« My 100% guaranteed spiritual investment scheme | Main | Feeling something spiritual doesn't mean it is real »

April 25, 2010

Comments

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

Lovely entry Brian. What we are looking for is life, exactly as it is; it's so obvious that the mind just can't believe it.

Alan Watts: "If I may put it in a way which is horribly cumbersome and inadequate, that fleeting glimpse is the perception that, suddenly, some very ordinary moment of your ordinary everyday life, lived by your very ordinary self, just as it is and just as you are -- that this immediate here-and-now is perfect and self-sufficient beyond any possibility of description.

You know that there is nothing to desire or seek for -- that no techniques, no spiritual apparatus of belief or discipline is necessary, no system of philosophy or religion. The goal is here. It is this present experience, just as it is.

...You may believe yourself out of harmony with life and its eternal Now; but you cannot be, for you are life and exist Now -- otherwise you would not be here. Hence the infinite Tao is something which you can neither escape by flight nor catch by pursuit; there is no coming toward it or going away from it; it is, and you are it.

So become what you are."

Elephant: So are the words of an alcoholic and drug user ... is it not trying to influence and change both what is experienced and who experiences ?...

It just shows how anyone can learn some narratives and based on them bullshit others and themselves ... Both Watts and Wu Wei were excellent at it ... and missed the irony inherent to the necessity of reality.

What is ultimate reality then, Elephant? You are convinced what it is not. What, then, is it?

Elephant, apparently you side with the belief that "enlightenment" is some special state. This is a quasi-religious notion, in that "salvation" or "god-realization" also are considered to be objective states where someone experiences something divine.

By contrast, Wei Wu Wei, along with Alan Watts, embraces the Zen view of Prajna. This is much more a sudden seeing of how reality in general is, rather than experiencing another side of reality as it is known now.

Here is how Wei Wu Wei describes it:

"Prajna means 'Subjectivity' or Non-objective understanding."

For him, Prajna isn't an object. It isn't something that can be attained, because it the way the world, and us, already are. We just usually see things differently, like the familiar "is it a vase or an old woman?" image.

Wei Wu Wei says that Prajna is a functioning, not a phenomenon. It isn't a name, a symbol, nor any kind of object

I think that the burden is on those, like you, who hold an alternative view to point to the state that "enlightenment" supposedly is.

Where is it located? What does it consist of? How can we identify it in our consciousness?

This dualistic view is at odds with neuroscience, which doesn't find a "self" inside our psyche that is separate and distinct from the functioning of our brain and nervous system.

you either see or you don't, you either experience reality or you don't

talk till you blue in the face

write essays and thesis's on perception and reality till you can't write or think no more

You just bullshitting yourself and all those still tied to your non free thinking bullshit

Till you yourself realize reality you going to try convince yourself it don't exist

sooner you shut up and find it in your own silence the sooner you know what it is,

till then you going to wrangle on like a dog chasing its tail and talking till you can't talk or write any more non realized non real jargon

Hey Elephant - Alan Watts was reportedly an alcoholic, and he was a self-confessed drug user - although it seems reasonable to assume that the drug thing was a temporary phase. And Wei Wu Wei was something of an aristocrat.

If you would be so kind - tell me what you mean by "missing the irony inherent to the necessity of reality". To me that sounds like just another load of excrement, maybe not from the bull....

What the hell do you know about Alan Watts elephant?? I'd say virtually NOTHING.

I knew Alan Watts personally. I went to his houseboat in Sausalito on many occasions min the late 60s. and Watts did not "bullshit" others or himself.... although I did know him to drink wine and sometimes smoke grass. but so what.

Geez, Poor Elephant!

Dear Suzanne, don't worry about me. After all, I am not the one who is constantly rehashing about the questions of the Absolute, ego, story, seeking, fullness, etc. on a blog. Who really can't let it go? Longing under a sheep's skin remains longing -- and spontaneity should not be an excuse, there is nothing spontaneous about your blog or your interventions here ... For all their stupidity even 12 year people know that when 'fun' arises there is no need to repeat it repeatedly, just like when keep recycling the 'all is fun' line. They know a 'Frank Costanza' when they see one (see Seinfeld's Serenity now episode).

P.S. I will try to reply to Brian and William in the next few days... cheap shots at a mistaken soul takes only a few seconds while addressing some issues takes a little bit more time.

Elephant (Manjit),

Suzanne asked a legitimate question: "What is ultimate reality then, Elephant? You are convinced what it is not. What, then, is it?"

Yet all you have to offer is an attempt to belittle her.

I await your reply to Brian and William.

Brian wrote in answer to Elephant:

"This dualistic view is at odds with neuroscience, which doesn't find a "self" inside our psyche that is separate and distinct from the functioning of our brain and nervous system."

Well I don't see how science could really find a psyche. Better chance of finding a ghost inside an allegedly haunted castle.

If the functioning of the brain and nervous system create a self/psyche, then naturally that self/psyche/soul stops when the meat (the real us) starts to rot on the ground. Can we, as humans, deal with that?

Imagine large beautiful pearls being born, then down they go on time's conveyor belt. At the end is a sledgehammer that smashes them to bits. It does not care how beautiful they were, how smart, how talented, how rich. Nothing. In the meanwhile, while proceeding down the belt, the pearls discuss in fantastic detail their understanding of The Pearl God, and their True Pearl Selves. Are they dual or non-dual? It is a way to avoid reality. Understandable though.

The ultimate reality? Let me guess. A bunch of busted pearls (of all species)?

(Me and Fred Nietzsche are almost at the end of our great house-sitting job --- so this may be the last for a while)

Brian I agree with a lot of what you have to share here on your Blog. Good job.

Tao, you totally refreshing.

Jon, I like your Pearl imagery. Well, I don't like the thought of being the pearl smashed to bits, but I like reality -- and what you said sure seems to be what's real about life.

Religious folks would say we're diamonds, of course, indestructible soul-diamonds (encased inside the pearl, I guess). Only problem is, there's no sign of the diamond, just the pearl.

Brian: Elephant, apparently you side with the belief that "enlightenment" is some special state. This is a quasi-religious notion, in that "salvation" or "god-realization" also are considered to be objective states where someone experiences something divine.

Elephant: I am not sure from what appearances in my most recent post you feel comfortable concluding all that. And if you look at my previous posts then you will find that I have rejected the view you believe coincides with my position.
"I would like to notice that the latest exchanges between Tucson, Brian and George implicitly assume that, for instance, the nature of what Nisargadatta referred to as his awakening is the same as that of the experiences and Samadhi drugs may procure. It is a superficial belief or characterization some will disagree with. Nisargadatta would have probably disagreed, for the same reasons the author Albert Low also disagrees--see page 12 of the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Hakuin-Kensho-Four-Ways-Knowing/dp/1590303776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265321341&sr=8-1#reader_1590303776
Posted by: the elephant | February 04, 2010 at 04:24 PM

