WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind.

[Crushing Fist]

A

Why do I have to try to understand this non-discursive thinking? Isn't this self-defeating?

The Tao that can be known is not the true Tao.


Understanding is it's antithesis.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is the fundamental error from which most metaphysical philosophy begins.

The error is that for us to know something exists it must be perceivable, but that is not an intrinsic requirement of existence.

If your assertion is true please formulate an argument that demonstrates it to be true and you have made no argument that demonstrates my argument to be false. Making a statement without a supporting argument is merely an opinion. My comment was part of an overall argument.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist. I will clarify my statement because I understand it is not quite clear. For something to exist in the material universe it must have qualities that make it perceivable. If it exists and is not perceivable there is no way to demonstrate it exists. If the phenomenon does not affect the material universe in any way it is non-existent. This means the phenomenon must at the very least affect the material universe in some way that indicates it exists and this affect must be a perceivable. Once the phenomenon is perceived or affects the material universe in a perceivable manner then it can be said to exist.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

When I say the phenomenon must be perceivable or measurable that is not to say that it must necessarily be perceived and measured in order to exist, only have that is must have the quality of being able to be perceived, although since existence is Mind all phenomena that exists is known by Mind because it is created by Mind which in this case is the Universal Mind/Tao/God.

Phenomena may exist that are not perceivable by man, but are perceivable by the Universal Mind/Tao/God. This perception is what gives rise to the phenomenon’s existence. Let us imagine I am a potter. I have an idea about a type of pot I want to make. The pot exists originally in my mind as an idea. Once I make the pot it has material form and is measurable by you and may therefore proven to exist. However, the idea for the pot cannot be said to not exist because I perceived it and it affected me through that perception regardless of whether I created the pot or not. I cannot prove to you I had the idea for the pot until I create it and you can measure it through your material reality. However, the pot still existed within my mind first regardless of whether you believe me or not. The proof of it only comes afterwards. Ideas exist because they affect Mind, the material manifestation exists because it affects Mind AND the material universe.

An example of a phenomenon that was perceivable, but not perceived are x-rays. X-rays were not perceivable until 1895. They affected the environment before their discovery, but they were not known and their effects were not perceived or directly measurable, however x-rays have the quality of measurability because they affect the universe through interaction with other phenomena and therefore they exist. The fact they were not directly perceived until 1895 did not make them unperceivable or un-measurable, only unperceived and unmeasured.

If a phenomenon does not affect other phenomena or Mind it cannot exist. If it affects other phenomena or Mind then it has qualities that are perceivable and/or measurable.

I wrote:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

This is the first error.

Again, this is an opinion without support. Please demonstrate my comment is incorrect by supporting your position with argument as I have done for mine. Please demonstrate to me ANYTHING that you can PROVE exists without it being perceivable. It cannot be done.

I wrote:

…and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

This is the second error, and perhaps the greater one, that which leads to a backwards conclusion. The idea is that without a mind to observe it, the universe could not "exist". This is quite the reverse of reality. If we consider the matter rationally, it is the mind which is last to appear on the scene, not first.

You are incorrect here and you cannot demonstrate your conclusion. You can only demonstrate, although you haven’t, that man came late to the party, NOT demonstrate that Mind does not exist or that Mind is not the creator of the material universe, neither can you demonstrate the material universe exists without something to perceive it.

My argument cannot demonstrate Mind to a rational certainty, this is not my purpose, nor have I intended to claim this. My argument does “infer” Universal Mind/Tao/God through rational argument. Universal Mind/Tao/God is beyond reason and the material universe.

If my assertion that Mind creates all things is true, then reason cannot fully explain it because reason is merely a subset of something greater than reason and this has been part of my assertion. Just as the taste of an orange cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence and just as happiness cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence, neither can Mind. My purpose for using taste and happiness as examples is to demonstrate there are phenomena that we accept as true that cannot be proven through rational argument; they must be proven through direct experience. The existence of the experiences of happiness or the taste of an orange by others is not doubted because we have direct experience of them ourselves. Just as the existence of Mind/Tao/God cannot be proven without directly experiencing the fact for ourselves, so we cannot demonstrate that happiness or the taste of an orange exists without directly having the direct experience.

