The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

So there can never be a truly universal view whereby everyone agrees on the same view, because man's ego will always prevent him from accepting something different than what his fellow man believes.

Before there was any distortion of reality, there was pure reality itself. Pure reality is still present, as it always has been, but some are viewing it through the distorting lens of mind and believing that what they see is reality.

When a Zen Buddhist asks: "What did your face look like before your mother was born?", he is asking you to remember the universal view of pure reality. Even though, as you say, some see incorrectly, all have the potential to see things as they are. In fact, everyone did at one time, and we are returning to a time when we will all have the same single vision once again.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Before there was any distortion of reality, there was pure reality itself. Pure reality is still present, as it always has been, but some are viewing it through the distorting lens of mind and believing that what they see is reality.

When a Zen Buddhist asks: "What did your face look like before your mother was born?", he is asking you to remember the universal view of pure reality. Even though, as you say, some see incorrectly, all have the potential to see things as they are. In fact, everyone did at one time, and we are returning to a time when we will all have the same single vision once again.

And what would that original view be? Is the original view still not perhaps something man created to explain his perception no less accurately than anyone else?

 

[Thief]

There is no 'you' to perceive it; no 'perceiver' of the percepion; there is only perception itself.

In the spontaneous event of 'pondfrogleapsplash', what is ordinarily thought of as subject and object are experienced for what they actually already are: one event. It is only the discriminating mind that creates the illusion of a self called "I" that is separate from the world. When this discriminating mind has it's guard down, the true nature of reality can sometimes be seen. Sometimes it is only for a brief glimpse. But through concerted effort, the thinking mind can be subdued so that one can experience longer periods of exposure.

"True nature of reality" can also be transposed for 'God'; the Absolute; etc, wherein what is referred to as divine union is achieved, in which it is realized that there has never been a separation from God. If no separation has ever been the case, then no 'return' to God is possible.

There it is.

 

[godnotgod]

And what would that original view be? Is the original view still not perhaps something man created to explain his perception no less accurately than anyone else?

No. If you see things via original view, there is no need for something additional to explain anything, because you would be seeing things as they are. But man has created other views, like science, to help explain the details of the phenomenal world. The problem is that man has the cart before the horse. He thinks that he can accumulate factual data via scientific investigation which will lead up to his understanding the nature of reality, when he needs to understand the nature of reality (including his own nature) first, which will in turn make his scientific knowledge meaningful.*

Science provides us with a description of reality, but not what the nature of reality is.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

When we see the universe through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, we are seeing it through the filter of the conceptual mind, and not as it actually is.

*There is a Buddhist parable which illustrates this principle. A man is fatally shot with an arrow. A doctor passing by stops to aid the man, but every time the doctor initiates treatment the man demands answers to questions like who shot him, who made his bow, what kind of bird feathers is the quill made of, what smith forged the arrowheads, etc, etc. As can be expected, before all of his "important" questions can be answered, he dies, The moral is that it is more important to address man's immediate condition of suffering than to seek useless knowledge.

Similarly, Jesus also instructed his audience that they had things backwards in searching the scriptures as a means of gaining eternal life. In so doing, they were searching the description of the spiritual experience, rather than going to the spiritual experience directly.

 

[godnotgod]

There it is.

There 'what' is?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are comparing my observations about others to what religious authorities do. That is about judgements based on morality.

No, you've misunderstood my meaning. It has nothing to do with morality. Instead, I was trying to say something about certainty -- the danger of certainty.

As I understand it, the Sharia judge has no obligation to call many witnesses, to listen carefully to each one, and to agonize over the most-probable truth of things. Instead, he can simply ask a question or two and then believe himself to be simply observing the state of the defendent's mind -- with complete certainty, as he might observe the roundness of the moon. So he doesn't have to make a personal judgment about guilt. As with you and the Christians you mentioned, he can simply observe what is true about the defendent. It's not his personal judgment. It's his observation of the world as it is.