Your response tacitly assumed that the only possible ways to conceive what some have called awakening (Hakuin) or self-realization (Niz) or the birth of the Son (Meister Eckhart), are those you bring forth (Watts or WWW camp vs 'state' camp). It is not because I reject Watts' characterizations or find them incomplete that I automatically adopt whatever position YOU think are the alternatives!!!??? This habit, although common in the non-duality circles, is a bit ridiculous.
Obviously, I don’t subscribe to either position you propose. There are alternative views, more subtle, more elaborate and complete, which understanding does not come naturally to the imagination and for our habitual way of thinking, just like the understanding of some irreducibilities in Quantum Physics doesn't come naturally, and still divide physicists.
A decent expose of my own perspective is developed in:
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-Nature-Buddhist-Evolution/dp/1845192605/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272393140&sr=8-5
This view has also informed the following response by Nisargadatta:
M: How can there be knowledge of the conditioned without the unconditioned? There must be a source from which all this flows, a foundation on which all stands. Self-realization is primarily the knowledge of one's conditioning and the awareness that the infinite variety of conditions depends on our infinite ability to be conditioned and to give rise to variety. To the conditioned mind the unconditioned appears as the totality as well as the absence of everything. Neither can be directly experienced, but this does not make it not-existent. [I AM THAT : chapter 39]
Finally, it can be argued that this view is not much different than that Spinoza proposes in the Ethics (although not very clearly despite the formal structures of his edits). Using the dichotomy subjectivity/objectivity presents numerous pitfalls. What Nisargadatta and Spinoza, as well as Albert low, eventually realized is that the dichotomy power/actuality (properly understood, NOT in an Aristotelian’s fashion) is far more general than the use of the categories subjective/objective or noumenal/phenomenal, substance/state, etc. which have several obvious limitations, often confusing poor souls …

Brian: Where is it located? What does it consist of? How can we identify it in our consciousness?
This dualistic view is at odds with neuroscience, which doesn't find a "self" inside our psyche that is separate and distinct from the functioning of our brain and nervous system.

Elephant: Your challenge is idiotic because it frames the issue without accounting for the conditioning of its own axioms and assumptions. I don't need to find the 'self' YOU SPEAK OF because there is no point in looking for it--you already have set the conditions that determine the object (what this self should be) and environment of the inquiry. I reject these tacit conditions and assumptions as simplistic and relatively naive views about experience and reality more generally defined (see also my response to Tucson). Of course, I won't be able to find a shoe under a lamppost when it is neither for what nor how striving/inquiry occur. That you are asking me to look for a non-existing shoe ... that is your mistake not mine ... I don't have to fall for it just because you have (and so many others have done).
I must admit Brian that for a quite a while some recurring narratives in your posts are leaving a funny taste. Let me illustrate my impression. Imagine a man, worth about $500 million, who leaves a comfortable life and does show any excessive or risky disposition. Basically, the guy is set financially for life and does not have to worry moneywise about anything except the great unexpected. This guy has many friends who are worth $50+ billion, some of which spend a lot more than him and some of which may show excessive behavior. And let imagine that our fellow often reflects on them and himself, about how his life is far less excessive and how he spends far less than his friends. And it is a correct assessment. The problem is that based on these reflections, our fellow, who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, concludes from his ‘more ordinary’ life that the right interpretation of his situation and state of affairs is that he does not need or care at all about money; money does not matter for him, etc. Of course, this entailment cannot be validated, since he has and will always have enough to satisfy his needs, or disproved. So he starts really believing it. We can even imagine that our fellow could start a blog: money for the moneyless … etc.
You repeatedly muse about your capacity to JUST enjoy a cup of coffee bought at a Starbucks, reading the paper in the present, blah … blah … blah … JUST relaxing … carrying water, chopping wood. Big deal! Do you realize that for that kid in some dirt poor country digging all day in trash inhaling toxic fume to feed his siblings and sick mother your cup of coffee and luxury of relaxing comfortably may be more of a heaven than any religion would ever offer to some fat cat??? Can you imagine what just cooking Spaghetti (and then eating it) would mean for him? Just like Watts who for all the talks about the now and present moment, was so incapable to stand it in some of its ‘rawer’ expressions that he became an alcoholic … and remained completely oblivious to the disconnect between what he was telling others and what he was living in private and intimately …

Dear Willie:

Willie R.: If you would be so kind - tell me what you mean by "missing the irony inherent to the necessity of reality". To me that sounds like just another load of excrement, maybe not from the bull....

Elephant: I sure hope you think that what I say sounds just like another load of excrement. Unfortunately, it cannot be otherwise. The following Zen koan (case 58 of the blue cliff record) is in part about this issue:
A monk asked Chao-chou, “ ‘The Ultimate Path has no difficulties—just avoid picking and choosing’—isn’t this a cliché for people of these times?”
Chao-chou said, “Once someone asked me, and I really couldn’t explain even after five years.”

Be as skeptical and curious as you can be; however, for you own sake, remain at least open to the possibility that you may be wrong in any of your assessment.
About the meaning of "missing the irony inherent to the necessity of reality" … Unfortunately, such forum is not the venue to answer such question. I guess not to leave you hanging cold I could recommend Albert Low’s book I linked in my response to Brian as half-decent expose. Spinoza, who denied any ‘free will’ as it was conceived during his time, and has always been conceived as a hardcore necessitarian by many, nonetheless would have rejected Jon Weiss’ pearl imagery on the basis that his accounts misses the irony in question …

Dear Tucson:
First of all, I am not Manjit. Second of all, I did not answer Suzanne’s initial question because from her own admission, no such answer can be given discursively and in written (just read her blog). So why is she asking me? Moreover, I was unable to figure out what she meant when she said “You are convinced what it is not.” (it is not like I talk a lot about what ultimate reality is not in my previous email). I was left scratching my head about almost everything about her post: and you were expecting me to answer!?
You believe it is a legitimate question? I think instead that it is a pretty poor characterization and flawed treatment of the underlying issue(s)? Why should I answer a wrong question which in addition does not have an answer?
When she comes with a genuine question then perhaps I will reply … If you believe it is such a legitimate question and think an adequate answer is possible then please share it with us … many will probably fall for it.
When Suzanne expressed concerns for me (‘poor Elephant’) I believe she opened a door for me to reassure her not to worry about me. There is no rule that says I should answer her at all or in some proper order. Regarding belittling somebody else … Once again, I make no apology for it but at least I’m concrete and rather specific in my attacks and the issues I raise, so that we can all decide for ourselves what to think …
Are you saying that her blog does not raise the issues of the absolute, ego, seeking, fullness, etc.?
Are you saying that the same dynamics of the ego she decries on her blog can be absolutely excluded categorically (beyond any doubt) as having contributed to the creation her blog and the continual accumulation of posts?
Are you saying she does not use the expression (it’s fun …) rather often? (“Even though it's an appearance, it's sure fun!”)
Are you saying the Seinfeld’s episode serenity now is not relevant at all for the views I propose?
Finally, who is being belittled? Is the presence of the absence or the absence of the presence or neither or both or neither and both blah blah blah … In which brain can I find who is belittled? ;) … Love how you so often try to have it both ways …

Elephant,

You said: "It just shows how anyone can learn some narratives and based on them bullshit others and themselves ... Both Watts and Wu Wei were excellent at it ... and missed the irony inherent to the necessity of reality."

--Which led Suzanne (whose blog I have never read and know nothing about) to ask you that if you know what reality is not, then what is it?

Although I agree that it is probably difficult/impossible to explain what either is, hers was a reasonable response, imo, to which you left the door open. What do you gain from your "attack dog" approach to these issues people raise? It takes more muscles to frown than to smile.

Whatever.

Also, how do we know what Watts or Wei Wu Wei really understood, or Niz or the mailman for that matter? Does being a drinker preclude a perception or insight from which one can draw that may be true even if sometimes the person is in a stupor or asleep? If Niz had taken a liking for ganja in addition to cigarrettes would that negate or disqualify him from whatever he supposedly understood? Did Niz really understand what he appeared to understand? Do I not understand what I appear not to understand? How do you know?