Just because you tell me you are happy does not “prove” to me you are happy. It is an empty claim without evidence to demonstrate it to be true. Even the measurement of the effects of happiness on the body does not prove that happiness is occurring. I only understand your claims of happiness because I have had the direct experience for myself and I recognize your description as a reasonable equivalent to my own experience. Even then I do not KNOW you are happy, I must take your word for it. My acceptance of your claim of happiness is founded upon faith, with no verifiable proof.

If I have never had the experience of happiness and you describe to me your experience of happiness I must again take your word for it and will have no real understanding of what you mean because it is beyond my experience. Once again, I must have faith in order to accept your claim as true. My acceptance or not of your claim has no bearing on the reality of your experience. It exists because you experience it and that is the proof of it for yourself. It does not cease to exist because I have not experienced it myself and do not believe it exists.

If you state you are happy and I measure the effects of happiness on your body I may “infer” you are feeling happiness in the future by measuring the exact same effects. However, I do not KNOW you are happy, I am only inferring you are happy based upon a coincidence of measurable effects.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects. It can only be proven by direct experience because it is beyond measurement and therefore beyond rational argument to a certainty. My intent here is to infer the possibility of the truth of my claims to others in order to encourage them to investigate directly for themselves.

I have run out of time again. This discussion is getting more an more in-depth and I don't have the time to respond to everything at one time anymore. I will respond to your other comments and respond to you too Shaolin Wookie as my time permits.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is just one of the conclusions one will reach through evolutionary thoery, when applied to a larger scale. There was a period without mind. A very, very long period. As a matter of fact, probably somewhere around 14 billion years without to the .5 with. Mind evolved to become what it was. It is not an intrinsic quality. Like a machine, it measured and adapted to phenomena. The phenomena do not adapt to it. There will always be objective existence in that regard. But you can only perceive your version of it. But with a large enough pool of subjective observation, there is a map of objectivity. When there's 13 witnesses to a murder, it's the picture you get from all 13 that helps validate the truth of the matter. The unneccesary and uncorroborated data is discarded as inaccurate. If one observation is corroborated by all 13, it need not be disputed. The leads they help formulate may bring other witnesses into play. Sooner or later, you've got a pretty good idea of how it all went down.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist.

Not necessarily. Demonstration: the inside of a black hole.

You cannot perceive it. If you do, you're dead. The mind has no place in a black hole.

I also agree with CF on this issue. You're confusing existence with knowledge again. My body exists without perception. So does my brain. My identity does not. They're probably pretty friggin' usless without my identity, but I can take it away by putting myself into a coma. Without life support, I'm dead.

Anyways....I digress.

Qualities subject to perception are not a requirement for the existence of all things, only for certain knowledge of all things. Their existence precedes perception and knowledge.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

Seems to demonstrate our point quite well.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects.

Aha! Here we go, Scotty. I say we've gotten to the rub right now. Let's keep this argument going, or I fear we're just going to run around in circles chasing each others' tails until my non-discursive training kicks in full gear and I get spontaneous knowledge of god in all his glory.....

Describe to me these effects.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Gentlemen,

I only have a minute here. Tonight when I am able to post I will present some evidence that suggests non-corporeal mind.

Some involves scientific research.

[cjurakpt]

so Scott, here's a question - and I base it on your analogy of the potter (which I like very much)

in the analogy, the idea of the pot precededs it's creation; however, is this really so? certainly, the specific arrangement that we call "pot" is not yet as such, but the elements that make up the pot already exist, it's just up to me to organize them into the construct I call "pot"; so on the one hand, something has changed, but on the one have I actually created anything? if not, then that implies that the thought actually followed the pot in the sense that the extant elements that were "destined" to become a pot were already there...of course, we now that this can be seen an issue of semantics, or relative vs. absolute, but still fun to kick around...

