« RSSB’s strange fear of praise | Main | Arousal and quiescence in the mystical brain »

October 18, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Brian,

Since you state: "I've written an essay critiquing Wilber's misrepresentations of Plotinus' teachings," would you please supply a reference site for that essay?

Thank you.

Robert Paul Howard

I briefly looked at Wilbur's quadrants and I too began to feel my head hurt, but his geometric design of consciousness reminds me of a vision 'I' experienced where phenomena (mind) was an intricate, multifaceted, radiant kaliedoscope of varied bits beautifully integrated in a harmonious whole extending into infinity. Thanks to some quality acid from a Prague University research project, circa 1968.

Yeah, that primo Czech ergot will waste you every time. I once had a couple of grams of crystal... for awhile. All I can say about it is that I've never been the same, if you know what I mean.


His stuff may have worked for Edith but individual testimonies are a dime a dozen.

Contrary to what some state on here we are all unique souls with unique human egos and what works for one may not work for another.

From my point of view his books are more about intellectualism than intelligence. But he does have a brilliant mind but a brilliant mind is not necessarily an intelligent mind.

Intelligence is based in awareness whereas intellectualism is based in the accumulation of knowledge. I.e. like a library.

As I have stated before we humans are very low on the intelligence scale but pretend (ego) we are very intelligent. Surely one can see this when one looks at the political atmosphere in America. We blame politicians but they are only a reflection of our society. Scary thought.

William wrote:

"As I have stated before we humans are very low on the intelligence scale"

Who/what is higher on the "intelligence" scale than humans? Would you give a list of this hierarchy please?

tcsn: I have several times on this blog but you were too busy defending your cherished beliefs to listen.

I suspect those folks flying around in UFO's are far, far advanced to humans in intelligence. Does Roswell or Belgium ring a bell or how about Southern Illinois or Phoenix where a UFO flew several hundred feet over the governor’s and hundreds of others heads?

Or are you one of those folks that thought the air force was dropping flares over Phoenix. Yes I would believe the military they would not lie to us after all they wear uniforms. My take a look at Washington DC and you call that intelligence.

I suspect the intelligence Beings in those UFO’s look at us as we look at monkeys or maybe even snails. And I have heard several atheists state if UFO’s were real why don’t they land in Washington dc. If you were from another planet would you land in Washington DC?

We humans are so low on the evolutionary scale of intelligence we actually kill one another and we are all related.

Killing another human is like killing your brother or sister or for that matter yourself.

When i looked at the four quadrants, i at first thought it was a derivative or ripoff
of the "reflexive universe". But then i didn't see any thing in it so i guess it isn't. Good way to make a buck tho.

Robert, I'd be happy to share my essay about Wilber's misunderstanding of Plotinus. However, it's part of a collection of essays that are (hopefully) going to be published as a book. I need to check and see whether it's OK to share the essay publicly, or whether that would irk the potential book publisher.

William wrote:

"you were too busy defending your cherished beliefs to listen."

--Just curious. It doesn't really matter. What do you believe are my 'cherished beliefs'?

"I suspect those folks flying around in UFO's are far, far advanced to humans in intelligence."

--Maybe there isn't anyone like an alien Kirk or Spock 'inside' some of these UFO's. Maybe the UFO is the actual form of the entity? Maybe, as an embodiment of a fluid awareness, the UFO morphs into different forms?

Once I was with a friend on a beach in the evening. There was a full moon casting its reflection upon the water. We noticed a star near the moon that began growing in size until its reflection on the water was larger than the moon's. What happened next is difficult to explain. The star began to emmanate rays of light that penetrated us. At first we were frightened by this phenomena because we didn't know what was happening, but as we "absorbed" this light our mood was transformed from fear to great peace. We felt enveloped by waves of benevolence in colors known and others from an unknown spectrum. Eventually the light receded back to the star which then had bright orbs of light whirling around it like electrons around the nucleus of an atom. Each orb separated from the 'nucleus' and shot away out of sight at fantastic, indescribable speed. Then the nucleus itself contracted back to the appearance of a normal star and disappeared.

Afterwards, we sat down in silence for a long time each recognizing in the other the realization of peace and benevolence we shared.

Eventually, we got in our cars and drove home in a state of clarity. We were in different cars, but we each knew the other was experiencing the same thing and started laughing. No one was driving the cars. They were moving of their own accord.

Anyone with some imagination could make this up, but it really happened as best I could describe it.

We actually are the universe we perceive AS the perceiving of it and there is no perceiver to be found. Every object is perceived including ourselves. So, who perceives the perceiver? Another perceiver?

tcsn: these orbs appeared to be of a very high intelligence. I suspect from what research I have done that UFO’s have different levels of intelligence, which at least to me suggests that intelligence is developed over time.

Many have witnessed those orbs you talk about others have witnessed actual space ships. Two different levels of intelligence. One a material spaceship to transport beings and another might be holographic orbs. We humans are only on the cusp of understanding the mysteries of this universe and its underlying reality.

That peace you felt was intelligence in action. What a gift both you and your friend received that day even if you don’t think you exist as an entity or being or soul.

My point has been that this intelligence was not manifested instantly from a universal source but developed over time through this universal source most call god and there lies the journey. To make a statement that there was no one there to drive the car but yet admit that “we” were engrossed in love and peace. Who was engrossed in love and peace if no one existed? Your statements are contradictory.

“but as we "absorbed" this light our mood was transformed from fear to great peace.”

Please note you use “we and our” in one sentence. Who is this we and our? Spirit is infinite whereas we; yes that same we in your statement above are eternal. Life is about process, not results. From my point of view that process is an evolution of consciousness or stated another way soul development.

The biggest mistake it to call this intelligence an illusion. I will quote a master on the concept of illusion.

“Form is transient but it is not an illusion it expresses the inherent attributes of the spirit as interpreted through the medium of substance with the aid of vitality.”

This was taken out of context so may be difficult to comprehend.

Thanks for sharing this story it is another example of the relationship of intelligence and love and the projection of a love that can give a peace that surpasses understanding.

"you don’t think you exist as an entity or being or soul."

--"I" exist as that. "I" can't be found except as an object. Wherever I look is "I", but the subject "I" can't be found except as another object. Where is the subject of the subject "I" we have just made an object? Have you found your soul yet? If you did, it would be an object of this thingless thing you really are (not). In other words, you can only know yourself as that, but as what you really are, you aren't. Infinity has no form, attribute or color. It is the doing of no doer.

"To make a statement that there was no one there to drive the car but yet admit that “we” were engrossed in love and peace. Who was engrossed in love and peace if no one existed? Your statements are contradictory."

Of course. I neither am nor am not. I am that, but that is not what I am.

"Of course. I neither am nor am not. I am that, but that is not what I am."


Reality is a paradox to the intellectual mind. Infinite cannot be described. To describe it is to limit it and of course to limit it would mean it is no longer infinite.

I suspect to pure awareness reality is simply isness and when isness expresses itself we get a whole hosts, maybe even infinite numbers, of Tucson bobs and Williams and etc.

We are that expression of this isness. Those that think we have all this free will fail to see we are that expression of this infinite oneness. It is a closed system but really, really looks like an open system. The infinite oneness of the universe/s makes it a closed system.

No matter how badly Tucson bob or William screws up with their beliefs; experiences and karma will guide our souls to a place where we will gain compassion for those that suffer. At that time Tucson bob will find it impossible to say such things as; there is no one to suffer.

The biggest mistake advaita types make is to teach that form is an illusion. This is why they think they are teaching truths when they state that they do not exist therefore there is no one there to suffer.

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your reply. Please let me/us know the results of your checking and/or the name of the upcoming book at the time of its publication. Thanks also for making sense in your reply. That differentiates your communication quite a bit from what many others say in their communications to this site.

Robert Paul Howard

William, I see you are having difficulty grasping what Tcsn is trying to say. May I jump in with my two cent's worth?

All existence is objective. We only exist as each other's objects and, as such, only in the consciousness that thinks of us. This is because our experience of one another is only a mental process and in no way confirms the experiential existence of the object conceived. Think about this.

Our objective existence, therefore, is in mind only and is merely conceptual.

Regarding subjective existence.. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? That implies an objectivisation of subject, which as subject-object represents the hypothetical 'being' which we imagine that we are. Subjectively there can be no 'you'!

Doesn't this clearly demonstrate our total inexistence other than as concepts in consciousness?

You are the dreamer of yourself in the dream in which you appear, but, as such, what you are is not the objective (dreamed)appearance. So, you are no entity.

It is not the object that awakens, but it is the identification of the dreamer with his objects that causes the illusion of self.

Awakening is disappearing as an object. Awakening is the vanishing of identification as a 'self' and the dissolution of a dream or illusion.

Awakening is the disappearance of the objective, the discovery that the apparently objective is in fact subjective, and the apparent subjective entity has disappeared with the total appearance.

Now, once you have seen that 'you' are gone and never were, what remains to be done? Who would do it? What would evolve? How can a figment evolve except to another form of figment?

Once one profoundly understands this, is there any reason to go on living in subjection to identification with an imagined self..a self that one has realized to be only a conceptual object that cannot possibly be what we are?

Once one snaps out of this fixation, they are free to live, as one is, free from the illusory notions that cause such angst. We can live free of attachment, playing one's part as an actor in the play of life. We can live fully and well but without the suffering created by serious identification with the play.

We can live enthusiatically and well, yet free of the vices associated with self-aggrandizement. The polarities of love and hatred are replaced by a feeling of universal benediction, kindliness and good nature to the world around us which we now recognise as ourself.


Sarah, welcome and thanks. I don't think I could have said it any clearer.

Funny,

So many have been telling us exactly the same narrative than Sarah ...
Papaji, Eli Jaxon Bear , etc.
And yet, and yet ...

Also my poor little mind never really understood how traditional and binary logic proves in any way what is supposedly nondual ... who is supposed to be convinced? ... particularly when everything is so loosely defined ...

Elephant,
Yeah, it does get rather frustrating hearing the same stuff repeated century after century from the likes of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Bhavaviveka, Mahakasyapa, Ananda, the Heart Sutra, the 28 Indian Patriarchs the last of which was Bodhidarma who became the first of the Chinese Patriarchs continuing on to Hui Neng, Ma Tsu, Huang Po, I Hsuan and the list goes on to modern times of Ramakrishna, Nisargadatta and the legions of contemporaries,including those you mentioned, who have jumped on the bandwagon. And still we don't get it, because it has nothing to do with binary logic which is only a tool that at best might tell us what it isn't. Slippery as an eel, formless as the air we breathe, it slips from a defining grasp yet remains as plain as day.

Elephant,
Yeah, it does get rather frustrating hearing the same stuff repeated century after century from the likes of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Bhavaviveka, Mahakasyapa, Ananda, the Heart Sutra, the 28 Indian Patriarchs the last of which was Bodhidarma who became the first of the Chinese Patriarchs continuing on to Hui Neng, Ma Tsu, Huang Po, I Hsuan and the list goes on to modern times of Ramakrishna, Nisargadatta and the legions of contemporaries,including those you mentioned, who have jumped on the bandwagon. And still we don't get it, because it has nothing to do with binary logic which is only a tool that at best might tell us what it isn't. Slippery as an eel, formless as the air we breathe, it slips from a defining grasp yet remains as plain as day.

Dear Tucson,
Actually , I tried sarcasm in the first part of my email
Papaji and Elie, among many others, wrote things very similar - "same stuff" - to that:
"Once one snaps out of this fixation, they are free to live, as one is, free from the illusory notions that cause such angst. We can live free of attachment, playing one's part as an actor in the play of life. We can live fully and well but without the suffering created by serious identification with the play.

We can live enthusiatically and well, yet free of the vices associated with self-aggrandizement. The polarities of love and hatred are replaced by a feeling of universal benediction, kindliness and good nature to the world around us which we now recognise as ourself."

