Shared reality is better than private reality

Sometimes you hear people say, "He's off in his own private world."

Now, this may not be such a bad thing. But few of us would want to be in a totally closed off fragment of reality, because that would be exceedingly lonely.

Comments on a recent post got me thinking about shared (or "intersubjective," as one person put it) realities, versus private realities.

In my experience, the most satisfying moments in life are when I feel connected with other people. Or with nature. Or with some other animate or inaminate entity, such as our dog -- or my newly beloved MacBook computer.

At these times I feel that the world is more one than many, more united than divided, more loving than hateful, more cooperative than competitive.

I've got a sensation of being part of something bigger than myself. In some small (or large) way, I've escaped the bounds of an ego-encapsulated existence where it's all about me, me, me.

For this to happen, there's got to be some sort of shared experience of reality going on. If the sharing is with a person, such as my wife, we both have to be tuned in to a similar sensory and cognitive wavelength.

We can't mutually resonate with the glory of a sunset if one of us has our eyes closed. We can't both have a intimate understanding if one of us isn't listening to what the other is saying with an open mind.

Applying this to spirituality, I've come to feel that my goal is to try to break down the barriers that keep me in a private world where the meaning of life is limited to what I believe it to be. I want to be inclusive rather than exclusive, a resident of a psychological habitat without many fences rather than a gated community.

I recall standing in line at a movie theater back in my true believing days. There I was, like everybody else, waiting to buy a ticket.

Suddenly I thought: Wow! I'm a disciple of a great Indian guru, a god-realized soul. I've been taught a mantra and meditation approach that will take me to the highest regions of reality. I'm so fortunate!

Now I saw my fellow movie-goers differently. I stood straighter, feeling apart from them. I was on the way to knowing the truth of the cosmos, and they weren't. Lucky me. Poor them. I enjoyed the feeling.

At the time I didn't recognize it as a feeling of superiority. But that's what it was. And it was founded on a belief system that encouraged me to split myself off from a shared reality.

I wasn't just another person in line at a movie theater. I was an initiate of a perfect satguru! I was someone who could repeat a secret mantra that mystically connected me with God! I was so cool!

This is what a dogmatic belief system can do: provide a lens through which experience is distorted, so that the believer is seen to stand on higher ground, reality-wise. Cinemagraphically, religious believers see themselves as full color people in a gray-scale world.

Reading Jon Kabat-Zinn's "Wherever You Go, There You Are" this morning, I came across some quotes that blended with my own ponderings.

We all carry around ideas and images of reality, frequently garnered from other people or from courses we have taken, books we have read, or from television, the radio, newspapers, the culture in general, which give us pictures of how things are and what is occurring. As a result, we often see our thoughts, or someone else's, instead of seeing what is right of front of us or inside of us.

...We can live in a dream reality of our own making without even a sense of the loss, the gulf, the unnecessary distance we place between ourselves and experience.

...We can all be imprisoned by incessant wanting, by a mind clouded with ideas and opinions it clings to as if they were truths.

...Perhaps ultimately, spiritual simply means experiencing wholeness and interconnectedness directly, a seeing that individuality and the totality are interwoven, that nothing is separate or extraneous.

If you see in this way, then everything becomes spiritual in its deepest sense. Doing science is spiritual. So is washing the dishes. It is the inner experience which counts. And you have to be there for it. All else is mere thinking.

At the same time, you have to be on the lookout for tendencies toward self-deception, deluded thinking, grandiosity, self-inflation, and impulses toward exploitation and cruelty directed at other beings. A lot of harm has come in all eras from people attached to one view of spiritual "truth."

...Moreover, our ideas of spirituality frequently ring with a slightly holier-than-thou resonance to the attuned ear. Narrow, literalist views of spirit often place it above the "gross," "polluted," "deluded" domain of body, mind, and matter. Falling into such views, people can use ideas of spirit to run from life.

And split themselves off from other people.

Comments

[ander]

The pondering of subjective/objective existence can go on forever.

By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times. By remaining silent, inner silence is not obtained, even by remaining lovingly absorbed deep within. The hunger of the hungry is not appeased, even by piling up loads of worldly goods. Hundreds of thousands of clever tricks, but not even one of them will go along with you in the end. So how can you become truthful? And how can the veil of illusion be torn away?

Some sing that He seems so very far away. Some sing that He watches over us, face to face, ever-present. There is no shortage of those who preach and teach. Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and stories. The Great Giver keeps on giving, while those who receive grow weary of receiving. Throughout the ages, consumers consume. The Commander, by His Command, leads us to walk on the Path. O Nanak, He blossoms forth, Carefree and Untroubled. || 3 || True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love. People beg and pray, "Give to us, give to us", and the Great Giver gives His Gifts. So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court? What words can we speak to evoke His Love? In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness. By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found. O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All.

Like Nina Simone said "I only listen to the Masters".
-Live at Ronnie Scotts.Youtube

[Catherine]

We are all Masters and not. We recognise something that is great in us that comes and goes. We try to improve sometimes. We hope for a higher being that can help us along, but we are instead only recognise a part of ourselves that we think is in the other. We are drawn to one style of belief or another through a need we recognise in ourselves that assists our better survival. The idea of linking uo with something great and superior comforts us and brings us a community to protect and support us.

What if a more technologically advanced group of beings (that we would then consider gods) tweaked us genetically so that we will never know anything beyond this surgically shortened life so that we all die after a max. of about 100 years of slavery and esoteric dissatisfaction and that's the end of any experience. Why not and why would this be a negetive idea?

Maybe connectedness with others, the natural and man-made is the highest experience we can actually have.

[Brian]

Ander, what's the point of quoting dogma? So you share some unconfirmable beliefs that have no evidence behind them. A Christian, Muslim, or Jew could have done the same.

I'm always perplexed about how I'm supposed to respond to messages of this sort. Words that aren't connected to clear and present reality, or at least a reasonable reflection of what can be experienced now, are just abstract concepts to me.

Again, what's the point in sharing theological abstractions that don't lead anywhere? I'm going to eat a bowl of cereal. At least that's real.

[Ander]

It led to you eating a real bowl of serial

[Stuart Resnick]

Typically, we hold an (unexamined?) assumption that we start out as separate beings. We then work towards those moments when we get a feeling of connection, which at least temporarily extinguish the feelings of being disconnected.

I think an alternate perspective is also possible. Zen teaching says, "Originally, there is nothing." That means that that fundamentally, there's no separation. When thoughts of I/my/me arise, it's that thinking that creates a sense of separation.

The process isn't envisioned as my separate self connecting with other separate selves... but rather putting down I/my/me thinking (or perhaps recognizing it as just thinking) and remaining in the original state.

It's like a mirror which reflects whatever's in front of it, rather than holding any image of its own. Before I/my/me thinking, then we naturally respond to each moment that appears. If we're with our friends, we're 100% a friend; if we're with our children, we're 100% a parent; etc etc.

I dunno, maybe it's worth something to consider this alternate perspective.

In any case, we can envision "cult" problems as what happens when we try to connect with others by thinking the same way they do. Whereas we can alternately each keep our own unique perspectives, maintaining the original lack-of-separation that isn't marred by anything. We can relate to each being we encounter, without any necessity of thinking the same way.

In other words, Zen practice means ACTING together with others, without trying to THINK the same as others. When you're just eating cereal -- just doing it, without making and holding I/my/me ideas -- then everything is already perfectly connected.

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

[Ander]

Brian "Again, what's the point in sharing theological Abstractions that don't lead anywhere?" (in a zen kind of way? what do you mean?)

"Ander, what's the point of quoting dogma?" (maybe its zen, cause apparently is dogma at the same time.Is it like marxism, capitalism,atheism? what do you mean?)

So any religious quote is wrong? Didn't you use Rumi in a book? and plotinus?

And then you said "So you share some unconfirmable beliefs that have no evidence behind them. A Christian, Muslim, or Jew could have done the same. (in addition to a sikh, buddhist, shinto, as well? Your postman, the taxi driver, bush and buddha)

I share, beliefs, yes. You said that you feel more alive in your interaction with people. What do you share in these interactions? Isn't the same?

Is it reality you are seeking? Existence? A bowl of serial? The ocean of non material consciousness?
What differentiates us from an animal that similarly seeks food or a priest that reads his book? Aren't they both two "struggling souls?".

There are wise men and women among 'these muslims, jews, christians" despite you cynicm. There are some smart politicians out there as well,and Obama is one of them. And his cultural background stems from all the three religions you counted. I dont understand why you didnt mention the oriental religions since the passage that I quoted was from the Jap Ji. Maybe its because of you frustration with the Abrahamic religions. How different is buddhism and christianity, dont you agree? or are they all blind believers to -isms?

or you are saying that if someone did not have the privilidge to have been born before the industrial revolution, darwinism, the humble telescope etc. he had little chance of knowing the truth, and if he does find something is not ..scientifically....proved...and always subjective? I loose you, you see...

You seem perplexed as well.

let me see.

I quoted from the second paragraph of the Adi Granth Sahib that said,,,,

"Some sing that He seems so very far away. Some sing that He watches over us, face to face, ever-present. There is no shortage of those who preach and teach. Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and stories". (I think here it actually shares ur cynicism).

But you said: "Words that aren't connected to clear and present reality, or at least a reasonable reflection of what can be experienced now, are just abstract concepts to me".

And the passage concludes:

"In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness". Well you may not agree with it, but is something definite and explicit on what it suggested to be done. It not an abstract concept.

“How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
-Abraham Lincoln

[Brian]

Stuart, well said. Acting vs. Thinking... reminds me of my Tai Chi classes. Or dancing. Where you've moving in harmony with someone, or a bunch of other people. Sharing a common experience because thinking and believing have been minimized (though certainly not entirely extinguished).

Ander, your message led to my reaction for this reason, I think: you didn't base it on your own experience, your own ideas, your own "take" on reality.

Yes, I've sure quoted lots of people in my day. Now, though, in my churchless phase, I try to pay much more attention to how I see things -- not how some supposed sage, saint, or guru does. When I agree with what someone else says, especially if they can say things better than I can, I like to quote them.

But what you did was throw out quotes as dogma. Take it or leave it. You didn't explain why, in your experience, the quotes were true, what evidence there is for them, why others should accept them.

