A Buddhist cannot be happy and pleased with himself (was Re: Of what use is belief?)
Tang Huyen
brian mitchell wrote:
> Peter Olcott:
>
> >Of the two aspects of realization, (which may only need be a single
> >aspect if one uses the approach of discarding ego) realization itself,
> >and integrating realization into one's life it is quite apparent that I
> >am not doing nearly as well as I could with the latter.
> >
> >Even though I have seemed quite arrogant (which Hui-Neng calls
> >a sin) I have still been learning this integration from several one's
> >here.
>
> I have no idea what you may or may not have realized, or to what
> extent you may or may not have integrated anything into your life,
> but I have observed that throughout the course of hundreds of
> critical posts directed to you, which have got progressively shriller
> and more insulting, your's have nonetheless maintained an
> unperturbed evenness of tone, so perhaps your various interlocutors
> could learn something from you, too.
I have always said that Peter is calm, even-keeled and polite,
regardless of whatever else about him.
Recently there was this exchange:
Peter:
> I aim to be calm and unperturbed in everything that I do and am
> becoming increasingly more successful at it.
Jigme:
Ah, I misread you here (originally thought you claimed "I *am*
calm". Aiming to be calm, I believe to be a good aim. It is not
practice. SInce calm and dispassion does not occur naturally in
conditioned consciousness, what practice is used to develop it?
Astonishingly, Jigme declared that *calm is not practice*. (He
followed it with a description of insight/penetration [vipassana]
borrowed from somewhere).
Earlier, he declared to Robbie:
<<Quite a sacrifice but a false choice actually. There is never a
need to give up peace. Also, a Buddhist cannot be happy and
pleased with himself.>>
I was bombed out:
<<a Buddhist cannot be happy and pleased with himself.>>
So, to Jigme, calm is not practice (though Peter is good with it),
and a Buddhist cannot be happy and pleased with himself.
Am I on the right planet?
Tang Huyen
dr x
everyone here has faults, and half of us think we're god, so to see the
zeroing in on peter like he is something special...i'm jealous.
Peter Olcott
I also want to become much more like the gentle spirit that you are,
perhaps then "others" will be more happy to hear what I am saying.
dr x
'course he puts his beliefs out there to be debated doesn't he. and at
first i thought as a means they might be on the right track to use the
force they were/are to dig into him for weeds of ego, but it does seem
out of hand and exaggerated at this point, quite personal too.
over all i see such similar faults in the others.
nonetheless, when someone brings god into this the concept is very
tempting to attack, and when he equates himself to god... well.
Peter Olcott
The great Master Dogen said, "To study the Buddha Way is to study the
self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is
to be enlightened by the ten thousand things." To be enlightened by the
ten thousand things is to recognize the unity of the self and the ten
thousand things.
From the broader point of view of the unity of every religion, this
would also be known as unity with God, where God and the individual self
are realized to be one and the same thing.
If there is a unity of ALL things, and the set of ALL things AKA the
universal set is defined as the complementary set to the empty set, then
the unity of ALL things logically entails the unity of every religion.
dr x
what is god. the all things, the emptiness, both?
sometimes people like to think of god as the universe, the universe as in
the ten thousand things, that is why i ask.
and some people neither emptiness, nor the ten thousand things, nor both
but god to them is a higher unity rather like the centre in the void.
dr x
you know, the biggest ego of them all definition. bot not like the
universe biggest, a unity not of that but beyond that.
the world bows before its power. that is the god i am jealous of.
in any case, there can be always a mix up with ones personal ego. so that
one both inflates their own personal part and at the same time denies it,
by referring their own aspects to the concepts of their idea of "god".
also, you do seem to avoid posts that you can't answer, such as my
question regarding how one can be 100% certain of a self evident truth
when no matter the process of conclusion it is via our imperfect
perceptual apparatus that we "get it", and we each differ in degree.
Peter Olcott
Gos AKA the great formless one can not be precisely defined. A rough
ball park concept of God might involve everything including
life itself.
Peter Olcott
Here is a trivial example of self evident truth:
I comprehend that 2 + 3 = 5, because I comprehend that the way that the
process of addition works for integer numbers, this truth is inescapable.