And their identifications were eventually cought with their identifications (pants) down so to speak.
I don't have any problem with mankind having sex - but some may when it involves abusive relationships, suffering and hypocrisy...

As far as these names go
"Buddha, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Bhavaviveka, Mahakasyapa, Ananda, the Heart Sutra, the 28 Indian Patriarchs the last of which was Bodhidarma who became the first of the Chinese Patriarchs continuing on to Hui Neng, Ma Tsu, Huang Po, I Hsuan and the list goes on to modern times of Ramakrishna, Nisargadatta"
If you believe that what Sarah wrote is the "same stuff" as what we have heard from them, good luck ...

Elephant,

True, many contemporary, and probably past proponents, of non-dual philosophies have been caught with their 'pants down' one way or another. Actually, I see no problem with that as long as they are honest about it and no one is abused, but it seems there are more 'screw ups' among gurus and teachers than there are those who appear to live up to their ideals and teachings.

Aside from the "new agey" paragraphs of Sarah's that you quoted in your last comment, I think the intuitive understanding, not necessarily the words, conveyed in her comment agrees with that of the various past teachers I mentioned.

Thanks for the good luck. May your luck be good as well.

Well I think Sarah's (and Tucsons) comment was just real fine, and was certainly much better said than the rest of you pseudo-spiritual fools.

And Sarah, I have to tell you that you are wasting your time trying to explain this subject matter to William. He just doesn't get it. And he doesn't want to get it because he THINKS he's already got it. He constantly accuses and labels others as intellectualizing, and yet that's exactly all he ever does here. He constantly babbles criticisms and generalizations towards advaita, but he himself has shown little, if any, understanding of the same.

Here are a few recent snippets from William's ridiculous comments that are either an example of exactly what he criticises in others, or else some of his dogmatic beliefs and redundant and meaningless spiritual mumbo-jumbo:

"the intellectual mind"

"I suspect to pure awareness reality is simply isness and when isness expresses itself we get a..."

"Those that think we have all this free will fail to see"

"this infinite oneness" ... "infinite oneness of the universe/s"

"No matter how badly Tucson bob or William screws up with their beliefs; experiences and karma will guide our souls"

"Tucson bob will find it impossible to say such things as..."

"The biggest mistake advaita types make is to teach that form is an illusion."


And finally... btw William... advaita does not teach that "form is an illusion". Do go educate yourself better before you go making such lame generalizations.

"Wisdom: Doubt everything and everyone, and trust nothing and no one." Including the one who calls himself tao.

Robert Paul Howard

RPH,

Of course, was that not obvious?

And, who is tao anyway?

Neither in this world nor elsewhere is there any happiness in store for him who always doubts.

-Bhagavad Gita( c. B.C. 400) Sanskrit Poem

Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.

-George Iles No Bio Data

Better trust all and be deceived,. And weep that trust, and that deceiving, Than doubt one heart that, if believed, Had blessed one's life with true believing.

-Francis Anne Kemble( 1809-1893

Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.

-Kahlil GibranNo Bio Data

Doubt, of whatever kind, can be ended by action alone.

-Thomas Carlyle( 1795-1881) Scottish Author and Philosopher

Thus, when the lamp that lighted The traveler at first goes out, He feels awhile benighted, And looks around in fear and doubt. But soon, the prospect clearing, By cloudless starlight on he treads, And thinks no lamp so cheering As that light which Heaven sheds.

-Thomas Moore.( 1779-1852) Irish Poet

If the Sun and Moon should doubt. They'd immediately Go out.

-William Blake( 1757-1828) English Poet and Artist

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.

-William Shakespeare( 1564-1616) English Dramatist and Poet

Doubt is the opposite of belief.

-Christian N. Bovee( 1820-1904) American Author and Editor

When you doubt, abstain.

-Zoroaster( B.C. 628?-551?) Persian Religious Leader-Founder of Zoroastrianism

We must go through doubts, but then let us get on with it.

-Chris (10/24/2007) No Bio

I think this is it...

One more...

King James Bible

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Mere fabricated Bible-babble attributed to a fictional Jesus.


It's funny how these bhakti-believer types and faith-freaks are always coming up with these fictions, myths, and nonsense quotes in vain attempts to justify their blind devotion and dependency.


Tao, you are too funny. I should call you "Tao The Extraordinaire."

"Ken Wilber’s 'Integral Life Practice Kit' looks like a scam." As my current guru Dr Phil would say... "Ya' think?!"

Sure, you can buy a book or cassette or something that'll teach you to meditate. To pay $199 for such a package is kinda crazy, considering that our country is filled with groups that'd teach you to meditate for FREE.

Jeez, at the Zen Center I practice with, if you just show up, we'll teach you to meditate for a donation only, and it's completely voluntary, no one will even see how much you donate or if you donate at all. If you do an entire day of meditation retreat, including personal Q&A with a real live Zen master, AND a vegetarian lunch, the price tag is $45.

Thing is... if you're going to sell meditation at $199 a pop, you'll have to claim that your particular brand of meditation has some special value vis a vis all the others. And that just ain't true. Whether your style of meditation is Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, whatever, hardly makes a difference.

What does make a huge difference is your own belief, your own intention, your own efforts. WHY do this stuff? For what? For who?

My overall view of Wilber is that he did some serious hard-core meditation, and gotten the special experiences you sometimes get in this practice. But in everything he's done and written, I see a complete lack of clarity on this issue of intention, of really, sincerely questioning why we're doing it.

In Buddhist style, we say that if the intention is to understand yourself and help other beings, then wonderful. If the intention is "I want to get something for myself," then it makes suffering. Of course no one has to believe in the Buddhist direction, but at least look into the matter and decide for yourself.

So what we end up with is Wilber using all his efforts, his accummulated experiences and understandings, in service of bolstering his own status, of holding some idea that he's more highly "developed" than ordinary people.

Hey, please take a look at my new blog at

http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Stuart

Chris quoted:

"Neither in this world nor elsewhere is there any happiness in store for him who always doubts."

-Bhagavad Gita (c. B.C. 400) Sanskrit Poem

... and that quote would be an essential point to consider, IF we had any reason to believe in some old Sanskrit poem!

Other people may have a vested interest in having you stop doubting. Anyone who wants something from you (money, respect, sex, obedience, etc) will urge you to not doubt them. (Somebody -- maybe it was me -- once said that the LAST person you should trust is the one saying, "Trust me!")

Often, people who have their own doubts will tell you to put aside yours. That's because your doubts remind them of their insincerity and inauthenticity, IF they're pretending to really know something when they're in fact just guessing.

It's not necessary to believe the people, or the poems, that tell you to stop doubting. Just try it out for yourself, throw away all beliefs and speculations, doubt everyting, and see what it's like. I say: thumbs up.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Dear Stuart--

Everyone is at a different stage in their lives regarding doubt, faith, belief and trust. The “point” is being obsessed with doubt and skepticism. This can become a disease. We should not throw away all our doubts and believe everything that comes our way. That would be foolish. Doubts are a stepping-stone to a higher ideal, naturally. We will continue to move back and forth until our doubts vanish and we have unshakable faith, belief and trust.

The key word from the quote you pulled is most likely “always”.

Regards,

Chris,
So far I knew that doubt and skepticism leads to innovation and being obsessed about blind faith, morality and spirituality is actually a real disease called scrupulosity :)

Dear Sapient,

I only know of one healthy obsession. :)

Best,

Chris,

You wrote: "We will continue to move back and forth until our doubts vanish and we have unshakable faith, belief and trust."

--If I can see the sun is shining, I have no doubt of this. Why would I need faith, belief and trust that this is so?

Dear Tucson,

You trust, have faith and believe what you are seeing.

In other words, belief, “this is the way that it is.”

Yes, you believe, trust and have faith that what you see is the sun shining. If you allow yourself to doubt and be skeptical, you will question if this is really the sun shining or an illusion or something else.

If you actually become the sun, well this is different altogether.

The meanings and claimed origins of faith, belief and trust continue to change throughout the ages. It gets complicated when you start down that road because the interpretations change.

Best,

Chris,

My point is that if the master claims to be able to effect your deliverance, how do you know he can until he does it?

If the sun is shining, it is readily apparent, as it is, right now. Not in some imagined future time or place.

"Perceptions employed as a base for building up of concepts are the origin of all ignorance. Apperceiving that there is nothing to perceive is deliverance."
--Hui Hai

Chris wrote to Tucson:
> You trust, have faith and believe what you
> are seeing.
>
> In other words, belief, “this is the way
> that it is.”

No, it's not like that for me. I don't have faith (as an IDEA) in what I see. I just see it, that's all, without a further thought.

For instance, if I'm riding my bike, and I see a red light, I DON'T start thinking, "I have faith that this is a red light; I believe this is the way that it is." I just see the light and stop. Then, when it turns green, I go.

Tucson wrote:
> If I can see the sun is shining, I have no
> doubt of this. Why would I need faith,
> belief and trust that this is so?

Very cool, Tucson. Do you care to share if your view is influenced by some sort of formal meditation or teaching tradition you've tried? (Just curious, actually.)

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Hi Stuart,

I am not involved with any formal meditation or teaching tradition. The Undifferentiated Non-Dual Reality as expounded by Ramana Maharshi in the Heart of the Ribhu Gita says it pretty well.

Dear Tucson—

We should be patient friend; we will only know when we see within. We cannot discuss these things like this and expect to produce this experience. We cannot call someone a true Master unless we know for sure. We will all see and hear when the time comes.

As Hui Hai says when you go “beyond” doubt.

>When you have really reached the true >Way “beyond” doubt, you will find it as >vast and boundless as outer space.
--Hui Hai

As Hui Hai mentions, we do not see the Sun. I would ad within your own self. You have heard it said that what we see is not real and what we do not see is real.

>Do you believe there will be a morrow? Hui >Hai asked.
>Yes, certainly.
>Bring it forth and show it to me!.... You >personally do not perceive your own nature, >but this does not mean that your nature >does not exist.... Your's is a case of not >seeing the Sun, not of there being no Sun.
--Hui Hai

You see, when we see the “real” Sun, that which is permanent and does not change so to speak.

Dear Stuart and Tucson--
It depends how you define trust, faith and belief. We will not understand what “now” really means until we have that experience. You can say trust, faith and belief happens without any thought, but we are not without any mental movements. We are not conscious of many things; much happens subconsciously.

Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, these things will eventually materialize.

>Having a mind freed from the going and >coming of concepts, its stillness >unaffected by environmental forms so that >it remains eternally void and motionless.
--Quote

To say we know, when we really do not know is to lie to others and ourselves.


"We cannot call someone a true Master unless we know for sure."

--This is my problem with embracing a guru.

"we will only know when we see within"

--within what? Can formlessness go within formlessness?

"We will all see and hear when the time comes."

--the only time is now and even that doesn't exist, for now is gone as soon as you conceive it. It either always is or never was. Take your pick.

"To say we know, when we really do not know is to lie to others and ourselves."

--This object 'we' will never know. Can an idea conceive it's source?

I like the Hui Hai stuff. Thanks.


I understand your problem and I do not have a problem with that.

Do we really know what formlessness is?

Do we really know what now is?

Do we really know what our source is?

You are welcome on the Hui Hai stuff. :-)

Do we really know what formlessness is?

Do we really know what now is?

Do we really know what our source is?

-- Ask Hui Hai.

Well, maybe we should start from here (where?) next time.

Hui Hai; he might have the key he might not. Key?

:-)

Subjectiveness is selfishness. Objectiveness is shared selfishness. Get rid of this notion of "self" and Truth will prevail. Referring to the concept of time, if time is infinite, everything and anything CAN and WILL happen. Therefore, we are all One. I'm having trouble understanding time...is it merely a mechanism designed by man? Or is it, in and of its self, another dimension?