the other point of curiosity is that, if the pot and the thought about the pot can be said to have existence, since they are perceivable, then the same criteria for thought must necessarilly exist: in other words, the pot had pre-existing elements that just were not organized as "pot"; so, then, what of the thought about the pot? was the thought without previous existence? or was it also made up of disassembled pre-existing elements? and if so, this is very interesting - because, whereas the elements of the pot are perceivable to me, since I gather them to make the pot, I am not so sure that the same can be said of the elements that constitute the thought; and if I can't peceive the elements, then how do I bring them together to form a thought? Buddhism talk sabout learning to perceive the the origins of thought in order to cause cessation, but that does not answer the uestion of how do I in fact assemble the thought in the first place; on the other hand, if there are no pre-existing elements, then is thought created out of nothing?

a final bit of musing: while thought and thing are somehow related, they do not seem to be interdependent: I can have a thought and later manifest it (the pot analogy); or I can observe something and have a thought about it subsequent to the direct observation; I can also have a thought but not a manifest correlate - the obvous example, to me, is God: I can think all I want about some omnipitenet Other, but as the qualification for God rests laregly on it not being perceptable in esse by human faculties (a nice trick of the true creator if I may wax atheistic a moment), it is obviously something that can be thought but never realized (actually, another interesting question: can the inverse exist: can I observe directly without a thought necessarilly occuring? is this what K. talks about with "choiceless awareness"?);

grist for the mill...

[cjurakpt]

This is just one of the conclusions one will reach through evolutionary thoery, when applied to a larger scale. There was a period without mind. A very, very long period. As a matter of fact, probably somewhere around 14 billion years without to the .5 with. Mind evolved to become what it was. It is not an intrinsic quality. Like a machine, it measured and adapted to phenomena. The phenomena do not adapt to it. There will always be objective existence in that regard. But you can only perceive your version of it.

define mind, that is the first task: I agree that there has been an evolution, for certain, but the question is, is mind from the vantage of human mind a pre-condition for any sort of perception? I would say that no matter how primitive the perceptual aparatus of a given entity, if it is geared towards even the remotest form of self-preservation, then it has mind;

But with a large enough pool of subjective observation, there is a map of objectivity. When there's 13 witnesses to a murder, it's the picture you get from all 13 that helps validate the truth of the matter. The unneccesary and uncorroborated data is discarded as inaccurate. If one observation is corroborated by all 13, it need not be disputed. The leads they help formulate may bring other witnesses into play. Sooner or later, you've got a pretty good idea of how it all went down.

Chuang Tzu argues against this as one of his main treatises (Discussion on All Things Being Equal); basically, if every single opinion is inherently subjective, increased quantity does not add up to a change in quality; all we have is an increase agreement, which depending on the situation, will be seen as sufficient or not (e.g. - the majority of the US Congress can agree on something, but one opinion, the President's can overide it); who is to say that in your 13 person analogy, there is a group of 14 somewhere hidden who suddenly manifest with a contradictory story? again, agreement is useful for a matter of convenience, giving the illusion of objectivity...

Not necessarily. Demonstration: the inside of a black hole.You cannot perceive it. If you do, you're dead. The mind has no place in a black hole.

but you can perceive the effects that demarkate its function, such as the inescapability of light; hence, we draw conclusions as to the interior and its properties; if we couldn't observe this, then you would not even be able to make your statement, which, in and of itself, describes a knowable property of a black hole...

I also agree with CF on this issue. You're confusing existence with knowledge again. My body exists without perception. So does my brain. My identity does not. They're probably pretty friggin' usless without my identity, but I can take it away by putting myself into a coma. Without life support, I'm dead.

body does not exist without perception: the entire body is one large perceptual apparatus; identity on the other hand, can be variable (see above) - the question is, what is identity? a human's sense of identity is different from a slug's, but I would argue since they both engage in self-preservation, there is a concept of self, no matter how rudimentary by our standards, but it is there nevertheless (you may call it reflexive versus conscious, but the end result is the same - "self" preservation)

Qualities subject to perception are not a requirement for the existence of all things, only for certain knowledge of all things. Their existence precedes perception and knowledge.