Same with any other judge, religious or not. If he thinks himself capable of observing the objective mental state of a defendent, rather than understanding that he can only form his own personal, fallible opinion of that defendent's mental state... he is a very scary judge indeed.

Psychologists/psychiatrists, for example, observe behavior without passing judgment on the individual. They are able to do so because they have trained their minds to eliminate judgmental thought. That is the method of science, for the most part.

Psychs make personal judgments about individuals every day. What else could they be doing? They are not God's agents, that they can simply see the objective truth regarding those individuals. Are they? They are not Enlightened Ones, observing objective truth with clear sight.

If they are, God/ObjectiveTruth must be extremely confused Himself. Psychological diagnoses are all over the board, regarding the very same patient. It's a running joke in the industy, from what I've seen and heard. If the same chaos existed with the diagnoses of physical diseases, treatments and cures might look closer to luck than to hard science.

A judgment about the behavior of others might take the form of: "Those gang members are just plain evil!", while an observation might be something like: "Gang activity is an outgrowth of society itself."

I still don't understand why you are discussing something which I have not discussed nor even shown any interest in. Are we sincerely corssways, or is it that you prefer not to address my issues and questions directly. I still don't have a feel for that. If you have an interest in investigating, it might be productive for us to announce one single issue or question and see if we can have a focused, rational exchange.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you see Enlightenment as a personal view, rather than to see things as they are, regardless of any personal view?

Your question doesn't make clear sense to me, but I'll try to answer.

I don't believe that any human can 'see things as they are.' To me, such a belief seems just like the Christian belief in Heaven. We so want to meet our loved ones on the other side. We so want to touch the Truth directly and put uncertainty aside... so we cave in to our wants and embrace the comforting beliefs in Heaven and in Enlightenment.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I get a picture of your view as being one which says that 'everyone's personal view is valid, there being no such thing as a universal reality'. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it's just how I read and clarify your statement.

You're in the vicinity. My view is that no one can speak God's Truth to us. No one see things as they are.

We're a fallible, limited, biological form with a passion to understand the universe and our place in it. Sometimes that passion gets the best of us and so we create different ways of achieving our certainty. We claim that men exist who can speak for God. We claim that through meditation or other methods, we can see things as they are.

As for the validity of all views? I think that the one who can best integrate his words to express the most coherent worldview... he owns the most valid view. It's why the willingness to address direct questions is so critical, in my opinion.

 

[al-amiyr]

I think asking for evidence of a claim is reasnable, you don't?

It's not about coming up with a better idea for our existence, it's that the idea of a god has failed to meet the requirements as an explanation, and until it does, belief in that claim is unjustified.

Can you comment? Click below!

The Proof: From The Hidden Book In The Divine Scriptures

 

[waitasec]

There 'what' is?

nothing really...

 

[godnotgod]

My view is that no one can speak God's Truth to us. No one [can] see things as they are.

Then your so=called 'Enlightenment' is useless; 'God's Truth' is useless, unless it can be communicated accurately to man.

If no one can see things as they are, then everyone is in the state of delusion, and if everyone is in the state of delusion, then that is known via of the state of not-delusion, which is Enlightenment. Enlightenment reveals to us what delusion is, and that is to see things as they are.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then your so=called 'Enlightenment' is useless; 'God's Truth' is useless, unless it can be communicated accurately to man.

I see it differently. Truth is an ideal -- a word which I usually abhor and avoid, but which I find necessary now to describe Truth. Truth is unattainable, but it is the beacon which leads us on.

As as young man, during a time of great angst, I had an epiphany. I visualized a large boulder and called it Truth. "What can I do with that thing?" I thought. "If it is there, then everything else will have to make way for it. I'll have to fit everything else in my life to match that boulder. I'll be forced to spend my life defending that boulder, in its current form. No. No, that's too frightening, too much responsibility, and will lead me into chaos. Instead, I will allow all new data to wear that boulder into whatever shape it will become. The sand which blows against it will be sacred, not the current shape of that boulder."