The subject of time raised by David interests me today:

We can vaguely conceive of infinity as unlimited space and unlimited time, but we find it impossible to conceive of the absence of space and time.

The inconceivability of the absence of space and time, in the sence that it cannot be imagined or visualised, has profound significance since nothing objectifiable can be inconceivable.

What then is not objectifiable? Surely any kind of thing or object can be imagined. There can't be anything at all that is not objectifiable because any and every thing imaginable is conceived in imagination or mind.

The only thing that is not conceivable is the thing that is imagining or conceiving because the thing that is conceiving, while conceiving, can't conceive itself.

What is conceiving might conceive itself as an imaginary object exisiting in consecutive duration, but while doing so it can't conceive itself conceiving any more than an eye can see its own looking...get my drift?

This demonstrates the validity of an insight where we may intuit that the absence of space-time must be what we are who can't conceive it!

So, it must be clear that what we are is 'conceiving', for what else could be conceiving what we conceive? And (this may be a bit more tricky) if there is a phenomenal absence which we can't conceive, that absence must necessarily be our own absence as what is conceiving. This absence is our presence and the apparent paradox of what inconceivably we are.


Tucson: "This demonstrates the validity of an insight where we may intuit that the absence of space-time must be what we are who can't conceive it!"

Your rationales only demonstrate your limited, rigid and simplistic view of knowing and the antithesis subject/object.

Whether it is the Meister Echkart evocations of his epistemology, or Spinoza's narratives regarding the third kind of knowledge and the identity/distinction between eternity/duration, or the 38th case of the Mumonkan ("Wutsu's Buffalo Passes Through the Window"), or Niz's explaination on the nature of the reality of 'witness', or the notion of "Ocean-Ocean-Seal Samadhi" of the Huayan Tradition, or the logic of the ambiguity proposed by Albert Low, they are all testimonies that should lead anyone to be very cautious in buying your naive 'evidences' and 'clarity' ( ... This demonstrates ... it must be clear).

Have you not realized by now that the validity of your narratives hinged on a very naive view on the reality of knowing and the distinction subject/object. The problem is that you have never established the validity of the latter. You seem to assume that your understanding of it is an universally given to and accepted by all. But for the reasons listed above, they are plenty of evidence that we should doubt the basic assumption underlying your arguments and narratives.

What if your view about it is only another story you tell yourself--like others tell stories abouts Gods and Gurus?


the Elephant, as usual, is perturbed by my writings. He wrote:

"Have you not realized by now that the validity of your narratives hinged on a very naive view on the reality of knowing and the distinction subject/object."

--Then you explain it from a more sophisticated viewpoint. Be my guest.

"The problem is that you have never established the validity of the latter."

--Nor am I under any obligation to do so.
The validity of what? The distinction of subject/object? As I see it, there is ultimately no distinction between them.

"You seem to assume that your understanding of it is an universally given to and accepted by all."

--Quite the opposite which is why I write about it.

"they are plenty of evidence that we should doubt the basic assumption underlying your arguments and narratives."

--That's OK...and my basic assumption is..? and the reason we should doubt it is...?

"What if your view about it is only another story you tell yourself--like others tell stories abouts Gods and Gurus?"

--Everything I tell myself, or the Elephant, or the readers here is a story. Take it or leave it. At best, my words are obituaries, records of living intuitions which embalmed in relative terminology, are in actuality quite dead. I could just leave a blank page and be more accurate to which I am sure the Elephant would agree, but not for the same reasons ;-)

As far as Spinoza, Eckhart, Mumonkon, Albert Low, Huayan tradition, etc. are concerned, I know nothing about them. Nothing. The Ocean-Ocean Seal Samadhi sounds pretty far out. What's that? I know who Niz is but have only skimmed through one of his books.

So, the Elephant's intellectual exposure on these matters appears to be more extensive than mine. Maybe he should tell us what it's all about.

Tucson: "as usual, is perturbed" :)
-- Poor Tucson ... Once again with the old tricks ... always starting with cheap and baseless psychological characterizations of the messenger ... without any shred of evidence ... keep telling yourself groundless stories if that makes you feel better :)

Tucson: "The validity of what? The distinction of subject/object? As I see it, there is ultimately no distinction between them."

-- But as I said before, your habitual and simplistic narratives hinge entirely on a simplistic version of it. You are welcome, as often, to retreat in a self-serving and convenient trivialism as you wish ... that is very easy and, with feigned ignorance, it is soooo 'nondual' after all ...

Tucson: Take it or leave it. At best, my words are obituaries, records of living intuitions which embalmed in relative terminology, are in actuality quite dead. I could just leave a blank page and be more accurate to which I am sure the Elephant would agree, but not for the same reasons ;-)

-- "leave a blank ... and be more accurate" more accurate to what? ... living intuitions ... LOL ... you are very generous towards yourself ... living deceptions would perhaps be more appropriate ...

Tucson has observed rightly (about the elephant. Tucson said: "the Elephant, as usual, is perturbed"

-- It was pretty obvious that the elephant was indeed perturbed and dissatisfied by Tucson's words and explanations.

the elephant then replied: "Tucson ... Once again with the old tricks ... always starting with cheap and baseless psychological characterizations ... without any shred of evidence ... keep telling yourself groundless stories"

-- On the contrary, the "evidence" of the elephant being perturbed, was quite obvious to me. It wasn't "baseless" or "groundless" at all.


the elephant said: "The problem is that you have never established the validity of the latter."

Tucson then asked: "The validity of what?"

Tucson had asked: "The validity of what? But the elephant has yet to answer Tucson's question. However, the elephant said this: "as I said before, your habitual and simplistic narratives hinge entirely on a simplistic version of it (...) a self-serving and convenient trivialism (...) and, with feigned ignorance, it is soooo 'nondual'"

-- Well then by all means elephant, please enlighten us. If you understanding is better, then do please explain. Because unfortunately, thus far, you haven't really said anything, not a single thing that improves upon what Tucson had offered and what you are now criticising. All you've done here is to posture intellectual superiority, but without anything to back it up. So if you've really got one better than Tucson, then please lets hear it.


the elephant said this to Tucson: "they are plenty of evidence that we should doubt the basic assumption underlying your arguments and narratives."

Tucson then replied by asking: "and my basic assumption is..? and the reason we should doubt it is...?"

-- the elephant has not yet offered an answer or an explanation.


Then Tucson said: Take it or leave it.

the elephant responded: "more accurate to what? ... living intuitions (...) living deceptions would perhaps be more appropriate"

-- Sounds like a rather lame comment to me. What exactly has the elephant to offer, if anything besides pasturing intellectual superiority and sarcasm?


Dear the Elephant,

I think your struggle here is that you wish to comprehend that to which I refer via the intellect.

Pack your bags, head to the station, get on the train and leave the bags behind.

What is the use of looking outside via ideas, thoughts, concepts? We are bloated with the pride of our learning to the point where it becomes an obstacle.

Jack: "Turn around and look within."

Joe: "Will I then see subject?"

Jack: "If you did you would be looking at an object. An object is such in every direction you look."

Joe: "But am I not seeing myself?"

Jack: "You can't see what isn't there!"

Joe: "What then am I seeing?"

Jack: "You may see the absence of yourself which is that which is looking. It has been called 'the void'."

Every time you see an object you are seeing the subject of that object in its objective manifestation. Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking.

Yes - much of this seems correct to me tuscon.

tucson says -

"Every time you see an object you are seeing the subject of that object in its objective manifestation. Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking."

This is kind of like a house of mirrors. The concepts (or BS if you like) get so thick there is only some weird distortion of truth in its object form.

tucson says -

"So, it must be clear that what we are is 'conceiving', for what else could be conceiving what we conceive? And (this may be a bit more tricky) if there is a phenomenal absence which we can't conceive, that absence must necessarily be our own absence as what is conceiving. This absence is our presence and the apparent paradox of what inconceivably we are."

repeating what tuscon said - "absence is our presence..." this seems right.

Dear Tucson,

it is always the same old story with you. I assured you several times in the past that you don't need to worry or, beyond the texts of my posts, to 'psychologize' about my welfare and what I strive for. I have assured you many times in the past that the simplicity and actuality of knowing is never to be actual into representational knowledge (or the intellect as you call it). Why would I have a problem with that? But even though I have been clear in the past about these things ... you stick and keep bringing instead bring the same discredited perspectives. Keep up the compensatory buffers -- they are working just fine ...

the Elephant,

Well, all I have been trying to do is point to the "simplicity and actuality" of 'This'. I still don't know what you regard as my discredited perspectives and what discredits them. My perspective boils down to:

"What you are looking for is what is looking"...
St.Francis of Assisi

If you disagree, please address any grievances to him.

Tucson: "please address any grievances to him."

To whom should I address anything? Ultimately :) Is there whom/what that can be found? How can I fulfill your request if "All is just seeing: There is no 'thing' seen. And there is no see-er other than the seeing of the seen."

The kind of quotes you cite--which is traditionally attributed to St. F.--are paradoxal and ambiguous. As such, they leave a lot to and can be interpreted in many by the imagination. The quote you cite evokes and involves a dynamism--a ambiguous process that is naturally evacuated from and denied in your simplistic "explanations" and trivialism. That has been one of my points all along.

The idea that you have the right perspective ("My perspective boils down to") on the paradoxical statement attributed to St. F. is your prerogative ... but so it is for Blagojevich in deluding himself that what he has been doing is justified and proper ...

the Elephant wrote:

"To whom should I address anything? Ultimately :) Is there whom/what that can be found? How can I fulfill your request if "All is just seeing: There is no 'thing' seen. And there is no see-er other than the seeing of the seen."

--Lighten up. Relax. You know as well as I that I was being facetious. But you're right. "You" can't fullfill seeing that there is no seer other than the seeing through any kind of effort or action on your part. Who is it that would see that the seer is the seeing? A seer that sees the seer seeing?

"The kind of quotes you cite--which is traditionally attributed to St. F.--are paradoxal and ambiguous."

--To you.

"The quote you cite evokes and involves a dynamism--a ambiguous process that is naturally evacuated from and denied in your simplistic "explanations" and trivialism."

--There is no process as 'from here to there'. And I commend you for at least comprehending that the matter is indeed simplistic and trivial. Nothing to it.

Tucson: "The kind of quotes you cite--which is traditionally attributed to St. F.--are paradoxal and ambiguous."

--To you.

This is the kind of reply--among many--that exposes your basic ignorance (I know you wear it with pride and as a badge of some sort) and your narratives as simply a story of no-story that you imagine. Beyond the genuine dishonesty that such answer involves [your denial or affirmation of an 'entity' whenever it is convenient for you to make a point (and you are being as disingenuious as you are fecitious)], it reveals something that is missing from you perspective.

It is not the statement that is ambiguous (to me or any other mind)--instead the statement points to an actual ambiguity that is upstream and precedes the mind and discursive thinking.

Here is how D.T. Suzuki writes about it "Prajna looks in two opposite directions, which is a grand contradiction, and from this contradiction there rises the entire panorama of our life. Why this contradiction? The contradiction is actual in our asking for it." (The Zen doctrine of No-mind, p.143). The translator favored expression of 'contradiction'; but 'ambiguity' is perhaps more appropriate. This ambiguity is also present in Spinoza's definition of Reality--which he calls God or Nature.

Or it can be found Jacob Boheme's insights: the presence of a darkness, or irrational, at the heart of the Unground(terminologically speaking ambiguity=irrational). For instance, Berdiaev writes "The mysterious teaching of Boehme about the Ungrund, about the abyss, without foundation, dark and irrational, prior to being, is an attempt to provide and answer to the basic question of all questions, the question concerning the origin of the world and of the arising of evil [i.e. suffering]." http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_349.html

And the same idea of an dynamic ambiguity as both necessity and resolution--and being both immanent and transcendent to the actuality of our relative minds--is masterfully presented and discussed in the latest work of Hee-Jin Kim on Dogen. http://www.amazon.com/Dogen-Meditation-Thinking-Reflection-View/dp/0791469263/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229302762&sr=8-7

"And I commend you for at least comprehending that the matter is indeed simplistic and trivial. Nothing to it." Good for you; you sound sooo 'nondual' it must 'seem correct' ...