I'm not sure I get your poit on this, could you give an example?

[Shaolin Wookie]

but you can perceive the effects that demarkate its function, such as the inescapability of light; hence, we draw conclusions as to the interior and its properties; if we couldn't observe this, then you would not even be able to make your statement, which, in and of itself, describes a knowable property of a black hole...

It was a joke.

body does not exist without perception: the entire body is one large perceptual apparatus; identity on the other hand, can be variable (see above) - the question is, what is identity? a human's sense of identity is different from a slug's, but I would argue since they both engage in self-preservation, there is a concept of self, no matter how rudimentary by our standards, but it is there nevertheless (you may call it reflexive versus conscious, but the end result is the same - "self" preservation)


I'm not sure I get your poit on this, could you give an example?

I think we were talking about the ability to perceive the self, rather than being the self.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Gentlemen,

I will have to leave the conversation for about week. I won’t have time to respond to every comment I want to respond to right now. For now I will respond to cjurakpt’s comments and then try to get to the others in a week or so if the conversation is still continuing.

But first,

Below is one link that provides some evidence that leads to the consideration of the existence of a non-corporeal intelligence (Mind). Remember, I contend that direct experience is the only proof available and that all material measurements may only infer existence. So to me material evidence, which may be explained in any number of ways, is only meant to get one to question their assumptions about reality in order to investigate personally for themselves. I will say there is at least one formally trained psychiatrist named Brian L. Weiss, http://www.brianweiss.com/ who is writing books on reincarnation after a chance meeting with a patient in 1980 who revealed some interesting information during hypnotherapy sessions. There are numerous other individuals writing books about patients they have put under hypnotherapy who reveal similar findings. Also, remember I contend that variations in data regarding observational evidence are due to individual temperaments, historical era and culture, intelligence and ability to communicate effectively. As with reports by mystics, the important indicators are the similarities, not the variations. In other words, similar reports would indicate a higher probability of reality. My contention is that our pre-conditioned world-views filter our perceptions and will therefore color our interpretation of experiences causing inaccuracies in reporting. I see this as an inherent characteristic of the system/Tao and therefore, is not a bad thing. Growth comes from the challenging of accepted boundaries. Near death experience research also provides an ever growing information base with similarities in reports.

The Global Consciousness Project, also call the Princeton EGG experiment: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ In short this is a series of about 65 computers place around the world monitoring random noise. The computers measure statistical variations in random noise correlated to world and local events in an attempt to measure global consciousness. Think of it as monitoring disturbances in the Force. It has correlated statistical variations in random noise with over 50 events occurring since 1998, including 911 and the Malaysian tsunami among others.

There is also a recent experiment demonstrating physiological response to unpredictable/unknown stimuli prior to receiving the stimuli. I don’t have to time to find the report. Perhaps someone here can locate it. In short individuals’ physiological responses were measure when showed emotion stimulating pictures. The researchers found that physiologic responses to certain stimuli were manifested before the random pictures were displayed.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi cjurakpt,

in the analogy, the idea of the pot precededs it's creation; however, is this really so? certainly, the specific arrangement that we call "pot" is not yet as such, but the elements that make up the pot already exist, it's just up to me to organize them into the construct I call "pot"; so on the one hand, something has changed, but on the one have I actually created anything? if not, then that implies that the thought actually followed the pot in the sense that the extant elements that were "destined" to become a pot were already there...of course, we now that this can be seen an issue of semantics, or relative vs. absolute, but still fun to kick around...

This a very interesting perspective.

