Find Out More About Zen Meditation: Can Anyone Recommend a Book?

[hypnagogue]

I have seen this said before and never followed it up. Have you any sites where I might learn more about these meditation imaging studies?

I couldn't drum up a good all-purpose or review site on these matters, but here's a full paper and an article about the effect of meditation on EEG readings:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/46/16369
Meditation Gives Brain a Charge, Study Finds

You can also find abstracts pertaining to this on PubMed. Entering "meditation eeg" returns 129 results, although "meditation fmri" and "meditation pet" return only 6 and 4 respectively.

I skimmed through the first chapter of Why God Won't Go Away and the writers mention research where they use PET to scan the brains of experienced meditators just as the meditators tug on a string to indicate that they are at the peak of their experience. The scan showed that during this experience, activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe (what the authors call "orientation association area" or "OAA") was significantly inhibited compared to baseline. One function of OAA is to help us orient our bodies in space and navigate through the world safely and coherently, and part of carrying out this function involves drawing an implicit boundary between the body/self and the external world. The authors propose, then, that decreased activity in OAA may be what is responsible for consistent reports that during peak meditative experiences, the self seems to 'dissolve' and become one with the entire universe. Because the OAA is being inhibited, no body/self boundaries can be drawn, and so the self is experienced as if it indeed has no boundaries.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I skimmed through the first chapter of Why God Won't Go Away and the writers mention research where they use PET to scan the brains of experienced meditators just as the meditators tug on a string to indicate that they are at the peak of their experience. The scan showed that during this experience, activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe (what the authors call "orientation association area" or "OAA") was significantly inhibited compared to baseline. One function of OAA is to help us orient our bodies in space and navigate through the world safely and coherently, and part of carrying out this function involves drawing an implicit boundary between the body/self and the external world. The authors propose, then, that decreased activity in OAA may be what is responsible for consistent reports that during peak meditative experiences, the self seems to 'dissolve' and become one with the entire universe. Because the OAA is being inhibited, no body/self boundaries can be drawn, and so the self is experienced as if it indeed has no boundaries.

Or . . . the OAA is one way consciousness is connected to the body, and a meditator's disassociation from the brain shows itself there.

What has become interesting to me is how clearly I can see the physicalist a priori assumption in all the brain research and subsequent theorizing, abiogenesis theory, and all evolution only by way of genetic variation and natural selection. Those theorizing have already decided that only a physical explanation is possible.

Lately I've been rereading my favorite books on evolution, plus perusing the net looking for the lastest finds. What is it that evolutionists claim evolution has done? Well, in 600 million years it has evolved most of the life forms that we see. That life includes some extremely complex organs, including the human brain.

What's the evidence that mutating genes can provide the variety of traits needed for nature to select in 600 million years (which includes a couple of mass extinctions) what's needed to produce a human brain? Well, there is none. What there is evidence of is that genetic variation and natural selection can make superficial changes to an extant organism. There is also genetic evidence that all life is related, so it is logical to infer life developed through genetic changes. What is missing, however, is evidence that self-directed genetic variation, naturally selected, can produce an organism. What you see in the record is bursts of creative genetic change that result in new organisms, followed by millions of years of relative stasis in surviving species. I say "relative stasis" because it's proven species can be modified superficially by genetic variation and natural selection.

There is not enough evidence to say that the force of genetic variation and natural selection alone can create an organism, or even an organ! Genetic variation and natural selection is far too puny, in terms of what we can actually observe, to at this time say it can do it without some sort of additional principle, force, process, etc.

So when reading evolutinary theory what you get is tons of information about simple speciation (because that's all we can observe), and then TONS and TONS of "the model predicts . . ." to fill in the huge evidentiary gaps needed prove genetic variation and natural selection can create an organism. This is exactly what physicalists have done with abiogenesis. They get a few proteins to self organize and then claim they've all but proven life started that way. Brain researchers see the brain respond to conscious activity and assume, without hesitation, that the brain is causing consciousness; it couldn't possibly be that consciousness is entwined with the brain somehow so there is correspondence.

It doesn't have to be true consciousness isn't physical, or that some creationary consciousness has been able to manipulate genes during key phases of evolution. But it doesn't have to be untrue either. Yet to the physicalists, they say "we can find no evidence of a creationary consciousness, all we find is physical stuff." But they also won't acknowledge they are only looking for physical stuff and what supports their beliefs, that they will only accept physical evidence and physical theories for the gaps in evidence, and that they exaggerate the significance of evidence they do have. Nobody in the physicalist camp admits what they are doing.

To get right, all they'd have to do is say is that they observe a small degree of self organization, they observe genetic variation and natural selection producing relatively superficial changes to extant organisms, and they have found correspondence between consciousness and brain activity. Beyond that, they don't actually know anything.

So why the incessant huge leaps to "physicalness has done it all" if physicalists are just trying to prove their theory (which would be fine), and really don't have an anti-spiritual agenda? Why treat doubters like they are too stupid to understand if there is no a priori assumption that physicalness alone is the orgin of all?

To me what's stupid is watching someone take apart a once living thing elegantly organized to function with near perfection as a self-sustaining system, describe all the relationships between the parts correctly as chemical, and then stand in the clutter of their disassembled life form and say, "See, mere chemistry." Now that is stupid.

 

[Dr.Yes]

But what if what is being measured only tells what physical effects meditation has on the body? Only if you assume up front that a transcendent state is purely physical can you also assume that the EEG is reflecting all that's going on.

Here are some of the results of MRI and other studies on meditators and a brief overview of the benefits of meditation from http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/C/comp_medicine/meditation.html

Meditation

what is it?

For thousands of years meditation has been an important spiritual practice among Buddhists, Islamic Sufis, Christian mystics and other religious groups. But as recent research demonstrates its benefits for mental and physical well-being, efforts are underway to demystify and secularise the practice. Different schools of meditation favour different techniques, but all share a common basis: a focus of attention to which the mind can return if distracted.

what it's supposed to do

Professor Herbert Benson of the Mind/Body Institute of Harvard Medical School developed what he calls the 'Relaxation Response' after studying transcendental meditation practitioners in the 1970s. He found that simply sitting in a quiet place for about 20 minutes and concentrating on the breath or a particular word or phrase can reverse the physiological changes produced by stress. (In theory a word plucked at random from the telephone book will do, but most people seem to prefer something with a spiritual connotation.) Blood pressure, heart and breathing rates, metabolism and muscle tension are reduced, and the brain slips into a slower, calmer rhythm.

Meditation is commonly recommended to relieve stress and anxiety, high blood pressure, headache, migraine, fatigue, depression, insomnia, chronic pain, to overcome addictions, to enhance the immune system and for personal development.

what happens

Whatever approach is used, you will probably need a quiet environment where you won't be disturbed, a comfortable position (the lotus position is not obligatory but lying down can send you to sleep; many people like to sit upright in a chair), and a focus for your mind. The usual advice is 15-20 minutes meditation once or twice a day, before a meal when you won't be distracted by a full stomach.

The aim is to achieve a state of 'passive awareness', alert but detached from everyday surroundings. Whenever the mind wanders, draw it calmly back to the focus of meditation. Breathing is slow and regular so that the abdomen rises and falls gently.

The focus of meditation may be the rhythm of your breathing, a mantra (a word or phrase that is repeated continually, either silently or aloud), a physical object such as a candle flame or religious icon, a positive affirmation, feelings of loving kindness, visualising a sacred figure, or (for those who find it difficult to sit still) a repetitive movement, as in walking or t'ai chi. The Buddhist technique of vipassana or 'mindfulness', is defined as 'moment-to-moment non-judgmental awareness', or paying attention to whatever feelings or actions one is experiencing at the time.

what's the evidence?

Followers of transcendental meditation (TM), who work with an allocated mantra, have carried out extensive studies, though not always of a high quality. But recent trials published in Stroke in 2000 and The American Journal of Cardiology in 1996 and 2000 show that TM can reduce atherosclerosis and the risk of heart disease.

A form of meditation known as sahaja yoga, based on yogic breathing exercises, was found to help people with severe asthma, according to an Australian study in Thorax in 2002.

Research into an adaptation of the Buddhist technique of 'mindfulness' led by Dr Jon Kabat-Zinn at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, shows relief for symptoms of heart disease, chronic pain, irritable bowel syndrome, high blood pressure, headaches, anxiety and panic, cancer, AIDS, stress and chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients also claimed to have more energy, confidence, 'enthusiasm for life', and be more able to deal with stressful situations.

When combined with cognitive therapy (which aims to change unhelpful beliefs and thoughts), mindfulness meditation halved the risk of relapse for people with a history of clinical depression, according to a recent Medical Research Council study in Cambridge.

Neurobiologists have used positive emission topography (PET) scans and functional MRI scans to study what happens in the brain during meditation. Results indicate that different areas of the brain are involved than when merely resting, and suggest the mind can control the autonomic nervous system, which regulates involuntary body functions like respiration and circulation.

precautions

Go to the safety first section of 'before you start' for some general precautions to take into account when considering a complementary therapy.

* Check with your doctor before starting meditation if you have a history of psychiatric problems.

I have promoted and observed relaxation programs that were used in Cancer Institutes and that boosted the survival rates among patients to higher levels than those among patients not using meditation and relaxation as a complimentary treatment program. The rise in survival rates was significant to more than 20% above a 40-45 % level.

As far as I know today, relaxation programs for cancer patients have been scaled back by "budget concerns" and jealous pharmaceutical companies. The cost of a relaxation program equals the salary of two neurolinguists and some foam mats for the floor.

 

[Royce]

Like you, Les, I am constantly amazed at the huge leaps made in physicalist's claims.
I am also confounded when they see that the brain does exactly what it is expected to do in meditation, near death, out of body or any other phenomena and then claim that it is the physical brain that is both the source and sole cause for these apparent effects and the one experiencing these things are simply deluded.

Again it is the cart before the horse, confusing effect for cause . I ask why they would expect anything else other than to see corresponding brain activity to any experience whether spiritual, mystical or common everyday experience.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What has become interesting to me is how clearly I can see the physicalist a priori assumption in all the brain research and subsequent theorizing, abiogenesis theory, and all evolution only by way of genetic variation and natural selection. Those theorizing have already decided that only a physical explanation is possible.

Not at all. Nobody said it was the only explanation, just that it was a SUFFICIENT explanation. It accounts for the facts and doesn't require special pleading.

 

[Vossistarts]

Pages and pages of concepts trying to decide what zen is or what zen practice is and who should teach it . Zen and zen practice or zazen can be taught in a sentence. Sit and breath, learn to quiet your thoughts. No one can teach you to the goal. Its nothing more than learning to be quiet by being quiet so you can see the world for what it is, rather than what you think it is.

 

[Simetra7]

Pages and pages of concepts trying to decide what zen is or what zen practice is and who should teach it . Zen and zen practice or zazen can be taught in a sentence. Sit and breath, learn to quiet your thoughts. No one can teach you to the goal. Its nothing more than learning to be quiet by being quiet so you can see the world for what it is, rather than what you think it is.