That way lies religious fundamentalism. So if you act like a fundamentalist on a blog called Church of the Churchless, you really shouldn't expect that you won't be challenged.

As I said before, I don't understand what simply quoting scripture is supposed to accomplish. It definitely doesn't change my mind. We get Jehovah's Witnesses dropping off dogmatic literature fairly frequently. I glance at it, then it goes in the trash. What's different with scripture being dropped off in a comment, without any explanation about why it should be taken seriously?

[tAo]

Ander,

You're so full of crap. First you quote antiquated religious dogma as if it has significance, and then when Brian tells you that such abstractions are not interesting or applicable to present reality, you respond with more of the same.

To you this kind of stuff is meaningful, but to the rest of us it is not. In your initial comment, you indicated that the babbling of such thoughts and words, no matter how voluminous and extensive, is useless. But then you turn round and completely contradict yourself by posting the very kind of thing that you criticised.

Your posting of all of these vatious kinds of spiritual poetry and religious dogma is basically pointless and useless and they don't lead anywhere. Life is only in the living of it.

Also, contrary to your belief, no such wisdom will ever be gained from the quoting and re-quoting of such religious texts. None. Its just like paper money - its value is only abstract and so therfore in reality worthless. It is not like real gold.

Ander said:

"maybe its zen, cause apparently is dogma at the same time."

-- Clearly you have no proper understanding of Zen.

"So any religious quote is wrong?"

-- It's not wrong, it's just not useful without some meaningful context or purpose.

"I share, beliefs, yes. What do you share in these interactions? Isn't the same?"

-- No, posting of religious quotations is not menaingful interaction. It is just preaching stale old dogma.

"Is it reality you are seeking? Existence? A bowl of serial? The ocean of non material consciousness?

-- Seeking is endless and will always remain unfulfilled.

"What differentiates us from an animal that similarly seeks food or a priest that reads his book? Aren't they both two struggling souls?"

-- Is that what you think you are? ... a "struggling soul"? Is that what you presume and believe that others are?

"There are wise men and women among 'these muslims, jews, christians" despite you cynicm."

-- Bullshit. You don't know that. You can never know that. And self-honesty is not cynicism. So-called "wise men and women" is nothing more than your own arbitrary value judgement. Your idea of wisdom is not necessarily shared by others.

"There are some smart politicians out there as well,and Obama is one of them. And his cultural background stems from all the three religions you counted."

-- This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr Obama.

"I dont understand why you didnt mention the oriental religions since the passage that I quoted was from the Jap Ji."

-- That's the whole POINT... Quoting the Jap Ji is quoting religious DOGMA. It is pointless and goes nowhere. If it was anything signifcant, then all Sikhs would already be enlightened Buddhas... or some such nonsense. Nobdy gives a shit about your religious mumbo-jumbo. And that's what quoting the Jap Ji is.

"or you are saying that if someone did not have the privilidge to have been born before the industrial revolution (...) if he does find something is not ..scientifically....proved...and always subjective? I loose you"

-- That's because you're already lost. And YOU seem very perplexed.

"I quoted from the second paragraph of the Adi Granth Sahib that said..."

-- Thats what I am pointing out. You are just babbling more quotations. Nothing more.

"Well you may not agree with it, but is something definite and explicit on what it suggested to be done. It not an abstract concept."

-- All of this kind of shit is abstract. It has no connection to present reality.

-- And don't bother quoting Abraham Lincoln (out of context)... and about which you know far too little anyway.

If you have something relevant to say, then spit it out... but please don't beleagre and bore us with more of the same old same old tired and useless religious dogma. If you want to preach Jap Ji and Sikhism, then just go to a Sikh site.

[Ander]

Brian,

you quote Taoism all the time and quoted rumi in the past. fact.

and tao. I dont even bother reading your responces,,,they are typical and re-curring to everyone who writes something on this blog... They are in fact boring.

I'll ask you this. why did you name yourself tao in the first place. Isnt your name another shitty crappy bullshit dogma's name...from the distant Chinese ppl,,,

Was Lao Chu a great Wise man or another fundamentalist chinese that used his taoist dogmat to stupidify his ppl in non-action so that they could be controled by the state?

Is it that you sumbited yourself to Taosim so such much that you actually named yourself after? How fundamentalist are you man?

Brian, I throw Jehovah witness stuff in the bin, but that does not mean i can generalize about the billions of religious ppl around the world.

that is it. You havent answered my commend,u just repeated yourself, thus i end mine here, before i repeat myself.

[tAAAo]

Ander,

Good... don't bother reading my comments because they are way above and beyond your pitifully low and narrow-minded level of intelligence anyway.

And btw douche-brain, as both Brian and I have indicated to you, it is YOUR dogmatic religious quotations that ARE "in fact boring". VERY boring.

You siad: "I'll ask you this. why did you name yourself tao in the first place. Isnt your name another shitty crappy bullshit dogma's name"

-- Sorry little dimwit, but my pseudonym "tAo" does not stand for anything. [And also, if you really knew what the term "tao" that YOU mentioned actually means (the Great Way), then you would well know that it DOES NOT and CAN NOT represent dogma, in any possible sense.

And here's another example of your ignorance, you little dimwitted grasshopper: "Was Lao Chu a great Wise man or another fundamentalist chinese that used his taoist dogmat to stupidify his ppl in non-action so that they could be controled by the state?"

-- FYI, neither Lao Tzu, nor the TAO, nor the so-called "taoist", have anything whatsoever to do with advocating "non-action". Your presumptousness and ignorance in this sphere is astounding.

"Is it that you sumbited yourself to Taosim so such much that you actually named yourself after?"

-- And fyi douche-brain, I am NOT into any so-called "Taoism" at all. But then that is something that you apparently have too much difficulty comprehending.

You apparently just don't understand the vast difference between meaningless pseudonyms such as "tAo"... and living intelligent beings such as myself. But maybe your intelligence can grow and mature... if you keep reading my comments for another 20 years or so.

"How fundamentalist are you man?"

-- I am definitely NOT a "fundamentalist"... but I AM a FUN-mentalist.

[ander]

TAAAo said "if you really knew what the term "tao" that YOU mentioned actually means (the Great Way), then you would well know that it DOES NOT and CAN NOT represent dogma, in any possible sense."

"The Great Way". Now we are getting somewhere.

IS there a Great Way Brian?

[Brian]

ander, I don't know if there is a "Great Way." I'm pretty sure that there is a Great Reality, because we're in it. Whether it's possible for someone to get closer to reality than other people can, that's another question.

As I've been writing about recently, personally I'm skeptical that the "great way" is anything different from everyday life.

That's one reason I'm attracted to philosophical Taoism. It doesn't look for ultimate truth in some far off mystical realm. Rather, it values the life each of us is living now, and suggests that flowing with life and accepting the realness of reality is a wise choice.

[ander]

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Wigner/Wigner.html

[George]

Why would you need a philopsophy to live life in the here and now? Its obvious.
Do you think a person struggling to make ends meet gives a good god damn about nonsense like this. No and rightfully so, its navel gazing of the worst self-indulgent kind.

Taoism is a mystical belief system. You can pick and chose whatever aspects of it you like, but it remains a religious belief system.

You can argue whether its a philosophical system or a religious one, but it has its scripture in the Tao Te Ching and its prophet in Lao Tzu.

Tao supposedly means the way, but has also been used to represent the supposedly primordial source everything sprung from, before, space and time, ineffable, nameless, formless, etc etc.

Emptiness or Voidness is common to many of these belief systems too and pretty much sums them up, i.e. philosopshical vacuity.

In reality eastern philopsophy is hardly ever reasoned or logical, its based on myth and fairy dust.

Same old mytical beliefs just a different name.

[zenjen]

Dear George,

Thanks for philosopshical and philopsophy (lol) sounds like a delicious popsicle of myth and fairy dust :)

Cheers

[George]

lol, touche zenjen.

[tucson]

George wrote: "Emptiness or Voidness is common to many of these belief systems too and pretty much sums them up, i.e. philosopshical vacuity[...]based on myth and fairy dust."

I don't think George understands the core of non-dual 'philosophies'. Consider this dialogue:

Hello! What are you worried about?

How do you know I'm worried?

God, or whoever it was, gave you a face for some reason or other?

Birds not caught! My only 'face' is the original one that I had before my father and mother were born - and it can't look worried!

Right! And the worry?

I've come to the conclusion, and finally, that Bob what's-his-name is not only a bore, but a mean and selfish sort of bastard! Don't you agree?

Why should I? You describe your Bob what's-his-name: mine is not likely to be identical.

Damn it all, there is only one Bob in question, and we are both talking about him!

I am unable to agree! There are as many Bob what's-his-names as there people who know him, plus one.

Metaphysically speaking perhaps, but the familiar phenomenal Bob is surely whatever he is!

Nonsense! There is no such being. What you are referring to is absolutely no thing whatever; 'he' is as devoid of objective existence as anyone else.

As you or me?

Of course.

Then what is he?

He is an image in mind. You have just described what he is according to your image. In my image he appears slightly different, and less objectionable. His own 'Bob' - as he appears to himself - is probably the hell of a fine fellow!

But there must be something that he really is!

Nothing whatever, absolutely no thing. He has, rigorously, no objective existence or being. He is only appearances in mind, interpreted diversely in a space-time context.

But whose appearances?

Ours: he appears to each of us as each of us sees him. What else is there for him to be?

Very well, but his? His own appearance to himself?

That is also a concept, nothing but a concept - his is not different in kind, but only in interpretation. You are supposing that his own is something factual, but it is not.

Would anyone believe that?

Probably not - unless he saw it. Conditioning is too strong.

Then who could take it?

It is not a dose of bitter medicine! Just an almost painfully obvious fact.

To whom?

Only to whoever can see that it must be so, that so it is, that it is fundamental, the very heart of how things are.

And when he sees it, what then?

If he really sees it - for hearing it or reading it is not seeing that so it is - he surely at the same time sees through everything that needs to be seen through - for all the rest follows.

Each of us needs to see it for himself and in his own way?

Each of us knows it for himself - if he is looking from the right direction.

And what is that?