To me, all experience is a matter of context or perspective. From one perspective the idea of a pot begins in the mind. The Platonic Form or Idea of “pot-ness” precedes the “idea” of a specific pot that is then followed by the “physical manifestation” of the specific pot. But this only occurs in a linear universe; if only the present exists as the essence of reality, as some contend, and past and future occur merely as characteristics of perception, then the idea of pot-ness, the idea of the specific pot, and the pot’s manifestation, all occur simultaneously. If linear time is an illusion, then, is anything actually created and does anything really occur? Under this reality the passage of time is merely one manner or perspective of experiencing existence and is both real AND illusory according to our context or perspective of perception. I am implying here that time occurs, but at the same time does not occur. It all depends upon ones perspective of perception. While time is a process and no time just IS, they each occur according to a perspective of mind. The idea of a phenomenon occurring in numerous manifestations at once may be illustrated by the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion (see below). When we view this picture we perceive only one face at a time according to our perspective, but in actuality it is one face, the other face, both faces and neither all at the same time. Each perception occurs according to a specific perspective of mind or context. Change your perspective or context and the perception changes, yet all remain present at once, at the same time, in the same space!

Both women occur inherently within the picture regardless of our ability to perceive them both at the same time or not, yet the recognition of the Old Woman and the Young Woman are dependent upon us perceiving according to a context or pre-existing experience. So for example, if we lived in a world where we saw no other people or reflections of our own face we would not be able to recognize the women in the picture as faces of people because we would have no context to give the lines and colors meaning. To us the picture would be just a drawing of random lines filled with specific colors. We recognize faces because we have seen faces. So in this sense the picture is actually an Old Woman only, a Young Woman only, at once both an Old Woman and a Young Woman only, a picture of nothing only, AND all at the same time. Each occurs according to a specific context or perspective that is manifested or created by the perceiving mind.

So in the example of us creating a specific pot, another material pot actually precedes us making our pot because we must have a context that precedes the making of our pot. I have seen pots before and based upon this pre-existing version I create my own version of a pot. The pot I create then is merely a modified version of pots I have already seen. From this perspective a material pot precedes the idea of a pot because my idea is based upon pre-existing material pots I have seen. Even in the past the idea of pots most likely occurred from a series of direct experiences adapted to a specific need. For example: first I see a bowl like depression that held water from the rain, and then I combine that observation with a known characteristic of clay. I walk in clay and it leaves a depression, I pick up the clay and I learn that it is mold-able, I figure I can make a bowl like something to hold water just like my foot prints did in the clay; some such thing like this may have occurred. From this experience we see that the idea for a pot came from a correlation of phenomena originating within the material universe first, then the manifestation of a specific pot second. Just as the recognizing of the face of the women is dependent upon actually seeing faces first. This process seems to validate the perspective that mind follows matter as put forth by Crushing Fist. The problem with this is, one it presumes a linear universe is the essence of reality, which is being now questioned by some physicists and has never been accepted by mystics, and two, it forgets that we have everyday evidence that mind creates. Regardless of some people’s flights of fancy, 1,000,000 monkeys typing randomly for 10,000,000 years will never come up with Hamlet. It takes mind to create and we see the evidence of it directly in our lives every day. The only other alternative is to accept that randomly occurring creation accidently created a mind that specifically creates. This passes for reason amongst some of those who think themselves reasonable, but is actually an act of faith based upon incomplete material evidence for an inherent creative intelligence.

the other point of curiosity is that, if the pot and the thought about the pot can be said to have existence, since they are perceivable, then the same criteria for thought must necessarilly exist: in other words, the pot had pre-existing elements that just were not organized as "pot"; so, then, what of the thought about the pot? was the thought without previous existence? or was it also made up of disassembled pre-existing elements? and if so, this is very interesting - because, whereas the elements of the pot are perceivable to me, since I gather them to make the pot, I am not so sure that the same can be said of the elements that constitute the thought; and if I can't perceive the elements, then how do I bring them together to form a thought? Buddhism talk sabout learning to perceive the the origins of thought in order to cause cessation, but that does not answer the uestion of how do I in fact assemble the thought in the first place; on the other hand, if there are no pre-existing elements, then is thought created out of nothing?

Again a very interesting comment!