No argument possess positive evidence but relies on casting doubt on others positive evidence....how tiresome this becomes

Dogribb, I'm not sure what you mean. I subscribe to quite a few science and news magazines. There are plenty of arguments and discussions in them based on "positive evidence." People talk about what this evidence means to them, which is interesting, not tiresome.

What you might be getting at is how tiresome it is when people make truth claims that aren't backed up by positive evidence (I like the term "demonstrable evidence"). In other words, they take a subjective "I like" and make it into an objective "It is."

If someone doesn't have positive evidence, but claims that he does, it is entirely appropriate to point out this fact. This is how science works, and to me its the opposite of tiresome: fascinating.

The general slant of detractors is what I find tiresome.

Brian… “truth claims that aren't backed up by positive evidence”… If this is how science works, to either prove or disprove, what is the evidence that this physical existence is ALL there is?

As in the constant mantra heard in comments on this site “life is exactly as it is”, which seems so ridiculous because of the huge variety of experiences by people living here and now in this world, as Elephant said in his comment “Do you realize that for that kid in some dirt poor country digging all day in trash inhaling toxic fume to feed his siblings and sick mother your cup of coffee and luxury of relaxing comfortably may be more of a heaven than any religion would ever offer to some fat cat???”

Dogribb, agreed. My feeling is that cursing the darkness has to be balanced with lighting a candle. Some people seem to only tear down, not build up.

Jen, usually it isn't possible to prove that something doesn't exist. This is why science is so positive: it focuses on what does demonstrably exist, finding and considering evidence for what is real.

I don't think you understand what is meant by "life is exactly as it is." How could it be otherwise? "Life is what it isn't" doesn't make sense.

Sure, everyone has different experiences. That's what life is: variety. And we value different experiences differently.

A cup of coffee can be "heaven" to me. And to lots of other people. Its real for me. A metaphysical heaven isn't. If I ever experience an other-worldly heaven, then that will be part of what my life is.

Until then, it isn't.

Elephant, you seem to be very sure about something, but I'm not sure what it is. When I read your comments, I'm exposed to a lot of words and concepts. However, for some reason they don't add up to a clear insight into your outlook on life for me.

So it's difficult to comment on your comments. I share tucson's question: how do you know that Nisargadatta, or anyone else, possesses the really truthful truth, and some other supposed spiritual sage doesn't?

Myself, I lean toward the simplest "spiritual" (using that term loosely) philosophies. That's why I like Wu Wei Wu and Alan Watts. There isn't a whole lot of religiosity and theology associated with their viewpoints. Basically, they just advocate seeing life as clearly as possible.

I don't think we can get away from unconscious/subconscious conditionings, which are part and parcel of brain functioning. But we can be more aware of how the brain/mind works, understanding that what we experience isn't objectively real in an unfiltered sense.

We are subjective beings experiencing a shared "objective" world. This leads to a lot of marvelous strangeness, mysteries that I doubt we humans will ever totally figure out.

Brian, yes as you say - "Life is what it isn't" doesn't make sense… and then, the question is how can we make “sense” of the “mystery” of life?

My understanding of what is meant by “life is exactly as it is” would be what the mystics speak of, the kind of direct awareness of a pure state of consciousness when very present and centered in the here and now. This I understand, not the glib, I’m happy, this is all there is, fa la la la la…

Hey Elephant, thanks for taking the time to read my blog, which is, of course, just a lotta (fun!) words. Most assuredly, my ego-construct, and the dynamics of my conditioning and life circumstances bring about the creation of the blog. I bring up fun a lot because fun is what is, at the mo, or so it seems to my ego structure, so I'm trumpeting about it and enjoying it while it (seems to) last. If you read the blog carefully (and please, I wouldn't recommend it, be careful with your precious time) I don't decry the ego, but celebrate it. I don't decry anything. This is what loads of readers object to: absolute acceptance. There is a lot of suffering in the world and my sensitive, delicate little ego has been a victim of some first-class suffering, rape, abuse, addiction, blah blah, so I know of what I speak...yet that suffering both allows me to identify with the travails of the kid in the in the garbage heap and accept that such suffering is simply a part of life, as is the despair around it, and the powerlessness to relieve it, and the attempts - sometimes successful - to do away with the conditions that bring about such suffering. I mention this because this "fun" stuff I go on about, in the unfolding story of life, is not some blithe, airy fairy la-di-da-ness but was won at great expense, and with much hard work. It's difficult to know bliss if there is nothing to oppose it. However, despite your curmudgeonliness, I still think you're being ganged up on pretty massively. Would you like a hug?

Jen, I don't see the difference between "here and now" and "this is all there is." There's no such thing as a pure state of consciousness separate from the here and now.

What would such a "pure state" be like? This is what I'm getting at when I criticize much of religion, spirituality, and mysticism as being conceptual, intellectual, and unrealistic. Often states are posited that can't be demonstrated to exist.

I understand what you're saying: that some people have been able to experience a special state of enlightenment, or whatever it is called, that other people haven't.

But I still think Wei Wu Wei has a good point: if this is a "state," then it is a thing, an object, within consciousness. It isn't consciousness itself; it isn't awareness itself; it isn't part and parcel of the subjectivity that we are.

So it's simply one more thing that happens within consciousness, like anger, happiness, joy, sadness, and such. Alternatively, non-dualists like Wei Wu Wei say that consciousness/awareness is just what it is. We unnecessarily complicate life by looking for some special state of "enlightenment," rather than realizing that we already have it.

Suzi's site is a welcome after noon tea after marching the line with the non duality crowd.She shows the ease of living in that space we are.

I understood 'wei wu wei' to simply mean doing without trying.

Its an interesting concept, which I think many can associate experiences with. Often when one tries hard to do something, it is not done as well as we can do it, someone we try to hard. However, sometimes when we dont try to hard, what the sports chaps call being in the zone, we do something perfectly without much effort.

I dont know if one can really test its validity as a statement of reality, but there seems to be a practical profound wisdom to it.

It also seems to be a more practical manifestation of other mystical traditions, whom feel the intellect is limitted in many situations, and i think this is the whole point of many chinese artforms like caligraphy and swordsmanship which is based on natural spontaneous flow as opposed to performing any rigidly strucutred moves. It seems to be the basis underlying tai chi too. Anyway, Watts explains it best to my westernized logical mind at least.

Tucson wrote:
Also, how do we know what Watts or Wei Wu Wei really understood, or Niz or the mailman for that matter? Does being a drinker preclude a perception or insight from which one can draw that may be true even if sometimes the person is in a stupor or asleep? If Niz had taken a liking for ganja in addition to cigarrettes would that negate or disqualify him from whatever he supposedly understood? Did Niz really understand what he appeared to understand? Do I not understand what I appear not to understand? How do you know?

Elephant: Tucson you keep asking for a light while all we see are shadows. You keep coming back begging for proof of insight while all I can point to is (your) ignorance.
Are you asking your questions with deception in your mind? In which case your foolishness is your question …
Or are you asking your questions genuinely? In which case your foolishness is your ignorance
Which one is it?

To further deepen the inquiry you can have look at page 198 of:
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Blue-Cliff-Record-Comments/dp/1570629129/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272461827&sr=8-1#reader_1570629129

Elephant,

if we seek that which is right is it wrong, and if not, if we seek that which is wrong is it right?

come dear friends, let us enter the world of the double negatives and circumvent our fundaments until we get lost therein.

apologies for my ignorance in advance, its just that all this metaphysicality sets off the bullshit detector in my head or at least makes me laugh, i;ve never really understood the profundity of these zen koans tho that quite possibly says more about my lack thereof than anything else, nevertheless that book you suggest looks very interesting, i will try download it on my kindle. cheers

Tucson: "What do you gain from your "attack dog" approach to these issues people raise?