From whole-mind, always from whole-mind.

Can one always do that?

Once should be enough. Let this one be it. It is better than all the ko-ans and conundrums that have ever been invented.

Why is that?

There is nothing artificial about it! It is just plain true-seeing.

[Brian]

George, Taoism (like it's physical counterpart, Tai Chi) is a gentle philosophical way, so I'll softly throw out some observations for your consideration.

You say that no person struggling to make ends meet gives a good god damn about nonsense like this. Well, Taoism took root in China several thousand years ago, when most people did indeed struggle to make ends meet (and still do). So I don't think your theory fits with the facts.

I agree that many "Eastern" concepts are as airy-fairy as Western ones, like God, grace, sin, and such -- Brahman, guru powers, and karma fall into the same unproven abstract category.

To me, though, Taoism has a different flavor. Neuroscientists remind us that reality is thoroughly subjective. Everything we know about the world comes to us through the brain and what we call "mind." We aren't in direct contact with reality.

Taoists recognize this, along with the essential ineffability of much of life, which also is a neurological fact (probably will write about this in a blog post tomorrow). So I see Taoism as a poetic philosophy that speaks about the human condition in ways that largely mirror current scientific understanding, but in a pleasing (and often humorous) fashion.

Also, I've mentioned before that I enjoy Tai Chi because it is Taoism expressed in physical movement. No "philosophical vacuity" in Tai Chi -- when you move, alone or with a partner, you see whether Taoist principles are functional in the everyday world, or not.

Much like ballroom dance, which my wife and I enjoy. There is a way that leads toward harmony, flowingness, and rhythmic connection in dance. It turns out to be the same way that works in Tai Chi. And in sports. Indeed, life as a whole, in my experience.

So I'm suggesting that some philosophies come closer to being rooted in the reality of everyday life, and some are considerably farther away. Taoism, I've found, is in the "closer" category.

[George]

Tucson,

hmmm, interestig, so you saying Bob needs to see a therapist?

i have 2 koans for your consideration:

i) 'The Truth is love and Love is the truth.'
ii) 'He who drinks water is no longer thirsty.'

Brian,
Good points allround, its just i find it difficult to see how ppl living on the borderline having the time or inclination to worry about the lotus position or chop wood carry water, their reality is survival, not navel-gazing.

i dont think taoism should be paralleled with science, i mean one of its teaching is that the human body consists of elements that are a microcosm of the universe - its plain claptrap at worst and a great fairy tale at best, which provides much humour for scientists.

Tai Chi could very bring health benefits and i can see the value and use of this, but yes i take your overall point that some of these eastern traditions are perhaps more rooted in the earthly realm than away with the fairies or performing some sort of cosmonaut astral travel experience thru the heavenly planes.

[Brian]

George, another idea: Fritjof Capra was able to write a sensible book, "The Tao of Physics." Somehow I doubt that "The Jesus of Physics" or "The Koran of Physics" would resonate as well with modern science.

[tucson]

George, you're not getting it. The fundamental recognition throughout the ages is this:

'I am Not, but the Universe is my Self'
- SHIH T'OU, A.D. 700-790 and countless 'others'

Objects are only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli.

These stimuli appear to derive from sources external to the reagent apparatus, but there is no evidence of this apart from the reagent apparatus itself.

Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that cognises them.

Since the subject itself is not sensorially cognisable as an object, subject also is only a surmise.

Since the factual existence of neither subject nor object can be demonstrated, existence is no more than a conceptual assumption, which, metaphysically, is inacceptable.

There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings, which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the cognisers of it, that is - sentient beings themselves.

But there can be no factual evidence for the existence of sentient beings, either as subject or as object, who therefore are merely a conceptual assumption on the part of the consciousness in which they are cognised.

It follows that 'consciousness' also can only be a conceptual assumption without demonstrable existence.

What, then, can this assumption of consciousness denote? This question can only be answered in metaphysical terms, according to which consciousness may be regarded as the manifested aspect of the unmanifested, which is the nearest it seems possible to go towards expressing in a concept that which by definition is inconceivable.

Why should this be so? It must be so, because conceptuality cannot have conceptuality for source, but only the non-conceptual, because that which objectively conceives must necessarily spring from the objectively non-existent, the manifested from non-manifestation, for conceptuality cannot conceive or objectify itself - just as an eye cannot see itself as an object.

Therefore consciousness can be described as pure non-conceptuality, which is 'pure' because unstained either by the conceptual or the non-conceptual, which implies that there is a total absence of both positive and negative conceptuality.

Not existing as an object, even conceptual, there can be no 'it', there is no 'thing' to bear a name, no subject is possible where no object is, and total absence of being is inevitably implied.

All we can do about this which we are , which to us must be objectified as 'it' in order that we may speak of it at all, is to regard 'it' as the noumenon of phenomena, but, since neither of these exists objectively, phenomenally regarded it may be understood as the ultimate absence from which all presence comes to appear. Some have come to call this "Void". Now do you understand "Void"?

But consciousness, or 'Mind', does not 'project'- the phenomenal universe: 'it' IS the phenomenal universe which is manifested as its self.

Metaphysics, relying on intuition or direct perception, says no more than this, and points out that no word, be it the Absolute, the Logos, God, or Tao, can be other than a concept which as such has no factual validity whatsoever.

This-Which-Is, then, which cannot be subject or object, which cannot be named or thought, and the realisation of which is the ultimate awakening, can only be indicated in such a phrase as that quoted above:

I am not, but the apparent universe is my self.

[George]

Brian,
indeed or 'science of the soul' by the Sant Mat fellas but lets not set off on a new round of burn the heretic or flogging that poor dead horse. For me proper science is a very different animal altogether.

Tucson,
of course i'm getting it, just playing the fool, just not that sure the point of rehasing medieval dualist philsophies.

The mystics feel they've gotten past this dualism by recognising there's only spirit behind it all which illusorarily manifests itself as matter (or our physical reality), whereas the scientific materialists believe there's only matter behind illusory concepts like spirit or mind.

The difference is the scientists have objectively provable tenets to supprt their beliefs, whereas the consciousness speculators do not.

Philsophical and metaphyscial questions of our existence or not, as well as semantic definitions of subject and object and observability, are pretty interesting. However, before losing ourselves in our navels or transcending the heavenly bodies, perhaps we should recognise what we are presently both experiencing, a realtime communication accross the world made possible by scientific technology.

A danger common to many operating at such rarefied altitudes is the inability to fathom the wood from the trees or the child and the emperors new clothes. Ockhams razor: the simplest explanation is normally the correct one.

[George]

Tucson,

"Objects are only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli...Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that cognises them."

Fundamentally incorrect imo. Whether an object can be observed or not, does not determine whether it exists or not. Most of the universe is beyond our senses, yet it exists and is often observed with enhanced sensory equipment.

Different sentient beings percieve objects in different ways. A limited subjective perception does not mean an object does not exist - only that the subject cannot observe the object.

If only a single subject were to observe an object, this is a subjective experience of the object, which cannot be objectively verifed unless another subject is able to observe the subject. If so, its more likely that the object exists, rather than it being an illusory error in a subject's cognition.

Consciousness is not well understood making it fertile ground for new-age gurus.

One logical scientific theory is that consciousness is an evolutionary development of sentient beings perceptive systems. Whether the rock or inanimate object is aware of anything around it makes litle difference, but sentient life forms have developed brains enabling them to sense, know and evaluate the objects around, and to do so with an accuracy that is likely to determine their very survival. An evolutionary arms race resulting in animals that 'know', and now in humans that 'know that we know'.

[tucson]

George wrote: "Fundamentally incorrect imo. Whether an object can be observed or not, does not determine whether it exists or not. Most of the universe is beyond our senses, yet it exists and is often observed with enhanced sensory equipment."

--And thus becomes an extension of our sensory apparatus!

"Different sentient beings percieve objects in different ways. A limited subjective perception does not mean an object does not exist - only that the subject cannot observe the object."

-- I repeat: Objects are only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli.

These stimuli appear to derive from sources external to the reagent apparatus, but there is no evidence of this apart from the reagent apparatus itself.

Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that cognises them.

Since the subject itself is not sensorially cognisable as an object, subject also is only a surmise.

Since the factual existence of neither subject nor object can be demonstrated, existence is no more than a conceptual assumption, which, metaphysically, is inacceptable.

There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings, which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the cognisers of it, that is - sentient beings themselves.

But there can be no factual evidence for the existence of sentient beings, either as subject or as object, who therefore are merely a conceptual assumption on the part of the consciousness in which they are cognised.

It follows that 'consciousness' also can only be a conceptual assumption without demonstrable existence.

Why?...

The answer is that split-mind, cognising by means of a subject cognising objects, cannot cognise its own 'wholeness' as its object.

There is no need to cognise our 'wholeness', and it is forever impossible to do so, for there is no 'thing' here to cognise and no 'thing' there to be cognised.

Any attempt to cognise what is cognising - and is thereby incognisable - forbids apperception of what-we-are. Such apperception is not a function of split-mind. It can only be an immediate apperception released by some sensorial stimulus whether it be auditory, visual, tactile, or of an unrecognisable origin known as spontaneous awakening.

The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context of consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects, and objectivity to what is subjective.

Mind cannot be reached by mind as Huang Po, a ninth century Ch'an Buddhist teacher, stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware.

Knowing this, understanding this, is not awareness of Awareness. Awareness is no kind of knowledge. All knowledge is conceptual, all conceptuality inheres in the space-time continuum. There is a solution of continuity between knowledge and Awareness.

If one were to say that auditory apprehension might reveal it - such might be an indication of what is implied, but quite certainly not in the sense of deliberately listening to music - nor of deliberately looking at any object, touching any 'thing', or seizing any thought.

Why is that so? Because split-mind must be in abeyance, and 'we' must be absent for Awareness to be present.

[George]

"Objects are only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli."

I repeat: whether an object is sensed or not (or whether it is known or not), has no bearing on whether that object exists or not. A blind unfeeling man will not walk through a brick wall despite him sensing it or not.

Also, what do you mean by 'known'? Is anything absolutely known? This is the problem with this sort of reductive reasoning.