The Buddhist assertion that thought originates from no-thought means something closer to, “discursive thought originates from non-discursive thought”, hence the expression “the thought of no-thought”. This is one of the principles I have been trying to discuss here. The Void, or cessation of thought, is NOT nothingness and this is specifically stated in Buddhist writings, including Ch’an writings. There is a distinction drawn between thought organized as words, images, sounds or any other organized structure relative to the world of Forms, and thought that has no inherent organization. Thought that has no inherent organization is Formless Thought, the “Fog of Knowing”, and is the same thing as the non-discursive thought I have been referring to in this discussion. It is Formless Void relative to our everyday discursive, formed manner of thinking, but it is not the same thing as emptiness (nothingness) or absence of thought. It is thinking without any internal/mental discursive manifestation and is considered the essence of thought.

Your concept of elements of thought brought together to form the idea of a “pot” similar to material elements to be combined to create the material “pot” belongs to discursive thinking. To our discursive perspective it appears that the idea of “pot” comes from nothing, but from the non-discursive perspective it is not perceived as “nothing” it is perceived as “formless thought that produces formed thought”. We must remember the words, “formless thought that produces formed thought” is just an approximated description since the condition of perception/being/thought to which we are referring cannot be accurately described. This is because our limited, discursive manner of communication cannot accurately describe a state of being, just as the description of the state of being of happiness is not the actual experience itself but a mere shadow of the actual condition of happiness. So, from the perspective of non-discursive mind there is no occurrence of thought that involves structure, yet structure is inherent within it or we could not use structure or experience structure in our material experience.

According to Buddhist teaching, “thoughts occur spontaneously out of Nothingness, Void, Non-Discursive Mind, Tao, etc.” To the discursive mind this occurs as a process, but it is only partially describable and therefore found rationally wanting. To the Nothingness, from which the thought originates, there is no process at all, because process is a concept of discursive thought. It is difficult to understand which is why it must be directly apprehended and why later Ch’an masters try not to use words, but prefer direct actions or nonsensical mondos to stimulate the right frame of mind, or perspective of mind, within their students.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi cjurakpt continued,

a final bit of musing: while thought and thing are somehow related, they do not seem to be interdependent: I can have a thought and later manifest it (the pot analogy); or I can observe something and have a thought about it subsequent to the direct observation; I can also have a thought but not a manifest correlate - the obvous example, to me, is God: I can think all I want about some omnipitenet Other, but as the qualification for God rests laregly on it not being perceptable in esse by human faculties (a nice trick of the true creator if I may wax atheistic a moment), it is obviously something that can be thought but never realized (actually, another interesting question: can the inverse exist: can I observe directly without a thought necessarilly occuring? is this what K. talks about with "choiceless awareness"?);

It seems to me, in essence, what you are saying that is that God cannot be proven discursively to a certainty. There is no rational argument or description that can accurately describe the indescribable. “Tao that can be defined is not the True, Actual or Complete Tao”. That is why it must be directly apprehended, experienced to be known. When we think of God/Tao according to our everyday manner of thinking we are using discursive thought, which is limited, to apprehend that which is beyond discursive thought, that which is unlimited. Just as discursive description cannot give another the experience of happiness and neither can it completely describe the experience of happiness in a manner that the hearer of the description apprehends it without having the experience directly, so neither can God/Tao/Void, etc be apprehended through discursive thought. We must train our mind to perceive directly in a non-discursive manner. This takes time and practice for most of us. Once we apprehend it directly we see it is actually no big deal and it was right there in front of our noses the whole time. Perceiving it is a matter of perspective. It is like a person who can see the Old Woman, but not the Young Woman. Once they are able to perceive the Young Woman they experience an “Ah Hah!!” moment and laugh, because she was right in front of their face all along. Our description to the non-seer of the Young Woman will only help them to recognizer her when they finally do see her, but the description will not help them develop the correct perspective. The correct perspective occurs spontaneously at some point, but require at least the effort to look at the picture. If you do not look at the picture you cannot perceive the Young Woman. If you do not look for God/Tao you will not find the experience. Inherently no one and nothing can help us find the perspective. We must look for it ourselves and we may use the inadequate description provide by others to help us recognize the experience when it occurs!

