and there can not be split in half. We will come to the point that there is only here or there?

Now indirectly we have taken the very long road around to it but what we are saying is between past and future there is nothing. Where my hypothesis was that now is the infinite where all exists. Your hypothesis is that now does not exist.

We have a clear construct of what is past and what is future but we have no clear construct of the idea of what is now. Now is moot? It dissolves away into the carrying of the decimal point one step further? Eventually now will be factored out of existence into a cosmos of past and future?

Now becomes nothing. It is merely the conceptual halfway point between infinite past and infinite future?

When is it then that cause yields effect and effect becomes cause? (I am flying by the seat of my pants here so bear with me.) Is causality some kind of two steps forward one step back kind of process? Where as a result we can deny the possibility of now in the process?

The whole idea of doing anything looses it's meaning, being anything is meaningless as well. So now I am sitting here caused into nothingness and yet I get up and do an Internet search for naked babes. (or something equally as meaningless)
But when would I be doing this?

Remove now and causality makes perfect sense. Include now and causality seems to run into problems at least from the stand point of my understanding.

I bow to you and lift my chapeau in respect. Here I was willing to sacrifice the ideas of past and future for the possibility of now and you seem content in sacrificing now for the certainty of past and future.

Now I understand that you have made no such sacrifice but as I have said I haven't digested your entire paper. I have to at least consider that it is the consequence of causality, until I can be critical of the stream of this thinking.

This IS fun! Thanks

[David Quinn]

Hi Mowk,

Quote:

Quote:<hr> DQ: The mind only does these things when it is caused to do so.

Mowk: This will fast deteriorate into the age old argument between determinism and free will or any of it's similarities.

So let me spin it a bit. Based on your idea of causality there is no possibility to create a truly random generator. If we carry the variables that generate the randomness one decimal further then we can predict the result and it is no longer random. Is that a fair extrapolation of your thesis? Understand the conditions of an event to the Nth degree and the idea of randomness no longer exists? <hr>

Not really. The fact that everything is caused doesn't mean that everything is predictable, not even in principle. Apart from anything else, it will always be impossible for us to carry out perfectly accurate measurements, which affects our ability to make accurate predictions. Moreover, since our senses are very limited and the universe infinitely complex, we can never have access to a complete set of measurements. The evidence available to us will always be incomplete.

Thus, from our perspective as human beings, there will always be an element of unpredictablity and randomness in our daily lives - and usually a very strong element at that - despite the fact that everything is fully determined by causes.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> So the idea of analog is an illusion up to the point that we reveal the binary nature of true reality. At some point in time we will come to the place where the distance between here and there can not be split in half. We will come to the point that there is only here or there? <hr>

No, because whatever point we come to can always be split further, even if it just conceptually.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Now indirectly we have taken the very long road around to it but what we are saying is between past and future there is nothing. Where my hypothesis was that now is the infinite where all exists. Your hypothesis is that now does not exist. <hr>

Not really. The now certainly exists as an experiential reality and it is true that the whole Universe is literally composed of the now. But at the same time, its existence is illusory.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> We have a clear construct of what is past and what is future but we have no clear construct of the idea of what is now. Now is moot? It dissolves away into the carrying of the decimal point one step further? Eventually now will be factored out of existence into a cosmos of past and future?

Now becomes nothing. It is merely the conceptual halfway point between infinite past and infinite future?

When is it then that cause yields effect and effect becomes cause? (I am flying by the seat of my pants here so bear with me.) Is causality some kind of two steps forward one step back kind of process? Where as a result we can deny the possibility of now in the process? <hr>

Your problem is imaginary. The splitting up of the Universe into causes and effects is conceptual and illusory, just as the splitting up of time into past, present and future is conceptual and illusory.

[mowk]

Hi David,

I feel more comfort with that than DQ [must have been a bad experience with a dilly bar, (attempt at humor)]

David: "Not really. The fact that everything is caused doesn't mean that everything is predictable, not even in principle...."

In principle? Inherent in the idea of cause and effect is that given this set this will be the result. Result is just another word for "effect" If this set were to occur this will be the result. Conceptually, logic states this predictability is intrinsic to the cause effect relationship.

"...Apart from anything else, it will always be impossible for us to carry out perfectly accurate measurements, which affects our ability to make accurate predictions. Moreover, since our senses are very limited and the universe infinitely complex, we can never have access to a complete set of measurements. The evidence available to us will always be incomplete."

I will not deny that our ability to achieve the awareness is in question, which limits the usefulness or accuracy of the prediction due the complexity of the set. But the logic of the point doesn't require that.

Mowk: "So the idea of analog is an illusion up to the point that we reveal the binary nature of true reality. At some point in time we will come to the place where the distance between here and there can not be split in half. We will come to the point that there is only here or there?"

David: "No, because whatever point we come to can always be split further, even if it just conceptually."

This is what I was applying above and you denied it as not possible because of human limitations, and now it surfaces in support of your position. These are the types of contradictions I was referring to in the first post I applied to your thesis. One many not traverse the fence of logic for convenience.

Mowk: Now indirectly we have taken the very long road around to it but what we are saying is between past and future there is nothing. Where my hypothesis was that now is the infinite where all exists. Your hypothesis is that now does not exist.

David: "Not really. The now certainly exists as an experiential reality and it is true that the whole Universe is literally composed of the now. But at the same time, its existence is illusory."