Elephant continues to react unfavorably to my writings:

"This is the kind of reply--among many--that exposes your basic ignorance (I know you wear it with pride and as a badge of some sort) and your narratives as simply a story of no-story that you imagine."

--They are stories that you imagine that I imagine. Who is the 'head honcho' imaginer here? What if you are the one who is wearing the badge?

"Beyond the genuine dishonesty that such answer involves [your denial or affirmation of an 'entity' whenever it is convenient for you to make a point (and you are being as disingenuious as you are fecitious)], it reveals something that is missing from you perspective."

--How do you know I am being dishonest? Even if I am deluded I could be honest in my expression of it, don't you think? Your irritation and frustration with my writings seems to stem from your own inability to experience viscerally that to which I point. The intellect is left behind and it seems you depend on it too much.

Words, or the dripping of rain, or the distant barking of a dog are merely catlysts that take you to the precipice, but in themselves are of no significance at all. They're just words, just dripping, just barking. The issue is who is it that hears the words, the dripping, the barking? Anyone? Since you like to cite authorities, Ramana Maharshi used to suggest that one attempt to find out who it is that sees, hears, thinks, seeks truth.

"It is not the statement that is ambiguous (to me or any other mind)--instead the statement points to an actual ambiguity that is upstream and precedes the mind and discursive thinking."

--If I understand you correctly, that is my intent. Hooray!!

The sources you cite; Suzuki, Boheme, Hee-Jin kim are no doubt insightful, but intellectual expression can only take you so far. At some point it is just abandoned.

It really doesn't matter what some esteemed source has to say when it really comes down to it. Ultimately, Truth/Reality/Absolute, as if there is such a 'thing', is each individuals personal discovery or recognition. No one can deliver it to you no matter how erudite, profound and perceptive their personal experience/expression may be.

However, when time permits I will take a look at the links you provide and comment if I think it would be helpful in this discussion, but I am tired of reading that kind of stuff and more into just living, being, and sometimes reading the newspaper. I don't care what others say anymore. I did read something by Suzuki about 40 years ago, but I found it boring as hell. Sorry, D.T., you just weren't my guy. (of course at that age everything was boring but sex, surfing, rock-n-roll, drugs, in that order) Actually, I think surfing at times topped them all, but I digress.

"And I commend you for at least comprehending that the matter is indeed simplistic and trivial. Nothing to it." Good for you; you sound sooo 'nondual' it must 'seem correct' ..."

--It does the trick for me. If not for you, that's OK. Whatever. Peace man.


Tucson: They are stories that you imagine that I imagine. Who is the 'head honcho' imaginer here? What if you are the one who is wearing the badge?

-- Excellent questions. But you cannot expect me to answer them on a internet forum.

Tucson: Even if I am deluded I could be honest in my expression of it, don't you think?

--I truly think that you believe your own crap. I don't doubt of your intention from that standpoint. But there is such process called self-deception.

Tucson: "Your irritation and frustration"
-- So someone cannot express a disagreement with your narratives without being tagged immediately and without textual evidence as being irritated and frustated? How self-involved and convenient that is ... As I said, keep telling yourself stories if they make you feel good.

--Here is something interesting: you give yourself the capacity to psychologize my inner life ("Your irritation and frustration") beyond any textual evidence and yet you deny the same capacity to your interlocutor: "How do you know I am being dishonest?" That kind of partiality tells a lot about your integrity/honesty ...

Tucson: "The intellect is left behind and it seems you depend on it too much."
--We are dialogging on the internet, through the medium of writing. What do you expect? I am telling you once again--I have never attributed to the intellect (or imagination) anything that is not within its range and capacities. But you have been incapable to process what I said about that--because it does not fit the stories you prefer to tell yourself. Read what I have always and consistently written throughout all our exchanges and read the stories your keep coming back with. You repeately attribute to me statements even though I have repeatdly and consistently affirmed the opposite. Either you are an idiot, dishonest or in denial (or a combination of the three). It is all there in the archives of the website for anyone to see.

Tucson: "but intellectual expression can only take you so far"; Truth/Reality/Absolute, as if there is such a 'thing', is each individuals personal discovery or recognition. No one can deliver it to you no matter how erudite, profound and perceptive their personal experience/expression may be.

Did I have ever affirmed something different? No. Somehow I cannot cite a few references without you flipping and overreacting ... (this characterization is based on the fact that you keep attributing to me beliefs and views that I have discredited in the past). It seems that I am not the one who has issues with the intellect but you ...

The Integral Life Practice Kit is priced at $199.

"But you need to order in the next 48 hours to receive your seven bonus gifts , a free copy of Wilber's newest book, and a $50 discount."

---Oh "Shit" I was gonna write something, but then, fuck it..............

the Elephant said to tucson: "I truly think that you believe your own crap. I don't doubt of your intention from that standpoint. But there is such process called self-deception."

tucson: Granted, so how do you know YOU are not self-deceived about my being self-deceived?

the Elephant: "So someone cannot express a disagreement with your narratives without being tagged immediately and without textual evidence as being irritated and frustated?"

tucson: All I can say is that your attitude and defensive frame of mind is conveyed by your tone and the fact that you deal mostly with interpersonal issues rather than philosophical ones.

the Elephant: "you give yourself the capacity to psychologize my inner life ("Your irritation and frustration")

tucson--I don't. That's just how it comes off to me and my gut reaction. It is you, the Elephant, who criticised my remark when I said, "How do you know I am being dishonest?" by your saying it "tells a lot about your integrity/honesty..."

There YOU are giving yourself the capacity to judge MY integrity/honesty! Ironic?

Basically, all you seem interested in throughout our conversations over the past year is how I am deceiving myself with over-simplifications and non-dual cliche's and pompously presenting them as truth to others. I get it. It gets under your skin. Fine. Now the ball is in YOUR court to present the "real" Truth as you see it and leave me out of it since I am as you put it, "..an idiot, dishonest or in denial (or a combination of the three).

Regarding my comments on the limitations of intellectual expression the Elephant said: "Did I have ever affirmed something different? No. Somehow I cannot cite a few references without you flipping and overreacting"

There you go again doing what you accuse me of: "you give yourself the capacity to psychologize my inner life ("Your irritation and frustration")"

While I enjoy often enjoy quotations and references, I most enjoy what comes spontaneously from the heart of the writer about the "nature" of things. Do you have anything to offer in this regard without bringing our interaction into it?


tucson: Granted, so how do you know YOU are not self-deceived about my being self-deceived?
--As I wrote earlier --> Excellent questions. But you cannot expect me to answer them on a internet forum.

tucson: All I can say is that your attitude and defensive frame of mind is conveyed by your tone and the fact that you deal mostly with interpersonal issues rather than philosophical ones."

-- First. "defensive frame of mind" What did you smoke? Again cheap and generic psychological characterizations. Am I quite often the intisgator in our exchanges? Your comment does not make much sense or could be said about you or anyone else for that matter. (Unless ... see below).

-- Second. Are you kidding me? I have approach your narratives in explaining their partiality and absence of ambiguity (i.e. trivialism).

I have mostly commented our you statements and made inferences from them while providing the reasons of these inferences, provided material which people can consult, etc. Read your stuff--this exchange and the previous ones. With some efforts will be able to see (through your fantasies) and it may daunt on you that I am not one who grossly and groundlessly bring (interpersonal) issues ... (See below as well on this issue)

Tucson: "It is you, the Elephant, who criticised my remark when I said, "How do you know I am being dishonest?" by your saying it "tells a lot about your integrity/honesty..."
-- Gee ... when someone need to bend and flip the arrow of time 180 degrees in order to make his point, there must be a problem somewhere Houston :)

Tucson: Ironic?
--I am perfectly aware of the irony and possibility of self-contradiction here but ...

Tucson: Regarding my comments on the limitations of intellectual expression the Elephant said: "Did I have ever affirmed something different? No. Somehow I cannot cite a few references without you flipping and overreacting"
There you go again doing what you accuse me of: "you give yourself the capacity to psychologize my inner life ("Your irritation and frustration")"


-- You made sure to conveniently cut and paste so that you ignore the next sentence: "[the elephant writes:](this characterization is based on the fact that you keep attributing to me beliefs and views that I have discredited in the past)".

Yes I have made psychological statements but as opposed to you, my characterization are rarely -- I don't like to say never -- generic and banal pejorative psychological attributions like 'irritation, frustration, defensive frame of mind, etc.' which can be said of anyone who replies to and disagrees with someone else ... (see some of my discussions on the exact same issue in our previous exchanges. If you look back you will see that WHATEVER I WRITE you end up always employ the same ploys and cheap tricks ...)

I try to provide textual evidence on which I based my specific characterizations -- moreover, most of my characterizations have followed from your habit of attributing to my person statements while I have clearly and consistently affirmed the opposite. There is no ambivalence or nebulous inference behind a faceless posting, or generic and fit-all attributions, but simple textual evidence available to all to see where my inferences come from.

Since we reached a point where history is repeating itself once again and the quality of your responses is going down the drain I am probably done with this exchange--unless you keep it interesting ...

I think you're right. It has gone down the drain, so further commentary in this vein is pointless. No hard feelings from this end.

I've found the Integral Life Practice kit to be really helpful in my spiritual development and well worth the money. If you have realized non-duality and you don't think that enlightenment is evolving then that's fine - don't buy it. But if you're not satisfied with that and you have realized that evolution is an inherently spiritual process then you may want to consider this kit.

Also, there is much more to it than learning how to meditate. You could get that from one of the DVDs in the kit or from many other places for free as people have mentioned. There are different types of meditation in the kit designed to open you up to the truths of the universe in different ways. For instance, you can realize that you are the Witness to all that is arising, you are the Subject of all the objects that arise - all thoughts and, therefore, ego and separate sense of self which, in its essence, is a thought but you may not have developed much compassion. If you want to have a more complete enlightenment then using the other meditative techniques in the kit like Compassionate Exchange will help to connect you to your own Big Heart and you will feel a different type of expansion than mere witnessing.

Also, there is the 3-2-1 Process which is very helpful in being able to maintain the expansive realization in the midst of shadow elements which, pretty much all enlightened teachers have (spend some time with them and see how they behave and you'll see what I mean). They can reflect the inherently Free nature of Reality to some degree but to purify the vehicle takes work which most people don't want to do so they say "who is working?" "who is there to develop?", etc. That's a cop-out in my opinion.

The kit also has a dvd devoted to Genpo Roshi's Big Mind process which is worth something in itself as well as a cd with some non-dual contemplations, contemplations on death and impermanence and experiencing God or Reality in first, second and third person which is pretty cool along with other stuff that can help quite a bit on the spiritual path.

I've talked with other people who have tried this kit and most say that as soon as they started doing it, they started experiencing a shift in their awareness. This is what I have experienced with it also and I'm pretty excited about it.

Also, I don't work for them and I don't even live in the US. This is my honest experience with this kit.

Brian Robinson,

Is the kit, a made-simple for dummies, guide to the "four quadrant" model of consciousness?

Who grabbed hold of Ken, and introduced him
to the Sales/Marketing, profitable world of:

"The Integral Life Practice Kit is priced at $199. But you need to order in the next 48 hours to receive your seven bonus gifts , a free copy of Wilber's newest book, and a $50 discount."

Thanks for allowing me to ask a cop-out question.

Hi Roger.