When I had said all of that, I felt a great relief. A release of responsibility. It wasn't my job to worship and defend the boulder. All I had to do was watch as the datasand had its way with things. I'm still doing that today. It's why I sometimes seem to have no real dog in some of the fights around here. I don't care what's true. It's not sacred to me. I only care about watching as the sand wears the Truth into some new form.

My usual definition of God is something like: The passion which drives us into the mystery of the universe. God is curiousity, and curiousity dies once we find the Answer. For some reason, growth is important to me. I think that if there is a God, that's what He would want from me. Why build a reasoning being and then desire its stagnation or corruption?

Anyway, I very much disagree with you. There is nothing useless about an unattainable goal or an unfindable God. Not in my view of things.

If no one can see things as they are, then everyone is in the state of delusion

I agree and I disagree. Yes, we're all deluded if "deluded" means "lacking a Godlike understanding of reality."

But I think that the word 'delusion' implies 'necessarily separated or apart from reality', and my knowledge and I are not necessarily separated from reality. I could be right about some things. Who knows. What I am is as close to reality as I can possibly make myself. That's because I pursue it with passion, with poetry and rationality, with the belief that my ego comes second to God. And that's the best I can do. God can't ask more from me than that.

Enlightenment reveals to us what delusion is, and that is to see things as they are.

I believe that in that moment in which we know ourselves to be seeing things as they are -- as God sees them -- we are deluded. It's my definition of delusion. A deluded person is absolutely sure that his internal view perfectly parallels outer reality.

Just my humble and fallible opinion, of course. I could be wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe that in that moment in which we know ourselves to be seeing things as they are -- as God sees them -- we are deluded.

Yes that is correct, the ego arises whenever a mental construct based on neuron firing patterns is created to represent reality and this local time/space neuron firing pattern obscures actual reality which exists independently of the mind's perception.

The only way that actual reality can be realized is for the mind to cease all activity,...no neuron firing, then there is no artificially produced cerebral 'noise' to interpret and thus obscure the underlying non-conceptual reality that is always there. No neuron firing means no ego arises, this is not the 'death of the self' it is the realization of Universal Self.

However to clarify, it is not the personal self that realizes Universal Self, it is just the removal of the veil of maya that was obscuring actual reality. Nothing is gained by realizing enlightenment except the mind's dualitic awareness is replaced by non-dual awareness for the period of the altered state of consciuosness, and then the ego re-arises to once again divide actual reality into a subject - object mind conceptualized representation of it.

Such a person who has had these episodes is not enlightened (though many may and do 'conceptually' think so when it first occurs), it only when the state of 'absorption' is practically permanent and yet simultaneously still be able to function reasonably well in the 'maya' world based on mental constructions.

Lastly, the aforesaid can never be proven by neuron firing conceptual based discussion for obvious reasons, it can however be realized by those who under their own volition devote their life to it.

Cheers and best wishes....:namaste

 

[cottage]

Try to understand the context in which the statement is made:

"Zen is a doctrineless "doctrine", meaning that it is no doctrine, "doctrine" merely being used as a matter of convention.

A finger pointing to the moon cannot be a doctrine, as one does not believe in the pointing finger; one sees what is being pointed out.

I keep pointing this feature of Zen out over and over, and you continue to drag it back out again, in your futile attempt to try to make it look like just another belief system as a means of forcing it to fit your preconceived notion of things, but Zen is one of those things that simply refuses to fit your pigeonholing, simply because there is nothing in Zen for the grasping mind to latch onto. The more you grasp, the more elusive it becomes. That is the nature of reality, and why Reason cannot ever provide an explanation for it. Reason is an attempt to encapsulate reality, but reality is a flowing stream that refuses such encapsulation, creating paradox to the rational mind. It simply cannot understand why it cannot be pigeonholed the way it thinks it should be. Science keeps trying with its logic and analysis, religion keeps trying by trying to make it conform to its fear-driven dogma, and intellectuals like yourself keep trying with your 'reason'.