Learn to quiet your thoughts...This is very much easier to say than it is to do. Thoughts have a tendency to just keep on flowing, and for most people, learning specific techniques is the only way to achieve that quiet state from where they can then progress in their practice.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Not at all. Nobody said it was the only explanation, just that it was a SUFFICIENT explanation. It accounts for the facts and doesn't require special pleading.

But, my friend, it doesn't really account for the design principles (and I am not talking about a designer, just the quality of organization of living things).

When you say "it accounts for the facts," IMO you are saying it explains the relationship between parts. As long as we stay on the level of looking at how things are linked up, a physicalist explanation works perfectly. My frustration here has been trying to get anyone to look at the quality of organization of those physical connections that leads to life. That quality contrasts about as dramatically as anything can from how physicalness operates outside of living things.

If you saw how Bystander debated me in the ID thread, when I complained about the lack of an explanation for organizational quality, he came back at me every time with more details about the purely mechanistic relationship between the components of life (which I've never disputed). In my years of debating here, possibly one person on the physicalist side has ever admitted to a problem with the self-organizing principle (Eh).

When I debate the physicalist, they typically try to overwhelm me with details about the purely physical nature of component interconnections. In that area, the evidence we already have is all that's needed for a proof. There is no dispute there! Those rare times I get anyone to address the organizational issues, all I hear is the Miller-Urey experiment, etc., the natural selection-genetic variation stop gap, and brain studies showing a correlation between brain activity and consciousness.

The contrast between the HUGE amount work done to illustrate physical component relationships and the ridiculously tiny amount of work done to account for organizational quality stands out like a sore thumb.

So that's why my opinion is that relationship-between-parts experts can become blinded by their own expertise. They look so exclusively at one thing they come to think that's all there is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Learn to quiet your thoughts...This is very much easier to say than it is to do. Thoughts have a tendency to just keep on flowing, and for most people, learning specific techniques is the only way to achieve that quiet state from where they can then progress in their practice.

You are right. It is very difficult to quiet the mind. Maybe you'll tolerate an analogy.

I make pizza, and if you haven't made it you might not know that the dough is the absolute most difficult aspect to master, especially in home kitchens where people may not have the right equipment.

You can easily find tons of pizza recipes online or in books, but they don't reveal the secrets of the dough. Those secrets are in the possession of bakers, passed down from centuries of breadmaking, who have reduced the variables to a science. Once you master the science, only then you can be an artist.

The majority of home pizza makers just do the easy popular thing, so that's the common knowledge. But pizza nuts who get into it find out things like the importance of the final temperature to yeast action, hydration effects, enzymes ability to develop the dough, what refrigeration of the dough overnight does, the effect of oil on guten development . . . and so much more. Learn it all and you can really get into the art of dough-making.

Well, meditation has a popular version and the science-leading-to-art version. The popular stuff says just sit and breathe, or repeat a mantra, or stare at a candle, or count sheep. There is a lot more to it.

It isn't more "complicated" than sit and breathe, it is just more accurate. My favorite meditation thought for the day is to explain that the mind isn't stilled by any sort of effort to stop the mind. Rather, there is something inside of us that is already perfectly still. Learning how to find that is the first part of the secret; the second part is to submit to that stillness. When that happens, that which is still automatically and naturally stops that which is incessantly moving (the mind). My experience has been that finding the still place is hard, but mastering submission to it is a lifelong endeavor.

 

[Royce]

There seems to be some misunderstanding here about meditation. Focusing on an image mental or physical, focusing on our breathing or counting our breathes, quieting our minds are exercises by which we learn to find that quiet place within us all that Les mentioned above. and learn to listen and observe with our being. Only then do we without effort or intention slip into the meditative state of consciousness. We do not try to meditate nor learn to meditate. Trying and learning are doing something and doing something is the antithesis of meditation. Doing nothing is not meditation either; however, only by learning to quieten our minds of the constant chatter and random thoughts and images that we get hung up on and get carried away with, then finding that quiet place and doing nothing, can our consciousness automatically assume the meditative state. Then and only then are we actually meditating.

All the rest, all the techniques, the images and focusing are exercises by which we learn and train ourselves to come to the mental quietness necessary to allow meditation to happen. We benefit tremendously both mentally and physically by doing these exercises but it is not meditation. Once there, once finally quiet and in our center we begin meditating. It takes months if not years to train ourselves to achieve this quiet, doing nothing state. Once there meditation occurs on its own without effort or intention, without trying or focusing. When we finally reach the meditative state we do not know it or are aware of it until after the fact. It is very much like an "Oops, I did something right." experience.

This "oops" unintentional uncontrolled experience is the very essence of Zen thinking, martial and creative arts such as flower arranging, the tea ceremony, and calligraphy. It is doing without thinking, without analyzing. Seeing instantly what is necessary and doing it automatically. Golfers call it getting out of their own way and trusting there swing. We call it being in the moment and doing what come naturally. One aspect of this is that if what we are trying to do is proving to be difficult then we are not doing it the right way.

There are many levels of meditation. Deep meditation is when we become completely disassociated with our bodies and become "one with the universe", "one with the universal consciousness." There are many "places" that we may go during deep meditation, one is the Light, another the Void and another the Circle (of consciousness). There are many hang-ups and distractions alone the way. We can only work our way through these. There is a reason why we get hung-up and distracted and we will not move on until we are ready. It is a guided tour not random meandering around where we will. There is no danger and we are never alone. We may be afraid or reluctant to proceed, to go thru the door but we will never be forced or pushed. When we are ready the door will open again and we will go through without hesitation or thought and only later will we realize that we went through and wonder what all the fuss was about.

The ultimate result of meditation is enlightenment, the complete enlightenment reached by Buddha, becoming a Buddha ourselves, actualizing and becoming one with the Buddha within us all. In the Western Judeo-Christian religion it is actualizing our souls and becoming one with our God that is within us all.

[A bit aside:
I think this feeling of never being alone, of being gently and patiently led without feeling led, of seeing and feeling purpose, intent and direction in all that is, is one of the reasons that we so called mystics are so adamant that there is more, so much more to the universe, to life, to consciousness and to evolution than just the physical. There is a pattern, a purpose, an intent, a direction to all that is; and, all that is, is one, one universe, one consciousness, one reality. It becomes so obvious, so right, so true that we despair when others cannot and will not see it but cling desperately and stubbornly to their rock of physicalism and determinism, denying to the death, sometimes even violently that there is or can be anything else. As the saying goes;" Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much." As with all fundamentalist they cling to their paradigm, not allowing the least little bit of doubt to creep in lest their whole mind set, belief structure, come crumbling and shattering down leaving them no place to stand, no place to set their feet. They fear that this way leads to insanity, to chaos.

Know this: Sanity appears insane to the insane. Reason appears unreasonable to the unreasonable. Truth appears as lies to those living untruth and unwilling to accept or acknowledge the Truth. Reality appears unreal, illusion, delusion to the unreal. This is why the eastern mystics say that the physical world is illusion. It is not illusion as I know that there is one reality and all that is, is of that one reality. If it is, it is real. The physical world, universe, is real. It is a part of, a subset of, all that is, of all of reality. When looked at by the "mystics" it may be a small and insignificant part of reality; but, it is real.

This is in no way meant as a condemnation or even criticism. It is simply an observation by one who has been there, done that, got the tee shirt and the tattoo.]

 

[nameless]

This is why the eastern mystics say that the physical world is illusion. It is not illusion as I know that there is one reality and all that is, is of that one reality. If it is, it is real. The physical world, universe, is real. It is a part of, a subset of, all that is, of all of reality. When looked at by the "mystics" it may be a small and insignificant part of reality; but, it is real.

This is in no way meant as a condemnation or even criticism. It is simply an observation by one who has been there, done that, got the tee shirt and the tattoo.]

Sorry, that is not why the 'mystics' say that the physical world is illusion. We say that it is illusion because it only exists within 'mind', as a 'mental fiction', a 'dream'. It all certainly 'feels' real though... How is it that you speak and interpert for 'the mystics'?

About your one 'reality', are you implying that 'your' reality is all inclusive of 'illusion', 'delusion', 'truth', 'lies', all 'concepts', all 'perspectives', all 'theories', etc...?
Thanx..

Bye the bye, I've got a few tattoos myself! *__-

 

[Royce]

Sorry, that is not why the 'mystics' say that the physical world is illusion. We say that it is illusion because it only exists within 'mind', as a 'mental fiction', a 'dream'. It all certainly 'feels' real though...

I know what some mystics say and what some others say. If the physical world exists only in the mind or is only a dream then in whose mind does it exist as we all experience it? Whose dream is it and how do we all experience it? Are we all then of one mind, one universal consciousness that is the one reality?

How is it that you speak and interpret for 'the mystics'?

Because here at PF the words mystic, mysticism etc have come to be used for those of us who meditate and are non-physicalist and argue for the something more position. I do not consider myself a mystic nor what I believe as mysticism.

About your one 'reality', are you implying that 'your' reality is all inclusive of 'illusion', 'delusion', 'truth', 'lies', all 'concepts', all 'perspectives', all 'theories', etc...?

If there is one universal consciousness then my reality is your reality as we are all of that one consciousness. If there is one consciousness and all that is, is mental of that consciousness then there can be only one reality.

I have said in the past and here above that if it is, if it exists, it is real and that if it does not exist it is not real. If it is not real it does not exist. This view, theory or whatever you want to call it is the result of recent meditation. Not long ago I thought the same way that the physical world is illusion and in many ways it is depending on how we look at it. Lately I have come to see, to know that it is one and it is real. One Universe, One Consciousness and One Reality and it is all One. In that some of all that is, is real then all of what is, is real. In short ; "If it is, it is real. If it is not, it is not real." I know this ( possibly the same way I know that I am.)

Bye the bye, I've got a few tattoos myself! *__-

We all do, although some call them scars.

 

[nameless]

I know what some mystics say and what some others say. If the physical world exists only in the mind or is only a dream then in whose mind does it exist as we all experience it? Whose dream is it and how do we all experience it? Are we all then of one mind, one universal consciousness that is the one reality?

Nice to meet you Royce.
You must have been around for a few years. I can 'smell' it from the clarity and conciseness of your questioning.

As our commonly accepted notion of 'my-self' (as if there were a 'my' who possesses the 'quality/quantity' of 'self'!), whom we see in the mirror, is also 'fiction', asking 'whom' might not be appropriate here. I have never found any evidence of someone 'here' in 'existence'. Ultimately, it appears that 'concsiousness/awareness' contains/produces (words at this level must be metaphorically examined, considering the 'context') 'mind/ego'. It is mind/ego that conceives Duality, an imaginary boundary drawn around 'concepts', 'naming' the 'concept' into petrification, and taking the 'concept' as a distinct and uniquely separate 'thing', apart and distinct from all other concepts that have become 'things'. We 'conceptualize' our universes, populating them with things. From the subtlest of 'things', like 'thought', to the 'grossest', such as a galaxy, we populate our 'concept of life', our concept of space/time, our universes, our fiction, our 'dream'... Of course, I use the word 'our' almost as if there really were a 'me' or a 'we' other than as a 'dream' of consciousness... Consciousness is a rather homogenous 'thing', in and of itself... Perhaps that's why It 'dreams' in such 'living color'?