There are very few, if any, absolute truths or knowns. If one subject percieves an object, that subject will have percieved a certain representation or model of the object. The accuracy of this model cannot be assessed, since there's no reference point to compare it to. If however, there is another subject who percieved the object, then there is a reference point to objectively compare. If the comparison is similar, one can conclude that the models is accurate to some objectively verifiable degree, which is more accurate than a subjective model alone.

"There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings, which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the cognisers of it, that is - sentient beings themselves."

There is, the human race alone experiences the same objects every day, albeit from their own subjective flawed perception apparatus.

You also appear to incorrectly assume the consciousness of all sentient beings to be the same. They are not. Even in the animal kingdom there are vast difference in perceptive systems and consciousness.

I repeat just because one sentient being cannot sense an object, or senses it in a different manner to another sentient being, does not mean that object does not exist.

This type of thinking becomes so unclear as to render it nonsensical. I mean do you honestly believe matter is some sort of intricate programming construct embedded within an artificial consciousness in an artificial subject shared by some but not others?

[George]

"Mind cannot be reached by mind as Huang Po, a ninth century Ch'an Buddhist teacher, stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware."

I disagree with this too. I think therefore I am, as Rene Descartes, a 17th century father of rational philopshy, stated. The point being that if a subject is wondering whether they exist or not, they must otherwise they would not be thinking it.

Let us take a more concrete earthly example. Consider a first object, say a mountain. Next consider a number of different objects next to the mountain: a rock, a tree, a hawk and a man.

Each of these objects appears to have a different degree of perception. The rock has no nervous system and appears to have no perception of the mountain or the mountain to it.

The tree has no perception of the mountain, but grows at a slant to get out of the shadow of the mountain. The tree's perceptive system is geared towards growing towards the light, yet it has no knowledge or sense of the mountain per se, albeit that the tree is affected by it.

The hawk is flying at groud level, but sees the mountain and flies above or around it. It senses the mountain and acts to avoid it.

The man also sees the mountain, but in turn his consciousness allows him to think that there might be some wind protection avoided by such a mountain and/or a good vantage point.

The mountain, rock, tree, hawk and man are all inidividual objects, each having different degrees of perceptive system. The rock and mountain simply exist and have no sense or knowledge or one another nor do they need it. The tree is a sentient lifeform buts its limited senses only detect the light, it does not sense the mountain yet is affected about it. The hawk and man both can sense the mountain and adapt their behaviour in different manners.

So regardless of whether these objects can be sensed or not, they exist. If they dont exist, how else would the mountain be independently sensed by the hawk and the man? Why would such an artificial reality be created in the first place?

[tucson]

Countless bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream.

"What are you?" I yelled to them as they drifted by.

"I am a bubble, of course" countless bubbles answered, and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed.

But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered, "We are this stream", and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude.

[George]

So apparently many limited individuals incorrectly consider themselves to be seperate entitites, whereas only a lonely 'enlightened' entity perceives itself to be connected to and part of the One.

The age-old monism v dualism perception, with a bias favouring the former.

The parable falls down on many levels.

Like many beautiful religious parables, its simplistic fairy dust that divorces itself from reality to try explain ultimate reality. Bubbles are neither self-aware nor can communicate their self-awareness. I suppose nothing is impossible, but then neither is Santa.

Even if bubbles were self-aware why would some bubbles have a different perception of their state compared to others? Afterall they are all supposedly the same, i.e. the oneness.

The lonely wise bubble is of course not correct either, since he's not the stream, which by the parable's logic, is part of something greater still, i.e. the earth, which in turn is part of the solar system, which in turn is part of the universe and so on, ad infinitum.

But the real problem of most parables often comes with the rhetoric imported therein. Why should some bubbles be imbued with quiet certitude (the lonely wise one), while others (the self-assured mindless dolts) are not? As far as simple bubbles go these buggers appear to be imbued with an enormous degree of human subtlety, agenda and religious rhetoric.

Of course what the parable cannot tell us is what the bubbles actually are. These parables never can. Apparently words cannot describe such a profound ultimte reality, but are able to convey what narow-minded bubbles think as compared to enlightened ones. Language truly is incredible and just shows how ingenously creative the human mind is.

Then of course there is science, which is far more precise at explaining the nature of objects such as bubbles in a stream without recourse to rhetoric or subjective viewpoint.

I'm not quite sure of the physics of bubbles in a stream, but would suggest that bubbles are different gasses dissolved in water which are released when energy is added by a churning stream. The dissolved gases might be carbon dioxide, oxygen and even water vapour itself. So presumably the lone bubble considers himself to be water vapour, but how does he know he's not carbon dioxide?

A more interesting point is "transmutation" or the scientific equivalent of esoteric alchemy. This should get the 'god of the gaps' in many new-age chaps going bigtime. Its a big concept like quantum physics but far easier to understand.

Apparently, we're all stardust, not fairy dust.

[tucson]

It is surely axiomatic that a phenomenon (an appearance, an object) cannot perform any action whatever on its own initiative, as an independent entity. In China this was illustrated by Chuang Tzu in his story of the sow who died while suckling her piglets: the little pigs just left her because their mother was no longer there. In Europe, even at that early date, the same understanding is expressed by the word animus which 'animates' the phenomenal aspect of sentient beings, and this forms the basis of most religious beliefs. But while in the West the 'animus' was regarded as personal to each phenomenal object, being the sentience of it, in the East the 'animus' was called 'heart' or 'mind' or 'consciousness', and in Buddhism and Vedanta was regarded as impersonal and universal, 'Buddha-mind', 'Prajna', 'Atman', etc.

When this impersonal 'mind' comes into manifestation by objectifying itself as subject and object, it becomes identified with each sentient object, and the concept of 'I' thus arises in human beings, by which the phenomenal world as we know it and live it, appears to be what we call 'real'. That, incidentally, is the only 'reality' (thing-ness) we can ever know, and to use the term 'real' (a thing) for what is not such, for the purely subjective, is an abuse of language.

In this process of personalising 'mind' and thinking of it as 'I', we thereby make it, which is subject, into an object, but 'I' in fact can never be such, for there is nothing objective in 'I', which is essentially a direct expression of subjectivity. This objectivising of pure subjectivity, calling it 'me' or calling it 'mind', is precisely what constitutes 'bondage'. It is this concept, called the I-concept or ego or self, which is the supposed bondage from which we all suffer and from which we seek 'liberation'.

It should be evident, as the Buddha and hundreds of other awakened sages have sought to enable us to understand, that what we are is this 'animating' mind as such, which is noumenon, and not the phenomenal object to which it gives sentience. This does not mean, however, that the phenomenal object has no kind of existence whatever, but that its existence is merely apparent, which is the meaning of the term 'phenomenon'; that is to say, that it is only an appearance in consciousness, an objectivisation, without any nature of its own, being entirely dependent on the mind that objectivises it, which mind is only nature, very much as is the case of any dreamed creature, as the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra, and many others after him have so patiently explained to us.

This impersonal, universal mind or consciousness, is our true nature, our only nature, all, absolutely all, that we are, and is completely devoid of I-ness.

This is easy enough to understand, and it would be simple indeed if it were the ultimate truth, but it is not, for the obvious reason that no such thing as an objective 'mind' could exist, any more than an 'I' or any other object, as a thing-in-itself. What it is, however, is totally devoid of any objective quality, and so cannot be visualised, conceptualised, or in any way referred to, for any such process would automatically render it an object of subject - which by definition it can never be. This is because the mind in question is the unmanifested source of manifestation, the process of which is its division into subject and object; and antecedent to such division there can be no subject to perceive an object, and no object to be perceived by a subject. Indeed, and as revealed by such sages as Padma Sambhava, that which is seeking to conceive and to name this unmanifested source of manifestation is precisely this 'whole mind' which is the 'animating' or 'prajnaic' functioning which itself is the seeking, so that the sought is the seeker of it! That is the big joke. The open secret.

Profoundly to understand this, to 'get' it, is awakening or recogniton. To see this is not a process of reasoning or a doing by a someone, but an intuition in whole-mind when the subject-object aspect of split mind ceases to function as such. So, this is not something 'arrived at' via reasoning. It is a 180 degree flip-flop of perception when mind fasts. Hence, the traditions of meditation seeking to still the mind so that apperception may occur. And it might, but it just as easily might occur while out on a walk or doing the dishes. It is spontaneous, not a result of a process. It is like suddenly 'getting' a riddle or a joke. It just dawns.

Reasoned visualisation, therefore, like all doctrine, is merely conceptual, devoid of factuality, a structure of theoretical imagination, a symbolic diagram devised in order to enable us to understand something immediate that can never become knowledge. Yet that ultimate 'something', which is no 'thing', is nevertheless what the universe is, and is all that we are.

The psychological 'I-concept' has no nature of its own, is no 'thing', and could not possibly create genuine 'bondage'. There cannot be any such thing as bondage at all, but only the idea of such. There is no liberation, for there is no thing from which to be freed. In that sense 'enlightenment is a myth. If the whole conceptual structure is seen as what it is, it must necessarily collapse, and the bondage-enlightenment nonsense with it. That is called awakening, awakening to the natural state which is that of every sentient being. Sri Ramana Maharshi taught just that when he said that 'enlightenment' is only being rid of the notion that one is not 'enlightened', and Maharshi might have been quoting the T'ang dynasty Chinese sage Hui Hai, known as the Great Pearl, when he stated that Liberation is liberation from the notion of 'liberation'. He might also have been quoting Huang Po (ninth century), of whom he is unlikely ever to have heard, when they both used the same words, full of humour, to someone asking about 'his' mind: each sage asked in reply,'How many minds have you?'

How many minds had they, those two young men? Why, none at all. Not only not two, but not one. Nor were they themselves a 'mind', for there could not be such a thing as a 'mind' for them to be. Neither 'they' nor 'mind' ever had, or ever could have, any objective being whatever, for never has any kind of objective being been, nor will such ever be. All that, and every 'that' which ever was thought up - and 'that' is the most purely objective of pronouns - is the essence of the gigantic phantasmagoria of objectivity, which we spend our lives building up, and in which we search desperately for some 'truth' which could not possibly be there. The whole vast construction is a fantasy, a dream, as the Buddha (or whoever wrote it in his name) told us in the Diamond Sutra, and the truth which a dream represents, or misrepresents, of which it is a reflection or a deflection, is the dreaming source of it which is all that it is. That source can never have a name, because a name denotes a phenomenon - and there is no phenomenal dreamer, but a functioning that is called dreaming. Ramana Maharshi called it 'I-I': if it must be called anything, no nominal form could ever come nearer, or be less misleading as an indication, than his term.