I don't think that's a cop-out question ;)

Yes, it provides a pretty simplified overview of the 4 quadrants and his other teachings with possibilities of going deeper through online media, etc. The thing with the 4 quadrants and AQAL in general is that it may cause some headaches at first but once you get it it's like that experience that someone described above (can't find it now for some reason) where lights are going off and you are peering out over the lay of the land and really seeing things that are already there but seeing how they are connected. It really helps make sense of a lot in my opinion.

My hunch is that it was Bill Harris of Centerpointe that really got the marketing going with Wilber's stuff. I saw a lot of marketing increase when the two connected. I don't think marketing is all bad, however, since they are trying to establish an integral spiritual center and get these teachings into more mainstream academia since the consensus is that is the only way to get enough people to evolve into the integral levels of consciousness. I know a lot of people into spirituality don't like marketing but to produce any kind of real change in the world, I think it's going to take more aggressive approaches than word of mouth.

I didn't see that ad in WIE but I can understand people's reactions to it considering how it sounds like an ad for a fad diet or a get-rich-quick scam. Perhaps they see it as skillful means that sometimes backfires.

It always comes down to an individual who wants to experience rapturous revelation, or seeks/desires enlightenment, or an evolutionary process of expansion of awareness, or a feeling of compassion of the Heart, etc. Who is this individual doing the seeking? Where is it located? Can you wrap it up in a ball and show it to me? Yes, you can show a bundle of thoughts and memories, of arms legs, heart and lungs, but that is just a process, an apparatus, a passing phenomenon in the dream. Have you ever seen youself in a dream? Your feet? Your hands? Your whole body? What is it that perceives that? another you? Where is it that located?

While I am aware that there is this thing called "tucson" typing here, to his perception what is happening is just another phenomenon passing through formlessness. In formlessness there is just oneness but in describing it in this medium there is the contradiction of saying there is nothing and oneness and all that, but here I am, tucson", typing...."I am nothing but I am also that, or I am this typing."

There is no one, but there is oneness with all perceived things. Some call this "love" and why not? But to me it is more a feeling of compassion that is not clinging or conditional, but rather a warm kinship with manifestation or sympathy with it. You might call it love, but it is not as I conceptualize love, not a Love that is thought of as "I love her because she is beautiful", or "I love the beach because I have fun there" or "I love the sound of music."

Everywhere I look is I, but I am no where to be found. Really there is nothing, just this miraculous phantasmagoria of appearance that comes out of nowhere and goes back to it.

What process can there be or journey to take that can take me here? No matter where I go, there I am. There is no approach or escape. It is the ever present condition. It is a great beauty that all is harmony and flowing along just as it is, just as it should be, as it could only be.

This "love" is happening all around continuously arising. No thing to chase, achieve or wear as a badge. Does life need a badge to signify it is what it is? Why does a priest need a gaudy robe? What he is, is vividly evident even if he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Maybe not as the role he is playing but who he really is.

What is enlightened? What could not be? The present manifestation in formlessness may appear to itself (usually it is humans that have this problem) to be locked in individuality, but that individuality is just part of the show. Maybe the next instant she's looking out the window at a tree and that becomes the manifestation in formless awareness and her self-awareness temporarily vanishes. See what I mean? It's all the same thing in a myriad of forms.

It's gotta be right no matter what.

What instruction can you give that wouldn't miss the mark? You can't even say "Go With the Flow". Whatever arises is the Flow. There is no choice or individual volition of going with the flow or not; only the appearance of it because that is what the flow dictates. You're just along for the ride, only really, there is no rider, just the ride.

From the point of view of the Absolute, what you are saying is true. But, from a relative point of view, you still have a perspective that arises that is different from my perspective and it is that perspective that realizes the ultimate Truth and tries to get "others" to realize that Truth even though, from an absolute perspective, there are no others. That's the paradox. To have a bias towards the absolute Ground of Being and discount the relative realm of Spirit is dualistic in my opinion. I was with a neo-Advaita teacher for a few years in the past and that's pretty much all he said. All is awareness, there is nothing to do, who is seeking, etc. Still, you weren't aware of this realization your whole life and you probably owe it to some of the realized teachers that you have this realization unless you're the second Ramana Maharshi. If you are realized and you see "others" suffering in the relative world, don't you feel something deep in the Heart of your highest Self? Isn't there a compassion beyond your relative form that manifests through you and feels the suffering of your Self in "others" and the desire to tell them that they can be free?

Tucson: "It always comes down to an individual who wants to experience rapturous revelation, or seeks/desires enlightenment, or an evolutionary process of expansion of awareness, or a feeling of compassion of the Heart, etc. Who is this individual doing the seeking?"

--You wrote "It always comes down to an individual who wants" It must be bad writing because in your first sentence you admit the individual that you later deny. You probably simply meant that many commonly integrate and identify the experiences you describe around a certain form or sense of identity, which we can call 'individual', or 'self', etc.

--Actually, as opposed to what you affirm "It always comes down to", it often does not come down to "an individual"; you simply wish that "it always comes down" because otherwise your narratives fall apart, and their shallowness is exposed. But more basically, what do you mean by 'individual'? You keep barking at it but what are you barking at? Your narratives hinge and exploit elusiveness of the referent.

--So what we undeniably have is:
Tucson: "who wants to experience rapturous revelation, or seeks/desires enlightenment, or an evolutionary process of expansion of awareness, or a feeling of compassion of the Heart, etc."

--That is a pretty narrow perspective. Why is your concern about the experience of unsufficiencies and lack solely focused on 'spiritual matters'? Why not include wanting money, higher stock prices, wanting to reply by attributing false views to an interlocutor, love, joy instead suffering, etc. Why is wanting enlighentement 'bad' while 'wanting higher stock market or good food' natural and simply flowing?

Tucson: "You can't even say "Go With the Flow". Whatever arises is the Flow."
If that so, why bother yourself with a distinction (spiritual matters vs. everything else) you know is false, trivial and arbitrary?

--And somehow your blabber is inconsistent with someone else's blabber:

From I AM THAT "Niz: When you believe yourself to be a person, you see persons everywhere. In reality there are no persons, only threads of memories and habits. AT THE MOMENT OF REALISATION the person ceases.
Identity remains, but identity is not a person, it is inherent in the reality itself. The person has no being in itself; it is a reflection in the mind of the witness, the 'I am', which again is a mode of being"

What the latter narrative says is that there is necessity of suffering that compels a resolution--and that such resolution is an actuality, in all eternity and with respect to a particular presence.

On the other hand, your narrative is different:
A) There is an experience of lack, or want.
B) A resolution of that experience of lack would necessitate the existence of an 'individual'.
C) But there is no 'individual' .
D) Therefore there cannot be a resolution.
E) Why bother since the experience of lack, or want is reality; and reality is reality; therefore

there is no need for a resolution; if so we must conclude that experience is just 'apparent' (whatever you want it to mean) ... blah blah blah more ... gutsy nondual blabbering ...

--Niz does not deny the necessity and actuality of a resolution--which must be considered simultaneously temporal and eternal, relative and absolute, from the standpoint of discursive thinking.

Tucson: "Who is this individual doing the seeking?"
--We agree that there is an experience of suffering and resistance within the confines of a 'presence'--although the nature of that presence is ambiguous and elusive. But who said we need an individual? What do you mean by individual? You said that 'it always comes down to an individual'; such affirmation necessitates some monolisthic view of individuality, a perspective that would somehow be shared by all. But most people are basically, normally and discursively cluleless about what is an individual (with good reason when we consider the natural limits of the intellect and the non-existence of the object) ... Surveys and reports actually provide conflicting and inconsistent perspectives and beliefs about the nature and non-existence of an individual, essence, etc ... And yet we all know what we mean when we say that we are afraid, that we regret, that we hope, etc... Despite our different and sometimes opposing beliefs we all seem to find quickly some commonalities in the experience of suffering and joy. Is it not interesting? Evidence suggest that the mind of primitive people had a quite different sense of 'individuality' (their center was not a person or ego but a tribe, a group, another tribe member symbolizing the absolute, etc.); and yet the same evidence suggest that their experience of fears and hopes were not so different than ours.

YOU make a leap (that there must be an individual) here that not everyone shares. You create a straw man, or more precisely in this case a straw individual in order to foster and boast your narratives. What matters is not the individual--since whatever you mean that by it it does not exist anyway according to you--but the experience of suffering [and please don't bring the distinction of suffering and physical pain as an escape because your naive narratives have been so far incapable to properly handle it].

For instance, the '(great) matter' in Zen is the experience of suffering or 'lack' (which you do not seem to deny)-- and not the existence of an 'individual'. Who cares about the individual? No me! :) What has mattered for Hakuin, Spinoza, Niz or Meister Eckhart (I always come back to them because they are my favorites) was not an individual, or a belief in an individual, but the condition, state, or experience of suffering itself--which is all too potent as you seem to admit. Why do so many, from their own accounts, fail to see that "It is a great beauty that all is harmony and flowing along just as it is, just as it should be, as it could only be"?

Moreover, why do you pick this narrative? Why not write "It is a miserable h*rror that all is diverse and stucked just as it is, just as it should be, as it could only be." Why prefer the first one to the other if is it "all the same thing in a myriad of forms"?

Tucson: What process can there be or journey to take that can take me here?
Does life need a badge to signify it is what it is?
What is enlightened? What could not be?
What instruction can you give that wouldn't miss the mark?

-- But why do you come up with these questions in particular and not:
Why is purple purple?
What is a car?
How can you fix a car?
etc.

You questions evoke and describe the 'experience of suffering' and somehow the necessity to do something about it. Your questions implicitly admit and postulate what your answers to them try to deny. You ask these questions in particular. And yet the only answer you have is one that explicitly denies this implicit admission: "What instruction can you give that wouldn't miss the mark? You can't even say "Go With the Flow". Whatever arises is the Flow. There is no choice or individual volition of going with the flow or not; only the appearance of it because that is what the flow dictates. You're just
along for the ride, only really, there is no rider, just the ride."

--You affirm on the one hand what you tacitly deny on the other. (I am pretty sure you were not even aware of that admission; and you will obviously deny it and perhaps tell me that I am perturbed and wrong and that I don't read you carefully, that I don't understand you, etc. And in a way you will succeed in those things because that is one of the limits and defaults of the 'intellect': it is its game that it can play behind the veils of the net).

I wonder: are you asking the wrong questions? If you don't think so please tell me why your questions are the 'right' ones (and if you tempted to avoid the issue by falling into trivialism by replying that all questions are the same blah blah blah ... then you are welcome to delude yourself.)

Your questions and answers are based on necessities that your trivialism can only reveal as arbitrary; but THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS**1 and not others is an actual expression of these necessities--and conflict with your CONCEPTUAL tale about the arbitrariness of these things. The exact questions you ask and answer reveal a 'direction'. But be careful: that 'direction' finds its expression and actualization in pure spontaneity ... Life, and all things, may not have a purpose, but it is not without a direction ... For instance, a direction evoked in the following excerpt:

"Niz: Differences and distinctions are not the causes of sorrow. Unity in diversity is natural and good. It is only with separateness and self-seeking that real suffering appears in the world."
"Niz: You do not realise that your present waking state is one of ignorance. Your question about the proof of truth is born from ignorance of reality. You are contacting your sensory and mental states in consciousness, at the point of 'I am', while reality is not mediated, not contacted, not experienced. You are taking duality so much for granted, that you do not even notice it, while to me (SIC!!! Niz let pop a doozy here) variety and diversity do not create separation."

**1 [Let me remind you of what I wrote earlier: "Here is how D.T. Suzuki writes about it "Prajna looks in two opposite directions, which is a grand contradiction, and from this contradiction there rises the entire panorama of our life. Why this contradiction? The contradiction is actual in our asking for it." (The Zen doctrine of No-mind, p.143). The translator favored expression of 'contradiction'; but 'ambiguity' is perhaps more appropriate.]