Elephant: "...all we see are shadows."
".. all I can point to is (your) ignorance."
"...your foolishness is your question."
"... your foolishness is your ignorance."


strange how some see attack dogs as 'refreshing' and others see back slapping churchified party liners to be such.

Funny that I find the Elephant perhaps to be the most 'refreshing' of all.

At least the Elephant is sincere and pertinent to the question of 'objective' inquiry, and doesn't bow and cow-tail to this clique of church going profundity. Which quite blatantly I find to be absolutely nonsensical and mostly with pretty much zero 'demonstrable' substance.

All this seeking of 'demonstrable evidence', what evidence do any of these pundits here have about 'anything' at all?

I mean some here have written thesis's on 'reality' or 'morality', or mysticism according to past adepts such as Plotinus et al, yet in the next breath they telling me that no one here could possibly know what Nisargadatta or Terence Gray (Wei Wu Wei) perceived to be 'real' or experienced in their profound 'reality'. Or else they quoting some other modern day psychologist or philosophical free loaders like Alan Watts, or perhaps saints like Ramakrishna, or Ramana Marharshi as 'gospel truth', and in the very next breath decrying RSSB sat guru's as outright frauds.

So its pretty much obvious from all accounts that none here and no one elsewhere have any reasonable and 'demonstrable evidence' of any reality to impart, anywhere, whatsoever, ever, let alone on an intellectually inspiring blog site out in the far reach periphery of cyberspace.

If anyone is sincerely serious about 'experiencing' or seeking out 'reality', the only real avenue of any perception at all, is purely within their own conclusive, 'demonstrable' conscious clarity of personal experience, and it most definitely can never be obtained, nor verified by anyone, to any other, in this non real avenue of subject duality, absolutely impossible, and without doubt.

kukluxklanger, thanks for supporting my position. I'm glad that you agree with my oft-stated churchless conclusion:

There isn't now, nor likely will there ever be, demonstrable evidence for any religious, spiritual, or mystical dogma, philosophy, theology, or teaching.

Like you said at the end of your comment, all we're left with are personal experiences. These can't be verified, as you correctly pointed out, because they're personal. Individual. Subjective. Non-objective.

This is exactly how Wei Wu Wei and Alan Watts see things, as do I. So I don't understand why you seem to be criticizing this blog, when you agree with its central theme:

Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence.

All we're doing here is talking about finding our own ways, rather than following a rigid religious way. Each of us talks up our favorite way, which for me is a relaxed blend of Taoist "flow with it" and scientific "without evidence, don't believe it."

George, going with "the flow" indeed is key to many different pursuits, athletic and otherwise. This is an observable and experienceable phenomenon, not something mystically mysterious. I feel it frequently, as does anyone who practices ballroom dancing and tai chi (as I do).

I share your bullshit detector feeling. When a commenter (Elephant) supports his position, whatever it is, with a reference to a Zen story I don't see what the difference is between this and a fundamentalist Christian saying "It's in the Bible, so it must be true!"

Zen has its "prophets" (Masters) who supposedly speak the inerrant truth. The koan system is centered around the highly debatable belief that a Zen Master has attained some special enlightened state from which he can recognize someone else's supposed special enlightened state.

Well, maybe. It's also possible that Jesus died for our sins and rose to heaven bodily. I just prefer my reality to be more real than faith-based dogmatism.

I would like to second Blogger Brian's appreciation of Klukluxklanger's (Ashy Heller's) comment above.

Klanger, why didn't you say so many months ago instead of preaching Sant Mat and ranting all that time against those saying the same thing you just said?

W W Wei...no doer,no one that is,only doing

George,

Brian mentioned Wei Wu Wei:

"That's why I like Wu Wei Wu and Alan Watts. There isn't a whole lot of religiosity and theology associated with their viewpoints. Basically, they just advocate seeing life as clearly as possible."

-and-

"But I still think Wei Wu Wei has a good point: if this is a "state," then it is a thing, an object, within consciousness."

Brian is clearly referring here to Wei Wu Wei, which was the pen name of an individual named Terence Gray, a 20th century Taoist and Buddhist philosopher and a writer.

It seems you may have mistook that for something else? [or perhaps not]

In any case, here is some info about Wei Wu Wei, and his life and views and writings for you:

http://www.mysticmissal.org/wei_wu_wei.htm

http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Wu_Wei

Terence Gray was a rather interesting fellow. Cheers.



It may do well for any individual to actually ponder precisely what this fleeting sojourn of four score and ten years - on this miniscule planet, in this little corner of this orbiting galaxy, in this remote section of this (known) universe, (which to most rationalist, intelligent scientists, has by now theoretically and 'demonstrably and evidently' been brought about through the cosmic explosive phenomenon 'The Big Bang'), - actually is all about.


What drives anyone to seek out love and shun hate, what attracts the human, (or animal, or insect, or even vegetable) consciousness to seek pleasure and repel pain?

What is the underlying facet of our being that courses through our metabolism to seek unity rather than separateness?

What drives any organic body to seek union to the extent of to merge with its natural synthesis (opposite sex) body counterpart in its urge to procreate and sustain and to preserve its species?

In short what is the underlying dominant force in this (known) universe?


You were on the right track when you studied and sought to imbibe the principles and teachings of the Greek mystic philosopher Plotinus, in 'Return to the One'.

Gleaning through some anecdotes in corroborating analysis of this thinking herein, one could encapsulate the thoughts of these writers:

You have quoted:


Albert Einstein:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Or


Shimon Malin, a physicist who studied Plotinus:

"For Plotinus, the sensible world is a mere reflection of the noumenal; for science, the sensible is the real thing, the only reality there is. The world of science is the world as given by the senses.

Oddly, however, the Nous [Intellect] is not entirely absent from it. The Nous did lose its life, but not its presence. The idea that the sensible world is sustained and directed by an invisible substratum is the fundamental premise of science. This invisible substratum is called “the laws of nature.”"

(So which is real - or the true 'reality' - the phenomenal world as witnessed and perceived through and by the senses, or the essence of the perception, the perceiver, the voyer, the 'Nous'?)


and then through some your corroborative communication with;

Nicholas Coleman, head of religious education at Wesley College in Melbourne -


"If I may speak on behalf of the whole of humanity, I think we've generally got the wrong idea about ourselves. Instead of realising what we are, (or who we are) we think we're something that we're not (or who we're not). The ordinary empirical ego convinces us that it's real and in charge of what's happening in the material world. We let it get away with that pretense, although it isn't real and isn't in charge.

Why do we believe its false claims? Because it's easy and attractive to believe them. For they're accompanied by the (equally false) promise of enduring life. We can feel that something unborn in us will live forever and the empirical ego claims to be that unborn something. By believing ourselves to be the ego we think we might live on, not physically but in some kind of essentially ego-centric after-life."


And further by your own synopsis when you considered your take on Plotinus's teachings in contrast to Ken Wilber's:

"There seem to be levels of being in the cosmos, some more real, permanent, and substantial than others. At the least, there are (1) laws of nature and (2) what is governed by those laws."

(of which I would add to this and say (3) That which governs both nature and its laws.)

"Plotinus goes further and says that those laws are transmitted by soul from a transcendental Intellect that gets its power and wisdom from a even higher reality—the One."