The argument, as you’ve presented it on this forum, is a faith-based plea to a metaphysical ideology, and I’m sorry but it is both a doctrine and a metaphysical explanation by the very definition of the terms despite any protestations to the contrary. And your particular interpretation is also an example of dogmata in the classic sense, where absolute claims about the world are being made (and with not the least admission of any possible error or mistakenness). Although I understood (or misunderstood) that Zen isn’t about absolutism or definite entities?

And this is a perfect example of doctrine:

“…in Zen terms, the desire for Enlightenment is the workings of what is termed 'small mind'. When it is given up, Big Mind can come into play, which is universal, selfless mind. The illusory self is the state of Identification on the Third Level of Consciousness. During meditation, the Fourth level is entered upon, wherein there is only observation of the self and its thoughts, so from this vantage point, there is no such 'obsessive self-regard' whatsoever.”


And another example of doctrine: "The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."[/COLOR]

That is not what I said; I said that Reason is a barrier to Enlightenment. You cannot 'think' your way to Enlightenment, because Reason is still in the sphere of the dual mind [ie; delusion], while Enlightenment is the world of The One, which is the way things actually are.

It is the self-same thing! Call it ‘enlightenment’ or anything you like, but your argument is that reason is an obstacle to the claimed experience, is it not?

 

[cottage]

What your statement amounts to is essentially a contradiction. I would suggest you use something like 'big picture' in lieu of 'scheme', as 'scheme' obviously implies an intentional plan of some sort.

Now on hang on a moment! You said you were familiar with the term and its common meaning being the totality of things or ‘the bigger picture’, and you are well aware of my sceptical views on metaphysical and religious claims - so what was the point of your response?

You are reading 'indignation' into my response whose intent was purely comical.

Ah! Okay then.

 

[cottage]

But because of the illusory nature of the world, it is not the case; it is not what it seems to be. Knowledge has to do with thinking the world to be real; knowing has to do with the seeing of it as illusory. The distinction is huge.

Not so! ‘The world is everything that is the case’ remains true even if the world were illusory. The ‘world’ is simply what there is: it is something, which even the Zen metaphysic does not dispute. And you are claiming knowledge! I could write an epistle on all things you’ve claimed as absolute truths; so you are saying something is definitely the case. If you know the world to be illusory then that is knowledge of the world, quite regardless of the means of knowing.

 

[cottage]

Nay...not true.

It is common in this day to belief the universe (the one word) was at one location all at once....the singularity.

Yes, indeed! What you describe is a common a belief-that. But yours is a belief-in, as faith in a personal being who caused the existence of the universe. Now please see my last point at the bottom of the page.

At this 'point'...I make a decision....while asking
Do the laws of motion apply?...can geometry work?

An object at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.
(This places the singularity as not moving)

And that stands to reason.
For the singularity to be truly singular there can be no secondary point.
Therefore, no geometry.
No possibility of movement...
no where to go, and you can't get there from here.

We are then at the 'essence' of existence which cannot be 'proven'.

How to say?...'I AM!'...without a showing of it.
'..let there be light...'

Some scientists claim all matter could be self generating.
It just comes out of nowhere.

Really?

The eternity or unity of the world is a metaphysical hypothesis that certainly pre-dates the Abrahamic God. And whereas the concept of God logically requires the world (try to argue to or define God independent of the world?), the world minus the God concept can be conceived of without involving any contradiction or logical error. So we can legitimately make inferences to a Supreme Being from features of the known world as a metaphysical speculation, but anything further is an act of pure faith.

 

[godnotgod]

Now on hang on a moment! You said you were familiar with the term and its common meaning being the totality of things or ‘the bigger picture’, and you are well aware of my sceptical views on metaphysical and religious claims - so what was the point of your response?

You left out the key ingredient to my statement: I said, and I quote:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
I have heard both phrases, and interpret each differently, 'the scheme of things' being 'the bigger picture', but with intent.

'Scheme' implies conscious intent, or purpose.

I know what you meant, and you know what I mean, so let's agree to drop the issue, shall we?