All objectivisation is conceptual, all conceptuality is inference, and all inference is as empty of truth as a vacuum is empty of air. Moreover there is no truth, never has been and never could be; there is no thusness, suchness, is-ness, nor anything positive or negative whatever. There is just absolute absence of the cognisable, which is absolute presence of the unthinkable and the unknowable - which neither is nor is not. Inferentially this 'void' is said to be an immense and radiant splendour untrammelled by notions of time and space, and utterly beyond the dim, reflected sentience of temporal and finite imagination.

[George]

I don't believe anything should be taken as being obvious (axiomatic).

Human beings act on their initiative all the time. They do form part of a dynamic earth system and as such are heavily influenced by other objects, but through the human intellect, man can decide how to act.

The old chestnut, if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No, but the perception of sound (or lack thereof) is independent of the actual phenomenon of the felled tree taking place, which does exist.

I don't believe in the ancient Buddha's teachings or any mysic tradition, which seeks to strip away all of our very own individuality to become one and the same. From a psycholigical viewpoint alone, is it not the one's we love the most, precisely for, rather than inspite of, their idiosynchratic egos and eccentricies?
What makes us choose one mate over another or one belief system over another if all fundamentally the same and any differences are illusory?

If indeed there were a higher spirit or God, why would he create a universe in which diversity is so apparently heavily manifest? Why go to all that trouble in the first place, if we're all one and nothing?

In fact, our scientific observations tend to precisely the opposite conclusion, which is that life tends towards and indeed requires diversity for life to continue.

But lets forget all that meaty stuff, which is actually understandabe and move into these spiritual planes of enlightenment being bandied about.

There is a disconnect between spirit and science. They are mutually exlusive belief systems. Whereas science encourages an understanding of our physical world via objective proof that is scrutinizable by all; spirit is ineffable.

Spirit we are told is formless, uknowable, transcendent, omniprescent - but what is it actually, well no-one really knows. Language apparently does not do it justice and herein lies my main problem with religion and mystics, which is that they profess to have knowledge of this spirit, which by their own teachings is ineffable.

How is this possible? Its not, its hypocritical and confuzed thought.

How can an earthly object such as a human being endowed with its own limited perceptive wordly senses experience a spiritual phenomenon, which by its definition lies in a different plane or realm or dimesion of existence? It is impossible since we are physical beings in a physical world.

So really there is nothing to be said on spirit. Nothing at all. Since it is ineffable.

An individual may believe as a matter of faith in spirit, but how can these mystics pretend to have knowledge or experience of it (intuitive, meditative or otherwise). The mystics have it all back to front.

Then of course there are the great buzzwords like 'nothingness' and 'voidness', which are somehow meant to import simplistic but ultimate profundity to mystic belief. They do nothing of the sort, all they do is bring nothingness.

With all of this nothingness and formlessness, why is the world is so full of illusory matter and forms? For what purpose? How was matter created from nothingness? Why?

What makes anyone believe in concepts like nothingess or formlessness or oneness when they mean nothing at all and are in fact taught to be ineffable? But here's the kicker, some appear to believe they are lucky enough to have glimpsed or know the uknowable. The ineffable apparently is effable, despite the religious tenets. Others who have had no mystical experience and who admit as much, still believe in such spirit, based on what?

Nothing, apparently the answer is nothing. Nothing is known by nothing.

I mean really come off it. Nothing indeed.

[tAo]

George wrote:

"whether an object is sensed or not (or whether it is known or not), has no bearing on whether that object exists or not. A blind unfeeling man will not walk through a brick wall despite him sensing it or not."

-- Only if you say an object exists. And then it only exists in YOUR mind. You cannot say that it exists outside of your own mind.

"There are very few, if any, absolute truths or knowns. If one subject percieves an object, that subject will have percieved a certain representation or model of the object."

-- But where is the "subject"? Where is the "object"? Where is the knower? Who is the knower?

"If however, there is another subject who percieved the object, then there is a reference point to objectively compare."

-- What "subject"? Where is this "subject"? How do you know there is a "subject"?

"There is, the human race alone experiences the same objects every day, albeit from their own subjective flawed perception apparatus."

-- How do you know "the human race alone experiences the same objects every day"??? How do you actually know there are any "same objects every day"???

"You also appear to incorrectly assume the consciousness of all sentient beings to be the same. They are not."

-- But how do you know that "they are not"? How do you know that "consciousness" is different and separate?

"Even in the animal kingdom there are vast difference in perceptive systems and consciousness."

-- There are indeed different "perceptive systems" (sense organs), but apparent sense perception itself only occurs as a phenomena in and of consciousness.

"just because one sentient being cannot sense an object, or senses it in a different manner to another sentient being, does not mean that object does not exist."

-- It only exists in the mind of the perceivers.

"This type of thinking becomes so unclear as to render it nonsensical."

-- Thinking can never apprehend the nature of awareness, nor does it need to.

"do you honestly believe matter is some sort of intricate programming construct embedded within an artificial consciousness in an artificial subject shared by some but not others?"

-- What "artificial consciousness" are you referring to? Your statement makes no sense (reasoning) whatsoever.

[Tucson stated: "Mind cannot be reached by mind as Huang Po [...] stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware."]

"I disagree with this too. I think therefore I am, as Rene Descartes [...] stated."

-- Which also means that, if you do not think, then you do not exist? No, existence/nonexistence does not depend upon thinking. Thoughts arise and then subside... thoughts, and/or lack of thoughts, does not determine existence.

-- The real question is: What IS existence?

"The point being that if a subject is wondering whether they exist or not, they must otherwise they would not be thinking it."

-- The appearance of thoughts does not prove the existence of a separate and discrete individual. The arising of thought only indicates the existence of consciousness.

"The mountain, rock, tree, hawk and man are all inidividual objects, each having different degrees of perceptive system."

-- How do you know that?

"So regardless of whether these objects can be sensed or not, they exist."

-- No, they only "exist" as ideas, thoughts in YOUR mind. You cannot say that they exist outside of YOUR mind.

"If they dont exist, how else would the mountain be independently sensed by the hawk and the man?"

-- Again, it is only YOU who are ASSUMING that they are "independently sensed"... "sensed" by other supposed objects that only exist in YOUR mind.

"Why would such an artificial reality be created in the first place?"

-- No such "created" "artificial reality" has been implied.

"So apparently many limited individuals incorrectly consider themselves to be seperate entitites"

-- What "many limited individuals"? Where are these individuals? How do you know they exist? And what "separate entities"? How do you know there are any such "separate entities"?

"whereas only a lonely 'enlightened' entity perceives itself to be connected to and part of the One."

-- Where is this "lonely enlightened entity"? And, WHO "perceives itself to be connected to and part of the One"?

"The age-old monism v dualism perception, with a bias favouring the former."

-- Something that George clearly does not understand: Monism is NOT the same as non-dualism. Moreover, please prove that dualism is the true fundamental nature of totality.

"I suppose nothing is impossible, but then neither is Santa."

-- Sarcasm and ridicule proves nothing.

"Even if bubbles were self-aware why would some bubbles have a different perception of their state compared to others?"

-- What bubbles?

"The lonely wise bubble is of course not [...] since he's not the stream"

-- How do you know that?

"Apparently, we're all stardust"

-- How do you know that?

"I don't believe anything should be taken as being obvious"

-- Then why do you presume the existence of so many objects, and subjects?

"I don't believe in the ancient Buddha's teachings"

-- That explains some of the problem.

"I don't believe in [...] any mysic tradition, which seeks to strip away all of our very own individuality to become one and the same."

-- No, that is another false generalisation, as not "any" (all) traditions "seeks to strip away all of our very own individuality". Only some do, not all.

"What makes us choose one mate over another or one belief system over another"

-- Because belief systems are different.

"if all fundamentally the same and any differences are illusory?"

-- Wrong. No one has said that all belief systems are "fundamentally the same", or that belief systems are not different.

"If indeed there were a higher spirit or God, why would he create a universe in which diversity is so apparently heavily manifest?"

-- You are assuming that there is a God or a "higher spirit". But why is there diversity? -- Well for the same reason that totality is non-dual and infinite.

"Why go to all that trouble in the first place, if we're all one and nothing?"

-- Who said that it was/is any "trouble"? You are ASSUMING that there was/is a "create a universe", in the first place.

"life tends towards and indeed requires diversity for life to continue"

-- It may appear that way, but so what?

"But lets forget all that meaty stuff [...] and move into these spiritual planes of enlightenment being bandied about."

-- No one is bandying any such "spiritual planes of enlightenment" here... except for you.

"There is a disconnect between spirit and science."

-- Well that all depends upon YOUR notion, your idea of "spirit". I see no such "disconnect". It is simply another thought.

"spirit is ineffable"

-- That is merely YOUR own definition, your own concept.

"Spirit we are told is formless, uknowable, transcendent, omniprescent"

-- Who cares what "we are told"? As if such concepts have any importance.

"but what is it actually, well no-one really knows."

-- There is nothing to know.

"How can an earthly object such as a human being"

-- But is a "human being" an "object"? Where is this object found?

"which by its definition lies in a different plane or realm or dimesion of existence?"

-- Again, "a different plane or realm or dimesion of existence" is simply more concepts.

"we are physical beings in a physical world."

-- It may appear to be so, but that also is an assumption.

"So really there is nothing to be said on spirit. Nothing at all. Since it is ineffable."

-- "Spirit" is simply a concept, an idea... nothing more.

"how can these mystics pretend to have knowledge or experience of it (intuitive, meditative or otherwise). The mystics have it all back to front."

-- There is no such "knowledge" or "experience" of it. And also, there is no 'it'. But who exactly are these "mystics" who "pretend"? You must be more specific as to who you are referring to, because one so-called "mystic"is not the same as another. I myself don't believe in any so-called "mystics". Mystics is a false notion, a myth imo.