...and argue for the something more position.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I am unfamiliar with that 'position'. (Two knees and an elbow? *__- ) It sounds 'somehow wrong' in that the way to 'truth' appears to be a 'something less' position... But, hey, WTFDIK?

If there is one universal consciousness

Almost, we all and each occupy a 'different' universe experienced from our own unique(?) 'perspectives', our own corner (ego/duality) of consciousness. The entire omniverse has existence, solely, within consciousness; there is not so much 'one universal consciousness', as consciousness of all universes as merely 'dream'. Consciousness, the literal 'Creator God' of all that is. Creator of Dreams that dream...

then my reality is your reality as we are all of that one consciousness.

If you are referring to 'consciousness' as an/the 'ultimate reality', both of us having our 'existence' within that Consciousness as 'dream', then perhaps. So from one 'perspective', that is correct. If you refer to our 'reality' as that which the mind conceives and the senses 'corroborate', our individual 'perspectives'. We all experience different universes. All existing in Consciousness.
But, THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES'

If there is one consciousness and all that is, is mental of that consciousness then there can be only one reality.

I wish that youd use a perhaps, capital 'R' or something to indicate Reality, that which is of omniversal perfect symmetry, 'ever the same', 'That-ness', 'Am what it Am' Reality, as opposed to the 'reality' that if I don't brush my teeth, I probably won't get kissed (except by my wolf, of course*__-) small 'r' 'subset(?).
One 'Reality', many (apparent) 'realities'.
Neils Bohr said once, "There are great Truths and there are trivial truths. The opposite of a great Truth is also True, the opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false!"

I have said in the past and here above that if it is, if it exists, it is real and that if it does not exist it is not real. If it is not real it does not exist.

'Exist' as in our common consensus 'reality', our 'Dream' 'existence'? That is the only 'brand' of 'existence' of which I have any 'experience'. Bye the bye, I think that the word 'real' comes from the Latin 'res' meaning 'thing', if memory serves..

This view, theory or whatever you want to call it is the result of recent meditation. Not long ago I thought the same way that the physical world is illusion and in many ways it is depending on how we look at it. Lately I have come to see, to know that it is one and it is real.

The state of understanding that all that we see in our universes is 'one' and that all 'distinctions' are subjectively arbitrary is commonly referred to as 'enlightenment'. Even the scientists will tell you that there is no definite place where one 'thing' ends and another 'begins'. Even science is becoming 'enlightened'. Sheesh! Hahahaha...

One Universe, One Consciousness and One Reality and it is all One. In that some of all that is, is real then all of what is, is real. In short ; "If it is, it is real. If it is not, it is not real."

Many, many universes comprising the omniverse, within Counsciousness which is the Reality that contains all the baby dream 'realities'... What some take to be 'real', isn't 'Real', just subjectively assumed to have 'inherent' existence. Delusion. I guess that is some ways, delusion can be 'reality'.

And, I guess that my understanding of what your 'in short' meaning means depends on what you mean by 'is'...

I know this ( possibly the same way I know that I am.)

Then perhaps one is a mite short from 'enlightenment', as, if all is 'one', then there is no longer an 'I' to 'Be' or to 'know' as there IS nothing to know, and no individual 'me' to 'Be'!
I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion.
Perhaps you mean 'strongly believe'? Otherwise you are dealing in the 'coin' of religious 'faith' and 'belief'. Dogmatic fundamnentalism. <shudders!>
How do you 'know' that you 'are'? The 'evidence' of the senses? Ego demands? Mind? Someone told you?
Remember,
'convictions' make convicts, 'beliefs' make 'believers', thought makes 'thinkers'.

We all do, although some call them scars.

And would display them proudly,
if 'pride' weren't a 'sin'...
*__-

Lots of words dealing in areas where words are rather tenuous at best. I hope that I have made some sense to you, and thanks for the opportunity of clarifying a bit of thought...
Peace...

 

[Les Sleeth]

As our commonly accepted notion of 'my-self' (as if there were a 'my' who possesses the 'quality/quantity' of 'self'!), whom we see in the mirror, is also 'fiction', asking 'whom' might not be appropriate here. I have never found any evidence of someone 'here' in 'existence'. Ultimately, it appears that 'concsiousness/awareness' contains/produces (words at this level must be metaphorically examined, considering the 'context') 'mind/ego'. It is mind/ego that conceives Duality, an imaginary boundary drawn around 'concepts', 'naming' the 'concept' into petrification, and taking the 'concept' as a distinct and uniquely separate 'thing', apart and distinct from all other concepts that have become 'things'. We 'conceptualize' our universes, populating them with things. From the subtlest of 'things', like 'thought', to the 'grossest', such as a galaxy, we populate our 'concept of life', our concept of space/time, our universes, our fiction, our 'dream'... Of course, I use the word 'our' almost as if there really were a 'me' or a 'we' other than as a 'dream' of consciousness... Consciousness is a rather homogenous 'thing', in and of itself... Perhaps that's why It 'dreams' in such 'living color'?

Yes, but illusions of our mind have nothing to do with if the physical universe is real. I don't think you understand Royce's point yet (not that I claim to represent his view).

The physical universe is real and our consciousness is real in that they both exist. This Eastern concept that the world is an illusion is commonly misinterpreted to mean the world itself is an illusion when it really refers to what consciousness believes about the world.

A similar example is someone on the desert who believes a mirage is water. Is the mirage real? Yes it is, it is a real mirage with actual physical characteristics. Is it an illusion? Yes it is an illusion as well if consciousness believes the mirage is water.

Our consciousness, bound in physicalness for now, accepts much about the effects of physicalness on consciousness as our nature. Since, for instance, in relation to us the physical is "out there" and we are thoroughly submerged in physical circumstances from the moment we are conceived, we come to believe contentment and lasting happiness are "out there." The inner perspective, however, claims there is nothing "out there" which can satisfy because physicalness isn't our true nature. So our pursuit of contentment and lasting happiness "out there" is an illusion; but a common way to say this in the East has to been to say "out there" (or the world) is an illusion.

BTW, recognizing a distinction between physicalness and consciousness doesn't have to be duality. Check out substance monism for an answer to that.

Almost, we all and each occupy a 'different' universe experienced from our own unique(?) 'perspectives', our own corner (ego/duality) of consciousness. The entire omniverse has existence, solely, within consciousness; there is not so much 'one universal consciousness', as consciousness of all universes as merely 'dream'. Consciousness, the literal 'Creator God' of all that is. Creator of Dreams that dream...

I say, one reality, many perseptives; and, most of us may be dreaming, but it isn't the only option. Once can experience reality without the dream.

The state of understanding that all that we see in our universes is 'one' and that all 'distinctions' are subjectively arbitrary is commonly referred to as 'enlightenment'. Even the scientists will tell you that there is no definite place where one 'thing' ends and another 'begins'. Even science is becoming 'enlightened'. Sheesh! Hahahaha...


Many, many universes comprising the omniverse, within Counsciousness which is the Reality that contains all the baby dream 'realities'...

That is not enlightenment. If you want to use the word as it was applied in 18th century Europe, then maybe. But the Buddha's enlightenment is something entirely different. It is to escape the "dream" you are talking about and merge with reality. Since that enlightenment is realized in a still mind, there is no possible way to "think" enlightenment.

And there is one place that both ends and begins in the same place, and that is each individual.

Then perhaps one is a mite short from 'enlightenment', as, if all is 'one', then there is no longer an 'I' to 'Be' or to 'know' as there IS nothing to know, and no individual 'me' to 'Be'!
I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion.
Perhaps you mean 'strongly believe'? Otherwise you are dealing in the 'coin' of religious 'faith' and 'belief'. Dogmatic fundamnentalism. <shudders!>
How do you 'know' that you 'are'? The 'evidence' of the senses? Ego demands? Mind? Someone told you?

You can speak for yourself, but not everyone. If you can't stop your mind, then yes you are doomed to knowing only what it tells you. If you can silence it and experience reality without it's incessant interpretations, colorations, aversions, lusts . . . then you may experience your own existence with the sort of certainty Royce hints at.

'convictions' make convicts, 'beliefs' make 'believers', thought makes 'thinkers'.

. . . and meditation can make enlightenment.

 

[nameless]

Yes, but illusions of our mind have nothing to do with if the physical universe is real. I don't think you understand Royce's point yet (not that I claim to represent his view).

First, you posit one HUGE 'if'. So far, if there is anything 'out there' it cannot be known, only posited as a 'speculative 'if''.
Second, if Royce feels that I didn't understand what he said, then I'm sure that he'll let me know. I can speak with him about 'his' understanding, I can speak with you about 'your's'.

The physical universe is real and our consciousness is real in that they both exist.

Fine, first define 'real' and 'exist' so I can understand YOUR meaning, your perspective?

This Eastern concept that the world is an illusion is commonly misinterpreted to mean the world itself is an illusion when it really refers to what consciousness believes about the world.

By your authority? Are you a Zen Master that feels qualified to interpert, broad brush, the entire 'Eastern concept'? A Zen Master would not have that 'egoic problem'. Having learned, practiced and understood 'Eastern Mysticism and philosophy and scriptures, I have found, in my experience, something other than what you have 'found'. Consciousness has no 'beliefs'.

A similar example is someone on the desert who believes a mirage is water. Is the mirage real? Yes it is, it is a real mirage with actual physical characteristics. Is it an illusion? Yes it is an illusion as well if consciousness believes the mirage is water.

The mirage is only APPARENTLY 'real' to the perceiving mind. You claim actual physical characteristics for a mirrage? A hallucination? Really? Sorry, in my understanding, illusion believed to be 'reality' is called 'delusion, not 'Truth', 'Reality'! It is only apparently (appears as) 'real' to the 'deluded mind'.
Again, Consciousness has no 'beliefs', 'beliefs are within 'thought' only.

Our consciousness, bound in physicalness for now, accepts much about the effects of physicalness on consciousness as our nature. Since, for instance, in relation to us the physical is "out there" and we are thoroughly submerged in physical circumstances from the moment we are conceived, we come to believe contentment and lasting happiness are "out there." The inner perspective, however, claims there is nothing "out there" which can satisfy because physicalness isn't our true nature. So our pursuit of contentment and lasting happiness "out there" is an illusion;

I understand your perspective, but I see it as deluded. Error creeps in with 'belief' and 'assumption'; fer instance, assuming that the 'evidence' of your 'senses/mind' is a true 'picture' of an 'external reality', 'believing' this apparent 'evidence' uncritically is unscientific, dishonest, and deluded.

but a common way to say this in the East has to been to say "out there" (or the world) is an illusion.