I would suggest one continue in these lines of thought and thinking, this may eventually lead one to true freedom, or to the separated consciousness' re emergence with - The One.


That is if we are at all inclined to go along with Plotinus's expression and perspective of this (human, individual, universal) existence.

klukluxklanger writes:

"I find the Elephant perhaps to be the most 'refreshing' of all. At least the Elephant is sincere and pertinent to the question of 'objective' inquiry, and doesn't bow and cow-tail to this clique"

-- and what clique is that? i see only diverse individuals posting here. also, i have to disagree that "Elephant is sincere", or that elephant's posts are "pertinent to the question of 'objective' inquiry". i don't see any sincerity or "objective inquiry" evident in his posts at all. i see only attacks, derision, and antagonism, and then avoidance and evasiveness when asked for clarification or explanations.

"of church going profundity. Which quite blatantly I find to be absolutely nonsensical and mostly with pretty much zero 'demonstrable' substance."

-- again, where is this "church going"??

"All this seeking of 'demonstrable evidence', what evidence do any of these pundits here have about 'anything' at all?"

-- But what "demonstrable substance" have you offered here, that you can then criticise others for a lack of it?? you have never shown one iota of "demonstrable substance" in any of your antagonistic rants.

"Or else they quoting some other modern day psychologist or philosophical free loaders like Alan Watts"

-- Did you know Alan Watts well enough to say that?? i don't think so.

"or perhaps saints like Ramakrishna, or Ramana Marharshi as 'gospel truth', and in the very next breath decrying RSSB sat guru's as outright frauds."

-- Well, there is a very significant difference between the lives and the teachings of of Sri Ramana Maharshi or Sri Ramakrishna, and that of the RS gurus.

"So its pretty much obvious from all accounts that none here and no one elsewhere have any reasonable and 'demonstrable evidence' of any reality to impart"

-- Well klukluxklanger/Ashy, its good to see that you have finally come round to admitting that mere personal subjective experience or belief is not the same as demonstrable objective evidence, demonstrable truth, or scientific fact.

"on an intellectually inspiring blog site"

-- So this blog site actually 'inspires' you does it?

"If anyone is sincerely serious about 'experiencing' or seeking out 'reality', the only real avenue of any perception at all, is purely within their own [...] personal experience, and it most definitely can never be obtained, nor verified by anyone, to any other"

-- Well klukluxklanger/Ashy, its good to see that you have finally come round to admitting that mere personal subjective experience or belief is not the same as objective evidence, objective reality, objective truth, or scientific fact.


hoochie-coochie man writes:

"What drives anyone to seek out love and shun hate, what attracts the human, (or animal, or insect, or even vegetable) consciousness to seek pleasure and repel pain?"

-- desire and the avoidance of suffering.

"What is the underlying facet of our being that courses through our metabolism to seek unity rather than separateness?"

-- is there really any "underlying facet" that seeks unity?? not necessarily.

"What drives any organic body to seek union to the extent of to merge with its natural synthesis (opposite sex) body counterpart in its urge to procreate and sustain and to preserve its species?"

-- hormones.

"In short what is the underlying dominant force in this (known) universe?"

-- is there really any "underlying dominant force" ?? that remains to be determined.

hoochie-coochie man, interestingly I've just started to read a fascinating book by a physicist that casts doubt on this whole notion of "the One" -- whether this is a metaphysical proposition of the scientific Theory of Everything (a secular version of oneness).

So I'm not as enthused about the One and oneness as I used to be. This is a conceptual, theoretical, hypothetical idea which the physicist points out is questionable, given all the evidence for the cosmos being governed by arbitrariness and randomness. His view is that the universe is much different than how we humans cognize or experience it to be, which makes sense to me.

Anyway, I'll be writing a post about this fairly soon. Just trying to explain why your third premise, that there is something that governs both nature and its laws (assuming there is a difference between nature and its laws), is highly questionable, and is much more religious than scientific.

tAo you still way off beam, and promoting your own personal axe (ego) that you so love to grind.

I haven't 'come around' to anything contrary to where I been before.

'Intellectually stimulating', is most certainly not 'understanding or knowing' or 'experiencing reality', not by a very long shot, in fact perhaps even the direct extreme opposite of it.

Nevertheless as Einstein so correctly enjoins all souls to imbibe the underlying notion that 'a human being is a part of a whole, (called by us universe), a part limited in time and space. (that) This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons (only). Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.(Oneness)"

I'll 'go with the flow' of attempting to re educate you in the art (or science) of 'knowing who you truly are'.

Essentially there is absolutely no difference between any one or other individual, not I nor you, nor anyone else, only perceived and dualistic (intellectualized) differences.

Ultimately there is 'Only One', and sooner the 'separated' (non realized) individual comes to the 'demonstrable conclusive evidence' (within him or her self), that he or she is more than that which our limited perception allows us to see or be or experience, the sooner we get to that unity of being that Einstein, or Plotinus, or Socrates, or Aristotle, or Ramakrishna, or Ramana Maharshi, or Maulana Rumi, or Shamas Tabriz, or Nanak, or Kabir, (or Alan Watts, or Ken Wilber, or Osho Rajneesh), or Walt Whitman, or Ralph Waldo Emerson, or William Blake, or Siddhartha Buddha, or Seth Shiv Dayal Singh, or Sivananda, or Yogananda, or.., or .., or .., alluded to.

It is the premise that life is made up of separate entities, particles, individual dualist personas and ideas, complexities of opposites, cast apart and asunder, that is the grand 'illusion' of the 'separate non reality', as Plotinus and other mystics knew, and even as the quantum physicists are beginning to discover.

The mystery does eventually unfold, for those of us still tied to the wheel of ceaseless 'engaging analysis and discovery' we can only hope for this cycle of illusory time, it does not come 'too late'.

and even that is not in our hand to obviate or determine

good night

hoochie, as noted before, you're assuming there is a "One." Just because a bunch of people say there is, doesn't mean there is. People thought the Earth was flat for a long time, until we learned that was wrong.

hoochie-coochie man,

wrong, i am not "promoting" anything, nor have i any any "axe to grind".

"'Intellectually stimulating', is most certainly not 'understanding or knowing' or 'experiencing reality'"

-- perhaps, but i never said that it is.

the underlying notion that 'a human being is a part of a whole,

Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison"

-- there is no "prison", imo. "prison" is just an idea that you have in your mind.

"by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

-- been there and done that.

I'll [...] attempting to re educate you in the art (or science) of 'knowing who you truly are'."

-- been there and done that already. i akready know who i "truly" am. and btw, you don't know anything about me as far as that goes.

"Essentially there is absolutely no difference between any one or other individual, not I nor you, nor anyone else, only perceived and dualistic (intellectualized) differences."

-- i don't agree. each creature and each awareness is unique and different. no two are the same.

"Ultimately there is 'Only One'"

-- i don't agree with that. for instance, the earth is not the sun.

"sooner the 'separated' (non realized) individual"

-- i don't agree. there is no "non realized" or "realized". that is a myth.

"the sooner we get to that unity of being"


-- there is no "unity of being" because "being" is only an idea born out of sensory perception while physically alive.