Self evident truth is the set of truth such that the truth of any
statement can be completely verified entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words.
dr x
you're stuck. it is quite amazing how my post just goes straight thru.
nonetheless you're not a bad guy, don't take it personally, but you might
try to feel some compassion for those who get irritated in conversations.
dr x
and consider that an observation had by a number observers may not make
it as high a certainty as a self evident truth but it is worth checking.
you don't seem to tackle the issue actually in the post given you, it
goes past you and you go back to a program affirmation like response.
again, no matter the process and the words, we who perceive it are not
perfect instruments of perception. even if there were flashes of it we
don't hold it long enough that affirmation is much more than belief.
you might see that a circle is round one day as clear as ever, the next
you might be considerably distracted but still "comprehending" it, though
it is at another level in which the clarity had is not equal to before.
we are fundamentally limited to the degree to which we can know anything,
even though self evident truths are "got" at a deeper level of course.
try holding onto an electric fence and telling me you know a circle is
round exactly as clearly as you were before that. our body/mind states
always effect our clarity with logic and words, we aren't pure intellect.
Peter Olcott
The Zen perspective often are encourages one to discard concepts.
From the big picture of the master plan, concepts are what is
underneath everything else.
Both views have different kinds of merit.
dr x
yes , there is a good side, no doubt.
SG
It reminds me of a thought I had a few years back. When you are
believing
in a God, and convinced that your beliefs are correct, you are really
believing (trusting) that your brain is functioning properly to
believe in
a correct view.
SG
Peter Olcott
Every belief is always baseless. To form a definite conclusion based on
anything less than complete proof is always an error.
> in a God, and convinced that your beliefs are correct, you are really
> believing (trusting) that your brain is functioning properly to
> believe in
> a correct view.
>
> SG
One merely must fully comprehend the fundamental way that truth itself
really works, no trust is required. This form of truth would exist even
if there were zero minds to contain it.
Jigme Dorje
Why do you desire to make others happy to hear what you say?
Is it possible that you are unhappy to hear their feedback? A calm
response is good but merely de rigueur. A calm mind is a gentle one.
Peter Olcott
It is better to at least occasionally occupy oneself doing something.
> Is it possible that you are unhappy to hear their feedback? A calm
> response is good but merely de rigueur. A calm mind is a gentle one.
Some of the feedback is useful and thus good, other aspects of the
feedback is simply erroneous.
firehose
There are ways to make sense of his words.
Perfectly good Buddhist sense, mind you.
--
Firehose should be filtered out as well as those who talk to him regularly
firehose
Did you read what he said about certain Japanese Zen masters?
Peter Olcott
No.
firehose
He often says terrible things about certain people.
Peter Olcott
Who? I would guess that it is justified.
firehose
Better ask him.
Peter Olcott
You brought it up, and I really don't care.
Jigme Dorje
Agreed. Tang's comments abut others are quite self deluded. Brian's
appear by contrast well intentioned. Yet Tang's advice on developing
insight is excellent, and others, myself included, have been
suggesting the practice of observing your mental proliferations.
Overall, don't you have much to be grateful for?vilyzingbatiersphyprin
Jigme Dorje
The mind sees what it is conditioned to see, adding contradiction and
contention.
The mind that observes its agenda enters the portal of awareness.
herbzet
Oh, there you are, Tang!
Haven't seen you for awhile -- haven't been following this thread.
Good to see you -- hi!
--
hz
dr x
yes it's essentially too must trust in yourself, not god, nor logic.
SG
>
> - Show quoted text -
"..truth itself really works.."
If I were to anthropomorphise truth, I'd be more inclined to describe
him
as a couch potato than a blue-collar dude. Just sittin' there waitin'
to be
discovered.
SG
dr x
which still doesn't address your own minds certainty in it!
zenworm
100%?
^~
dr x
i know. i don't make declarations of certainty without mindfulness. ever.
--
Here at the Phone Company, we serve all kinds of people;
from Presidents and Kings to the scum of the earth...
zenworm
full of what?
^~
dr x
aids, mindfucker. interested?
zenworm
sure!
How many do you have?
and What do they do?