Appealing to your 'broad brush opinion' of 'Eastern thought' for validation of your 'beliefs' is cognitively fallacious. Might as well say that, "If Barbara Streisand believes it, it MUST be true." Do your own work, your own practice, your own studies, your own critical thought. Then, you can quote your own experience. You can find Eastern 'physicalists' to 'orbit' if you like, but they would be rare...

BTW, recognizing a distinction between physicalness and consciousness doesn't have to be duality. Check out substance monism for an answer to that.

Apparent 'substances' are 'monistic'. All distinction is artificial and ultimately, all is made of 'dreamstuff'.

I don't research cognitive error, unless I wished to learn more of error. Everything that you can define, name, percieve, believe, conceive, say, think MUST be within Duality. Without the artificial contrast of Duality, apparently, nothing can 'exist'. There can only be 'existence' within the artificial construct of Duality.
Do you find any distinction between the 'reality/world' of your nightly dreams and the 'world' of your 'waking' day?

I say, one reality, many perseptives; and, most of us may be dreaming, but it isn't the only option. Once can experience reality without the dream.

The only 'reality' that you can experience, have knowledge of, is the 'reality' within your dream, within your mind. You cannot 'know' that which is, if anything is, beyond your own mind. The very definition of 'knowledge' tells you this. You cannot 'experience' anything but within 'mind' which is where 'experience' occurs.

That is not enlightenment.

Perhaps you can describe YOUR 'enlightenment', so I can understand what it means to YOU? I already know what the sages and teachers and the mystics and the Buddha, and the scriptures, etc... mean by 'enlightenment' through the millennia. Perhaps you are describing a different experience. I can only assume (!) that you consider yourself 'enlightened' as you seem to be discussing it in a rather authoritative manner...

But the Buddha's enlightenment is something entirely different.

I'm truly humbled by your 'personal understanding' of the Buddha's 'enlightenment'! I read on with relish (and a bit of mustard! *__- )...

It is to escape the "dream" you are talking about and merge with reality.

Perhaps to 'awaken to the dream' into the 'Reality' of Consciousness. Nothing to 'escape' but one's delusions, and they are not 'escaped, but 'understood' as delusion, no one to 'merge' with anything. Thats part of the 'delusion'.

Since that enlightenment is realized in a still mind,

Is that a rule? Is that the only way that people have become 'enlightened'?

there is no possible way to "think" enlightenment.

You might do a search for Jnana Yoga... Educate yourself before offering these definitive pronouncements.

You can speak for yourself, but not everyone.

Then why are you 'helping' poor Royce here? Has he PMed you? Asked you to help him out? Then how is it that you are attempting to speak for all Eastern thought as if your 'broad brushing' has any 'meaning' other than as a misinterperted validation of your 'beliefs'?

. . . then you may experience your own existence with the sort of certainty Royce hints at.

Again, I'll discuss what Royce thinks with Royce. Do you think that he is incapable of communication? He appears to be very capable, to me. Is he a guru of your's? Do you feel a 'need' to 'defend' him?
If you are 'certain' of anything, convinced and convicted, a 'true believer', perhaps you would feel more comfortable discussing things with other fundamnentalists?
People who think are thinkers.
People who are 'certain' are deluded 'believers' and only 'think/assume' to 'validate' their delusions, not discover 'Truth'.

. . . and meditation can make enlightenment.

Meditation CAN provide an 'atmosphere' conductive to an 'enlightened understanding'. Yes, that is my experience. It is not the only way, but certainly one of the best practices for said result.
How long have you been practicing meditation?
What 'form'?

 

[Les Sleeth]

How long have you been practicing meditation?
What 'form'?

32 years this December, usually a bit over an hour daily at dawn. For the first 20 years I practiced up to 4 hours per day. I practice samadhi, period, which is what the Buddha taught.

I haven't claimed to be a Zen master, or any other sort of master.

So, you think I am undereducated in the history of enlightenment or mediation? As a matter of fact, I have an undergrad degree in exactly that subject, it has been the subject of my lifelong study, and it is plays an important role in a book I'm now trying to complete. But I agree, I am still a student.

Regarding Royce, he and I have exchanged ideas for years, so I think I understand him at least a little. But if he is upset over anything I've said, then I apologize.

In any case, your concept of "enlightenment" is easily recognizable by many people here as idealist philosophy. You can call it enlightened if you wish, but since this is a thread on Zen, and that enlightenment was defined by the Buddha's realization, I don't see how you would think it is appropriate to substitute your own idealist interpretations.

 

[nameless]

32 years this December, usually a bit over an hour daily at dawn. For the first 20 years I practiced up to 4 hours per day.

I practice samadhi, period, which is what the Buddha taught.

Ten dollars if you can show me where the Buddha taught that you 'should', nay, even CAN 'practice' Samadhi? If you understood what you are talking about, you wouldn't have just made this statement.

So, you think I am undereducated in the history of enlightenment or mediation? As a matter of fact, I have an undergrad degree in exactly that subject, it has been the subject of my lifelong study, and it is plays an important role in a book I'm now trying to complete. But I agree, I am still a student.

What has a 'student' to offer in a book?
If you hold that a scholastic education in this matter is of such value, perhaps you should have just taken an 'Enlightenment 101' course. You'll be able to proudly display your 'Certificate of Enlightenment' when you're done! And, reading about the 'history' of the 'writings and claims' of 'enlightenment' doesn't give you the foggiest idea of the 'actuality'. Become 'enlightened' and then (see if you still want to) write your book.

Regarding Royce, he and I have exchanged ideas for years, so I think I understand him at least a little. But if he is upset over anything I've said, then I apologize.

I try not to discuss others, other than the 'principles' in a conversation. It always leads to trouble. You are not an expert on Royce, you might be an 'expert' on yourself. Speak for yourself, please. Royce can speak for himself, though I'm sure that he appreciates your 'interest' and 'concern'.

In any case, your concept of "enlightenment" is easily recognizable by many people here as idealist philosophy. You can call it enlightened if you wish, but since this is a thread on Zen, and that enlightenment was defined by the Buddha's realization, I don't see how you would think it is appropriate to substitute your own idealist interpretations.

I guess that if you cannot discuss the subjevt intelligently, you can 'dismiss' me easily by 'labeling' me (like a 'cool person' or a 'kike' or a 'slope'.. or whatever 'group' you find easily dismissed). Now you don't have to deal with the 'meat' 'cause we all know about them 'niggers', 'idealists', Jews, etc.. You aren't exhibiting much intellect here. I do not think like any 'group', if you happen to find parallels, it is irrevelent.

And you seem to be 'reaching', again, for 'validation' in trying to assert that because and 'if' others agree with you that you are somehow more 'right'. Fallacy and ego!

I speak here on Zen as I live it.
You obviously are still trying... and your ego is showing...

Have I missed something? Have you been voted spokesman for the people here also as you presume to speak for Royce? I'm hearing no sign of original thought or experience. That is one problem with a formal 'education', you are not taught HOW to think, but WHAT to think. And now you try to seek validity in 'numbers'.

Then again, you did call yourself a student, so.. instead of automatically egoically arguing an alternative perspective, as a 'student', perhaps you might make the attempt to 'understand' it first? Otherwise, your statement about being a 'student' is only a nice sounding false humility...

 

[Royce]

Nice to meet you Royce.
You must have been around for a few years. I can 'smell' it from the clarity and conciseness of your questioning.

Thank you. Nice to meet you too and a slightly belated welcome to PF.

I must apologize for the delay in responding to your reply. This morning I was typing up my reply. It was the best work of my life, brilliant, elegant, impeccable logic unassailable reasoning, epochal in clarity and mind shattering in revelation and enlightenment! I can only conclude that mankind is not ready for such brilliance as when I submitted it God, the god head, the universal consciousness or maybe it was just Greg or a gremlin caused the server to not respond and all was lost perhaps forever. This is the first chance that I've had to re-respond.

As our commonly accepted notion of 'my-self' (as if there were a 'my' who possesses the 'quality/quantity' of 'self'!), whom we see in the mirror, is also 'fiction', asking 'whom' might not be appropriate here. I have never found any evidence of someone 'here' in 'existence'. Ultimately, it appears that 'consciousness/awareness' contains/produces (words at this level must be metaphorically examined, considering the 'context') 'mind/ego'. It is mind/ego that conceives Duality,

That is my point. There is no duality. There is only one reality. Whether we wish to call that reality God, the One or the Universal Consciousness doesn't matter as they are all human terms of the same entity. All is One. There is no outside, no meta or supernatural. All that is, is One. As that One is real, is Reality, all that is, is real. All that is not of the One, the One Reality is not real and does not exist. Ultimately there is only one I AM. There can be no distinction's no differences, no others.

an imaginary boundary drawn around 'concepts', 'naming' the 'concept' into petrification, and taking the 'concept' as a distinct and uniquely separate 'thing', apart and distinct from all other concepts that have become 'things'. We 'conceptualize' our universes, populating them with things. From the subtlest of 'things', like 'thought', to the 'grossest', such as a galaxy, we populate our 'concept of life', our concept of space/time, our universes, our fiction, our 'dream'... Of course, I use the word 'our' almost as if there really were a 'me' or a 'we' other than as a 'dream' of consciousness... Consciousness is a rather homogeneous 'thing', in and of itself... Perhaps that's why It 'dreams' in such 'living color'?

We, however, on another level, do exist as unique individual beings with our own identity, consciousness and experience. Yet we are of and one with the One. As the cells of my body are individual unique cells with existence of their own they are part of my body and cannot be separated from that unity that is me. Again this is not another reality but another facet or level of the one Reality.

My, your and everyones existence is real and not a dream nor figment of imagination Of the One, nor is the physical universe. It is all real and all of the one reality.

To say that all existence is a dream a mental image of consciousness it to say that there is that which is but is not real. Again duality. The One Consciousness is real as are the dreams, mental thoughts, and ideas of that consciousness. Ideas, thoughts, philosophies are real, even our own. If they were not real they would not endure, would not have any effect or meaning and lead to contradictions, oxymorons and paradoxes. Reality consists in part or that which we call physical, mental and spiritual. All are real. There is one reality. It is logical and reasonable. There are no contradictions and no paradoxes. Those which we do come up against are products of our language and sequential thinking and are not real.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I am unfamiliar with that 'position'. (Two knees and an elbow? *__- ) It sounds 'somehow wrong' in that the way to 'truth' appears to be a 'something less' position... But, hey, WTFDIK?

Here at PF there are a number of physicalist who state that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain due to the brain reaching a sufficient complexity and size. They also believe that life came about by accident or a natural result of the mixing of the chemicals in the primordial soup. They also believe that Darwin's Evolution satisfactorily explains the origin of the species and all or our organs such as our brains.