 

[godnotgod]

Not so! ‘The world is everything that is the case’ remains true even if the world were illusory. The ‘world’ is simply what there is: it is something, which even the Zen metaphysic does not dispute. And you are claiming knowledge! I could write an epistle on all things you’ve claimed as absolute truths; so you are saying something is definitely the case. If you know the world to be illusory then that is knowledge of the world, quite regardless of the means of knowing.

Sorry, but 'The world is everything that is the case' is a statement purely and solely about facts. Facts are information about the world that are repeatedly and independently provable via rational thought.

That the world is illusory is not a fact in the rational sense. That observation is arrived at solely via intuitive means.

You are leaving key information out re: the Zen metaphysic: the world is something precisely because it is nothing.

No, to say that the world is illusory is not knowledge, but intuitive knowing.

There are key differences between knowledge and knowing.

Knowledge comes about via data and facts stored in memory. Because this is so, we use knowledge to make predictions about events, such as the time the Sun will rise in the morning, or the chance of rain this evening. Knowledge is static.

Knowing is never about what is in memory in the past; it is always an insight into what is occurring now. It is spontaneous and dynamic. It has to do with one's state of consciousness, with what one sees prior to any thought about what one sees; knowledge is the retrieval of data/facts stored in the brain and then presented via forming an idea (ie; 'thinking', about them.).

Knowledge is concerned with how the frog came to be; what species/color/size/etc the frog it is; the kind of lily pad upon which it sits; what caused the frog to leap into the pond; the trajectory and timing of he leap; the condition of the pond at that moment; etc. These are all extraneous considerations. Knowledge gives us all the facts but tells us nothing.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]"Knowing is always of the present, it is experiential, and thus more revealing. Whereas, Knowledge is of the past. Knowledge works in most predictable and high probabilistic cases, but in random, non probabilistic events, it falls short, way short of its target.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Again the reason is that Knowledge cannot see, Knowing does. Intuition is nothing but knowing an outcome without an effort, coming directly to the answer, it is not logical, it is not linear. It cuts through all clutter, and comes directly to the point of Flux."

http://partvinu.tripod.com/id21.html

Thus: 'pondfrogleapsplash' tells what the event actually is, as compared to factual information about the event.
[/FONT]

 

[godnotgod]

The argument, as you’ve presented it on this forum, is a faith-based plea to a metaphysical ideology, and I’m sorry but it is both a doctrine and a metaphysical explanation by the very definition of the terms despite any protestations to the contrary. And your particular interpretation is also an example of dogmata in the classic sense, where absolute claims about the world are being made (and with not the least admission of any possible error or mistakenness). Although I understood (or misunderstood) that Zen isn’t about absolutism or definite entities?

You've just swallowed your own argument: Zen is not about absolutes, but it does state simply that it sees things as they are. The key here is that it sees them as they are precisely because it is NOT a doctrine; NOT a belief; NOT a dogma. Were it such things, it would not be able to do so.

And this is a perfect example of doctrine:

“…in Zen terms, the desire for Enlightenment is the workings of what is termed 'small mind'. When it is given up, Big Mind can come into play, which is universal, selfless mind. The illusory self is the state of Identification on the Third Level of Consciousness. During meditation, the Fourth level is entered upon, wherein there is only observation of the self and its thoughts, so from this vantage point, there is no such 'obsessive self-regard' whatsoever.”


And another example of doctrine: "The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."[/color]

The reason your examples are not doctrine is because in both cases, one can go see whether such statements are true for oneself. When a mystic says something, he is not asking you to accept it on faith; he is implying that you process the information internally to see if it is true. In other words, he is inviting you to verify its veracity via of your own experience, not via of your blind belief in what he is saying, based on authority. The Buddha himself made a particular point of this, encouraging others to test everything they hear before they accept it as valid.

The prisoner in Plato's Cave Allegory who escaped to see the Sun, and then returned to inform the others of his discovery was not espousing any doctrine. He was not asking them merely to believe that such a thing was real; he was asking them to go see for themselves.

His was merely a finger pointing to the Sun, but was not the Sun itself.

