Less Silly

toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Re: Less Silly

Post by toombaru » Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:46 pm

awakening wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Why is the belief in one god less silly than the belief in many gods?

(bumper sticker).........(that will probably get you in a fistfight.)

toombaru :shock:
the god that you don't believe in... is just a belief... :D

(front bumper sticker) :shock:

Love
Non-belief is not a belief.
"
for the words: "a belief in god is silly"... to mean anything... there must be in awareness a concept of the 'god'... that is not believed in... and which it is believed 'others' foolishly believe in...

otherwise... it is a meaningless statement... :D

any 'concept of god' (any 'meaningful statement about god')...is not God...




toombaru:


Of course it is........."God" exists only in the imagination if the fear-based delusion of self and the artificial-individual meaning that is infused into that concept.

It is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination.

There are people who believe in fairies......there are people who believe in luck.......there are people who believe in astrology......there people who believe in reincarnation.....and there are people who believe in God.....in spite of there not a shred of evidence to support their acquired beliefs.














for the word 'God' is not a symbol for any concept...

it is a symbol for this that reads these words and knows the meaning associated with them...





toombaru:


The word God is merely another concept that attempts (unsuccessfully) to explain everything that the conceptual entity does not understand and thereby fears.

It is a futile effort to conceptually fill in the blank places on the map in which the mind navigates through its fearful dream of separation.









Michael:

and is itself the 'reality' that alone defines the word 'God'...












toombaru:


There is no reality behind any concept....be it wave, river or God.

A concept ...or any group of concepts.....can point to nothing.......but delusion.

When that is understood.........a new paradigm emerges......uninvited and unsought.













Michael:
toombaru wrote:Actually.......I don't believe in anything.
except... perhaps... the theory of evolution... :wink:

Love






I do not believe in gravity or electricity........or evolution as there is no question about their relative reality.


I do not believe in God because there is no evidence......and no reason to do so.


I can offer evidence for gravity, electricity and evolution........Can you offer anything to substantiate the belief in a God.....in any form?


toombaru
Let's apply the same logic to the 'God idea' which sells the evolution theory as likely.
According to the ET, the organism Toombaru is seen as the effect of his parents -the cause. They, in turn, are the 'effect' of the meeting of their parents.... and so back in time via monkeys, other mammals, dinos, fish, single cell organisms to the very first moment that this universe exploded on the seen, nearly 14 billion years ago.

This is how logic works, cause/effect and it is a great tool for certain tasks...just like the tiger's claws, or the bird's wings.

If we consequently continue to follow this line of thought -of cause and effect- we come to a first cause. This first cause cannot be caused.. if it was it would not be the first cause. We could of course assume a circle, but then again we would end up wit the question where this beginning-less circle came from, or we would have to admit to the illogical idea that it did not come but mysteriously just IS.

If we assume a development starting from the first caus, we have to see that it is itself uncaused, or it would not be the first.. If so, it has no beginning. If it has no beginning it has no end as there are no 'one sided coins' in the arena of logic. Logic is the dividing tool, it is the scissor, which is often passed of as if it were the 'glue' holding our stories together. It splits the world in before and after, in true and untrue, in likely and less likely.

'Back' to the uncaused cause... no beginning and no end, means that time and space cannot affect IT. Logic does not apply to IT, nor does belief.

This mystery may be named 'God' or any other label...but nothing will stick to the 'Unborn' (again an other name). Naming IT cannot make one loose IT, nor can one get closer to IT; just like moving around cannot bring one closer to, or further away from, space. The movement is itself proof for the invisible, in-graspable space, one is trying to reach through moving.

It is space's lucid clarity, which makes it so elusive.
It is space's ever present presence which makes it impossible to reach or grasp. Hence it is often called 'nothing.' Yet this very 'nothing' is the 'substratum' for all that appears. It goes nowhere, but contains all relative coming and going. It has no location, but 'supplies' the location for all that appears.


For 'God'
'I' see more evidence
than for the evolution theory

For 'God'
'I' see more evidence
than for the 'me'
and its apparent owner ship
of beliefs.

For here IT is!
The logic impossibility
of 'some-thing' out of 'no-thing'
No theory ever explained THIS Beingnes
and no one can say what Consciousness IS
or what it is NOT.

THIS awesome simplicity
This wide open secret
Being Here Now
Cannot be proven in terms of something else.
IT stands as its own proof
even when IT is denied.

For the one who sees
sight is proven in all things seen
yet s-he cannot make sight into an object of itself.
IT is the very visibility
of all that is seen
which constitutes
the forever unproven proof.