This "view" does nothing to lessen the ramifications of your causality argument. Causality has as one of it's components the idea of linearity where in order for this to take place as effect this must have taken place as cause. This denies the idea that the whole Universe is "literally" composed of now. It should not matter to critical thinking and the application of reason that the existance of now is illusory.

If fact is seems that causality would go one step further, it would turn now into only an illusion. It would state that there are only two states of time past and future.

The consequence of your thesis that causality is the root of all experience does this. Now if you were willing to admit there is another force at play, perhaps co-joined to causality then we could hope to explain this conundrum.

Your thesis stated that "under it ALL" is causality. If that is your position then you must be prepared to deal with it's logical consequence.

In your attempt to prove causality as the root of reality you have not maintained, in my mind a strict adherence to the application of critical thinking and logic, by creating a reasoned argument.

One flaw in the reasoning is all it takes to put the whole of the work into question until that flaw is addressed to the limits of a logical argument.

David: "Your problem is imaginary. The splitting up of the Universe into causes and effects is conceptual and illusory..."

This seems like a concession, that you are beginning to doubt your own thesis.

David: "...just as the splitting up of time into past, present and future is conceptual and illusory."

So this leaves us with what?

You see, my imagination is a problem, for in it I see the possibility that there is some reverse psychology at play. You hold an idea in your mind and create an argument for it's antithesis, then sit back rather smugly and when the result is revealed you are there to say, SEE.

Very platonic! Even better, you don't even have to ask the leading question. Very Quinnian.

Do I give you too much credit or too little, or "C" none of the above. Edited by: mowk at: 1/14/04 2:22 am

[David Quinn]

Mowk wrote:

Quote:

Quote:<hr> David: "Not really. The fact that everything is caused doesn't mean that everything is predictable, not even in principle...."

Mowk: In principle? Inherent in the idea of cause and effect is that given this set this will be the result. Result is just another word for "effect" If this set were to occur this will be the result. Conceptually, logic states this predictability is intrinsic to the cause effect relationship. <hr>

No, because as I explained in my last post, perfect predictability hinges on the ability to have a complete set of perfectly accurate measurements - which is intrinsically impossible for anyone or anything to have.

So although things inevitably come into being as a result of their causes, we don't have the means to follow this process in perfect detail.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> I will not deny that our ability to achieve the awareness is in question, which limits the usefulness or accuracy of the prediction due the complexity of the set. But the logic of the point doesn't require that. <hr>

Keep in mind that prediction is purely a mental function and not something that exists in the fabric of Reality itself. The "logic of the point" needs to take this into account.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Mowk: "So the idea of analog is an illusion up to the point that we reveal the binary nature of true reality. At some point in time we will come to the place where the distance between here and there can not be split in half. We will come to the point that there is only here or there?"

David: "No, because whatever point we come to can always be split further, even if it just conceptually."

Mowk: This is what I was applying above and you denied it as not possible because of human limitations, and now it surfaces in support of your position. These are the types of contradictions I was referring to in the first post I applied to your thesis. One many not traverse the fence of logic for convenience. <hr>

I'm not following you. How does the affirmation that it is impossible to gain perfect measuremeants in the empirical world conflict with the affirmation that a locational point can always be split conceptually into "here" and "there"?

Quote:

Quote:<hr> Causality has as one of it's components the idea of linearity where in order for this to take place as effect this must have taken place as cause. This denies the idea that the whole Universe is "literally" composed of now. <hr>

Again, there is no conflict. The causal unfolding of a physical event can only ever happen in the now.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> If fact is seems that causality would go one step further, it would turn now into only an illusion. It would state that there are only two states of time past and future.

The consequence of your thesis that causality is the root of all experience does this. Now if you were willing to admit there is another force at play, perhaps co-joined to causality then we could hope to explain this conundrum. <hr>

There is no conundrum. Whatever we experience - whether it be in the past, present or future, or whether it be the past, present or future - is a causal creation. It's as simple as that.

We have no need to invoke another "force". Not only would it be superfluous, as any force we care to imagine will necessarily be composed of cause and effect, but it would only complicate matters unnecessarily.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> David: "Your problem is imaginary. The splitting up of the Universe into causes and effects is conceptual and illusory..."

Mowk: This seems like a concession, that you are beginning to doubt your own thesis. <hr>

No, I was pointing to the fact that things lack a beginning and an end, that Nature is a continuous uninterrupted reality, that the division of this continuous uninterrupted reality into "things", "causes", "effects", etc, is purely a convenience on our part and nothing more. All of this was fully explained in my book.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> David: "...just as the splitting up of time into past, present and future is conceptual and illusory."

Mowk: So this leaves us with what? <hr>

Beginninglessness and endlessness.

Quote:

Quote:<hr> You see, my imagination is a problem, for in it I see the possibility that there is some reverse psychology at play. You hold an idea in your mind and create an argument for it's antithesis, then sit back rather smugly and when the result is revealed you are there to say, SEE.

Very platonic! Even better, you don't even have to ask the leading question. Very Quinnian.

Do I give you too much credit or too little, or "C" none of the above. <hr>

I think you're trying to criticize a body of thought that you haven't fully grasped yet. I also have the impresion that you're trying to smuggle a supernatural God into the mix.