^~
dr x
they make sure i'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
Tang Huyen
dr x wrote:
> they make sure i'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
Augustine, De correptione et gratia, II, 4 in the Maurist
edition says of the Holy Spirit: �Let them understand
rather, if they are the sons of God, that they are acted
(agi) by the Spirit of God so that they act (agant) as they
ought to act (agendum est), and when they have acted
(egerint), let them give grace (gratias agant) to the one
by whom they are acted (agantur). They are acted
(aguntur), indeed, so that they act (agant), not so that
they do (agant) nothing (Sed potius intelligant, si filii Dei
sunt, spiritu Dei se agi, ut quod agendum est agant, et
cum egerint, illi a quo aguntur, gratias agant. Aguntur
enim ut agant, non ut ipsi nihil agant).� �uvres de Saint
Augustin, 24, Paris: �tudes Augustiniennes, 1962, 274
(corresponding to PL, 44, 918 which has a slightly
different text).
In negative theology, one effaces oneself and gets
oneself out of the way so that God comes in and acts
one in one's stead. Short of that, if I had money, I
would hire stumper/oxtail/firehose to follow me
around to point out my faults and errors to me, and
any remaining faults and errors would be only due to
my pig-headedness -- he is there to make sure I'm
right, the rest of the time it's me.
Tang Huyen
dr x
> dr x wrote:
>
>> they make sure i'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
>
> Augustine, De correptione et gratia, II, 4 in the Maurist edition says
> of the Holy Spirit: “Let them understand rather, if they are the sons
of
> God, that they are acted (agi) by the Spirit of God so that they act
> (agant) as they ought to act (agendum est), and when they have acted
> (egerint), let them give grace (gratias agant) to the one by whom they
> are acted (agantur). They are acted (aguntur), indeed, so that they act
> (agant), not so that they do (agant) nothing (Sed potius intelligant, si
> filii Dei sunt, spiritu Dei se agi, ut quod agendum est agant, et cum
> egerint, illi a quo aguntur, gratias agant. Aguntur enim ut agant, non
> ut ipsi nihil agant).” Œuvres de Saint Augustin, 24, Paris: Études
> Augustiniennes, 1962, 274 (corresponding to PL, 44, 918 which has a
> slightly different text).
>
> In negative theology, one effaces oneself and gets oneself out of the
> way so that God comes in and acts one in one's stead. Short of that, if
> I had money, I would hire stumper/oxtail/firehose to follow me around to
> point out my faults and errors to me, and any remaining faults and
> errors would be only due to my pig-headedness -- he is there to make
> sure I'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
>
> Tang Huyen
so... when did he stop paying you?
dr x
> dr x wrote:
>
>> they make sure i'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
>
> Augustine, De correptione et gratia, II, 4 in the Maurist edition says
> of the Holy Spirit: “Let them understand rather, if they are the sons
of
> God, that they are acted (agi) by the Spirit of God so that they act
> (agant) as they ought to act (agendum est), and when they have acted
> (egerint), let them give grace (gratias agant) to the one by whom they
> are acted (agantur). They are acted (aguntur), indeed, so that they act
> (agant), not so that they do (agant) nothing (Sed potius intelligant, si
> filii Dei sunt, spiritu Dei se agi, ut quod agendum est agant, et cum
> egerint, illi a quo aguntur, gratias agant. Aguntur enim ut agant, non
> ut ipsi nihil agant).” Œuvres de Saint Augustin, 24, Paris: Études
> Augustiniennes, 1962, 274 (corresponding to PL, 44, 918 which has a
> slightly different text).
>
> In negative theology, one effaces oneself and gets oneself out of the
> way so that God comes in and acts one in one's stead. Short of that, if
> I had money, I would hire stumper/oxtail/firehose to follow me around to
> point out my faults and errors to me, and any remaining faults and
> errors would be only due to my pig-headedness -- he is there to make
> sure I'm right, the rest of the time it's me.
>
> Tang Huyen
i don't always know what moves me. *slap*
i do suspect something weird, though. i wish someone else could tell me
what it was.... [follow up with joke]
Peter Olcott
I am re-reading the platform Sutra and found things that I didn't know
was there.
Peter Olcott
That might be another good practice. Go ahead and let the mind find
contention, and that after you did that, seek out as much agreement as
you can find. I will try and make my posts that way. I will start with
what I agree with, and then add what seems to be false.
Peter Olcott
Logic is the mathematical framework of correct reasoning, no trust is
required, only comprehension is required.
Peter Olcott
Exactly. And if there really was/is an actual God that created
everything from absolute nothingness, this one would have found that
many of these creations were simply discoveries of knowledge that
existed from the beginning. As soon as round is discovered, PI is entailed.