One the other side of this on going discussion are people like Les and myself who believe that there is something more, be it God, the Creator, Intelligent Design or the Universal Consciousness. We believe that there is purpose, intent and direction to the universe itself as well as all life. Hence the coined phrase "the Something Else position" rather than the non- physicalist, meta- physicalist or the mysticism.

Almost, we all and each occupy a 'different' universe experienced from our own unique(?) 'perspectives', our own corner (ego/duality) of consciousness. The entire omniverse has existence, solely, within consciousness; there is not so much 'one universal consciousness', as consciousness of all universes as merely 'dream'. Consciousness, the literal 'Creator God' of all that is. Creator of Dreams that dream...

To create, the Creator must be real; or the creator is not real and there is nor can be anything that is real. If there is nothing real then there is nothing.
i am is absolute proof that I AM exist, is; i. e. in that my existence is undeniable to me, my existence implies, contains the necessity, that the Creator, I AM, exists, is. This is confirmed virtually every time I deeply meditate and is understood, acknowledged, at all other times.

I am.
i am of I AM.
I AM is the ultimate and one Reality.
As i am is of I AM, i am is real.

I have received order from SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED and have to take a break now. I will pick up where I left off later this evening.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Ten dollars if you can show me where the Buddha taught that you 'should', nay, even CAN 'practice' Samadhi? If you understood what you are talking about, you wouldn't have just made this statement.

As Joe Pesci said in "My Cousin Vinny," show me the money. Why doesn't an expert like you know samadhi (the eighth step of the eight-fold path) is the meditation the Buddha taught?

What has a 'student' to offer in a book?

Nothing to a know-it-all.

If you hold that a scholastic education in this matter is of such value, perhaps you should have just taken an 'Enlightenment 101' course. You'll be able to proudly display your 'Certificate of Enlightenment' when you're done! And, reading about the 'history' of the 'writings and claims' of 'enlightenment' doesn't give you the foggiest idea of the 'actuality'. Become 'enlightened' and then (see if you still want to) write your book.

YOU are the one who asked for credentials. Remember? What is this, bait and switch? Besides, I didn't say it was just scholastic . . . recall the 32 years of meditation? What have you to offer as expertise?

I guess that if you cannot discuss the subject intelligently, you can 'dismiss' me easily by 'labeling' me (like a 'cool person' or a 'kike' or a 'slope'.. or whatever 'group' you find easily dismissed). Now you don't have to deal with the 'meat' 'cause we all know about them 'niggers', 'idealists', Jews, etc.. You aren't exhibiting much intellect here. I do not think like any 'group', if you happen to find parallels, it is irrevelent.

Nice try. Associating yourself with the down-trodden to appear the victim. It is you sir who has consistantly been rude, condescending, and talking out of your backside.

I speak here on Zen as I live it.

Hmmmmmmm . . . so Zen is what you are living?

Then again, you did call yourself a student, so.. instead of automatically egoically arguing an alternative perspective, as a 'student', perhaps you might make the attempt to 'understand' it first? Otherwise, your statement about being a 'student' is only a nice sounding false humility...

Understand what? Meditation? Let's hear your credentials please . . . years devoted to meditation, education, posts/publications here or anywhere exposing to everyone on the planet to what you do and don't know . . . you know, a little more than big talk.

Do you understand my complaint? You are disrespectful, and trying to pretend you know more than you do. Just be honest and share ideas; you don't have to "be" anything to be accepted (or tolerated) here except sincere, willing to learn, teach (when you actually know), and respectful to others who are struggling like everyone else to understand things.

 

[Royce]

I'm back!

I swear, I can't leave you two alone for two hours without you getting into a fight and calling each other names What ego-less Zen practitioner is calling which ego-less Buddha practitioner a WHAT?

God, where is Li when you need him? A good taoist could straighten this out in a heartbeat if he didn't keep bumping into two living oxmorons or is it paradoxes?

Bye the way I am 63, have been studying, reading, Tao, Buddha and Zen for forty years and meditating for as long as Les ( mainly Zen) focusing on my breathe to start. I am more Zen because of its real life applicability and small steps to enlightenment along the way to Enlightenment. I am also a convinced christain

Les and I are old friends both joining PF in March of 03. We rarely have discussions between us because it sounds too much like a mutual admiration society though we do enjoy ganging up on and baiting physicalist. We usually see eye to eye, albeit, somewhat heatedly at times, but are coming from different places with different view points.

I am convinced that there are as many paths to Enlightenment and/or to God as there are individuals as we are all different and unique.

Now, where was I?

If you are referring to 'consciousness' as an/the 'ultimate reality', both of us having our 'existence' within that Consciousness as 'dream', then perhaps. So from one 'perspective', that is correct. If you refer to our 'reality' as that which the mind conceives and the senses 'corroborate', our individual 'perspectives'. We all experience different universes. All existing in Consciousness.
But, THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES'

Analyze and justify your above statements, the one I highlighted and the one you Capitalized. You have come this far. Take the next step and realize that they are both True and are both saying the same Truth.

Consciousness is the Ultimate reality. It is REALITY! As it is real all within it is real and all outside of it is unreal, is not. If as you said;"THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES.'" then our dreamland universes is the same universe seen and experienced in different ways by different beings. There is one consciousness, one universe and one reality and they are all the same entity.
We individuals at different places seeing and experiencing it from different viewpoints see it as different universes and as we cannot justify this with the One it must be dreamland, an illusion or delusion that is not real. It is not unlike Einstein's relativity.

I wish that you'd use a perhaps, capital 'R' or something to indicate Reality, that which is of omniversal perfect symmetry, 'ever the same', 'That-ness', 'Am what it Am' Reality, as opposed to the 'reality' that if I don't brush my teeth, I probably won't get kissed (except by my wolf, of course*__-) small 'r' 'subset(?).
One 'Reality', many (apparent) 'realities'.
Neils Bohr said once, "There are great Truths and there are trivial truths. The opposite of a great Truth is also True, the opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false!"

I have tried to comply with your wish but I cannot see that it helps much.

Omniversal is redundant and unnecessary as there is One Universe seen and experience in as many different ways as there are entities.

There is nothing that is 'ever the same'. The universe, the Creator, you and I are ever changing and ever creating just as the river I alluded to earlier.

One 'Reality', many (apparent) 'realities'.

Yes, now you've got it, the TRUTH.

The state of understanding that all that we see in our universes is 'one' and that all 'distinctions' are subjectively arbitrary is commonly referred to as 'enlightenment'. Even the scientists will tell you that there is no definite place where one 'thing' ends and another 'begins'. Even science is becoming 'enlightened'. Sheesh! Hahahaha...

In Zen it is a little step of enlightenment on the path to Enlightenment. There is a Japanese term for it but I don't remember what it is. Of course there are a number of different schools of Zen thinking.

Then perhaps one is a mite short from 'enlightenment', as, if all is 'one', then there is no longer an 'I' to 'Be' or to 'know' as there IS nothing to know, and no individual 'me' to 'Be'!

I am merely a traveler on a long twisting path or better in the stream. I have come a long way and have miles to go before I can rest.

In another thread I said that when God spoke to Abraham and sad; "I AM. I AM THAT I AM" he said all that was necessary to say, all that could be said.
I said here that I know,possibly the same way that I know that I am.

My writing often contain far more truths an what the mere words say. When I reread it, I am often surprised and delighted at the Truths it contains if one looks beyond the words alone. This is Zen at its best, a delight that often makes one laugh out loud when he learns that he knows more Truth than he knows that he knows.

I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion.
Perhaps you mean 'strongly believe'? Otherwise you are dealing in the 'coin' of religious 'faith' and 'belief'. Dogmatic fundamentalism. <shudders!>
How do you 'know' that you 'are'? The 'evidence' of the senses? Ego demands? Mind? Someone told you?

Here I have to agree with Les, you are talking out you back side.
One cannot know delusion as delusion by definition is not real. One cannot know a lie one can believe a lie but cannot know one.
I know that I am because I experience, am conscious of self just as I experience, am conscious of, I am a part of a greater consciousness that is part of me. If you do not know that you exist, that you are, then I posit that you do not exist, except possibly in your imagination, that you are not.
Please make up you mind. Are you or are you not?

By the way I too am ego-less and take great delight in telling everybody and anybody who will listen that I am ego-less. I am however still working on my humbleness. It's so hard to be humble when your so great! Its like trying to soar with eagles when your surrounded by turkeys.

 

[nameless]

Les, I can understand your reaction. Sorry if sometimes the 'truth' is a bit rough.
Please don't equate honesty and forthrightness with disrespect. You don't have to even read my words if you so choose. What I have related is just words. If you have no use for them, let it go. I'm sure that others reading this can understand that which you can/will not. I'm just sharing my perspective. My 'credentials' are completely irrelevant to anyone capable of applying independent thought to my words. If you have no use for the words that I offer, ignore them. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. If you don't 'agree' with them, again, ask for clarification. At least understand what you don't agree with.
I 'pretend' to speak for no-one but myself. I am entrained to no group. I have nothing to prove.
Your defensive egoic namecalling and sarcasm will be ignored, and since your reply was without discussive or intellectual merit, I'll let it rest here. Good night.

Royce, thanks for the welcome. Let me sleep, and I'll respond to your post later.
Peace, Good night.

 

[Royce]

During the lull and to get back on topic, I personally prefer Dogen or Soto Zen and practice a form of ZaZen, sitting meditation. While there is no way that I can or will even attempt to get into a lotus position just sitting in a chair, even putting my feet up on an ottoman or in a recliner works just as well and without the pain. Below are some links to Zen and Dogen-Soto zen in particular and some book titles, out of print but you should be able to find them on Amazon.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kasulis.htm

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kasulis.htm

http://www.uoregon.edu/~munno/OregonCourses/REL1010004/R255_Pure_Land,_Dogen_Zen.html


The names of those books are:
1. Zen in Daily life.
2. Zen beyond Zen.
3. Soto Approach to Zen.

 

[nameless]

I am convinced that there are as many paths to Enlightenment and/or to God as there are individuals as we are all different and unique.

Hmmm, so it 'appears'.
I wouldn't know what it feels like to be 'convinced' about something. As soon as I am arrogant enough to think that I really 'know' something, really am 'sure', another 'perspective' will point out that arrogance in a hurry! Damned ego takes constant vigilance (for me, anyway) or its through the fence and down the block in a heartbeat! And it always causes trouble if let loose! Sneaky bastard, that ego!

We all experience different universes. All existing in Consciousness.

But, THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES'

Analyze and justify your above statements, the one I highlighted and the one you Capitalized. You have come this far. Take the next step and realize that they are both True and are both saying the same Truth.