The "first cause" is a classic so called proof that there must be a god.

But when you think about its logic.......eg: everything needs a cause......that would also have to apply to the imagined god.

What caused god?

"Oh".........you say......"God IS the first cause."

But that refutes the logic that arrives at the conclusion that there is a god.


To say that God did it is an easy way out of the confusion very similar to the "turtles all the way down" theory.


It is an unsuccessful attempt to enclose reality within the illogic of conceptual thought.


Conceptual mind watches the thought stream flow by and attempts to understand by imagining all the parts of its dream to ultimately be one big thing.........and it calls this Thing of all things".......or "God".

Why not just live in the mystery.......without giving it a name?

........falling through time.










toombaru
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:02 pm

michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Why is the belief in one god less silly than the belief in many gods?

(bumper sticker).........(that will probably get you in a fistfight.)

toombaru :shock:
the god that you don't believe in... is just a belief... :D

(front bumper sticker) :shock:

Love
Non-belief is not a belief.
for the words: "a belief in god is silly"... to mean anything... there must be in awareness a concept of the 'god'... that is not believed in... and which it is believed 'others' foolishly believe in...

otherwise... it is a meaningless statement... :D

any 'concept of god' (any 'meaningful statement about god')...is not God...
Of course it is........."God" exists only in the imagination if the fear-based delusion of self and the artificial-individual meaning that is infused into that concept.

It is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination.

There are people who believe in fairies......there are people who believe in luck.......there are people who believe in astrology......there people who believe in reincarnation.....and there are people who believe in God.....in spite of there not a shred of evidence to support their acquired beliefs.
of course it is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination…

and while it seems from the perspective of toombaru that the word ‘god’ refers to a concept… it would be silly to believe in it…

I do not believe in any conception of god…

for the word 'God' is not a symbol for any concept...

it is a symbol for this that reads these words and knows the meaning associated with them...
toombaru wrote:the word God is merely another concept that attempts (unsuccessfully) to explain everything that the conceptual entity does not understand and thereby fears.

It is a futile effort to conceptually fill in the blank places on the map in which the mind navigates through its fearful dream of separation.
Yes… while these ‘marks’ are read as referring to any concept…

but these ‘marks’: “god” have no meaning… except that which ‘you’ give them…

‘this awareness’ alone ‘defines’ (not 'conceptually... but through its own 'beingness'... as it 'is'... and 'is not')... the word 'God'...

this ‘word’ is just another ‘symbol’ for ‘consciousness’ or ‘suchness’… ‘or the leading edge’… whatever ‘name’ ‘you’ like to give it…
toombaru wrote:There is no reality behind any concept....be it wave, river of God.
of course… including the concepts of ‘substantial-nature’ and ‘gravity’ and ‘evolution’
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Actually.......I don't believe in anything.
except... perhaps... the theory of evolution... :wink:

Love
I do not believe in gravity or electricity........or evolution as there is no question about their relative reality.
‘relative reality’… is just another concept…

any evidence for 'gravity' is 'purely conceptual'... the same with 'electricity'...

as with all concepts... they have no independent existence... they 'exist' only as they are known... one with the knowing of them...

neither 'gravity' nor 'electricity' can be seen or sensed in any way... even an 'apparent electric spark'... is not 'electricity'...

the apparent 'spark' is pure 'colour' one with the seeing...

from toombaru's perspective this 'appearance of colour' (of the apparent spark) arises inside a 'substantial-natural brain'... that exists in a 'substantial-natural world'...

from 'toombaru's perspective'... 'awareness' ('his own' and 'everyone else’s') is a function of 'substantial-natural brain activity'...

the difficulty is that this 'awareness' (supposedly arising inside brains) can never directly observe the presumed 'brain'... simply because the appearance is 'inside the presumed brain'...

from the perspective of toombaru... 'his own brain' is a 'pure concept'...

for 'he' can never get outside his (supposed brain) to confirm it is the source of 'his' awareness...

indeed... on 'his' conception of 'reality'... 'he' and 'his whole conception of a substantial world' and 'brains as the cause of awareness'... is only a 'thought' that thinks it is... arising in a 'substantial-natural brain'... :roll:

a dog chasing its tail...

from the perspective of michael... the 'substantial-natural world' is exactly the same as that conceived from the perspective of toombaru... with 'gravity' and 'electricity' and 'evolution'... and all else that science describes... in all its infinite complexity and diversity... and underlying simplicity…