Peter Olcott
Two things can be known with complete certainty:
(1) Existence itself exists right now.
(2) The entire body of self-evident truth such as mathematics. Self
evident truth is any statements that can be completely verified entirely
on the basis of the meaning of the words.
Nothing at all else can be known with complete certainty, even whether
or not five minutes ago ever existed. (The original version of my
thought experiment, retroactively attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson).
Jigme Dorje
The practice is in observing whatever arises, whether contention or
agreement, with equal dispassion, without identifying with either.
Mental/emotional conditioning brings expectation/preconception to
pheomenena and unconsously follows the script/role that this
unrecognized view proliferates. The voice in the head, unrecognized.
is given control of the body.
In recognizing and acknowledging the voice in the head, you have
already separated from it, are not identified with it, and instead are
simply the awareness itself. You have bypassed mental proliferation
and ego by letting go of agreement/disagreement, like/dislike, right/
wrong, all of which are aspects of the ego's judgement mechanism.
In awareness, you are not embroiled in the dream of conceptualization,
there is no distinction between truth and falsehood, there is neither
agreement nor disagreement. There is only acceptance of all without
distinction or division (what you call unity.)
In awareness, you are therefore said to be awakened from the dream
state of the world as filtered through human judgment. Call it
awakened awareness, call it presence, call it anything you like -
although I advise agains high fallutin' terms like enlightenment,
realization or any such usage suggestive of a subject/object
relationship, which is a feature of conditioned consciousness.
When the conditions are in place for all judgments and identifications
to become transparent, you experience sudden awakening. Hui Neng is
then transformed from fictional character to archetype.
The process of conditioning nontheless continues since the mind by its
nature discriminates/judges/conceptualizes and awareness is pushed
into the background. However, it is not lost so long as the "observer"
of conditioned phenomena is activated.
Again, you become aware of the arising of conditioned phenomena and do
not identify (the no selfness of conditioned phenomena) and you become
aware of the awareness, which is what you really are. Awareness
becomes aware of itself and all that has occurred is a perceptual
shift, nothing more.
The effect of practice, whether sitting or not, is to bring the
awareness from the background to the foreground.
Peter Olcott
> On Oct 28, 10:30 am, Peter Olcott<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>> On 10/27/2010 11:30 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>
>>> The mind sees what it is conditioned to see, adding contradiction and
>>> contention. The mind that observes its agenda enters the portal of awareness.
>>
>> That might be another good practice. Go ahead and let the mind find
>> contention, and that after you did that, seek out as much agreement as
>> you can find. I will try and make my posts that way. I will start with
>> what I agree with, and then add what seems to be false.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The practice is in observing whatever arises, whether contention or
> agreement, with equal dispassion, without identifying with either.
>
> Mental/emotional conditioning brings expectation/preconception to
> pheomenena and unconsously follows the script/role that this
> unrecognized view proliferates. The voice in the head, unrecognized.
> is given control of the body.
Pure reason can tell this little voice when it is wrong. Pure reason can
see the truth behind the illusion because it has the criterion measure
of truth itself.
>
> In recognizing and acknowledging the voice in the head, you have
> already separated from it, are not identified with it, and instead are
> simply the awareness itself. You have bypassed mental proliferation
> and ego by letting go of agreement/disagreement, like/dislike, right/
> wrong, all of which are aspects of the ego's judgement mechanism.
Yes, and Christ said not to judge.
>
> In awareness, you are not embroiled in the dream of conceptualization,
> there is no distinction between truth and falsehood, there is neither
> agreement nor disagreement. There is only acceptance of all without
> distinction or division (what you call unity.)
>
This is very good too, and Hui-Neng says so too. I could use more of this.
> In awareness, you are therefore said to be awakened from the dream
> state of the world as filtered through human judgment. Call it
> awakened awareness, call it presence, call it anything you like -
> although I advise agains high fallutin' terms like enlightenment,
> realization or any such usage suggestive of a subject/object
> relationship, which is a feature of conditioned consciousness.
Looking at things apart from any conditioning is a good thing to do.
This can also be derived from pure reason. If one takes it as a basic
logical premise that everything that ever happens is really only for its
entertainment value, one become far less distressed by what appears to
be adversity.
>
> When the conditions are in place for all judgments and identifications
> to become transparent, you experience sudden awakening. Hui Neng is
> then transformed from fictional character to archetype.