Dear Brian,

You write: "From the point of view of the Absolute" ...

So the Absolute has a point of view after all!

You even provide us with parts of it :)

"If you are realized and you see "others" suffering in the relative world, don't you feel something deep in the Heart of your highest Self? Isn't there a compassion beyond your relative form that manifests through you and feels the suffering of your Self in "others" and the desire to tell them that they can be free?"

"deep in the Heart of your highest Self" ... whatever ...

I just realized: I guess if the human mind would have never came up with the quotation marks "" the Absolute would have then been compelled to supply it in order to make sure that 'its poin of view' is properly enunciated :)

(I am being sarcastic through all this comment btw)

Hi the Elephant!

I decided, besides being exhausting, that getting into every detail of your commment of 12-18-08,7:31pm would only continue to make our dialogue personal which up to this point has not been productive. So, I just started writing about what I have found to be true using different phrasing that I hope will eliminate some complaints. Or, will it just open a can of worms? Stay with it and see if it elicits any clarity or leaves you with the same objections. I am hoping this tack will eliminate at least a few of them.

Presence is no thing: Absence is all.Presence is appearance: Absence is the source of everything.Presence is what is not: Absence is what is.

For phenomenal absence is noumenal presence.
What I am is phenomenally absent: it is the phenomenal absence of my presence.Every time I say 'I' absence is speaking via presence.

I am absolute absence..absence of presence and of positivity. Absolute absence is absence of me.. of all my phenomenality.
So, I am the absence of my self and the presence of absence.

What I am is the absence of everything I appear to be and can think that I am. What I am is the absence of all presence. We must be our own absence in order to manifest a spontaneous non-volitional presence.

We must be 'absent' in order that 'present' may be, but where we are and when we are is neither present nor absent, and what we are is neither presence nor absence, but the mutual negation of both. That is to say that neither concept is applicable, nor is any pronoun. Why? Because all words signify what is objective, and what we are has no objective quality and so cannot be objectified at all.

Our knowable presence or absence can only be an objective, and so phenomenal, presence or absence, and therefore cannot be what we are. Noumenally, then, what we are is neither, but phenomenally regarded it can be conceived as the one or the other, but not both. By definition it must be absent, but it can be presence as appearance.

(noumenon= the apparently unmanifest pure subjectivity that cannot be known or conceived as an object or thing.)

These are interesting arguments.

I don't usually play with hard logic because I'm playing with a balsa wood bat.:)

All concepts are metaphor and are delusory outside the individual experiencing them - whether in their essential form as conceiving, or in their active form as operating or perceiving. (Being is in none of these states and non-being is in none of these states.)

I am not you <-- is delusion.
I am you <-- is delusion.

I don't know if this a form of Russel's paradox but it seems to have a similar logic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

It seems to me that concept as metaphor is a mechanism that either builds self identity when the metaphors are mistaken for Truth; or helps sublimate self identity. There is nothing missing in this world except from the individual's perspective. External fulfillment of what is perceived as missing is impossible. This struggle for continued self identity eventually fails - either during the individual life span or at the time of their death. Human beings have an opportunity to know these limitations of self identity. It begins with metaphorical concepts but ends without thought, speech, or action, and is no thing. I'm not certain other animals have his ability.

"If I could have known the value I owned, I would not have suffered, like a fool, the life of a vagabond." - Rumi

This seems to sum up the essence of the seeker. I don't know so much about the non-seeker. I've seen people suffer and die who were not spiritual, in the sense that, they believed in an afterlife but wanted more of this life with which they identified. Please know that, from my perspective, that was a dreadful state of consciousness to be in as the time of death approached. It seemed to me that their death was a terrible struggle which became a loathing for both living and what followed. I suppose that once we can see ourselves apart from our self identified awareness, death is not such a difficult process... nor is living a "good life" so hard either. Life is effortless if this middle path is found - or so I've been told.

The individual does exist, but only momentarily. However, the individual is an illusion as is the suffering and the moments of time over which it occurs. But this isn't about someone else in an abstracted sense - it's about me (you). All this talk through logic is a circular trap and can result in a difficult set of conceptual metaphors to break through. There simply is no answer in this because logic is conceptual and cannot describe what is not conceptual.

I think what Brian Robinson says, "don't you feel something deep in the Heart of your highest Self?", in an important way, reaches outside logic. I think it is important to do this when logic becomes a pit. The logic that "there is no seeker, no individual" may be true but are abstractions within ANY self identified reference. It will be difficult to get many individuals to realize this truth through logic. It never worked for me until the logic became so futile, my mind simply stopped. People talk about a love or compassion beyond the "normal" individual feelings that comes with realization. The little I know, this seems correct. How wonderful!

As for logic, "What's Love got to do with it?" :)


Respects,

At this point, I think it might be appropriate if I shed some light on this particular issue and debate..... especially in view of the comments of B.R. and the elephant, and anyone else. It seems that most commenters here (except for Tucson) are indeed missing the point and are lacking in view and comprehension.

So... for those of you who are serious about understanding this matter... if you would please take the time to go and read
& study my research papers (which btw I did post once before in this forum awhile back, relative to a similar discussion/debate that was going on here at that time), I believe that some, if not many, of your errors may resolved therein (btw these are PDF files):


http://www.categoricalanalysis.com/category/pdf/categorical-analytic_meaning_of_truth.pdf


http://www.categoricalanalysis.com/category/pdf/Phoenix_Revisited.pdf


http://www.categoricalanalysis.com/category/pdf/Ruth5.PDF


http://www.categoricalanalysis.com/category/pdf/BiasTransformations.pdf


Site Main Index: http://www.categoricalanalysis.com


***[ Note: If some of you feel that this material is too over your head, don't worry, just press on and you should be able to gain some benefit regardless. ]

Brian Robinson,

Thanks for your reply.

If you desire, could you describe, the benefits (realization of consciousness, etc.) that you received from the purchase of the Kit, and working through the teaching steps(?) found within the Kit?

Assuming, that a step by step process is found in the Kit.

Your description, would start at the ending of what your realization was (pre Kit purchase) and your realization upon completion of the Kit curriculium.

Think of yourself as a Sales person, and you are going to sell me on the idea of purchasing the Kit. Use your individual gain(?), that you obtained from the Kit awakening(?) or learning experience.

I'm not finding fault with what you have done, just curious as to what I could get for my bucks. I'm not making any assumptions, that your experience shall be mine, however, there is a purchase involved here, and you would be a great sales tool.

Thanks for your reply,
Roger

tucson, your last comment was helpful. Cleared some things up for me. I've been trying to understand what the fundamental difference between you and The Elephant is.

I admire how you guys are able to discuss reality in such an elevated fashion. But sometimes it seems so abstract to me, I can't get a concrete finger on it.

Could you (and The Elephant also, I hope) summarize what you see as the main distinction between your viewpoints? I read what you two write and at times it seems like you're saying the same thing, just in different ways.

But I could be mistaken (and probably am). So what's the dividing line between you and The Elephant?


Brian, the reason that discussions between the Elephant and me seem so abstract to you is that they ARE abstract, woefully so. Jayme said something that is key here:

"All this talk through logic is a circular trap and can result in a difficult set of conceptual metaphors to break through. There simply is no answer in this because logic is conceptual and cannot describe what is not conceptual."

Keeping that in mind:

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN OBJECTIVE BEING.

That is the only thing that need be understood. The understanding of that is Understanding itself. There is nothing more to be said, and ultimately nothing but that need ever have been said. Knowing that, the rest is known.

The supposed or apparent mystery is due to the objective inexistence of pure non-objectivity which is the so-called "Buddha-nature". Objectivity is only conceptual and non-objectivity is incompatible with any degree of objective portrayal.

There are so many seekers, ascetics, monks, satsangis, renunciates, yogis, etc. searching for something. What? Their true self? But there isn't one! No such thing exists, has ever existed, or ever could exist. Why? Because it would need another to find the one. They are searching for themselves and how could anyone find himself?

It is This which is looking for Itself when we look for It, and we cannot find It because It is This which we are. And..objectively It is not here. That is all there is in it. That is the Big Joke. And why it is a big joke!
And why there is nothing more
to be said.

God: "The universe is I and I am no where to be found."

That's it as best I can say it.


Tucson,

In your own words, write a comment, that would detail The Elephant's counter view. If you write his response, then I will not have to dig through all the "cheap shots" that suffocate his writings.

Thanks,
Roger

Roger,

I really think that is asking way too much for you to ask Tucson to explain The Elephant's views, or as you said "that would detail the elephant's counter view".

I mean Roger, for christsake, why the hell would Tucson want to go to all that trouble and effort?... he has already made his OWN views very simple and clear. But perhaps you are just being facetious?

Its really ALL up to the elephant to explain the elephant's OWN position and views... NOT Tucson. However, the elephant has yet to do that (other than making some vague references to Nisargadatta, and alot of convoluted criticism and as you say "cheap shot" ridicule)

Tucson has already said that he is not intereted in wrangling about this any further, and I agree with him. And I don't even think the elephant's antagonism is worth any further attention. If elephant has something substantial of his own to offer, then let him do so.

So thats why I don't think you should be asking Tucson to be making explanations for the elephant, to be be explaining the elephant's views. Thats rather ridiculous Roger.

So I'd say, if you really want to understand what the elephant has to say, then why not just ask him yourself? I peronally don't see that the elephant has anything coherent to offer. I am still waiting to see SOMETHING meanigful from the elephant.

You are asking Tucson to do the elephants work. But if I were Tucson, I would not even bother responding to the elephant's pointless antagonism. And also, I have already posted my own thoughts about the subject, but Tucson's explanations are far more simple, clear and palatable for the average reader. So I am in complete support and agreement with what Tucson has already written, and I don't see any need for any further explanation, much less any explantion from Tucson regarding the elephant's writings.

Bottom line: I know you like to ask questions Roger, and thats OK by me, but you should ask the elephant to explain his own stuff, not Tucson.



Brian, could you tell us what you seem to understand from Tucson's narratives? That would be helpful since in his last post he danced with the words on well-known themes leading to the categorical divide:

Absolute Relative
Noumenal Phenomenal
(pure) subject Object
Not objectifiable Objectifiable
Absence Presence
Being Not being
All No thing

The classic themes are: "subject--not knowable/object--knowable";
"Pure activity beyond divide and without involving some knowable=Spontaneity";
"Spontaneity=leaving without a why=no phenomenal"; (= absence of me)
"Words fails when trying to point to the noumenal";
Etc.

Nothing new or much clearer here than what he has written before if you ask me...

He eventually trivializes and deny everything "what we are is neither presence nor absence" leaving only some principle "I AM" (or "What we are"), or Reality (I guess).

Brian: what is clear about " but where we are and when we are is neither present nor absent, and what we are is neither presence nor absence, but the mutual negation of both." ???

There is no much difference between Tucson's blabbers and those of these jokers if you ask me.
http://avastu0.blogspot.com/
http://charliehayes36.tripod.com/pointers2008.html
http://www.whatneverchanges.com/writings/index.html

But perhaps you can tell me how they are different for you. That would be very helpful. Thank you.

If you can answer some of these questions I will be better able to provide some differences between you and me.

Among things I can develop:

--A difference is that beyond banalities--which normally please the imaginations of many readers (they 'seem correct' to use Jayme's expression)--Tucson has little to say (and has said very little about) about the stuff that the following excerpt from "I AM THAT" contains

Q: I can see that the basic biological anxiety, the flight instinct, takes many shapes and distorts my thoughts and feelings. But how did this anxiety come into being?
M: It is a mental state caused by the 'I-am-the-body' idea. It can be removed by the contrary idea: 'I-am-not-the-body'. Both the ideas are false, but one removes the other. realise that no ideas are your own, they all come to you from outside. You must think it all out for yourself, become yourself the object of your meditation. The effort to understand yourself is Yoga. Be a Yogi, give your life to it, brood, wonder, search, till you come to the root of error and to the truth beyond the error.