"The mystery does eventually unfold"

-- there is nothing to "unfold"... the mystery is the sense of existence itself.

so there is no ultimate answer. the only thing possible is to embrace or accept the paradox, to accept the mystery, to accept the simple fact that you can never KNOW what any THING actually IS.

as long as you continue to seek or to presume that there is something (like "the One") for you to realize or attain or know... then you will remain caught in the paradox.

you must simply let go of seeking and trying to find any untimate answer to the mystery.

there is no "One". and there is no answer.

there is ultimate nothing to know. there is only the eternal paradox, which is a mystery.

you are wasting your time seeking "the One". just live out your life. there is no final or ultimate answer. and there is nothing to "realize". all that is a myth.

so embrace, or rather accept that it is an unsolveable mystery.

in accepting this mystery, this ignorance... lies freedom from seeking.


hoochie-coochie man wrote:

"the underlying notion that 'a human being is a part of a whole"

-- yes, a human is one among many humans on this planet, which in turn is a part of the solar system, which in turn is a part of the cosmos. so what.

"Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison"

-- what prison? there is no actual "prison" or prisoner, imo. being in a "prison" is just an idea that you have in your mind.

"by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

-- been there and done that.

I'll [...] attempting to re educate you in the art (or science) of 'knowing who you truly are'."

-- been there and done that already. i already know who i "truly" am. i know, or rather i see that there is no 'true self'. so i see that there is nothing to know or to realize. and so i see that this sort of 'knowing' is itself an illusion. and btw, you don't "know" anything about me, and you have nothing with which to "re educate" me about... as far as that matter goes.


i'm just giving the elephant a hard time, i appreciate his comments mostly, tho sometimes i gotta rub my noggin.

tao, thanks for the info, will look therence gray up. sounds like you have known some pretty famous fellas, Watts was definitely off the wall, but his is by far the best explanation for taoism and zen that my relatively inexperienced analytical western mind has encountered.

ashy can actually be very interesting when he;s not going off on one, much to ponder, especially our insignificance, but i see it a different way. In a universe in which we humans are all but a fleck in the continuum of existence, both in terms of time and space, why would a god be specifically interested in our insignifant species, one of many not only on our own but likely only one of the lower lifeforms in a universe populated with life, above all else?

Do animals have souls? Do aliens? Why is it only our chosen species, and a select chosen few within that species that are chosen?

Have you guys ever watched the film "I [heart] Huckabees"? I think you'd like it. It's all about the 'one universe' vs 'there is nothing to know, just live'.

Now I'm feeling a little comatose...lol

Bobo, thanks for the reminder. I searched my blog via the Google thingie in the right column and found, as I suspected, that I'd written about "I (heart) Huckabees" back in 2005. It's an entertaining blog post, if I say so myself. Which, of course, I am. See:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/03/i_heart_huckabe.html

I'd forgotten how I ended my review of the movie. Pretty darn profound, non-humbly speaking:
--------------------------
The beginning of “I Heart Huckabees” features some coincidences. Wanting to figure out what those coincidences mean drives the environmentalist to hire the Existential Detectives. They follow him around, observing every detail of his life, on the assumption that if everything is connected, following any single thread of an event could reveal the entire fabric of the cosmos.

After I watched “I Heart Huckabees” I experienced a mild existential coincidence of my own. In the movie a character observes that only 5% of the matter/energy in the universe is recognizable. This is true. Physicists estimate that 70% of the stuff that makes up the universe is dark energy, 20% is dark matter, and just 5% is ordinary matter (“dark” is scientific shorthand for “we don’t know what it is”).

So there I was in my post-movie moment, brushing my teeth before going to bed, reading the February 28, 2005 issue of U.S. News and World Report that I had opened up next to the sink. And in an article called “Mysteries of the Mind” there it was! The 5% solution!

According to cognitive neuroscientists, we are conscious of only about 5 percent of our cognitive activity, so most of our decisions, actions, emotions, and behavior depends on the 95 percent of brain activity that goes beyond our conscious awareness.

Beautiful. The human mind that only knows about 5% of the stuff in the universe is only aware of 5% of what goes on in itself. Let’s see: 5% times 5% is a quarter of a percent. That seems about right—after ten thousand years or so of civilization Homo sapiens is clued in to about 1/400th of what the cosmos is all about, 0.25%.

No wonder life seems so meaningless so much of the time.

But then…there’s the other 99.75%.

Get a grip on that, even some of that, and I suspect life looks much different.

Is nice! I especially like the percentile calculations. It helps justify my sense of unknowningness.

Your sense ? Is that like your breathing,your hearing, seeing, sensing ?

kluklux,

"So its pretty much obvious from all accounts that none here and no one elsewhere have any reasonable and 'demonstrable evidence' of any reality to impart, anywhere, whatsoever..."

- nah this is just nonsense, if its demonstrable evidence you are after, science beats the others hands down, no question, anytime, anywhere. Whether you care to acceor reject that evidence remains up to you, but science works, its provable, and has by far more evidence to support it than any other method of insight into reality.

There is physical tangible objective evidence to prove a theory of evolution, but there is none of this evidence proving a theory of a god, soul, karma, transmigration or moksha.

So no, its not the same at all.

what rubbish are you actually talking, what 'science' are you referring to that can demonstrably and conclusively tell me what is absolutely real and what isn't?


You actually don't know what you are seeking, I doubt you seeking anything actually, you looking to score points between science and mysticism or some such nonentity comparison.

Brian has just posted here above that the average human uses one quarter of a percent of their latent potential conscious capacity, and you telling me that science can demonstrably prove what is real and what is illusion.

I don't think you or your scientists actually have a clue about anything relative to 'reality' whatsoever.

You live in this dream world of sensuality is God, what you see with these eyes, hear with these ears, touch with this skin, and smell with this nose is the be all and end all of any 'real' experience.

How pitifully misinformed are you, how incomplete is your research?

What about all that dark matter and dark energy, where is it? What is it? Who the hell ARE you? You don't know, and neither does Hawkins or Dawkins or anyone of those Cern reactor aficionados looking for the 'God' particle.

"So its pretty much obvious from all accounts that none here and no one elsewhere have any reasonable and 'demonstrable evidence' of any reality to impart, anywhere, whatsoever..."

And so it stands absolutely without doubt, you cannot demonstrate any reality whatsoever with your inadequate apparatus or your inadequate sensuality or your inadequate language or mathematics or terminology what 'reality' is in a measly iota, let alone in conclusive demonstrable evidence.

If its reality you seek then you barking up the absolute wrong tree, if its some kind of self satisfying compromise you are seeking to make yourself feel better in your abject lack of any real knowledge then go ahead, keep on 'believing' that your inadequate mechanics and physics and mathematics can completely and demonstrably prove what reality is.

You have not an iota of a clue because you seeking reality where it cannot be found.

Beyond the quark and all those new name sub particles they 'discovering' and buried somewhere within dark matter or dark energy or beyond the black hole vortexes, perhaps somewhere beyond these rainbows, you may start to scratch the meager surface of what or where only the periphery or the beginning of reality may or may not reside.

klukluxklanger, it's so much fun to throw your words back at you, with just a few substituted words. I, and others, I'm sure, eagerly await your next comment in which you will tell us what reality REALLY is, since you're so sure about what it is not:
----------------------
what rubbish are you actually talking, what 'spirituality' are you referring to that can demonstrably and conclusively tell me what is absolutely real and what isn't?

I don't think you or your mystics actually have a clue about anything relative to 'reality' whatsoever.

how pitifully misinformed are you, how incomplete is your research?