Fictional characters can be archetypes.
>
> The process of conditioning nontheless continues since the mind by its
> nature discriminates/judges/conceptualizes and awareness is pushed
> into the background. However, it is not lost so long as the "observer"
> of conditioned phenomena is activated.
Conceptions are not bad in themselves, it is the judgmentalism that
holds one back.
>
> Again, you become aware of the arising of conditioned phenomena and do
> not identify (the no selfness of conditioned phenomena) and you become
> aware of the awareness, which is what you really are. Awareness
> becomes aware of itself and all that has occurred is a perceptual
> shift, nothing more.
>
> The effect of practice, whether sitting or not, is to bring the
> awareness from the background to the foreground.
>
That definitely sounds good and right.
SG
Addiction to thought-forms... "they tried to make me go to rehab but I
said "no! no! no!"
SG
SG
In my mid-twenties, I was completely enamoured with the writings of
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Emerson.
SG
dr x
it doesn't address it still, it just as i have already told you before
ignores tackling the post and reverts back to a program of affirmation.
dr x
by whom? somebody who might be wrong, right?
dr x
the comprehension differs in degree between each person, and within each
person depending on the time and a number of circumstances, i believe.
and even if it was momentarily pristine, we don't remain very long.
SG
Most excellently taught, well-understood. Thank you.
SG
SG
> Looking at things apart from any conditioning is a good thing to do.
> This can also be derived from pure reason. If one takes it as a basic
> logical premise that everything that ever happens is really only for its
> entertainment value, one become far less distressed by what appears to
> be adversity.
Pure reason? Any kind of reasoning is activated by the mind-sense as a
thought-form, and thought-forms
are defilements clouding Pure Mind.
SG
Peter Olcott
The Hindu path of knowledge AKA Jnana yoga is one true path to
realization whether you believe it or not. For me no other path would be
nearly as effective.
Peter Olcott
Certain subsets of the set of all knowledge completely prove themselves
true by the meaning of their words. If you don't comprehend it this
time, you never will. I have answered your question completely and
correctly and your Klesha keeps the meanings from you.
Peter Olcott
Truth itself can not ever possibly be wrong. Truth itself exists
independently of minds than know it. Logic is the only reliable path to
this kind of truth.
Peter Olcott
None-the-less 2 + 3 = 5, even if existence itself ceases to exist.
dr x
you can repeat the affirmation, but you could be speaking to anyone, you
haven't actually considered the post to you. how does any of this get
around the actual fundamental perceptual limitations of the individual?
so even if you don't reply, just consider that you could be speaking to
anybody - your responses have never really touched the content of mine.
this is why i say that multiple observations of the same thing should at
least give you pause to reflect on the possibility we're right, not you.
you do have a hard time reading.......like a wall exists.
but very well, same to you though.
no hard feelings. :)
dr x
truth may never possibly be wrong, but our comprehension of it can be.
you appear to get one mistaken with the other.
dr x
i believe that, but i am not even certain of that perception. and though
the truth exists independently of perception, you appear to be mixing the
perception of those truths up with its independent truth beyond us. as a
perception we can not be certain 100% of anything, we can be quite clear,
but it doesn't appear to escape some fundamental limitations of the mind.
Peter Olcott
It seems to me that that is a misunderstanding of the truth. Without
thoughts realization could not ever possibly take place. For example
Hui-Neng would have never ever heard the Diamond Sutra if it was not for
thoughts expressed as words.
dr x
by actually addressing the post to you i mean perhaps saying about how
this self evident logic is actually perceived exactly the same by all.
how there is absolutely no difference even if you were more distracted
one day than the other. how does nothing effect the level of clarity.
but the thing is, it's pretty clear there are levels, just as there are
levels between peoples understanding of mathematics, though some get it
better than others, others probably get it better than them, too.
dr x
wowzers, that is attachment at a very high level there you got.
perhaps awaken and jigme were quite compassionate to tackle it.
Peter Olcott
Because conception (mental thoughts) has nothing at all to do with
perception (the physical sensations provided by the sense organs).
> so even if you don't reply, just consider that you could be speaking to
> anybody - your responses have never really touched the content of mine.
>
> this is why i say that multiple observations of the same thing should at
> least give you pause to reflect on the possibility we're right, not you.
There are some aspects of what "others" here are saying that are focused
on some aspects that are more relevant to what I am seeking (the end of
suffering).