This is a bit different from: "There are so many seekers, ascetics, monks, satsangis, renunciates, yogis, etc. searching for something. What? Their true self? But there isn't one! No such thing exists, has ever existed, or ever could exist. Why? Because it would need another to find the one. They are searching for themselves and how could anyone find himself?"

I would also like to emphasize that Niz describes an interesting idea: setting the imagination against itself; "It can be removed by the contrary idea: 'I-am-not-the-body'. Both the IDEAS ARE FALSE, but one removes the other. realise that no ideas are your own, they all come to you from outside." There is a key power associated with the imagination, one that Niz understood well or Hakuin for that matter:
“At present this country is infested with a race of smooth-tongued wordly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. ‘Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?’ they ask you. ‘it is,’ they answer you because words and letters are a cost of jagged cliffs constantly lashed by a vast ocean of poison ready to swallow up your wisdom, drown the very life from it …’ … [Hakuin continues:] An incorrigible pack of skin-headed mules has ridden teachings like these to a position of dominance in the world of Zen. P.25 [The essential teachings …]”

On the contrary, Jayme and Tucson BELIEVE "All this talk through logic is a circular trap and can result in a difficult set of conceptual metaphors to break through. There simply is no answer in this because logic is conceptual and cannot describe what is not conceptual."

--Tucson fails to adequately engage the suffering of the 'other'. He either avoids or trivializes it. It is difficult to do otherwise when your narratives usually simply denies the 'other'.

--Another objection I have is that the categorical divides he normally uses are conditional on an actuality of knowing that is confined to the 'a priori' principles or structures of knowledge' normally associated with our normal human self-consciousness, like the divide between subjective/objective; the simultaneously actuality of two perspective: subjective and objective. But sometimes we must abandon that divide when we (imperfectly) describe actualities of knowing that precede the eventual emergence of the human mind. For instance, when Meister Eckhart writes that "The eye with which I see God is the eye with which God sees me" he refers to an actuality of knowing where Tucson's categorial distinctions, and narratives, become unoperational and inadequate. What is the subject/noumenal/being in that sentence? what is the object/phenomenal/no thing? Instead they are involve in a beautiful ambiguity …

--What you must realize Brian is that the medium ‘exchanges on the internet’ provides the perfect environment for the kind of narratives Tucson espouses while I am greatly disadvantaged. Quoting Niz earlier, he said “give your life to it, brood, wonder, search, till you come to the root of error” Giving your life to go to the root of error requires to explore, investigate, and see through layers and layers and layers and layers of conscious and unconscious deceptions, lies, prejudices, delusions, etc. That is not an issue you really raise well on the internet. On the contrary, the internet may often help to foster and reinforce lies and deceptions. We still don’t know how tAo was able to write and defend two doctoral theses (on opposite coasts nonetheless) while being a Yogi traveling all over Asia and the middle-East over a period of 6-7 years.

Or how do we know who is right between Manjit and tAo
Manjit wrote earlier on CofC:
Hello Tao,
I've just read your posts where you imply you are 'John E Range'? Did you not once tell me in a private email your real name was Jayan? (which I, btw, NEVER revealed online until now...even though another you told has on another site). Very strange indeed? Jeez bro, how many discrepancies have you made??
Really worrying dude. Really worrying
tAo REPLIED: Back at it again, are you Manjit?
Trying so vainly to dig out some minute little discrepency on me I see. ...(yawn)... I used to think you were a bit smarter. But the more you make ridiculously lame attempts such as this, the more I become disappointed with you.
But alas, since you are so desperate and confused and you just can't see the obvious, here's the scoop...
"Jayan" is nothing more than an old spiritual name that a few people happen to know me by in another forum or elsewhere on the net. It is not my real name, and I have never said that it is, either to you in an e-mail, or to anyone else. You apparently came to know of it at the RSS forum. But so what?
TO WHICH Manjit REPLIED:
Thanks Tao.
Though, as I clearly stated, you told me that was your real name in a personal & private email.
And, there is whole host of what appear to be distortions, discrepancies, inconsistencies and, well, apparent outright lies that you have made. I don't 'play' detective, I just have a memory.
(http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2008/04/i-am-therefore.html_

--Anyone can make a lot of stuff up or sustain deceptions through internet …
For anyone who pays enough attention may realize how Tucson’s narratives entertain some of these deceptions, and even reinforce them …

Finally, another difference is that for Tucson 'suffering', or resistance, is not an expression of duality; for me, intimate suffering is both an expression of duality and non-duality.
Suffering also offers a 'criterion'. R. Schurmann writes about Meister Echkart
“Being and nothingness can only be understood as transition, or as birth; we are identical with God, but still on the way to union; we are nothing, but still on the way to annihilation. After fundamental shift from a representational ontology to an ontology of process has been laid out, not much remains to be said fro Eckhart, except for the practical consequence that are always dear to him. He has to present the signal or indicator by which this double actualization and this unique event manifest themselves. As in the sermon “Woman, the Hour Is Coming,” the indicator of detachment is equanimity. Meister Echkart writes “Do you wan to know if your child is born and if it is denuded, that is, if you have become the Son of God? As long as you have sorrow in your heart … your child is not born.” [p.166-167, Wandering Joy].

On the contrary, Tucson is all too glad to qualify his suffering as 'spontaneous'; and to trivialize that of others "That is the Big Joke. And why it is a big joke!". But on that account there is nothing that is not spontaneous--trivializing the idea of spontaneity itself. This view is different from that of Meister Echkart, Spinoza, Niz , Hakuin and others .

I have a question for Tucson; you wrote "Objectivity is only conceptual"--> what is a concept? Do animals conceptualize according to you? What about a cockroach? Thank you.

P.S. We need to create a new post: clicking on 'more comments' is cumbersome :)

Dear Roger:

I would be very helpful for me if you could tell me what you mean by and describe some of these 'cheap shots'; thank you very much.

Elephant, you are wasting your time regurgitating manjit's obvious nonsense of last April. Get a life dude.

Here is what Manjit wrote to tAo (back on April 18th & 19th 2008):

"Did you not once tell me in a private email your real name was Jayan?"

-- As I replied to manjit at that time: NO that is NOT my REAL name. And I DID NOT ever say that it is, not to anyone. Manjit was grossly mistaken and playing games... just like the elephant is now.

"you told me that was your real name in a personal & private email."

-- NO, I did NOT ever say that it was my "real name". That is absolutely a false claim/statement. And this latest ploy of the elephant is just another absurd bunch of crap that the elephant is resorting to in his desperate and futile attempts to discredit me.

"how many discrepancies have you made?? And, there is whole host of what appear to be distortions, discrepancies, inconsistencies and, well, apparent outright lies that you have made."

-- Those are all false claims made by manjit. There were NO "distortions, discrepancies, inconsistencies" or "outright lies" on my part. None. Never.

And Elephant, you are full of shit and you're wasting your time posting such unfounded garbage on this comment forum.

"I don't 'play' detective, I just have a memory."

-- Thats bullshit too. manjits so-called "memory" is no menory at all. Because I never said any of the things he claimed.

As I said:
"Jayan" is nothing more than an old spiritual name... It is not my real name, and I have never said that it is my real name to anyone, not to Manifit nor to anyone else.

Dear Tao:

I wrote: "Or how do we know who is right between Manjit and tAo"
Did I take a side in this particular case? Not explicitly because I really don't know what really happened.

My point was not about you but that your exchange with Manjit strongly suggested to the reader that someone had made--as you wrote--"false claims"--and that the internete facilitates in many ways such occurence.

I have an opinion on the matter but I really don't know for sure so no one should care about that ...

the elephant, I agree about the comments. After 50 of them, TypePad makes a new page (in an effort to aid the broadband lacking). Perhaps my new post tonight can be a place where this discussion continues in a bit different form.

I think I better understand the differences between your view of reality and tucson's. However, these seem rather small compared to the difference, say, between you guys and a fundamentalist Christian.

I tend to see your perspectives as something akin to the Taoism vs. Zen distinction, or the differences between the major Zen schools. I thought the "keep the mirror clean of dust" vs. "there is no mirror" divide sort of captured the differences between you two, but maybe not.

I agree with you on this: I can't always make sense of tucson's sentences. But some of yours leave me scratching my head also. I find that tucson is more "mystically" mysterious, while your comments tend to be more "thoughtfully" mysterious.

I like both kinds of mystery, so I enjoy your interchanges. Often what I don't understand is more intriguing than what I do -- although there's a distinction between ineffably enigmatic and simply confusing.

Brian wrote:
"I think I better understand the differences between your view of reality and tucson's. However, these seem rather small compared to the difference, say, between you guys and a fundamentalist Christian.

I tend to see your perspectives as something akin to the Taoism vs. Zen distinction, or the differences between the major Zen schools. I thought the "keep the mirror clean of dust" vs. "there is no mirror" divide sort of captured the differences between you two, but maybe not."


--- From that point of view, you are correct: there are a LOT less differences betwen 'us' than between 'us' and some fundamentalist Christians. In that sense, I can now understand what you alluded to with your analogy of the "keep the mirror clean of dust" vs. "there is no mirror" debate.

--- Actually, the difference between some of my narratives and those of Tucson can be sometimes 'imperceptible'--to the 'untrained' or unkeen eye :)

But beyond the wordly surfaces, there is a profound and fundamental difference. I could be 'mystical' and poetic if I wanted to (and even if english is not my first language). But such outlet is too easy, convenient, deceptive and ultimately unhelpful. You want load and load of 'inspired' nondual garbage--simply navigates the links of this bozo: http://charliehayes36.tripod.com/links.html

The same deceptions and lies that Hakuin described during his time

“At present this country is infested with a race of smooth-tongued wordly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. ‘Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?’ they ask you. ‘it is,’ they answer you because words and letters are a cost of jagged cliffs constantly lashed by a vast ocean of poison ready to swallow up your wisdom, drown the very life from it …’ … [Hakuin continues:] An incorrigible pack of skin-headed mules has ridden teachings like these to a position of dominance in the world of Zen. P.25 [The essential teachings …]”

have found new outlets and expressions throughout the nondual world taking form on the internet in our age and time . Things --and human nature-- simply don't change much! :)

Ah, the Elephant,
What comes across to me from your writings is an antagonism rather than anything constructive in the discussion even though here and there you have presented a few alternatives to my views. It is like everything I say is a personal affront that you must dismiss or disprove in some way because it somehow challenges what you believe to be true.

In a nutshell..you seem to be taking me far too seriously. I mean if you think I'm full of shit, fine, you've made that clear, but the fact that you go on about it indicates some conflict within yourself that is created by what I have said that you feel must be resolved. If I am just simply annoying to you, you could have just left it at saying I'm full of crap (which you have done more than once, I believe) and moved on. I have no problem with this but I have the feeling there will be no end to it until I completely submit and you are satisfied that you have shut me and my "BS" down once and for all. But that's not likely to happen, so 'round and 'round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.

You seem to have a dislike of what you call neo-advaita and its proponents who you perceive to be slick-tongued phonies unlike the traditionally accepted wisemen of old. No doubt there are slick-tongued poseurs running about, but the neo-advaita you disdain is to me paleo-advaita in modern idiom.

You rely very heavily on authorities in your attempts to counter my views and the inconsistencies in those views that you perceive. Rather than citing all these persons and historical references, what do you think? Try looking from the heart, from your intuition, rather than the analytical mind. Forget Niz, Spinoza and Meister Eckhart. This is not a formal scientific or academic conference, exposition or research study. Footnotes and references are not needed or required. Let's go back to kindergarten.

You said: "I have a question for Tucson; you wrote "Objectivity is only conceptual"--> what is a concept? Do animals conceptualize according to you? What about a cockroach? Thank you."