I'll elaborate a bit, but I protest the formation of the question. I am infering from your question that you somehow 'know the 'Truth' and if I can just understand and see things from your perspective, then I too may 'have/be Truth'. The 'you have come this far. and 'take the next step and realize' has an unpleasantly pedantic flavor. I'll ignore it for the moment. We are each just sharing our 'perspective'. I'm not here to teach, and I cannot be taught.

"A true seeker could not accept any teachings, not if he sincerely wished to find something. But he who found, could give his approval to every path, every goal; nothing separated him from all the other thousands who lived in eternity, who breathed the Divine."
-Herman Hesse in Siddhartha

"If a teacher is indeed wise, he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind." - Kahil Gibran

The only 'universe' that can 'exist' for us is that which 'exists' as concepts, as constructs within 'mind'. As we all appear as different, unique creatures, occupying different 'perspectives' (egos?), for all intents and purposes, everyone's (perceived) universe is absolutely subjective to that one 'ego' (perspective).
That speaks to the first part of my quote.

The second says that a) all is 'One', unless acted upon by 'ego' creating an artificial 'duality' from which springs the 'illusion' of a universe of 'things'. And, b) if all things exist as concept, as a hologramic dream, there is truly no 'difference' between anything, as every point of a hologram reflects all other points (has all the 'information' of every point). So, ultimately, a concept is a concept. A concept is not a 'rock', a concept is not a 'banana' other than as 'appearance'. A concept is just a concept. In that sense, in/as the hologramic dream within mind within Consciousness, all is One. In your dreams at night, it the 'table' 'real'? Is the 'chair'? Do they 'really exist'? Where do they go when you awaken? Where do they come from when you drift off? The same applies here.
"Nothing so much blinds us to the fact that we are still 'dreaming', as 'wakefulness."
This 'awakening' to the dream (especially the Oneness beyond 'Duality') often happens in 'meditation'.

Consciousness is the Ultimate reality. It is REALITY!

Consciousness is the 'deepest' 'reality' of which I have awareness. If there is anything beyond, I cannot say. What makes you so sure that there is nothing beyond? You certainly have not 'been there'... I tend to tentatively agree that it is Reality with a capitol 'R'! That I have 'found', anyway...

As it is real all within it is real

Is the 'mirage of water' real? Are you redefining 'real' (from the latin 'res' meaning 'thing'.) Is your 'daydream' before the schoolbell rings 'real'?

and all outside of it is unreal, is not.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

If as you said;"THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANYTHING IN OUR 'DREAMLAND UNIVERSES.'" then our dreamland universes is the same universe seen and experienced in different ways by different beings.

The no difference realted to everything being made of the same 'dreamstuff'...
Perhaps this quote can shed an alternative light on what I'm trying to say;

"The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

Reality is the original Rorschach."

There is one consciousness, one universe and one reality and they are all the same entity.

Perhaps that is how you see it, but not from my perspective. But, I haven't seen your definitions of 'exist' and 'real'... They are obviously different than mine.

We individuals at different places seeing and experiencing it from different viewpoints see it as different universes and as we cannot justify this with the One it must be dreamland, an illusion or delusion that is not real.

All you can 'know' (or be 'convinced' of) is your 'dreamland', you cannot ever know other unless bodily identification is transcended and union with/in Consciousness is 'realized'. Sometimes this too occurs within the context of 'meditation'.

Omniversal is redundant and unnecessary as there is One Universe seen and experience in as many different ways as there are entities.

This is an unsupported assertion, kind of like a 'belief', or a 'conviction'... You cannot logically posit that for which you cannot obtain/provide evidence. Since you can only know your subjective little personal universe, one among the many (hence Omniverse), it becomes a matter of a religious form of 'belief' beyond that, a matter of 'faith' in something for which there is no evidence.

There is nothing that is 'ever the same'. The universe, the Creator, you and I are ever changing and ever creating just as the river I alluded to earlier.

You stated that you were a 'Xtian'. Don't Xtians believe that 'God' (Consciousness?) is the "same yesterday, today and forever"? I would posit that Truth/Reality is in an omniversal state of perfect symmetry, unchanging and unchangeable. That which changes is 'temporal' (hologramic illusory 'dream') and unworthy of the capitol 'T' of Truth and the capitol 'R' of Reality.

I am merely a traveler on a long twisting path or better in the stream. I have come a long way and have miles to go before I can rest.

Journey well my friend...

In another thread I said that when God spoke to Abraham and sad; "I AM. I AM THAT I AM" he said all that was necessary to say, all that could be said.
I said here that I know, possibly the same way that I know that I am.

With all due respect, egoic balderdash! How do you KNOW that you are? Hence 'ass-umptions and beliefs'...
"I am that I am", although trimmed of most 'fat' is still within the world of words and hence duality. Consciousness, God, is 'beyond' 'duality'. At that level, Renee Guinon's quote of "To speak is to lie" makes sense. I Am referred to having no 'qualities or quantities', an 'unchanging state of universal permanence'.

My writing often contain far more truths an what the mere words say. When I reread it, I am often surprised and delighted at the Truths it contains if one looks beyond the words alone.

So, you are saying that you impress yourself? *__- I did once also, until I realized that there was no 'self'. A concept of 'self' is ego.

This is Zen at its best, a delight that often makes one laugh out loud

An innocent and true delight.
In this life, Zen 'is' when 'self' isn't.

when he learns that he knows more Truth than he knows that he knows.

The truths that I thought I 'knew' turned out to be tiny truths.
Then I became Truth.
Now, I haven't the foggiest 'concept' of what Truth might be.

Here I have to agree with Les, you are talking out you back side.
One cannot know delusion as delusion by definition is not real. One cannot know a lie one can believe a lie but cannot know one.

Again with the ass-ertions. First, though, could you please tell me what you mean by accusing me of speaking from my asss? Are you implying that my head is 'up my fundament'? That I am lying? Being dishonest? Seems kind of rude to me...

'Delusion', by definition, is believing (being 'convinced', 'convicted', 'faithful'...) 'illusion' to be 'reality'. Believing the 'evidence' of the senses and mind to be 'reality' is 'delusion'. So, knowing, in the sense of being 'convinced', 'convicted' etc... is 'delusion'. Hence, the only thing that we can 'really know', is delusion.
What is your distinction between 'knowing' and 'believing'? As far as I can see, they are both delusion.

I know that I am because I experience, am conscious of self

Evidence of the senses and mind.
<spits in the (illusory!) dust!>
I learned a long time ago to believe nothing that I hear, nothing that I see, (and on through all the senses) and only half of what I think and I NEVER know which half!
*__-

just as I experience, am conscious of, I am a part of a greater consciousness that is part of me.

So you say...

If you do not know that you exist, that you are, then I posit that you do not exist,

Why? By what train of logic would you posit this?

except possibly in your imagination, that you are not.

Where have I seen this before? Hmmmm...

Please make up you mind. Are you or are you not?

Define 'are'? I guess that would tie in with your defining of 'exist'.

By the way I too am ego-less and take great delight in telling everybody and anybody who will listen that I am ego-less.

'Scuuuse me??
Where did I claim to be 'ego-less'? I got to have the most monstrously big ego on the block! That is why the constant vigilance is necessary. BUT, I do not believe the 'illusions' of the ego to be 'Reality'. I also detect 'humor'. Are you intending 'humor'? ---ooo--*U*--ooo---

I am however still working on my humbleness. It's so hard to be humble when your so great! Its like trying to soar with eagles when your surrounded by turkeys.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[Royce]

Hmmm, so it 'appears'.
I wouldn't know what it feels like to be 'convinced' about something. As soon as I am arrogant enough to think that I really 'know' something, really am 'sure', another 'perspective' will point out that arrogance in a hurry! Damned ego takes constant vigilance (for me, anyway) or its through the fence and down the block in a heartbeat! And it always causes trouble if let loose! Sneaky bastard, that ego!

That to me is the difference between knowing the truth and knowing the Truth. truth is relative to subject and individual at a given time. It may not be true concerning so another subject, individual or time; whereas, Truth is always true for all time for everybody.

I have the same trouble with my ego but most don't understand me when I talk of it that way. You are the only other person who I have encountered that talks of their ego in that way.

I'll elaborate a bit, but I protest the formation of the question. I am inferring from your question that you somehow 'know the 'Truth' and if I can just understand and see things from your perspective, then I too may 'have/be Truth'. The 'you have come this far. and 'take the next step and realize' has an unpleasantly pedantic flavor. I'll ignore it for the moment. We are each just sharing our 'perspective'. I'm not here to teach, and I cannot be taught.

You infer too much. I was just urging you to take the next logical step. I don't presume to teach but merely air my thoughts and observations. If this leads some one to see something from a different view point and improves their understanding or induces them to think beyond their present position then so much the better. I do this for my own benefit as it gives me a better understanding to attempt to but my thoughts into word that others can understand and I get to read other's thoughts and view points.

Consciousness is the 'deepest' 'reality' of which I have awareness. If there is anything beyond, I cannot say. What makes you so sure that there is nothing beyond? You certainly have not 'been there'... I tend to tentatively agree that it is Reality with a capitol 'R'! That I have 'found', anyway...

Universe is defined as all that is, that exists. There can be nothing beyond or out side the universe. If there was so meting outside any given universe then that universe would be a subset and the universal set would contain that universe and that which is outside of it. Both would be inside the Universal set which is the universe.

That which exists is real. that which is not real does not exist. If something exists, it is real and it is within the universe. As the universe contains all that exists the universe contains all that is real. As the universe is what it contains, the universe is real. There is and can be only one universe. If there would be multiple universes they would be subset universes of the universal set of the Universe.
If one accepts that there is a universal consciousness of which we are part and is part of us, and accepts that that consciousness is real it is contained within or is the universe. Either way there is that of the universe that is conscious and self aware. As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real. It follows then that if any part of the universe is conscious and self aware then the universe is conscious and self aware. Please note that I said 'it follows'. It is not proven nor do all accept this to be true.

I know that there is one consciousness of which we all are part and is part of all of us. I infer, to date, that this One universal consciousness is the same entity as is the One Universe and the One Reality.

Is the 'mirage of water' real? Are you redefining 'real' (from the latin 'res' meaning 'thing'.) Is your 'daydream' before the schoolbell rings 'real'?

Yes to all. The mirage is real, it exists. What our mind interpret the image of the mirage to be is not correct or accurate.

The dream is real. We all have dreams and experience dreams; therefore, dreams exist. The content of the dream may not be real, accurate or correct.

Art is real. Works of art such as paintings exist and are real but they are illusions.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

Nor do I; however, with consciousness there are things, not physical things, but subjective things such as memories, thoughts, ideas, intent, purpose, will, mathematics, logic, sciences, philosophies. They may or not may be true or True. They may or may not be accurate, correct or complete, but they are there. they exist and are real.

Perhaps that is how you see it, but not from my perspective. But, I haven't seen your definitions of 'exist' and 'real'... They are obviously different than mine.

exist - to be, is
real - that which exists, is.