EXCEPT... there is no belief that this 'conception' has any 'independent' or 'substantial-natural' existence beyond the conception...

from this perspective... there is only this 'awareness'... one... without a second... 'no multiple awarenesses in multiple brains'...

the 'conceptual overlay' is just that... a 'conceptual overlay'... that exists only in the knowing... with which it is one… any idea of it existing in a brain.. is just that… an ‘idea’…

yet… as this ‘conception’ is 'overlaid' upon sensations... an apparent 'substantial-natural world' appears... with 'people' (whose brains appear to be the source of 'their' awareness)... but it is all story...

from michael's perspective... the 'brain' is simply a 'concept'... apart from this concept... no 'brain' can be found anywhere...

interestingly… 'gravity' can only be described with any rigour using mathematics...

The equation for the force of gravity for all objects relatively close to the Earth is:
F = mg
where
• F is the force pulling objects toward the Earth; it is also the weight of the object
• m is the mass of the object
• g is the acceleration due to gravity; this number is a constant for all masses of matter
• mg is the product of m times g
This acceleration due to the force of gravity on Earth g equals 9.8 m/s² in the metric system and 32 ft/s² in the English system.
However… this ‘formula’ is not a ‘force’… it simply ‘images’ the 'numerical relationships' that exist between apparent 'objects'... these 'formulations' have no 'substantial reality'... they are 'pure number'...

the correlation between 'mathematics' and 'the apparent movement of apparent objects in the apparent world'... says something very 'deep' about this manifestation...

it says is that 'at base'... the relationship between 'forms' in this 'world story'... is 'numerical'... for number can only reflect number...

'number' cannot be reduced to anything else...

and 'number' exists only in the knowing of it...

all that 'gravity' 'is'... is 'known'... inseparable from the knowing of it...

'gravity' is a 'pure conception'... expressed in ‘number’…
toombaru wrote:I do not believe in God because there is no evidence......and no reason to do so.


I can offer evidence for gravity, electricity and evolution........Can you offer anything to substantiate the belief in a God.....in any form?
I don't believe in God... in any form... so I can offer no concepts to substantiate such belief…

from this perspective... it appears that 'toombaru' is guilty of the same sin of which he is accusing others...

he claims that there are 'brains' which are the ‘source of separate awarenesses’ that are 'deluded into believing there is a 'god' outside themselves’...

yet the words of the various scriptures themselves declare there is no such god... or any such 'separate people'... with 'separate awarenesses'...

for they all say that 'God is One'... that there is only 'God' and that 'God is the invisible seeing and unheard hearing... that God and Awareness are One... that everything else is 'God's dream'...

from toombaru's perspective the words are read as though they are referring to some 'separate creator' 'out there'... which is what he says 'others believe'... yet it is the same concept that he 'disbelieves'… which he claims others 'believe in'...

but it is all conception…

the same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of toombaru… is this same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of michael... no difference...

there are no 'more or less' enlightened 'persons'... or 'brains'... or 'separate awarenesses'... or ‘more enlightened conceptions’…

I am not even 'arguing with myself'... :D

there is just this conception… one with the knowing of it... telling this 'world story'... experienced from different 'perspectives'... as it is ‘imaged’ through sensations… one with the sensing of them…

like watching a drama unfold from the viewpoint of one character in the story... and then seeing the same story re-told from the viewpoint of another character in the story...

in 'witnessing the movie'... in experiencing each 'life'... I do not 'become' the character... I do not 'adopt' or 'identify with' the 'views expressed through the character'... though it appears so...

for there is only...

One… (no concept ‘what’ this ‘One’ is)…

Just this…

Love
Michael,



I will have to get back with you......I'm off to work.

You're not a sophist are you?







:roll:



toombaru
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:11 pm

toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Why is the belief in one god less silly than the belief in many gods?

(bumper sticker).........(that will probably get you in a fistfight.)

toombaru :shock:
the god that you don't believe in... is just a belief... :D

(front bumper sticker) :shock:

Love
Non-belief is not a belief.
for the words: "a belief in god is silly"... to mean anything... there must be in awareness a concept of the 'god'... that is not believed in... and which it is believed 'others' foolishly believe in...

otherwise... it is a meaningless statement... :D

any 'concept of god' (any 'meaningful statement about god')...is not God...
Of course it is........."God" exists only in the imagination if the fear-based delusion of self and the artificial-individual meaning that is infused into that concept.

It is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination.