--The cockroach is I. When the cockroach sees, it is I that am looking, but when I look for myself, I can see nothing because nothing is there to be seen. The Elephant can't see me either, because when he tries to see me it is I who am looking. In fact he can do nothing because only I can do anything. The cockroach can say this too, and the Elephant, for we are not two, nor three, nor one.

The cockroach can say, "I am the clouds and the mountains, the sun, heat and the rain. I am everything that has form because form is my seeing of it. I am every sound because every sound is my hearing of it. So it is with every sight, sensation, perception because that which is perceptible is my perceiving of it. They have no other existence, nor have I because what they are I am and what I am they are. What the universe is I am and what I am the universe is. There is no other at all nor any 'one' at all, just I who am not."

Tucson: What comes across to me from your writings is an antagonism rather than anything constructive in the discussion even though here and there you have presented a few alternatives to my views. It is like everything I say is a personal affront that you must dismiss or disprove in some way because it somehow challenges what you believe to be true.

-- your characterization of my person is a possible and reasonable one. However, they are many other possible ones--some of which you may fail or be incapable to imagine. I have told you in the past that your interpretation of 'me' is incorrect. At this stage it is leave it or take it. If you wish to continue with your foolish stories about me; you are welcome.
-- Moreover, you say 'rather than anything constructive in the discussion'; you are in denial here. Go read back my post and you will see plenty of constructive elements to work on. You just ignore them; you just deny them as your latest post clearly indicates.


Tucson: In a nutshell..you seem to be taking me far too seriously. I mean if you think I'm full of shit, fine, you've made that clear, but the fact that you go on about it indicates some conflict within yourself that is created by what I have said that you feel must be resolved. If I am just simply annoying to you, you could have just left it at saying I'm full of crap (which you have done more than once, I believe) and moved on. I have no problem with this but I have the feeling there will be no end to it until I completely submit and you are satisfied that you have shut me and my "BS" down once and for all. But that's not likely to happen, so 'round and 'round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.

-- Once again you are quite mistaken regarding my motivations. If you have noticed I don't intervene very often. I do when it pleases me and I have a reason to do so. I am not annoy or 'suffer' from your crap. If I would then I would simply stop reading Brian's blog. Fortunately, I am not the kind of person who is compelled to do something knowing far to well that doing so will bring suffering--like the Blagojevich and Spitzers of this world. It is not very complicated. I always comment with some intentions and you would be surprised to learn that 'you' are the least of their concerns.

--Brian tried to create an opportunity. It is pretty clear now that will never 'discuss' anything 'constructive' regarding our views since once again you directly went for a 'psychologization' of my character. You can't go at the message so lets go for the messenger ...

Tucson: You rely very heavily on authorities in your attempts to counter my views and the inconsistencies in those views that you perceive. Rather than citing all these persons and historical references, what do you think? Try looking from the heart, from your intuition, rather than the analytical mind.

-- This is one way to see it. I don't rely on these guys as authority. No one should believe them on face value or simply because they are well known thinkers. You need to realize and convince yourself (I know it will be hard but ...) that I have red them and know them well not because I was looking for and needed 'answers' but because what I read in their writings is consistent with my 'own heart and intuition'. I never cite Papaji, Sri Auribindo, Ken Wilber, Descartes, Husserl, Freud, Plato because ultimately I see that they were in ways profoundly mistaken in some of their beliefs and views ... Sometimes I just don't feel like 'rewriting the wheel' and there are sometimes some added-values to bring the same perspective but through someone else eyes or expressions.


Tucson: "--The cockroach is I. When the cockroach sees, it is I that am looking, but when I look for myself, I can see nothing because nothing is there to be seen. The Elephant can't see me either, because when he tries to see me it is I who am looking. In fact he can do nothing because only I can do anything. The cockroach can say this too, and the Elephant, for we are not two, nor three, nor one.

The cockroach can say, "I am the clouds and the mountains, the sun, heat and the rain. I am everything that has form because form is my seeing of it. I am every sound because every sound is my hearing of it. So it is with every sight, sensation, perception because that which is perceptible is my perceiving of it. They have no other existence, nor have I because what they are I am and what I am they are. What the universe is I am and what I am the universe is. There is no other at all nor any 'one' at all, just I who am not."

--This is ridiculous; you lost me at 'cockroach can say ...' You are (intellectually) adopting the 'standpoint of the Absolute' from a mental perspective. And that is exactly what the mental CANNOT DO as opposed as what it can do (see my post above) ... And you are simply repeating yourself ...

Dear Tucson,

I previously forgot to add that if your conclusions about me were right I agree with you that "If I am just simply annoying to you, you could have just left it at saying I'm full of crap (which you have done more than once, I believe) and moved on" would be the appropriate conduct or action for sake of that person. However, as I have made recently and in the past, you are mistaken in your inferences about me and my motivations.

Tao,

You stated,

"But perhaps you are just being facetious?"

---Yes, I was. Oh, and thanks for the lengthy response to my comment, I gotta LUV ya.

With that said,

Tao, could you write a comment that gives an additional explanation of what man's "Heart of 1st principles" is? I have read through the link that you supplied, however, I would appreciate any further clarifications.

Thanks for your reply,
Roger

Roger,

You asked: "could you write a comment that gives an additional explanation of what man's "Heart of 1st principles" is?"

-- It is the Eye of the Heart, through which the temporally ineffable perceives itself, and by which man knows his oneness with the atemporally self-aware first principle... which is existence itself.

Or as Tucson prefers to describe it as: "the absence of our presence, and the absence of the presence of our absence"...

...which Tucson says is an "apparent paradox of what inconceivably we are".


PS: Roger failed to specify exactly when he asked his question, but his question was specifically related to this text (just in case anyone needs a reference to the source):

http://www.categoricalanalysis.com/category/pdf/Ruth5.PDF


the Elephant,

I read your comments above. I have decided not to say anything at all..after all I would just be repeating myself.

I'll let Li Po say it:

The birds have vanished into the sky,
and now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me,
until only the mountain remains.

Tucson: I read your comments above. I have decided not to say anything at all..after all I would just be repeating myself.

-- I was not expecting otherwise: it is usually at is this stage that you decide to disengage yourself ... like in our previous debates or when Ron would not buy in your inconsistencies: (http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2006/02/death_and_the_p.html#comment-129356204 ; I did not read the interchange initially but Caroline's post today made me discover it.)

About your quote of Li Po. The following story comes immediately to mind:

Whatever he was asked about Zen, Master Gutei simply stuck up one finger. He had a boy attendant whom a visitor asked, “What kind of teaching does your master give?” The boy held up one finger too.


The finger you hold up is to yourself.

Tao and Tuscon,

Using the following passage:

“Ruthless Compassion” is thus the process of offering valid "1st Principles" as well as offering merely pleasure and/or material gain to another human being in time, in an effort to alleviate their suffering
or distress. The man of 1st principles ever seeks more knowledge of “Existence Itself”, saying "O Lord, increase me in knowledge.”

---The "1st Principles" would be the various Conceptions of Compassion?

and from the original link:

---The Eye......is there a description or clarification of what this is?
---The Heart....is there a description or clarification of what this is?
---Is there an explainable mechanism, as to how the Eye works through the Heart?

Thanks for any replies, sorry for the continued use of this oversized thread.
Roger


Roger asked:

"The "1st Principles" would be the various Conceptions of Compassion?"

-- I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Conceptions of Compaassion"???


"The Eye......is there a description or clarification of what this is?"

-- Basically, it is the temporally ineffable's Self Knowledge.


"The Heart....is there a description or clarification of what this is?"

-- That is fairly self-explanatory - the Heart is the locus or core essence.

"Is there an explainable mechanism, as to how the Eye works through the Heart?"

-- Yes... that is the noumenal reality of man's Heart of 1st principles, as “the Eye through which the
temporally ineffable perceives Itself,” which endows man with a reciprocal potency to perceive the temporally ineffable through this same Heart of 1st principles... by realizing his union with this “Eye” (the
temporally ineffable's Self Knowledge), which as “existence itself” is none other than an a-temporally self-aware first principle.

[A doctrine in which the unmoved mover as the ground of being moved everything and yet was not moved by and/or for anything outside of itself. It was thus unknown and unknowable by beings in time.]


Tao,

Thanks for your reply.

The "Absence" is the noumenal: No thing?

And, the "Presence" is the Phenomenal: that, this, someone and/or something?

The "Eye" is what a Phenomenon uses to emerse oneself in the core essence "Heart" of Self Knowledge and existence itself?

The Phenomenon, using the "1st Principles" can properly emerse oneself in the process of Ruthless Compassion?

Likewise,

The noumenon: is simply the atemporal/temporal ineffible, that is unknowable with the Eye of the Phenomenon's Heart of 1st Principles?

Tao, am I beginning to clarify the proper wording used in our conversation?

Thanks for any continued replies,
Roger

"The "Absence" is the noumenal: No thing?"

-- Well I am not very sure what you mean by "The Absence". Using "The" with it kind of sounds objective, and that doesn't make sense to me.

Noumenal: Noumenal is an adjective form of 'noumenon' which is derived from the Greek. Noumenon (as it was used by Kant), simply means an object as it is in itself (a thing-in-itself), quite independent of the mind, as opposed to a 'phenomenon'.


"And, the "Presence" is the Phenomenal"

-- "Presence" can mean various things, to different people... and also I don't know just exactly how you are using it here.

On the other hand 'phenomenal' (as it is generally used/applied in Philosophy) means: Known or derived through the senses rather than through the mind. In the dictionary the term "phenomenal" is defined as: composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be perceived by the senses - concrete, corporeal, material, objective, physical, sensible, substantial, or tangible.


"The "Eye" is what a Phenomenon uses to emerse oneself in the core essence "Heart" of Self Knowledge and existence itself?"

-- No... "a Phenomenon" as you say, doesn't do anything. The so-called "Eye" is the temporally ineffable's Self Knowledge... it is the eye through which the temporally ineffable perceives Itself. The "Eye" is the noumenal reality of man's heart of 1st principles. But I had already said this all before, so I don't know how else to describe it to you. You are asking me the same question over and over again.


"The Phenomenon, using the 1st Principles can properly emerse oneself in the process of Ruthless Compassion?"

-- Again, "a phenomenon" can't/doesn't "emerse oneself", or do anything.

Ruthless Compassion is simply the process of offering valid "1st Principles" to another human being in time, in an effort to alleviate their suffering and/or their distress, and this is facilitated primarily through seeking (and appling) knowledge of 'existence itself'.


"The noumenon: is simply the atemporal/temporal ineffible, that is unknowable with the Eye of the Phenomenon's Heart of 1st Principles?"

-- Noumenon just means an object as it is in itself, a thing-in-itself - independent of the mind - as opposed to a phenomenon.


"am I beginning to clarify the proper wording used in our conversation?"

-- Well not exactly. And I think you are making this a bit more complicated than is necessary by attempting to re-phrase it into other terms such as "presence" and absence" and so on. And in a way, you are splitting hairs. That is more or less the wrong approach. Just try to comprehend without becoming so hung up on the particular terms.

Also, you should know that I'm just not very interested in delving further into this topic or into more and more repitious explanations... and especially here on Brian's site. This place here is really for comments that pertain more to other issues.


Tao,

Thanks for your reply. I acknowledge, your desire to discontinue the topic discussion, regarding my questions. No, ill feelings to you.

With that said, I still find the topic interesting, and really have no hair spitting desires. A "no big deal" hobby is mine.

If others, have an interest in a simple discussion, regarding absence, presense, noumenon and phenomenon, then I would much desire to participate.

As usual, there is no right or wrong answer, just harmless conversation, through asking questions.

Tao, thanks again for your above reply.
Best wishes to you,
Roger

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.