When it comes down to the fundamental nature of truth itself, it is
impossible to correctly refute what I am saying. There is only
comprehension and lack to comprehension, and it seems like a lot more of
the latter than the former.
From the ignorant mind's point of view ignorance can only appear to be
disagreement because to actually directly see the ignorance itself one
must contrast this ignorance with the knowledge that is missing. In
other words you can see that you are simply not getting it until you do
actually get it.
Peter Olcott
and the absence thereof.
Peter Olcott
You use the term perception incorrectly. Some dictionaries make this
same mistake. A perception is a sense orgran object, a conception is on
object of the mind.
> and though
> the truth exists independently of perception, you appear to be mixing the
> perception of those truths up with its independent truth beyond us. as a
> perception we can not be certain 100% of anything, we can be quite clear,
> but it doesn't appear to escape some fundamental limitations of the mind.
>
>
There is no possible way for doubt to possibly exist that 2 + 3 = 5.
This is because these terms within this expression mutually define each
other to derive this inherent meaning. If one were to take an infinite
amount of time and try everything that could ever possibly be tried
there is no escaping the (purely conceptual) truth that 2 + 3 = 5.
There is a whole body of knowledge that is equally completely beyond all
possible doubt. One can either comprehend this of fail to comprehend
this, no correct refutation is possible.
Peter Olcott
2 remains 2 unceasingly without end, and does not depend upon one's
concentration or mood. Everyone that fully comprehends the concept of 2
shares exactly and precisely the same meaning without the slightest
trace of divergence.
Peter Olcott
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:27:18 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2010 2:47 PM, SG wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 10:32 am, Peter Olcott<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at things apart from any conditioning is a good thing to do.
>>>> This can also be derived from pure reason. If one takes it as a basic
>>>> logical premise that everything that ever happens is really only for
>>>> its entertainment value, one become far less distressed by what
>>>> appears to be adversity.
>>>
>>> Pure reason? Any kind of reasoning is activated by the mind-sense as a
>>> thought-form, and thought-forms
>>> are defilements clouding Pure Mind.
>>>
>>> SG
>>>
>>>
>> It seems to me that that is a misunderstanding of the truth. Without
>> thoughts realization could not ever possibly take place. For example
>> Hui-Neng would have never ever heard the Diamond Sutra if it was not for
>> thoughts expressed as words.
>
> wowzers, that is attachment at a very high level there you got.
>
> perhaps awaken and jigme were quite compassionate to tackle it.
>
It is not ego based attachment, it is a comprehension of the way that
reality works. If one tries to explain how any of the sutras could ever
be expressed without the existence of words, (which themselves are
concepts) one must surely fail.
dr x
sorry. but i am not talking about the concept, and when i say perception
i do not mean the thing perceived, i mean the actual seeing. oops, seeing
is also a physical term, but essentially there's not much difference. the
term perception just seemed closer to what i mean than conception.
and conception after all connects to your habit of attachment to the
thing seen rather than the seeing. sorry anyway.
perhaps cognition is a better term, but still seems to detract as habit
into the actual process and forms rather than the direct experience?
>
>> so even if you don't reply, just consider that you could be speaking to
>> anybody - your responses have never really touched the content of mine.
>>
>> this is why i say that multiple observations of the same thing should
>> at least give you pause to reflect on the possibility we're right, not
>> you.
>
> There are some aspects of what "others" here are saying that are focused
> on some aspects that are more relevant to what I am seeking (the end of
> suffering).
>
> When it comes down to the fundamental nature of truth itself, it is
> impossible to correctly refute what I am saying. There is only
> comprehension and lack to comprehension, and it seems like a lot more of
> the latter than the former.
>
> From the ignorant mind's point of view ignorance can only appear to be
> disagreement because to actually directly see the ignorance itself one
> must contrast this ignorance with the knowledge that is missing. In
> other words you can see that you are simply not getting it until you do
> actually get it.
i get that 2 plus 3 equals 5, obviously, but i am not 100% certain of it,
and you claim that is an impossibility. go figure.
>
>
>> you do have a hard time reading.......like a wall exists.
>>
>> but very well, same to you though.
>>
>> no hard feelings. :)
>>
--
dr x
i'm pretty sure you know i wasn't talking about a sense object, unless
you really are that hung up on words. thanks anyway.