If its reality you seek then you barking up the absolute wrong tree, if its some kind of self satisfying compromise you are seeking to make yourself feel better in your abject lack of any real knowledge then go ahead, keep on 'believing' that your inadequate meditation and holy books and gurus can completely and demonstrably prove what reality is.

i'm not trying to score points between anything, it was you who made a sweeping generalisation that there is no way of providing demonstrable evidence for anything, and i totally agree with this, there are countless scientific phenomena which have been proved to be as certain as almost anything can be, and certainly is a method of insight which is wholly based on demonstrable evidence, as opposed to others.

Brian has got it right above, its you who is confused and projecting that confusion, science does not claim to know everything or be an absolute, but one thing it is based on is demonstable evidence.

now you can stand on your head and shout and crap all over whoever you want, and that will not change.

sorry, i dont agree, i totally 'disagree' with your generalisation and clumping all evidence together.

come on Brian, prove to me here and now through this dumb medium of inadequate intellectual jargon, what 'reality' is.

I'm not talking 'spirituality' here, I'm asking you free thinking, clear sighted, knowledgeable, rationalist materialists to prove without any doubt right here on this site what 'reality' is.

What a ludicrous proposition, what a dumb experiment and superfluous exercise in absolute nonentity seeking deception.

Do any of you sincerely 'believe' you going to either talk or think or conceptualize what reality is, you think your mathematical models and equations can demonstrate to anyone what reality is?

I'm afraid if you have not come to the catalytic conclusion that it never can and never will, then I doubt you get to grips with anything 'real' before this charade of your delusional, non realized, non free existence closes.

phenomenon of what, of 'reality'?

'phenomenon' by definition is hardly real.

Get to the core of the exercise and prove to yourself, because it is ONLY to yourself that you can prove any of it.

Einstein couldn't come close, the greatest brains on the planet cannot confer and relate to me what 'reality' is. The only way I will ever know what reality is, is if and when I experience it myself, conclusively, demonstrably and evidently.

You cannot split atoms or neutrons or electrons or quarks or what else physically have you and tell me you have found reality, because you haven't, you haven't even come close, and neither do your E=MC2 conclusions tell me or anyone else what 'reality' is.

You barking up a closed shop tree, there is no reality in non real enterprise.

Keep seeking, keep knocking on a closed shut door. Keep filling those test tubes with substance and formulating generic scientific models when you haven't even begun to determine what sustains the suns energy or what keeps gravity in play, or where the beginning of time or space begins or ends, or what lays beyond the vortex of physicality, or who is real and who is fake, and who are you, because you don't have a clue. Not even a measly minute iota of one.

einstein came a helluva lot closer than anyone else, but the great difference that seperates einstein or any other scientist from the mystics, is that einsteins theories are actually supported by demonstrable evidence, as opposed to theological dogma.

its impossible to model reality per se, but science gets close to representing various aspects of reality than any other, but most importantly it does so based on demonstrable evidence. Relativity, evolution, gravity all backed up by volumes of demonstrateable evidence as opposed to the theology of a god, a soul, karma, transmigration, multi-sphere cosmology, etc...ancient supersitious claims that are merely passed down and condition subsequent mystical traditions and influence their theological beliefs.

For these theories, there is certainly no demonstrable proof whatsoever, not an iota, which is why they are considered aspects of theology not reality.

SO where the christian believes his theology to be the truth or what he/she would term reality, this reality is different from that of the muslim or the hindu. So who he is right, they cant all be cos they all differ, so which insight of reality is the correct one?

Then of course we get to the mystic traditions such as RS who typically require their own path or course of conditioning for the initiate to undergo. And of course RS is steeped in its own theology, including all of the unpriovable concepts i;ve mentioned above.

How do we know these concepts are real? Worse the followers of this tradition are being psycholigically primed the whole time during their satsangs, talks, initiation ceremonies into following certain beliefs, for which there is no demonstrable proof.

Is the hindu concept of karma true or do the christians have it right that the lord sends us to heaven or hell hereafter, or are they both nonsense fairytales deeply embdeeded in out cultures and conditioning?

What seperates RS from being yet another path or cult that (knowingly or uknowingly) conditions or primes the follower to have certain types of experiences? How do we know if these experiences are real or not if not objectively demonstrable?

"Reality," like "God," is an abstraction, a concept. It is an idea in a human mind. It isn't something that can be experienced. So to search for "reality" is to miss what is real.

kukluxklanger, in his comments above, is like a man who goes to the beach, stands on the sand, looks out to sea, and asks "Where is the ocean? I don't see the ocean. There's no evidence of the ocean."

HIs companion says, "You're looking at it. It's the waves breaking in front of you. It's the vast expanse of water extending past the horizon. That's the ocean."

"No," says the man, who is attached to concepts, "I've read books that talk about The Ocean. It's something different than this. It has to be. It's something grander, other worldly. This isn't The Ocean. I'll keep looking for it."

I was asked what "reality" is. I say, reality isn't a concept. It isn't a word with quotation remarks around it. Subjective reality is what I'm experiencing right now. Objective reality is what human beings in addition to me agree to be true, shared experience.

This isn't complex. Or difficult. As George says in his comment, it's religions, spiritual systems, and mystical teachings that try to make "reality" into a far-off abstraction, something different from what is known now.

I guarentee you the multitude of psyzophrenics who feel they are christ the messiah, not only believe this to be true, they know it to be true.

but of course, its nonsense, their experience of reality is distorted, its absolutely false. their wiring upstairs has shorted or overloaded.

mad as march hares living in neverneverland, i.e. their mind which is poked.

this is like a non conversation, this is like conversing with outright fools who not only don't know anything about anything worth knowing but actually believe that they do.

Right now there is a full moon bright in the sky, the waves of the ocean are lapping at the shore. The difference between the jargon toting intellectual and the one that experiences reality is that the mystic is at one with the ocean and one with the universe, while the materialist is still racking his brain pondering around trying to prove to himself what particular make up the molecules and elements that formulate the wet water is, which mathematical or scientific model represents the construct of the phenomenon, or who is the one perceiving and who is the subject of perception.

You got it back to front Brian, I'm not the one racking my brain about what life is about or devouring other men's writings and concepts in my search and attempt to corroborate my own lack of knowledge or understanding.

It is you who still questions your life's validity in relation to your existence, you are still seeking corroborative evidence about what you believe to be partially true about who you might be or what your purpose of existence here is, or how your perception of this universe is measured by other men's minds.

The mystic or the knower is one who sees, who has sight, vision and clarity of perception. He knows who he is, where he is, and what he is doing, for which purpose and to which end. He does not question the validity nor the existence of the ocean because he is it, he knows it, he recognizes its inherent existence as a part of his own.

It is you the non knower, the skeptic and the doubter who still has to come to terms with yourself and discover who you in fact are, while he (the mystic) not only knows himself in absolute totality but he also knows you far better than you can possibly know yourself.

I'm afraid to concede that to talk or discuss anything of value with fools is in fact entering into a non starter non communicative relationship, it is a pitiful waste of time and resource.

Those who 'believe' they know something about what they are doing here, or who they might be, or what they hope to glean from empty discussions of non conclusive nonentity, and yet who cannot understand simple concepts of what reality is not, are simply bound to falter in their non knowing ignorance and subjective judgmental stupor.

There is in fact no point in continuing this empty frivolous discussion leading everyone to nowhere.

Your fixation with your imperative blindness is a block of oblivion that not even saints would dare to encounter, it is a pitiful waste of good energy to even consider communicating with outright incapacitated fools, of which some these fraudulent impostors here undoubtedly are.

One could go into lengthy diatribes about who is right and who is wrong, who sees truth and who is the abject incapacitated fool idiot. Who knows and who doesn't. Who is open to reality and who is shut like a closed fast dismal dead end book.