All you can 'know' (or be 'convinced' of) is your 'dreamland', you cannot ever know other unless bodily identification is transcended and union with/in Consciousness is 'realized'. Sometimes this too occurs within the context of 'meditation'.

Agreed

This is an unsupported assertion...

No, this is an observation, one you have yourself made but drew a different conclusion.

You stated that you were a 'Xtian'. Don't Xtians believe that 'God' (Consciousness?) is the "same yesterday, today and forever"? I would posit that Truth/Reality is in an omniversal state of perfect symmetry, unchanging and unchangeable. That which changes is 'temporal' (hologramic illusory 'dream') and unworthy of the capitol 'T' of Truth and the capitol 'R' of Reality.

I never have nor never will say that I am an Xtian. I sauniversalid I was a chriChristianstian and the lower case c was and is intentional. As to what Christians believe or don't believe I can't really say other than no two Christian ever believe exactly the same same thing despite what the dogma is of their particular sect.

Journey well my friend...

Thank you. You too. We will meet at the end of our journeys.

With all due respect, egoic balderdash! How do you KNOW that you are? Hence 'ass-umptions and beliefs'...
"I am that I am", although trimmed of most 'fat' is still within the world of words and hence duality. Consciousness, God, is 'beyond' 'duality'. At that level, Renee Guinon's quote of "To speak is to lie" makes sense. I Am referred to having no 'qualities or quantities', an 'unchanging state of universal permanence'.

One of the few things that I do know is that I exist, that I am. I am conscious and self aware. I experience my existence. That things and entities exist outside of myself that I have not experienced and personally observed is all supposition and inference, deduction and induction. I know very little but I do know this.

So, you are saying that you impress yourself? *__- I did once also, until I realized that there was no 'self'. A concept of 'self' is ego.

I am disappointed in you for saying that unless it was intended as humor. My following sentence , I thought made it clear that it was a surprise and unintentional. How or why should I be impressed by something that was an accident or unintended.

There is no independent and exclusive 'self.' Only the ego demands that that be true, that there is nothing greater than itself. Yet the ego is necessary for individual character development, to become an individual. The ego must then be integrated into the entire being and made to realize that it is not the end all and be all even within that being. The spirit or soul within then becomes the ruling force within and and grows toward enlightenment and becoming one with the One.

Again with the ass-ertions. First, though, could you please tell me what you mean by accusing me of speaking from my asss? Are you implying that my head is 'up my fundament'? That I am lying? Being dishonest? Seems kind of rude to me...

No, I'm saying that you are wrong, your statement is wrong, incorrect, false.
If the truth is offensive and rude so be it.

QUOTE]'Delusion', by definition, is believing

That's what I said. You said; "I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion." Knowing is not believing. One cannot know a delusion one can only believe a delusion. One can know that it is a delusion but that implies that one does not believe the delusion.

...Hence, the only thing that we can 'really know', is delusion.

That statement has no meaning. If the only thing that we can really know is delusion then knowing that is a delusion. Once we learn that most of what we have accepted as true during our lives is delusion, we then begin to learn and know the Truth. The thing that makes a truth a Truth is that we know that it is True.

What is your distinction between 'knowing' and 'believing'?

Knowing is experiencing the Truth, knowing it is true. Believing is accepting something that one reads, learns, hears or thinks to be true without experiencing or observing it oneself, without proof, without knowing it to be True.

Why? By what train of logic would you posit this?

Where have I seen this before? Hmmmm...

Define 'are'? I guess that would tie in with your defining of 'exist'.

'Scuuuse me??
Where did I claim to be 'ego-less'? I got to have the most monstrously big ego on the block! That is why the constant vigilance is necessary. BUT, I do not believe the 'illusions' of the ego to be 'Reality'. I also detect 'humor'. Are you intending 'humor'? ---ooo--*U*--ooo---

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...

Yes, humor.

 

[Dr.Yes]

The Zen of yakity yak.

 

[nameless]

That to me is the difference between knowing the truth and knowing the Truth. truth is relative to subject and individual at a given time. It may not be true concerning so another subject, individual or time; whereas, Truth is always true for all time for everybody.

The trouble with this, is that as soon as you 'define' a Truth that is, "always true for all time for everybody." someone will jump up and tell you in no uncertain terms that you are 'wrong', speaking from your 'nether regions' (humor?), evil, lying, etc... Trying to 'define' anything in 'universal' terms will run up against this problem. Have you ever heard of 'e-prime' language? It removes these invitations for emotional responses. You can read a bit about it HERE.
I think that I understand what you are trying to say, if what I think that I understand is what you are actually are trying to say... You are using terms with different meanings for each person and yet you are offerring no 'definitions so I can know if what I understand is what you are offering.

I have the same trouble with my ego but most don't understand me when I talk of it that way. You are the only other person who I have encountered that talks of their ego in that way.

One either surrenders to the ego and lives evermore asleep in delusion, or the battle against ego and its illusions is endless. Anyone who says different has 'surrendered' already.

You infer too much. I was just urging you to take the next logical step. I don't presume to teach but merely air my thoughts and observations. If this leads some one to see something from a different view point and improves their understanding or induces them to think beyond their present position then so much the better. I do this for my own benefit as it gives me a better understanding to attempt to but my thoughts into word that others can understand and I get to read other's thoughts and view points.

Acceptable. Me too.

Universe is defined as all that is, that exists. There can be nothing beyond or out side the universe. If there was so meting outside any given universe then that universe would be a subset and the universal set would contain that universe and that which is outside of it. Both would be inside the Universal set which is the universe.

Your age is showing. (humor)
Just Google 'multiverse', 'omniverse', 'metaverse' and find what the latest thinking on the subject is. It's not 'that' new.. Here is a good start.

That which exists is real. that which is not real does not exist.

You use these terms often. You tie the definitions of 'real' and 'exist' together. Will you please define your meanings for these words? Do you mean 'real' as in 'thing'? Something must be a 'thing' to 'exist? If something is a 'thing' then it 'exists'? If it is not a 'thing' then it does not 'exist'?

If something exists, it is real and it is within the universe. As the universe contains all that exists the universe contains all that is real. As the universe is what it contains, the universe is real.

Leaving your 'personal' definition of 'universe' alone, for the moment, so, again, if something is a 'thing' it is real. Your universe consists of 'things' making it 'real' and 'exist'?

There is and can be only one universe. If there would be multiple universes they would be subset universes of the universal set of the Universe.

Nope. See above. Your premise appears faulty.

If one accepts that there is a universal consciousness of which we are part and is part of us,

I do not, according to experience, accept that Consciousness is 'part of me'. This appears as egoic delusion. That which is in a 'universal' state of unchanging permanence, Consciousness, is 'part of ME'? Nope. I find that calling it 'universal Consciousness' is a poor term as Consciousness 'predates' and 'encompasses' 'omniverse'.

and accepts that that consciousness is real it is contained within or is the universe.

Consciousness is a 'thing'? With attributes and changes in time?? Even you referred to Consciousness as an ultimate 'Truth', capitol 'T'. If so, it must 'exist' outside of the 'illusion' of time and change. 'Truth' doesn't change. So, I cannot accept your premise here..

Either way there is that of the universe that is conscious and self aware.

You? Me? Do you think that the other person in your dream last night was 'conscious and 'self aware'?

As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real.

Accordind to the temporary definition above of 'real' (until you give me yours, if different than the above...) the universe is not a 'thing', it is a hologramic 'thought', a 'concept'. Is a thought a 'thing' in your lexicon? If 'thought' is considered a 'thing' then I can understand where you are comming from here.

It follows then that if any part of the universe is conscious and self aware then the universe is conscious and self aware.

That is a mighty big 'if'! It is still a great philosophical discussion, and always
will be, whether or not there really is a 'self' to be 'aware of'. That is what we are talking about. If you take your-'self' as a given (unscientific) then you can posit the above. I cannot accept this as a 'given' just simply on the 'authority' of my senses and mind...

I know that there is one consciousness of which we all are part

How? 'Know' for certain? Absolutely 'sure'?

I infer, to date, that this One universal consciousness is the same entity as is the One Universe and the One Reality.

Perhaps One Reality, perhaps, but I still can't hang with your 'universe' fetish..

Yes to all. The mirage is real, it exists. What our mind interpret the image of the mirage to be is not correct or accurate.

HUH? The 'mirage' is an image in our mind, interperted correctly or not, it is still hallucination. So you attribute 'reality', 'thingness' to thoughts.. Ok, I am beginning to see what you are on about.. We seem to have a semantic variance, as our concepts of 'reality' are semantically based, we seem to have different 'realities'.

The dream is real. We all have dreams and experience dreams; therefore, dreams exist. The content of the dream may not be real, accurate or correct.

I quote, "As I said before I any part of the universe is real then the universe too must be real." Then by the same logic, if the dream is accepted as 'real' then the 'contents' of the dream must be real. Your 'universal' logic must be logic for 'dreams' also as dreams are a subset of universe.

Art is real. Works of art such as paintings exist and are real but they are illusions.

So you are saying that 'illusions' have 'real' existence? That, my friend, is the definition of 'delusion'.

I know of no-thing 'outside' of Consciousness. There is also no-'thing' within Consciousness that I have found beside hologramic dreaming egos. Like a bit of 'turbulence' in the Chaos?

Nor do I; however, with consciousness there are things, not physical things, but subjective things such as memories, thoughts, ideas, intent, purpose, will, mathematics, logic, sciences, philosophies. They may or not may be true or True. They may or may not be accurate, correct or complete, but they are there. they exist and are real.

In Consciousness there are only 'apparent' things, whether horses or mathematics. All the same dreamstuff. All illusion. NOT REAL. You seem to accept everything at all as 'real', mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions.. So if something 'appears' real to you, you assume it's reality in 'fact'? Based on what?

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

exist - to be, is
real - that which exists, is.

Define 'is' and 'to be'.

You said; "I posit that the only thing that can be truly 'known' is delusion."

Knowing is not believing. One cannot know a delusion one can only believe a delusion. One can know that it is a delusion but that implies that one does not believe the delusion.

One can 'know/believe' (one and the same!) that 'illusion' is 'reality'. That is the definition of delusion, hence, the only thing that we can 'know/believe' is 'delusion'. Youll have to SHOW me how 'belief' differs from 'knowing'.

If the only thing that we can really know is delusion then knowing that is a delusion.

Ego cannot (ordinarilly) accept that which it 'knows/believes', creates, is illusion. Once ego can understand that it 'believed' that 'illusion' was 'reality', and accepts 'illusion' as illusion, one is no longer deluded, but awakened to the dream.

Once we learn that most of what we have accepted as true during our lives is delusion, we then begin to learn and know the Truth.

Replacing one 'knowing/belief' with another is still 'delusion'. If there IS a 'Truth', it is not a 'knowledge or a belief'.

The thing that makes a truth a Truth is that we know that it is True.

"The more we learn, the less we KNOW!"
Only ego 'KNOWS/BELIEVES', and the only thing that the ego can KNOW/BELIEVE is 'delusion'.