"then of course there are the great buzzwords like 'nothingness' and 'voidness'"

-- These are just words and concepts as well.

"With all of this nothingness and formlessness, why is the world is so full of illusory matter and forms?"

-- Because Form IS Emptiness, and Emptiness IS Form.

"How was matter created from nothingness? Why?"

-- I don't know that matter WAS "created", or that there is any such "nothingness". The word "nothingness" is just an abstract concept. It is therefore irrelevant. On the other hand, emptiness denotes formlessness. But form arises out of formless (emptiness), and formless (emptiness) is not other or differnet from form. [also: the term "nothingness" has no meaning or relevance here.]

"What makes anyone believe in concepts like nothingess or formlessness or oneness when they mean nothing at all"

-- Well I myself don't "believe" in such concepts, and indeed, they are meaningless.

"some appear to believe they are lucky enough to have glimpsed or know the uknowable."

-- Do they? And who are they that believe this?

[tucson]

Is tAo tucson or is tucson tAo !!!!!

tAo's version is sufficient, but here's tucson's anyway.

George wrote: "I don't believe anything should be taken as being obvious (axiomatic)."

--How about your nose? ;)

"Human beings act on their initiative all the time. They do form part of a dynamic earth system and as such are heavily influenced by other objects, but through the human intellect, man can decide how to act."

--This mechanism of living seems to be based on the notion that what we do is an act of free will on our part..that we can actively choose our reactions to phenomena.

It seems to me that we react rather than act and our living is conditioned by instinct, habit and various influences like progaganda, traditon, culture, etc. Our way of life is primarily a series of reflexes which leaves little room for deliberate, planned action; that is, purposeful action which superficially considered might APPEAR to be the result of volition or free will.

However, "free will" is only an inference because no matter how hard we search, we can find no entity to exercise it. All we can find is an impulse which spontaneously arrises and appears to be an expression of the notion of 'I'. It seems unreasonable that such an impulse could be capable of affecting the inexhorable chain of causation which produces apparent events aka manifestation. Rather, the impulse is PART of the chain of causation.

So, rather than being autonomous entities who independently make their living decisons; this is an illusion, and the reality is that we are being lived by Reality as a whole and what we imagine ourselves to be is just a phantom.

We are no "thing" at all and at the same time all things at once. Right now.

"I don't believe in the ancient Buddha's teachings or any mysic tradition, which seeks to strip away all of our very own individuality to become one and the same."

--The misconception is that the 'falling away of the individual sense of 'I' is annihilation. Everything still remains.

"From a psycholigical viewpoint alone, is it not the one's we love the most, precisely for, rather than inspite of, their idiosynchratic egos and eccentricies?"

--Those apparent differences are still present. No love is lost.

"What makes us choose one mate over another or one belief system over another if all fundamentally the same and any differences are illusory?"

--It is like watching a play. Things just happen of their own accord.

"If indeed there were a higher spirit or God, why would he create a universe in which diversity is so apparently heavily manifest? Why go to all that trouble in the first place, if we're all one and nothing?"

--In oneness what is high or low? When is a circle upside down? The key word is 'apparent'. Why say it is "trouble". Perhaps it is play.

"In fact, our scientific observations tend to precisely the opposite conclusion, which is that life tends towards and indeed requires diversity for life to continue."

--and indeed there is apparent diversity.

"But lets forget all that meaty stuff, which is actually understandabe and move into these spiritual planes of enlightenment being bandied about."

--Bandied about, yes, but not here.

"There is a disconnect between spirit and science. They are mutually exlusive belief systems. Whereas science encourages an understanding of our physical world via objective proof that is scrutinizable by all; spirit is ineffable."

--They can be seen as one and the same.

"Spirit we are told is formless, uknowable, transcendent, omniprescent - but what is it actually, well no-one really knows."

--Could it be this right here and now?

Language apparently does not do it justice and herein lies my main problem with religion and mystics, which is that they profess to have knowledge of this spirit, which by their own teachings is ineffable.

--There are all kinds of religions and mystics. Whatever is ineffable is that way until it is 'effable'. Perhaps it is ineffable to deductive reasoning.

"How is this possible? Its not, its hypocritical and confuzed thought."

--aka, duality. In duality or split-mind, discussion of reality is a paradox or seemingly hypocritical.

"How can an earthly object such as a human being endowed with its own limited perceptive wordly senses experience a spiritual phenomenon, which by its definition lies in a different plane or realm or dimesion of existence? It is impossible since we are physical beings in a physical world."

--There are many 'layers' in mind, but this is not the issue here.

"So really there is nothing to be said on spirit. Nothing at all. Since it is ineffable."

--Yes, nothing that encompasses it. All we can do is point. Fingers pointing at the moon.

"An individual may believe as a matter of faith in spirit, but how can these mystics pretend to have knowledge or experience of it (intuitive, meditative or otherwise). The mystics have it all back to front."

--We will never know if they are pretending or not. We must see it for ourselves, or not.

"Then of course there are the great buzzwords like 'nothingness' and 'voidness', which are somehow meant to import simplistic but ultimate profundity to mystic belief. They do nothing of the sort, all they do is bring nothingness."

--Yes, they are just buzzwords, but what they indicate is not nothingness, it is no-thing-ness. No objective "thing" but not nothing.

"With all of this nothingness and formlessness, why is the world is so full of illusory matter and forms? For what purpose? How was matter created from nothingness? Why?"

--Yes, why is there anything at all? You must see for yourself. Hint: From the beginning, not a "thing" is. No objective thing, that is.

"What makes anyone believe in concepts like nothingess or formlessness or oneness when they mean nothing at all and are in fact taught to be ineffable?"

--It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of recognition. Until then they are indeed concepts until imbued with the light of recognition.

"But here's the kicker, some appear to believe they are lucky enough to have glimpsed or know the uknowable."

--It is not a "thing" that is known. "It" is a misdirection, but some term must be used in language in order to have a discussion. "It" is a perceiving, an apperception with no location.

"The ineffable apparently is effable, despite the religious tenets. Others who have had no mystical experience and who admit as much, still believe in such spirit, based on what?"

--Yes, it is just an idea and pursuit of it is an act of faith. When the pursuit ceases, and one acquiesces in 'this as it is now', then how things are may be seen, but not as any sort of "thing". It can't be held or captured, yet it is the functioning behind everything.

"Nothing, apparently the answer is nothing. Nothing is known by nothing."

--No, get over the answer as being any sort of "thing". It is not an object to be pinned down. It is absolute fluidity. It is a doing being done by no 'thing' that can be known. It is pure non-objectivity or subject with no object. Impossible? Try thinking of a dough-nut hole.

"I mean really come off it. Nothing indeed."

-- No 'thing' indeed.

[George]

Tucson,

My nose, LOL, except by your reasoning a nose does not exist, since there's no-thing, its illusory, a phantom of imagination. After reading about all this nothingness - i really am not sure what there is to say about spirituality, apart from No-thing.

On free will, correct, this is what i believe. Agree that humans are in large part a product of their conditioning and often do make reactive decisions, but not always. Our consciousness enables us to think up various options or solutions and to select one of those. Our selection can be based on logical critical grounds, on intuition or even or the flip of a coin. Its ultimately our own personal choice. I don't believe in a pre-ordained universe, we ultimately all have free will.

"The key word is 'apparent'. Why say it is "trouble". Perhaps it is play."
--- So why create apparent illusions of matter, why not somply no-thing and no-illsuions? A play, it sounds as if this oneness (or no=thing-ness) has created illusory human and material forms for amusment. Why would oneness need entertainment with artificial objects whose fate is preordained?

"Yes, nothing that encompasses it. All we can do is point. Fingers pointing at the moon."
---No, we can't point at No-thing. We can point at the moon cause we can sense it. Besides no-thing is supposedly all around us so it seems pointless to point in a partcular direction?

"but what they indicate is not nothingness, it is no-thing-ness. No objective "thing" but not nothing"
---lol, i would greatly love an explanation as to the difference between 'no-thing-ness' and 'nothingness'. This is crazy.

"It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of recognition."
--- Every cult movement since time immemorial shared the same 'recognition' as opposed to 'belief'. They knew it to be the Truth. Your subjective recognition is not a provable objective recognisiton, it is therefore your own belief. There's a big difference between a belief as compared to knowledge or recognition - this is what is delusion and illusory, not our material universe.

So what is this No-thing? Is it a force or is it ineffable or is it everything (note not every-thing)?

We have a world around us full of life and wonder, but a few awakened/enlighted bubbles have recognised there is actually no-thing. Its not a belief, which implies they might be wrong, rather its a recognition.

Its madness, lol.

[mysti]

George, your comments are some of the funniest I have read in a long time.

Thanks for the laughter.

[George]

Mysti,

LOL, trust me i have not laughed so hard in ages.

I just hope to God (or No-thing) that some of these oldboys don't set themselves up as spiritual gurus in their own right.

With all this illusion and no-thing-ness, surely our artificial existence is pointless and we need to stop eating and get back to one-ness at soon as possible.
They must laugh in the illusory face of death, not only do they believe there is no-such-thing (since there is no I), rather they recognise we're all part of the oneness.

Brian should be charging good money for this entertainment.

[tucson]

You are missing it. I'll try another, but I'm about done...

Do you exist?

I feel that I am, but I cannot find myself, and the same goes for you and every living being.

Why is that?

For the same reason that prevents us from seeing our own face.

But you can see my face and I can see yours.

Nonsense! We see nothing of the kind. What we see when we look at one another and at anything we can see at all, including our own feet, is just our object, and our object is part of ourself as its subject. Nobody else can see us because we have no objective existence whatsoever, and we can't see anybody else because they have none. All of us can only see our own objectivisations, whatever they may be.

We do not exist as objects?

Of course not! No thing exists as an object. That is why there is no such thing as an entity. How could there be? Space and time are purely mental, concepts in mind. Where else could an entity extend itself?

Then no object is independent?

None is dependent either. 'Others' are yourself as whatever you 'both' are, and their apparent otherness as your objects is entirely a part of yuour phenomenal mind. Phenomenal existence or being, noumenally is not-being. Absolutely, it may be called as-it-isness.