It is the self-same thing! Call it ‘enlightenment’ or anything you like, but your argument is that reason is an obstacle to the claimed experience, is it not?

...which is not even what YOU said, which was:

Reason isn’t a barrier to experience.

Your statement implies 'experience in general', which is the experience of conditioned awareness. In fact, reason goes hand in hand with conditioned awareness, but is an obstacle to the realization of Enlightenment, which is NOT a conditioned awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

I see it differently. Truth is an ideal -- a word which I usually abhor and avoid, but which I find necessary now to describe Truth. Truth is unattainable, but it is the beacon which leads us on.

You can only be led when there is communication between you and that which you imagine is leading you. Again, 'Truth', in this case, 'God's' Truth as you stated it, is useless unless it is communicating accurate information to you. Otherwise, it is Truth in a vacuum, and has no meaning.

I sense that you are putting it on a pedestal, instead of seeing it as something we can use in the ordinary world of here and now. You see it as something to be gained in some future; something to aspire to; something by which you can be guided by in becoming something other than what you are.

As as young man, during a time of great angst, I had an epiphany. I visualized a large boulder and called it Truth. "What can I do with that thing?" I thought. "If it is there, then everything else will have to make way for it. I'll have to fit everything else in my life to match that boulder. I'll be forced to spend my life defending that boulder, in its current form. No. No, that's too frightening, too much responsibility, and will lead me into chaos. Instead, I will allow all new data to wear that boulder into whatever shape it will become. The sand which blows against it will be sacred, not the current shape of that boulder."

When I had said all of that, I felt a great relief. A release of responsibility. It wasn't my job to worship and defend the boulder. All I had to do was watch as the datasand had its way with things. I'm still doing that today. It's why I sometimes seem to have no real dog in some of the fights around here. I don't care what's true. It's not sacred to me. I only care about watching as the sand wears the Truth into some new form.

And when the datasand wears 'The Truth' completely away into total formlessness and emptiness wherein you can no longer grasp form, where there is even no mor datasand, then what? Your temporal boulder of 'Truth' is a relative truth, and so not a truth at all. The problem is that you have made Truth an object via of the subject that is you. Where no such subject/object exists, you yourself are the Truth. You yourself are the guiding beacon.

Tas atvam asi!

Anyway, I very much disagree with you. There is nothing useless about an unattainable goal or an unfindable God. Not in my view of things.

But that is not what I said. I said:

'God's Truth' is useless, unless it can be communicated accurately to man.

Such truth needs to be so communicated to man if God desires for man to grow spiritually toward a greater happiness; without it, man remains in the realm of conditioned awareness, or delusion. To cut to the chase, God wants man to share in Absolute Joy, in divine union, and the only way we can really know this state is to see things as they actually are.

I agree and I disagree. Yes, we're all deluded if "deluded" means "lacking a Godlike understanding of reality."

...and to lack a Godlike understanding of reality is to see things as they are not.

But I think that the word 'delusion' implies 'necessarily separated or apart from reality', and my knowledge and I are not necessarily separated from reality. I could be right about some things. Who knows. What I am is as close to reality as I can possibly make myself. That's because I pursue it with passion, with poetry and rationality, with the belief that my ego comes second to God. And that's the best I can do. God can't ask more from me than that.

Has it ever occurred to you that your very pursuit is what keeps Reality just out of reach? That you pursue 'Reality' because you have been deluded to somehow think you are separate from it, when, in actual fact, it is impossible for you to ever be separate from it? That:

"That which you are seeking is what is causing you to seek"?

I believe that in that moment in which we know ourselves to be seeing things as they are -- as God sees them -- we are deluded. It's my definition of delusion. A deluded person is absolutely sure that his internal view perfectly parallels outer reality.

Just my humble and fallible opinion, of course. I could be wrong.

That is very true, but by the same token, it may actually be possible to actually see as God sees, sans the delusion of thinking one is doing so.

It also may not be such a big deal after all.

The Miraculous and the Ordinary in One Single Reality.

"...and the Word BECAME Flesh."