>
>> and though
>> the truth exists independently of perception, you appear to be mixing
>> the perception of those truths up with its independent truth beyond us.
>> as a perception we can not be certain 100% of anything, we can be quite
>> clear, but it doesn't appear to escape some fundamental limitations of
>> the mind.
>>
>>
>>
> There is no possible way for doubt to possibly exist that 2 + 3 = 5.
well, you're wrong about that aren't you. i doubt it. i'm not lying.
> This is because these terms within this expression mutually define each
> other to derive this inherent meaning. If one were to take an infinite
> amount of time and try everything that could ever possibly be tried
> there is no escaping the (purely conceptual) truth that 2 + 3 = 5.
>
> There is a whole body of knowledge that is equally completely beyond all
> possible doubt. One can either comprehend this of fail to comprehend
> this, no correct refutation is possible.
--
dr x
whatever.
Nobody in Particular
>
> Nothing at all else can be known with complete certainty, even whether
> or not five minutes ago ever existed. (The original version of my
> thought experiment, retroactively attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson).
We cannot even know with certainty if there is such a thing as memory. What
if at any point in time (meaning "now"), the mind just made up a completely
consistent and acceptable response that fully accounted for current sensory
perceptions and current state of mind, to any question we ask it about the
"past"? What if there is absolutely no memory carried forward from point to
point in time, and a complete story is made up at every instant of time?
Would there be a way to prove whether there is or is not such a thing as
memory?
expires
with himself (was Re: Of what use is belief?)
On Fri Oct 29 2010 00:38:27 GMT+0200
beyond the speed/frequency of light
there may be infinite speed/frequency.
how can i "know with [absolute] certainty",
that the memory/"knowledge" of me now (in
this infinitely tiny "gap" of consciousness
between memory of past and fantasy of future)
is the same memory of the same me that i
remember to have been in the previous
infinitely tiny instant of the previous now?
at *infinite* speed/frequency "The One" is
*perhaps* always "now" switching between all
(individual)-consciousnesses-and-memories
that exist now. associatively the following
book comes to mind ;-)
"The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are"
by Allan Watts
http://www.holybooks.com/the-book-on-the-taboo-against-knowing-who-you-are/
--expires
Peter Olcott
One can erroneously be uncertain of anything.
Peter Olcott
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>> Nothing at all else can be known with complete certainty, even whether
>> or not five minutes ago ever existed. (The original version of my
>> thought experiment, retroactively attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson).
>
> We cannot even know with certainty if there is such a thing as memory.
That is a false statement, while one us using memory, memory is proven
to exist.
> What
> if at any point in time (meaning "now"), the mind just made up a completely
> consistent and acceptable response that fully accounted for current sensory
> perceptions and current state of mind, to any question we ask it about the
> "past"? What if there is absolutely no memory carried forward from point to
> point in time, and a complete story is made up at every instant of time?
> Would there be a way to prove whether there is or is not such a thing as
> memory?
>
I am using my memory right now.
dr x
nothing that arises is beyond doubt. can you at least let go of self
evident logic? and if so, is it difficult for you (it seems so)?
as i say even if it is pristine it is wavering, and the time it takes to
speak the affirmation of the certainty fluctuates in its awareness,
though the attachment to feeling of knowing appears to be more stable.
Nobody in Particular
How do you know that? If what you call "memory" is generated live and made
perfect sense, how could you tell?
Nobody in Particular
"Merely," he says ...
Peter Olcott
Logic is my profession, it pays the bills.
I have already shown exactly how logic causes my mind to be enormously
more open than most every mind that exists. Logic delimits the precise
line of how open a mind can be. How many people seriously consider the
possibility that five minutes ago never existed?
Peter Olcott
I can see myself piecing together elements from memory right now.
Lee Rudolph
>On 10/28/2010 6:35 PM, dr x wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:20:42 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> i get that 2 plus 3 equals 5, obviously, but i am not 100% certain of
>>>> it, and you claim that is an impossibility. go figure.
>>>
>>> One can erroneously be uncertain of anything.
>>
>> nothing that arises is beyond doubt. can you at least let go of self
>> evident logic? and if so, is it difficult for you (it seems so)?
>>
>> as i say even if it is pristine it is wavering, and the time it takes to
>> speak the affirmation of the certainty fluctuates in its awareness,
>> though the attachment to feeling of knowing appears to be more stable.