Knowing is experiencing the Truth, knowing it is true. Believing is accepting something that one reads, learns, hears or thinks to be true without experiencing or observing it oneself, without proof, without knowing it to be True.

So you don't believe that you know anything? You don't know that you have beliefs? You 'think' that you know. You believe that you know because you believe your 'experience' to be 'real'. You appear to be disingenuous here. You cannot honestly separate one from the other. If you were honest, you would say thet "I believe what/that I know..." "I know that/what I believe..."

If the truth is offensive and rude so be it.

Hahahahaha, where have I heard that before??
What a lousy excuse for rudeness.
You dishonor 'truth'. If YOUR 'truth' is 'offensive and rude', perhaps you aughtn't share it? Calling me an 'ass' (should you be tempted), no matter how true you believe/know it to be, is not too useful in a friendly discussion.
'Truth' is not a whip, my friend.

I am disappointed in you for saying that unless it was intended as humor.

If you relinquished 'expectations', 'hopes', 'beliefs', 'illusions', etc... you would never be 'disappointed' or 'disillusioned' again.

Birds of humor carry 'truth' the farthest for the most.

*__-

 

[Royce]

From my understanding of what you have written your position is that of a dualist who thinks all is delusion and thoughts are not real.

This is the very contradiction and paradox that started me on my journey to what I call Realism, though I doubt that it is Classical Realism. It was through meditation that I encountered the One and have come to know it as the Universal consciousness. I conclude that there is one universe, one consciousness and one reality. I infer that they are the same entity that I think of as God the Creator and Master of the Universe, the universe itself.
Others have suggested that the term 'god head' may be more applicable.

Thoughts, mentality exist and are real. They effect and change physical matter. If we accept that matter exists and is real we must accept that thought exists and is real because it is absurd to believe that the unreal and nonexistent can effect or change the state of physical matter.

If as you say all is delusion then who or what holds the delusion. Would that which is being deluded not also be a delusion. Where then is Truth and where is there any reality.

If nothing is real and nothing is true then nothing exists not even consciousness as that too is part of the all and therefore delusional.

This is semantics just as your continual demands for definitions and then definitions of the definitions. I will not play games of semantics with you or anybody.

I have said over and over again all that I have to say on this subject. Even I am bored with this as must be other readers and it is clearly off the subject of this thread which we have high jacked far too long. I am ending this discussion right now.

 

[nameless]

From my understanding of what you have written your position is that of a dualist who thinks all is delusion and thoughts are not real.

First you label me. You don't give me the respect of dealing with what I think and say, but drop me in a category that yoyu can easily 'deal with'. First comes that labelling, and then comes the ...

I have said over and over again all that I have to say on this subject. Even I am bored with this as must be other readers and it is clearly off the subject of this thread which we have high jacked far too long. I am ending this discussion right now.

...dismissal.
That is the problem with most 'believers'. You seem incapable of having an intelligent logical philosophical discussion. A mutual understanding of basic terms requires consensus definition before these terms can be used in intelligent conversation.. Considering the sloppy way that you use your words and seem incapable of effective definition of the words that YOU use, this tells me much about your 'understanding' of even your own words. But, hey, what need for a logical structure of understanding and communication when you are 'convinced', are 'convicted', have 'beliefs and faiths'... all anti-intellectual. I'm sorry we have hit the end of your intellectual capacity to finish our conversation. Evidenced by your dismissal. Why is it, do you think, that you asked me questions and finished by blowing me off? Can't stand the heat? Sheesh. Pathetic. I might have expected more of one of your age. I guess that years mean nothing but years. Oh well...
Sweet dreams...

 

[Royce]

If you want to continue this or any other discussion then open another thread.

Saying repeatedly the all is delusion without support or reason and asking repeated to define my terms and then define my definitions is hardly an
"intelligent logical philosophical discussion." You are the one who repeatedly referred to dualism. I did not label you but referred to the position that you seemed to have taken. You then accuse me of doing exactly what you are now doing.

You have again and again resorted to name calling and belittling and misquoted me and Les. Is it any wonder why I dismissed the discussion (not you). The wonder is why it has gone on as long as it had.

Well, Les has alway had more sense than I and quicker to pick up on such things. Sweet Dreams.

 

[nameless]

How special, a daisy chain of two. Good night, Gracie.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Perhaps this would be more helpful in finding out if there is any Zen out there:

Definitions of Zen on the Web:

* A school of Mahayana Buddhism that asserts that enlightenment can be attained through meditation, self-contemplation, and the use of topographic maps from Map Express.
mapexp.com/glossary.htm
* A Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism that aims at enlightenment by direct intuition through meditation.
www.hikoudo.com/asstd/glossary.html[/URL]
* A Japanese school of Buddhism which has become popular in North America. It is similar to the Chinese school of Buddhism known as Chan.
[url]www.religioustolerance.org/gl_xyz.htm[/url]
* a branch of Mahayana Buddhism that first appeared in China in the sixth and seventh centuries and later spread to Japan.
[url]www.japanvisitor.com/jc/glossary.html[/url]
* (see Ch'an Buddhism)
[url]www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm[/url]
* A school or division of Buddhism characterized by techniques designed to produce enlightenment. In particular, Zen emphasizes various sorts of meditative practices, which are supposed to lead the practitioner to a direct insight into the fundamental character of reality (see KU and MOKUSO).
[PLAIN]www.advdojo.org/vocab.html[/URL]
* A major school of Mahayana Buddhism, with several branches. One of its most popular techniques is meditation on koans, which leads to the generation of the Great Doubt. According to this method:
[url]www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/mindseal/glossary.html[/url]
* (Japanese) Meditation. Derived from the Chinese ‘Ch’an’ and the Sanskrit ‘dhyana’. A school of Mahayana Buddhism that developed in China and Japan.
[PLAIN]www.thebuddhistsociety.org/resources/Glossary.html[/URL]
* As the traditional, four-phrase summary of Zen puts it:
[PLAIN]www.hyattcarter.com/coming_to_terms.htm[/URL]
* What is the sound of one s__t happening?
[PLAIN]www.dogchurch.org/restroom/feces.html[/URL]
* a meditative sect of Buddhism, introduced into Japan from China in the 13th Century.
[PLAIN]www.castlefinearts.com/main_glossary.htm[/URL]
* (Japanese): Originally Chan (Chinese), a form of Buddhist philosophy. Literally, "silence" or "meditation".
[PLAIN]www.boabom.org/dictionary.htm[/URL]
* Japanese, "seated meditation;" the tradition of Buddhism that emphasizes enlightenment, or satori, as the immediate and subjective experience of one's own Buddha nature.
staff.jccc.net/thoare/gl%20q%20to%20z.htm
* This is one school of the Mahayana branch of Buddhism. It developed in China (where it was known as Chan Buddhism), and spread into Japan and Korea. It has incorporated several ideas from Taoism.
[url]www.siamese-dream.com/reference/buddhist_glossary.html[/url]
* (Japanese) Buddhist school or sect favouring meditation and intuition rather than scripture as a means to enlightenment, which passed from China to Japan in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
[url]www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/glossary_tz.htm[/url]
* The Japanese meditative sect of Mahayana Buddhism. (Japanese)
members.tripod.com/hungahungas/glossary.htm
* (J) Although there are many meanings for this word, including an organization, an energy, and a style of meditation, it is often associated with a mental state where the intellectual word-brain is quiet. This can be during empty-mind meditation or meditation focused on an experience, feeling, or sense that exists apart from words.
[PLAIN]www.questkagami.com/glossary.html[/URL]
* Japanese; Ch'an (Chinese); a branch of Mahayana Buddhism which developed in China during the sixth and seventh centuries after Bodhidharma arrived; it later divided into the Soto and Rinzai schools; Zen stresses the importance of the enlightenment experience and the futility of rational thought, intellectual study and religious ritual in attaining this; a central element of Zen is zazen, a meditative practice which seeks to free the mind of all thought and conceptualization.
[url]www.geocities.com/mokuraibozu/buddhist_glossary.html[/url]
* A sect of Mahayanan Buddhism that teaches enlightenment through meditation on a non-rational koan that results in direct intuition. Zen greatly influenced social and political life in Japan after the 14th century, especially the work of Matsuo Basho, the 15th century artist considered Japan's foremost practitioner of haiku. It has grown popular in the West largely through the writings of DT Suzuki.
[url]www.rodsmith.org.uk/philosopy%20glossary/philosophy%20glossaryU-Z.htm[/url]
* From the Japanese word meaning "meditation". It is the form of Buddhism which developed in Japan.
[url]www.fitzwimarc.org.uk/glossary/x.htm[/url]
* Meditation Buddhist sect. Religious meditation.
goju.batcave.net/GLOSSARY.htm
* (Japanese; in Chinese, Ch'an) A style of Buddhism that evolved from the teachings of Bodhidharma, who came to China in the 6th century. Although meditation (zazen) is an important part of the practice of Zen, Zen itself includes every possible form of activity, from martial arts to flower arranging; from landscape gardening to the tea ceremony.
[PLAIN]www.friendsoftheheart.com/meditation_resources/left/glossary.shtml[/URL]
* school of Mahayana Buddhism asserting that enlightenment can come through meditation and intuition rather than faith; China and Japan
* a Buddhist doctrine that enlightenment can be attained through direct intuitive insight
* acid: street name for lysergic acid diethylamide
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Zen is the Japanese name of a well known branch of Maha¯ya¯na Buddhism, practiced originally in China as Chan, and subsequently in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Zen emphasizes the role of meditation (zazen) in pursuing enlightenment. Zen can be considered a religion, a philosophy, or simply a practice depending on one's perspective. Besides this, it has been described as a way of life, work, and an art form.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
*acid-jazz: a musical sub-category; relates to jazz being played as if on acid with no faith in structure or pre-conceptual arrangements.
licideespleef.ithica.cornell.orß

 

[nameless]

There is a definite difference between a dictionary 'intellectual understanding' of the WORD, and the actual 'experiential understanding' of the 'state of Being'. I think that it was the 'experiential' that was being questioned.

Zen; a 'street name' for LSD?... hmmmm... who'da thunk?
@__@

 

[jimmie]

but seriously, pattiecake,

speaking from ONLY my personal experience, I discerned that there "was" the thought i thought which was the particular thing i referred to, and then there "is" the whole point i "am" referring from while i was thinking the thought i thought;

its about where i placed attention; when i placed attention on doing any thing (either mentally thinking or physically moving), i was not building my awareness that i am, or rather, "I" am;

so i intended to morph into I by making a constant conscious concentrated effort to not do any thing;

after i let go of all that "was", here I am;

so, if "I" could be so bold as to make "one" suggestion to you, I suggest you accept that it was not possible for i to be I while i was physically moving; be prepared to do a lot of being still, and do not "try" to do anything;

and for the record, I have not read any book at any point;