It is like learning the secret of a magicians trick, once you know the secret, the trick is no longer such big deal, but in the case of God/Tao we still appreciate the mystery of it.

I should be back in a week or so. I'll try to keep an eye on the thread if it continues while I gone!

[SanHeChuan]

D@mn, Yall have totally highjacked my thread, Yo!

[The Willow Sword]

LOL!!! Yeah San He, X-Tianity is pretty mentally ill if you ask me, Same with the other dominant and organized religions on the planet. Whereas i respect a persons right to worship and practice what they will, i still find it funny that radical fundamentalism in any stream of religious thought is still supported and condoned. Its interesting because you read and hear from most that " Well not all X-tians are like that", Well this may be true but that little minority pales in comparison to the Xtians that are definately NOT like that, LOL!! Oh and i attribute this to Muslims and the Jewish faith as well. You have the radicalism and mentally ill writings in every text. LOL i loved the quotes i was rolling in the floor when i read them.I say Keep the spirituality to ones self and dont wear it on your sleeve, dont prosalitize it and certainly do not shove it in the face of everyone.
Its also interesting because i have been taking an interest in the Crusades Lately and reading up on them, i have gone so far as to order a Crusader outfit for this years Ren-Fest, I think it would be fun to go gallabanting around the festival as a crusader as i dont see many who are dressed as such, LOL. go figure.

As for the global warming thing, I will have to disagree that al Gore lied. He presents a problem that is growing on our planet, and whereas we are not the only sole cause of global warming and Cooling to compensate for the warming, We certainly contribute to it in a big way. I dont subscribe to the notion that our pollution and emissions are but a "drop in the bucket", its a pretty fukin big drop of water if you ask me. There are the normal climate changes that the earth has gone through for millions of years and then there is NOW and our contributions to that climate change.

PERSONALLY i think that the US government Has Built a Giant Tesla Coil and put it on a ship and everynow and then they turn the d@mn thing on and create those massive hurricanes like Katrina and Rita. Why? Who knows
Ah Nickola Tesla, Sigh, Fuk Edison and his lackeys and what they did to Tesla so that they could profit from Elecricity.

Peace,TWS

[Crushing Fist]

PERSONALLY i think that the US government Has Built a Giant Tesla Coil and put it on a ship and everynow and then they turn the d@mn thing on and create those massive hurricanes like Katrina and Rita. Why? Who knows

Google HAARP

[Crushing Fist]

As to the global warming issue I will say only this:


Consider that the Earth is in a balance.

If there is a one ton weight on each side of the scale it remains balanced.

Add a single feather to one side and that balance is disturbed.


This is the "drop in the bucket"

Straw... meet Camel.

[golden arhat]

Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.



If your assertion is true please formulate an argument that demonstrates it to be true and you have made no argument that demonstrates my argument to be false. Making a statement without a supporting argument is merely an opinion. My comment was part of an overall argument.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist. I will clarify my statement because I understand it is not quite clear. For something to exist in the material universe it must have qualities that make it perceivable. If it exists and is not perceivable there is no way to demonstrate it exists. If the phenomenon does not affect the material universe in any way it is non-existent. This means the phenomenon must at the very least affect the material universe in some way that indicates it exists and this affect must be a perceivable. Once the phenomenon is perceived or affects the material universe in a perceivable manner then it can be said to exist.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

When I say the phenomenon must be perceivable or measurable that is not to say that it must necessarily be perceived and measured in order to exist, only have that is must have the quality of being able to be perceived, although since existence is Mind all phenomena that exists is known by Mind because it is created by Mind which in this case is the Universal Mind/Tao/God.

Phenomena may exist that are not perceivable by man, but are perceivable by the Universal Mind/Tao/God. This perception is what gives rise to the phenomenon’s existence. Let us imagine I am a potter. I have an idea about a type of pot I want to make. The pot exists originally in my mind as an idea. Once I make the pot it has material form and is measurable by you and may therefore proven to exist. However, the idea for the pot cannot be said to not exist because I perceived it and it affected me through that perception regardless of whether I created the pot or not. I cannot prove to you I had the idea for the pot until I create it and you can measure it through your material reality. However, the pot still existed within my mind first regardless of whether you believe me or not. The proof of it only comes afterwards. Ideas exist because they affect Mind, the material manifestation exists because it affects Mind AND the material universe.