I begin to understand!

Of course you do! 'Is that all it is?', the monk said laughing to his teacher when he suddenly understood, or found himself awake, as they put it.

or try this one...

No thing is on its own, not even us?

No thing. Therefore there is no us, for 'we' are only one another's objects as 'us'.

Then in what way are we?

Just total objective absence, which is the presence of as-it-is-right-now.

All of us are that?

All of us are not 'that', hot 'this', not any concept at all. Nothing mysterious about it. Nothing holy. Just phenomenal notness, and the absence of the concept of that notness.

Then we have no positive being whatsoever?

Positivity and negativity are phenomenal concepts. We are not conceivable at all.

Then who lives?

You cannot find the doer of any deed, the thinker of any thought, the perceiver of any perception. The unfindable is all that we are, and the unfindable is the found.

Let's take an example: You enter a restaurant, you SEE a table, you HEAR people talking, you SMELL the food, you FEEL the fork in your hand, and you KNOW you are having lunch.

All this you sensorially perceive, and I have just pointed out to you that all this only took place in your mind, whose senses appeared to perceive it, and therefore that none of it actually happened as a series of external events experienced by you.

Finally, I have stated that you yourself as an independent entity whose sense appeared to experience these events can't be found anywhere.

How can this be?

Take the old riddle..Is it the flag or the wind that is flapping? It is mind only that is responsible.

The sought is the seeker. The observed is the observer. That which is heard is the hearer. The scent is who inhales it. The taste is the taster. That which is touched is the feeler of it. The thought is the thinker of the thought.

In brief, what is sensorially perceived is the perceiver whose senses perceive, and no perceiver of any sense perception is to be found.

[Brian]

George, I receive as much as I give -- entertainment wise. I've been enjoying the interchanges between you and tucson/tAo. Personally, as I said in yesterday's Ego Tunnel post, I like the notion that reality has both objective and subjective aspects.

Yes, everything that is experienced is a conscious observer's experience. However, as you've observed, the universe rolled along just fine for over fourteen billion years without human consciousness. We're seeing astronomical images from that early time that show reality was real'ing back then, as now.

These are philosophical questions you've been discussing. Yet also experiential. I get a sense that it is a figure/ground sort of thing. One reality, two ways of looking upon it, both valid. The ground of experience is subjective consciousness. Yet what is known as "figures" has undeniable objectivity.

People recognize the same objects. That's what allows me to drive around with considerable confidence that other people see red lights and green lights as I do. But I have no direct experience of what they are experiencing. So I resonate with parts of both the "Georgian" and "tusconian" arguments.

[George]

Tucson,
i've taken in what you've said believe it or not and will try and put down a summary of what i understand you are trying to say to me a little later - that way u can really see if i get it or not.

there are alot of grey areas tho, but you have remained patient throughout, a credit to you. One thing tho i'm not quite sure who does not get it, but let me post what i understand you believe in later, and then you can look to deconstruct that.

Brian,
I read your essy on spirit and science off the wikipedia, fairly interesting stuff, but you do have a soft spot for the mystic traditions still, no doubt. Maybe this is a good thing such is the perceived overwhelming affect of science, but there are a couple of points, i did not really buy there, but its a pretty sophisticated clear argument nevertheless.

I'd be interested why exactly you believe in these mystic traditions, i.e. on what basis, since as i understand you've by your own admission had n mystic experience, no connection or unity with the oneness?

perhaps i misunderstood? cheers...

[tucson]

The main hinderance is the 'I am the body' idea?

Any identification with any object is an absolute hinderance, because 'I' am totally devoid of objectivity or any trace element of it.

One can either seek to understand what one is, or what one is not?

I can only know what I am not. There is no 'I'. If there were I would be an object. I am not at all in any conceivable way, manner, state, form or dimension. For the same reason there is no such thing as Reality, Truth, Absolute, Self, Consciousness, Mind, or any other concept whatsoever.

But there is I-am-not?

There is no I am not either. There is no thing, positive or negative, not even presence or absence.

What is?

Absence of the concepts of absence of presence and of presence of absence.

Then what are objects?

Objects are I. The whole sensorially perceived and imaginable universe is I.

So, you are the universe?

Not at all. The universe is I.

Pantheism maintains that God is the universe.

God is not the universe. The universe is God.

What's the difference?

The difference between subject and object. The universe is not the subject of God.

Then the universe is both God and you?

No, it may be both God and I.

So you are God?

No. God is an object, your concept, and so are 'you'. As for me, this-which-I-am is not any thing at all.

Then nor is God?

Every concept is a thing, but as such is not. Neither God nor I is an object.

You say the universe is you. How do you know that?

I said the universe is I. You can say it. Every crawling beetle can say it. What else is there that it could be? Where else is there for it to be? Movement, space and time are only concepts. There can only be 'I' and I am not, no matter who says it.

Then why are the beetle, you and I different?

We are not different. We only appear to be different. Noumenally, we are one. But as phenomena, as one another's objects, we sensorially perceive and mentally interpret one another as beetle, you and I. But as what we are, we are not.

So we are not either phenomenally or noumenally?

Phenomenally we are not as entities. Noumenally we are not as concepts which are also objects. What we are is not entity or concept, objectivity of any kind. Therefore we cannot say or think we are anything, for that is what we are not.

Then we can't know ourselves at all?

We can't knnow ourselves at all because we are not anything to be known. We can only BE ourselves which is being what we are.

How is that to be done?

It is not to be done. It is. Everthing is as it is.

Then regarding ourselves as something is the hinderance to understanding?

Yes.

And the remedy?

Cease regarding the universe as an object (since it is I), objects as entities (since there are none), 'yourself' and others as such (for neither ever was)! Look in the right direction. Look where there is no direction at all, where no longer is there any "thing" to be measured from any 'where'.

So that is liberation?

Liberation for whom? From what? There has never been either.

And then you see that...?

It just is as it is. That's all you can say.

Which means that there is no entity or object at all as such, not even ourselves, not even 'I'?

Not even 'not-I'. How could there be? Think man, think! Does not thought unite with intuition in this ultimate insight?

Ha-ha-ha!

That is the answer which dualistic language can't give, which can only be apperceived noumenally, that is by intuitive apprehension.

[Brian]

George, I assume you read my "Science, Spirit, and the Wisdom of Unknowing" piece. If so, thanks -- now and then I flog it in various blog posts, but hardly anyone seems to take a look at it.

My ideas keep on changing. I don't recall everything I said in that essay, but I'm sure I'd disagree some with myself now. I know that I don't agree with all that I wrote in my three books.

Thankfully. Because if I did, that would show that my mind is stuck and I'm not growing.

I guess "appreciation of mystery" is my main spiritual/philosophical/poetic position now. Scientists have this as well as mystics, but mysticism zeroes in more on the ineffability of ultimate reality and ultimate origins.

Science, understandably, is more focused on knowing what can be known, rather than pondering the awe of unknowability. So this is why I continue to be attracted to mysticism -- mystery.

[George]

Tucson,

Your last post was an exercise in futility for me, which seems best summed up as:
When I say I, I mean me, when you say I, you mean you. When it say I, it means no-thing.

Trying to come back down from the clouds, monism appears to be that the universe is one thing (in your case no-thing).

But there appear to be different versions of monism, where this one in different traditions is: a supernatural god, pervasive force or energy or lifestream, no-thing or consciousness (primordial state).

Your monism appears to lie closest to the latter two, which is that all that exists is primordial consciousness, from which all forms part and is all that ever was and ever shall be.

All objects, forms and things do not actually exist and are artificial constructs of this no-thing-ness. An artificial human body having 5 artificial senses with an artifical brain through which is artificially created some sort of artificial world, which our senses experience as real matter and form, but which is artificial and imaginary.

Apparently, arguments of subjectivity and objectivity and identify I and self are meaningless, since all is one and the one is all, which is no-thing.

whispy enough? No doubt that's going to be 'not getting it' too. If we get any more vague we might just dissapear right up our own fundaments.

Brian,
Yes. that is the piece i read.

Seems your ideas have changed slightly over time. I do wonder if you believe in the power of "Nothing" as much as you once did without have mystical expereience or recognition of such a primordial state of awareness or consciousness or nothingness.

[Roger]

"Science, understandably, is more focused on knowing what can be known, rather than pondering the awe of unknowability. So this is why I continue to be attracted to mysticism -- mystery."

---The "on knowing what can be known" sounds interesting. As a scientist, I can take an unknown and decide that it shall now be a known. As a group of scientists, we can come together and create a standard, and make it official. Hopfully, we are using the scientific method to accomplish such.

[tucson]

George,

I wrote a response to your last post which I accidentally erased. ;(

Fortunately it wasn't long. Maybe similar words will come up later.

Anyway, I appreciate your providing the stimulus for these writings which are no doubt more enjoyable (meaningful) for me than anyone else.

[George]

Tucson,
Please do respond, i'm not the sharpest and pig-headed, but will honestly try and open my mind, at present you are operating on a different wavelength to me, so i need to try and tune in if that is possible with my limited consciousness.

i look forward to the challenge and please keep throwing your wisdom and parables out, something is bound to stick however thick i am.

[tucson]

George wrote:

"Trying to come back down from the clouds, monism appears to be that the universe is one thing (in your case no-thing)."

--Please do not confuse no-thing with nothing. It is simply that if there is no subject, then there is no object or thing. Whatever is, still remains. If there is the absence of 'I' then what remains is everything without objective relation to it. There is a saying in some traditions, "I am that", but 'that' still implies a subject-object relation. I prefer 'this' just 'this'.

"But there appear to be different versions of monism, where this one in different traditions is: a supernatural god, pervasive force or energy or lifestream, no-thing or consciousness (primordial state)."

--Of course these are all just concepts or ideas of something that cannot be expressed or represented adequately.

"Your monism appears to lie closest to the latter two, which is that all that exists is primordial consciousness, from which all forms part and is all that ever was and ever shall be."

--Well yes as far as that goes, but not even that if it becomes your object. Then you are splitting yourself into two. Hence, duality.

"All objects, forms and things do not actually exist and are artificial constructs of this no-thing-ness."