I'm not going to waste my time further conversing with such abject fools, idiots like these are a blight on any attribute of perceiving humanity and on anything worth pursuing or striving towards.

They don't want to know, they in fact are afraid to know, they are so stuck up in their abject absolute lack of any knowledge that they cannot conceive that someone somewhere does.

These dumb delinquent non knowing debilitated idiots are so stuck fast in their judgmental non knowing that they will beat about this empty vessel, non enlightening, non knowing bush forever, never knowing anything conclusively, never understanding one whisker of what the hell they are doing here or who the hell they are, or wtf their actual purpose of this dumb deluded dead end life of theirs is.

You're an outright emphatic dumb deluded idiot George, of the absolute utmost caliber, sorry to tell you the fact of the matter, but the way I see it from here, there is absolutely zero hope for you in this forlorn state of incapacitated blindness and thick judgmental stupor you have bound yourself hand and foot to.

I have yet to come across an individual who purportedly prides himself as an open minded 'educated' scientist that is more thick and more blatantly blinded by dumb deluded and debilitated ignorance and outright prejudicial blindness.

Your impenetrable arrogance and sheer lack of any conceptual understanding is the bane of your very soul. You don't have a goddamn hope in hell. And that is unfortunately an absolute fact, believe it or don't.

well the mystic might very well be absolutely assured of the meaning of it all, but i really struggle to see how this is possible.

in fact, this to me is real arrogance, its someone who purports to have all the answers with zero evidence therefore.

but worse than that it almost borders on delusional ignorance, since its arrogance of the worst kind, i.e. you either accept what I say or you can lump it.

why is the scientist arrogant, when he is the one to admit the limitations of his endeavour, and his knowledge is laid bare for everyone to scrutinize and evalate.

klukluxklanger (kkk) says:

"come on Brian, prove to me here and now through this dumb medium of inadequate intellectual jargon, what 'reality' is."

-- right here is where we see what your problem is. you demand others to "prove" what "reality" is. but the thing is, no one here but YOU has claimed what reality is.

YOU are the one who claims there is some universal spiritual reality.

No one else made any claimsabout "reality". its almost all a mystery. except for matter and the laws of physics.

Only the believers and the religious fundamentaltists and the supposed mystics like YOU, make calims about "reality".

There is no 'one reality'. there are only myriad diverse perceptions and opinions.... one of which is yours.

The only consensus or shared "reality", is the so-called physical world that we all see and hear and touch.

But even then, people all perceive slightly differently. so there is no actual 'one reality'.

and no one here, except for YOU, says or implies or claims that there is. so quit asking others to prove that which YOU believe. thats for YOU to do.


"You're an outright emphatic dumb deluded idiot George, of the absolute utmost caliber, sorry to tell you the fact of the matter, but the way I see it from here, there is absolutely zero hope for you in this forlorn state of incapacitated blindness and thick judgmental stupor you have bound yourself"

well ashy let us assume your hypthosesis is correct, upon what grounds do you come to such a judgement? Is it because I question your precious belief systems, or because i refuse to follow things blindly or because simply because i happen to disagree with your worldview and ego whom all you spiritual chaps dont seem to have tamed one little bit?

Klanger,

You say: "this is like a non conversation, this is like conversing with outright fools who not only don't know anything about anything worth knowing but actually believe that they do."

--Well then, please enlighten us about what is worth knowing that we don't know. Do you know it? What is it? Relieve us of our ignorance and misery (Please, no dogma).

If all is One, then you are what we are and we are what you are and we are all together. So, what is the problem?

If all is One then isn't everything just fine as it is? Aren't we just fine as we are and you are just fine as you are?

Rest in peace.

I think there is a 'reality', something that could be objectively proven if we had the instruments to do so. I don't think there is a subjective reality... there is only a subjective experience of reality.

Eg. to use Brian's example...

Person A 'I see a sunset'

Person B 'Really? I see a sunset too!'

The sunset exists with or without Person A or Person B. Both persons, by virtue of their sense of sight, can see the sunset. How they see it depends upon how their eyes interpret the sun's form. But it doesn't affect the sun's existence.

Likewise the sun would continue to exist if two visually impaired persons sat there and concluded that the sun does not exist because they can't see it.

Science has gone further and discovered the existence of many other things that we can't experience without the aid of other instruments, eg. electricity

I tell you what amuses me most about all these great mystics and spiritualists, is they all think they such free spirits and so open-minded and all that, but at the mere first glimpse of a disagreement, of their precious values being called into quesiton, they go off like christmas crackers.

this is of course, no suprise, since i should imagine their entire conditioning coming from a guru-based devotional worldview is essentially parochial and demands unquestioning obediance.

its these dumb bastards who stifle any form of progress or exchange of ideas since time immemorial.

and who prides themselves on scientific 'education'. i think science is an incredible method for gaining an insight and understanding of reality and being able to discount new age mumbo jumbo. i do pride myself on being open-minded and that along with self education is far more important than a formal education of any kind, but most importantly i pride myself on being sufficient independently minded to not simply be brow-beaten into accepting the bullshit psycholical manipulative dros that you have been nourished on since birth, and that you are blatantly unaware of.

Ashy you are a fundamentalist, and if anyone is blinded, it is you.

George,

i love you man. i realize that i was wrong about you way back when. you tell it like it is.

you and i had a misunderstanding awhile back, and for some odd reason, we could not see eye to eye, but its not important now. we all sometimes make mistakes.

in any case, nowadays i have actually come to enjoy your comments and your humor immensely.

i'd hope to meet up with you someday and go to the pub for a drink (and maybe take some acid too *just joking*)

you know, i was a real science guy long before i got into this mysticism stuff. i was very much into radio electronics and physics. i was also a hard-core ham radio guy in my youth, and i built my entire shortwave station from scratch. i also built lasers back in the early 60s before anyone in the public knew anything about them.

my father and my grandfather were both serious scientists as well. i was born when my father was a post-grad in nuclear physics at MIT.

if you send me a personal email, i will tell you about my famous british ancestors. send it to omsatnam (at) hotmail.com -- and then i will send you back my other private personal email address. i will be on the lookout for it.

anyway old chap, i hope our differences are healed. i do find your comments sensible and rather enjoyable to read, and i almost always agree with you.

cheerio mate.


lol Tao, i actually think everyone would get on pretty well. I think you dissect things very well, but also have a great deal of knowledge of the eastern philosophies, of which i know very little, so i read with much interest, even if i probe with some jibes every now and again.

I think this is a very interesting site with many great contributors.

Anyway, Ashy has actually got some very interesting things to say and he certainly sees the world very differently from me, perhaps even more clearly since he seems to have all these answers and make these pronouncements with such certainty.

I dont know, but i do refuse to simply be battered into submission with dogma. i mean he;s obviously had these great insights, but i cant understand them in an instant. Ashy seems to lose patience and go into rabid attack dog mode and one almost has to stick your thumb up his bum to get him to shut up.

will drop you an email, we have very similar scientific backgrounds actually, so am more interested in the mystical stuff on here and esp all the stuff you guys have picked up along the way. but you are obviously very advanced in this respect, been living in france the last few years and actually met a woman just before i left, who gave me a book on Dzogchen, fascinating stuff.

to give ashy or hoochiecoochieman (LOL) his due, he was actually the one who introduced me to this site in the first place, but he seems to have got dissillusioned with what he percieves as RS bashing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

Your Information

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

Welcome


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