An example of a phenomenon that was perceivable, but not perceived are x-rays. X-rays were not perceivable until 1895. They affected the environment before their discovery, but they were not known and their effects were not perceived or directly measurable, however x-rays have the quality of measurability because they affect the universe through interaction with other phenomena and therefore they exist. The fact they were not directly perceived until 1895 did not make them unperceivable or un-measurable, only unperceived and unmeasured.

If a phenomenon does not affect other phenomena or Mind it cannot exist. If it affects other phenomena or Mind then it has qualities that are perceivable and/or measurable.

I wrote:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.



Again, this is an opinion without support. Please demonstrate my comment is incorrect by supporting your position with argument as I have done for mine. Please demonstrate to me ANYTHING that you can PROVE exists without it being perceivable. It cannot be done.

I wrote:

…and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!



You are incorrect here and you cannot demonstrate your conclusion. You can only demonstrate, although you haven’t, that man came late to the party, NOT demonstrate that Mind does not exist or that Mind is not the creator of the material universe, neither can you demonstrate the material universe exists without something to perceive it.

My argument cannot demonstrate Mind to a rational certainty, this is not my purpose, nor have I intended to claim this. My argument does “infer” Universal Mind/Tao/God through rational argument. Universal Mind/Tao/God is beyond reason and the material universe.

If my assertion that Mind creates all things is true, then reason cannot fully explain it because reason is merely a subset of something greater than reason and this has been part of my assertion. Just as the taste of an orange cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence and just as happiness cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence, neither can Mind. My purpose for using taste and happiness as examples is to demonstrate there are phenomena that we accept as true that cannot be proven through rational argument; they must be proven through direct experience. The existence of the experiences of happiness or the taste of an orange by others is not doubted because we have direct experience of them ourselves. Just as the existence of Mind/Tao/God cannot be proven without directly experiencing the fact for ourselves, so we cannot demonstrate that happiness or the taste of an orange exists without directly having the direct experience.

Just because you tell me you are happy does not “prove” to me you are happy. It is an empty claim without evidence to demonstrate it to be true. Even the measurement of the effects of happiness on the body does not prove that happiness is occurring. I only understand your claims of happiness because I have had the direct experience for myself and I recognize your description as a reasonable equivalent to my own experience. Even then I do not KNOW you are happy, I must take your word for it. My acceptance of your claim of happiness is founded upon faith, with no verifiable proof.

If I have never had the experience of happiness and you describe to me your experience of happiness I must again take your word for it and will have no real understanding of what you mean because it is beyond my experience. Once again, I must have faith in order to accept your claim as true. My acceptance or not of your claim has no bearing on the reality of your experience. It exists because you experience it and that is the proof of it for yourself. It does not cease to exist because I have not experienced it myself and do not believe it exists.

If you state you are happy and I measure the effects of happiness on your body I may “infer” you are feeling happiness in the future by measuring the exact same effects. However, I do not KNOW you are happy, I am only inferring you are happy based upon a coincidence of measurable effects.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects. It can only be proven by direct experience because it is beyond measurement and therefore beyond rational argument to a certainty. My intent here is to infer the possibility of the truth of my claims to others in order to encourage them to investigate directly for themselves.

I have run out of time again. This discussion is getting more an more in-depth and I don't have the time to respond to everything at one time anymore. I will respond to your other comments and respond to you too Shaolin Wookie as my time permits.

the percievable cannot exist without the impercievable

and the same with the mundane it canot exist without the heavens



hell even in western science sscientists make judgements as to what probably/does exist by mathematical formula alone

completely free from perception

the "real" can only exist if there were a "void"

by yourlogic u should denie the existance of a vaccum because it simply isnt there and u cannot percieve what isnt there right ?