--Appearance is not artificial, but it can be 'this' illusorily perceived as an object of an 'I' which is the only 'thing' that is 'artificial'.

"An artificial human body having 5 artificial senses with an artifical brain through which is artificially created some sort of artificial world, which our senses experience as real matter and form, but which is artificial and imaginary."

--So again, nothing is artificial or imaginary but the imagined sense of 'I'.

"Apparently, arguments of subjectivity and objectivity and identify I and self are meaningless, since all is one and the one is all, which is no-thing."

--Again, not nothing. Rather no-thing. Imagine the slate wiped clean of 'I'. What remains? Just this. That's it. Imagine a functioning without a source. The functioning is the source. What we are is the functioning but 'we'(I) can never be found.

"whispy enough? No doubt that's going to be 'not getting it' too. If we get any more vague we might just dissapear right up our own fundaments."

--That might be a good thing if we are to comprehend or as Heinlein said, "Grok fullness". When this is profoundly, intuitively seen there will be no one who gets it. As soon as you say, "Now I understand, it's like this.." then 'it' will slip form view. 'It' can't be captured or owned by anyone.

I am not as satisfied with this comment as with the one that was lost, but this will have to do. Hope it helps.

[tAo]

George says:

[To tucson]: "by your reasoning a nose does not exist, since there's no-thing, its illusory, a phantom of imagination."

-- I don't think that is what Tucson is saying at all. I think the crux of the problem here (which runs throughout this debate), is that George seems locked into the duality of something called "no-thing" versus things. But "no-thing" and "thing" are just concepts. There is simply Totality, which is neither a thing, nor a "no-thing". Also, I cannot speak for Tucson, but I myself do not say there is "no-thing", or that it is all "illusory, a phantom of imagination". That is not my view at all, nor do I think that it is Tucson's view either. Because clearly, there is a diversity of phenomena. The question is... are there actual objective 'selves'? "No-thing" is just a word, an idea. The same goes for "thing". There is obviously a vast array of perceptual phenomena, but who/where is the supposed perceiver, and what actually is it which is supposedly being perceived?

"After reading about all this nothingness"

-- George, YOU are the one who is saying "nothingness", not others. This "nothingness" is YOUR own idea. I don't see anyone else here saying (or implying) that 'all is nothingness'. This "nothingness" is entirely YOUR creation, YOUR interpretation.

"Its ultimately our own personal choice. I don't believe in a pre-ordained universe, we ultimately all have free will."

-- There is neither "a pre-ordained universe", nor "free will." Both notions are faulty. The phenomenal universe is simply a spontaneous play of presence/absence. There is no 'ordainer'. George says: "we ultimately all have free will". But who/where is this "we"? Life is simply HAPPENING. There is only an appearance of "choice" in this spontaneous happening of phenomena called 'life/existence/consciousness'.

"A play, it sounds as if this oneness (or no=thing-ness) has created illusory human and material forms for amusment. Why would oneness need entertainment with artificial objects whose fate is preordained?"

-- But there is no such "preordained". And "oneness" is simply an idea. The non-dual nature of totality is not a 'thing', nor a "no-thing". Non-duality is not a creator of anything, nor requires any such "entertainment" or "amusement". These assumptions are merely anthropomorphic projections based on a dualistic view of totality.

***[Note: Tucson quite rightly stated: "what they indicate is not nothingness, it is no-thing-ness. No objective "thing" but not nothing".]

"Every cult movement since time immemorial shared the same 'recognition' as opposed to 'belief'. They knew it to be the Truth."

-- Wrong. No one here is saying that some particular "recognition" is "the Truth", or that they "knew it to be the Truth".

"Your subjective recognition is not a provable objective recognisiton, it is therefore your own belief."

-- Wrong again. Non-duality is not an object to be proven, nor a "belief". The obvious basic problem here is that George does not understand what is meant by non-duality. And so George is constantly interpreting everything that has been said by Tucson (or myself and others), from a rather dualistic point of view. Until George actually becomes more familiar and better comprehending of what non-duality really means, this misunderstanding will continue.

"There's a big difference between a belief as compared to knowledge or recognition"

-- This has nothing to do with "belief".

"So what is this No-thing? Is it a force or is it ineffable or is it everything"

-- "this No-thing" is entirely YOUR notion George. It is all your own idea that you are projecting upon others.

"We have a world around us full of life and wonder, but a few awakened/enlighted bubbles have recognised there is actually no-thing."

-- That is NOT what was said, or what is being said. Again, this is all your own idea (namely that "a few awakened/enlighted bubbles have recognised there is actually no-thing"). I do not see (or say) that there is any such "awakened/enlighted bubbles".

"Its madness, lol."

-- That is an ignorant reaction which only goes to show that you (George) have no understanding of non-duality.

"I just hope to God (or No-thing) that some of these oldboys don't set themselves up as spiritual gurus in their own right."

-- Again, this only goes to show how far off the mark George is... how deeply misintrepreted this issue is.

"With all this illusion and no-thing-ness, surely our artificial existence is pointless and we need to stop eating and get back to one-ness at soon as possible."

-- No one here (except for YOU George) is saying: "all this illusion and no-thing-ness", "our artificial existence is pointless", or "we need to ... get back to one-ness". Neither Tucson nor I are saying anything of that sort. George is implying an attribution of false words and concepts. That is deceptive and disingenuous.

"the illusory face of death, not only do they believe there is no-such-thing (since there is no I), rather they recognise we're all part of the oneness."

-- I do not say any such thing, nor does Tucson. This a gross mis-representation on the part of George. And it is exactly why I say that George is not being honest and forthright in these discussions. George creates his own strawmen, and then argues and ridicules against those created strawmen. This is very dishonest and unfair to others. George is fabricating false ideas, and then attributing such ideas to other people (who have said nothing of the sort), and then ridiculing other people for those very words and ideas that George himself has fabricated (and/or misinterpreted).

"Brian should be charging good money for this entertainment."

-- Actually, (imo) Brian should not tolerate such dishonest and insincere people as George is.

"Trying to come back down from the clouds, monism appears to be that the universe is one thing (in your case no-thing)."

-- Again, non-duality has nothing to do with "monism".

"But there appear to be different versions of monism, where this one in different traditions is: a supernatural god, pervasive force or energy or lifestream, no-thing or consciousness"

-- If you are talking about monism, but non-duality is NOT the same as "monism".

"Your monism appears to..."

-- Tucson is not presenting any such "monism".

"All objects, forms and things do not actually exist and are artificial constructs of this no-thing-ness."

-- No, that is not what is being said.

"An artificial human body having 5 artificial senses with an artifical brain through which is artificially created some sort of artificial world, which our senses experience as real matter and form, but which is artificial and imaginary."

-- No, that is definitely NOT what is being said here. And also, I myself hold no such such views either - not even remotely similar to any of that. George has again made a gross misinterpretation and thus a gross misrepresentation... and he is not going to understand any of this until he stops being sarcastic and ridiculing others and takes some time to go study the meaning of non-duality. But it's unlikely that he will do that, because that would defeat his purpose and agenda here.... which is to distort and ridicule the contributions of other thinkers. And that is also why George completely refuses to go read the papers (that I provided links to) at: http://www.categoricalanalysis.com ...that are in fact related to this very issue and subject matter.

[tucson]

I am in agreement with tAo. It is nice to have a little help in this attempt to clarify things, but not in the sense of "ganging up" on George which is not my intent.

[George]

Tucson,

Ok I think I am getting there (sorry about the use of 'I').

Just one thing (sorry about the use of 'thing'), I said:

"Apparently, arguments of subjectivity and objectivity and identify I and self are meaningless, since all is one and the one is all, which is no-thing."

-- In response you said: "Again, not nothing. Rather no-thing. Imagine the slate wiped clean of 'I'. What remains? Just this. That's it. Imagine a functioning without a source. The functioning is the source. What we are is the functioning but 'we'(I) can never be found."

hey??? I said 'no-thing', not 'nothing', what are you reading?
Surely this paragraph from me hits on exactly what you are trying to say, which is that there is no I or self or subject or object, just as you have reinforced in your response? What am I missing?

To summarise:

You recognise (not believe) there is a real world (not artificial), which is made of this (not that). This is no-thing (not nothing) which is all, or ever was or ever shall be. All subjective concepts of 'I' or 'self' are illusory.

[George]

tAo,
i thought we agreed to not communicate with one another.

you know i thought it might be me with an agenda but then having read through some of the arhives, I noticed a distinct trend, which is you fighting with, swearing at or denigrating everyone that does not agree with you.

My intent is not to ridicule anyone, i am simply stated sincerly how very preposterous some of the concepts sound, but i have entertained and tried to consider every single one of them provided by Tucson, who has afforded me the same.

You mistake some light-hearted humour with some sort of agenda. As I say you need to go back to India for another 20 years and pick-up some positivity and lightness of character. Cos to put it blankly, you're a pain in the arse, despite apparantly being fairly knowledgable. Its your unfortunate character, which is the problem.

[no-thing]

gotta luv ya .. lol

[tucson]

George wrote: "Ok I think I am getting there (sorry about the use of 'I')..Just one thing (sorry about the use of 'thing')"

--Now George, shame on you. By now you understand that there is no 'there' to get to. Sorry about the use of 'you'. ;)

Happy trails.

[George]

lol

what no comment on whether I am getting it or not?

come on, at least give me some encouragement. I was convinced I had nailed it in the last paragraph of my last one. Obviously not.

Later Tucson

[tAo]

George said:
"i thought we agreed to not communicate with one another."

-- I never made any sort of agreement. I simply offer comments about other people's comments. You can take that, or leave it.

"which is you fighting with, swearing at or denigrating everyone that does not agree with you."

-- Then please do tell... what exactly is it that you think that I say or have said, that you believe that others do not agree with me about?

"i am simply stated sincerly how very preposterous some of the concepts sound"

-- Well then perhaps you can indicate clearly where and what those supposed "concepts" are that you are refering to, that you consider to be so "preposterous".

"to put it blankly, you're a pain in the arse, despite apparantly being fairly knowledgable. Its your unfortunate character, which is the problem."

-- The "pain" and "the problem" that you see and feel, that I represent to you, must rest in yourself.