>>
>
>Logic is my profession, it pays the bills.
Goodness.
How can anyone continue to think that the Age of Miracles
is over?
Lee Rudolph
dr x
is it very different from wondering if everything is a dream? most people
have wondered that. however you haven't answered, do you find yourself
attached to logic and self evident logic particularly or can you let go?
Nobody in Particular
Again, how do you know that those pieces actually come from a memory and are
not generated live this very instant to appear as memory?
dr x
aids.
--
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.
-- Ovid (43 B.C. - A.D. 18)
Peter Olcott
It is pretty easy really, even though it took me a long time to derive.
I suppose brain surgery is easy once you know how to do it.
The only things that one can count on as true are those things that can
be completely proven entirely on the basis of the meaning of their
words, everything else must be considered as possibly true. Luckily most
of these permutations don't make any difference, and can be discarded on
that basis.
Peter Olcott
Logic is merely a means to an end.
SG
> On 10/28/2010 1:39 PM, SG wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 8:17 am, Peter Olcott<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2010 2:00 AM, SG wrote:
>
> >> Exactly. And if there really was/is an actual God that created
> >> everything from absolute nothingness, this one would have found that
> >> many of these creations were simply discoveries of knowledge that
> >> existed from the beginning. As soon as round is discovered, PI is entailed.
>
> > Addiction to thought-forms... "they tried to make me go to rehab but I
> > said "no! no! no!"
>
> > SG
>
> The Hindu path of knowledge AKA Jnana yoga is one true path to
> realization whether you believe it or not. For me no other path would be
> nearly as effective.
What is the realization (without using "oneness" or "unity")?
SG
Peter Olcott
Because the human mind can simultaneously keep track of at least seven
different things from memory, and I can seem my mind doing this right now.
dr x
so do you find yourself quite attached/stuck or can you let go pretty
well? and do you see why we say it appears you have difficulty
acknowledging & properly responding to a post? no offense.
i'm not sure why you aren't responding, perhaps it is strategic and quite
conscious this time, but it merely seems to be the same pattern as before.
Peter Olcott
Its just like drinking a bottle of whiskey without a bottle and without
any whiskey.
Peter Olcott
>
> i'm not sure why you aren't responding, perhaps it is strategic and quite
> conscious this time, but it merely seems to be the same pattern as before.
>
This is part of the problem:
When I see erroneous views I point them out. When one is not aware of
the error of one's views then this could be seen as unresponsive.
dr x
lol, peter.... just answer the god damned question, please. :)
Ala
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
news:qf2dnfx_h7dzgFfR...@giganews.com...
>
> Logic is merely a means to an end.
logic can also be a bar to an end
Ala
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
>
> It is pretty easy really, even though it took me a long time to derive. I
> suppose brain surgery is easy once you know how to do it.
>
and yet brain surgery mistakes are made by those to whom we might attribute
such facility
dr x
you say that it is a means to an end, so i presume you let go then..ok.
but do you see a general logical attachment in yourself?
to tell you my answer, yes i think i am fairly attached. not you?
Peter Olcott
dr x
no, i see no appropriate response given, you appear to be deliberately
not getting it - however i trust that it is your self deception.
do you find yourself a fairly attached-to-logic-person, or not much?
simple isn't it? anyone can see that you "answers" appear evasive.
SG
> On 10/28/2010 2:47 PM, SG wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 10:32 am, Peter Olcott<NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote:
>
> >> Looking at things apart from any conditioning is a good thing to do.
> >> This can also be derived from pure reason. If one takes it as a basic
> >> logical premise that everything that ever happens is really only for its
> >> entertainment value, one become far less distressed by what appears to
> >> be adversity.
>
> > Pure reason? Any kind of reasoning is activated by the mind-sense as a
> > thought-form, and thought-forms
> > are defilements clouding Pure Mind.
>
> > SG
>
> It seems to me that that is a misunderstanding of the truth. Without
> thoughts realization could not ever possibly take place. For example
> Hui-Neng would have never ever heard the Diamond Sutra if it was not for
> thoughts expressed as words.
Did I say they couldn't be helpful? I just said there is no such thing
as
pure (in the purest sense) thoughts (reasoning). They get in the way
of the Pure (Emptiness).
SG
Peter Olcott
Great let's stop by the bar and have a few drinks.
Peter Olcott
Math does not work that way.