There are people who believe in fairies......there are people who believe in luck.......there are people who believe in astrology......there people who believe in reincarnation.....and there are people who believe in God.....in spite of there not a shred of evidence to support their acquired beliefs.
of course it is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination…

and while it seems from the perspective of toombaru that the word ‘god’ refers to a concept… it would be silly to believe in it…

I do not believe in any conception of god…

for the word 'God' is not a symbol for any concept...

it is a symbol for this that reads these words and knows the meaning associated with them...
toombaru wrote:the word God is merely another concept that attempts (unsuccessfully) to explain everything that the conceptual entity does not understand and thereby fears.

It is a futile effort to conceptually fill in the blank places on the map in which the mind navigates through its fearful dream of separation.
Yes… while these ‘marks’ are read as referring to any concept…

but these ‘marks’: “god” have no meaning… except that which ‘you’ give them…

‘this awareness’ alone ‘defines’ (not 'conceptually... but through its own 'beingness'... as it 'is'... and 'is not')... the word 'God'...















toombaru:


The conceptual mind cannot think outside of its own ever growing accumulation of mnemonic debris; and in fact.....that is its totality.

It can only arrange and rearrange its self-referential misconceptions.

Anything that is beyond itself....that is all inclusive...is only a futile attempt to grasp the ungraspable.









this ‘word’ is just another ‘symbol’ for ‘consciousness’ or ‘suchness’… ‘or the leading edge’… whatever ‘name’ ‘you’ like to give it…
toombaru wrote:There is no reality behind any concept....be it wave, river of God.
of course… including the concepts of ‘substantial-nature’ and ‘gravity’ and ‘evolution’





toombaru:

They point to something observable and repeatable....something tangible......As opposed to all thoughts spiritual....which are based only on either fear based speculation or endorphin induced stupor.













toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Actually.......I don't believe in anything.
except... perhaps... the theory of evolution... :wink:

Love
I do not believe in gravity or electricity........or evolution as there is no question about their relative reality.
‘relative reality’… is just another concept…










toombaru:

There is the relative reality of the natural world and there is the speculative reality of the phantom of self.

One is verifiable....the other is not.
















any evidence for 'gravity' is 'purely conceptual'... the same with 'electricity'...





Hold a large stone over your foot and drop it.....or touch some bare electrical wires.......and then ask your god to protect you from harm.

That should tell you the difference















as with all concepts... they have no independent existence... they 'exist' only as they are known... one with the knowing of them...

neither 'gravity' nor 'electricity' can be seen or sensed in any way... even an 'apparent electric spark'... is not 'electricity'...

the apparent 'spark' is pure 'colour' one with the seeing...

from toombaru's perspective this 'appearance of colour' (of the apparent spark) arises inside a 'substantial-natural brain'... that exists in a 'substantial-natural world'...

from 'toombaru's perspective'... 'awareness' ('his own' and 'everyone else’s') is a function of 'substantial-natural brain activity'...

the difficulty is that this 'awareness' (supposedly arising inside brains) can never directly observe the presumed 'brain'... simply because the appearance is 'inside the presumed brain'...











toombaru


"Awareness' is filtered through the brain and in the human mechanism the by-product of that process is the I amness.












from the perspective of toombaru... 'his own brain' is a 'pure concept'...

for 'he' can never get outside his (supposed brain) to confirm it is the source of 'his' awareness...

indeed... on 'his' conception of 'reality'... 'he' and 'his whole conception of a substantial world' and 'brains as the cause of awareness'... is only a 'thought' that thinks it is... arising in a 'substantial-natural brain'... :roll:

a dog chasing its tail...










toombaru:


It's not quite the same.

What the dog is chasing is substantial.....What the self searches for......never existed.













from the perspective of michael... the 'substantial-natural world' is exactly the same as that conceived from the perspective of toombaru... with 'gravity' and 'electricity' and 'evolution'... and all else that science describes... in all its infinite complexity and diversity... and underlying simplicity…

EXCEPT... there is no belief that this 'conception' has any 'independent' or 'substantial-natural' existence beyond the conception..










toombaru:

Even if it did........ the conceptor could never know that.


.

from this perspective... there is only this 'awareness'... one... without a second... 'no multiple awarenesses in multiple brains'...

the 'conceptual overlay' is just that... a 'conceptual overlay'... that exists only in the knowing... with which it is one… any idea of it existing in a brain.. is just that… an ‘idea’…

yet… as this ‘conception’ is 'overlaid' upon sensations... an apparent 'substantial-natural world' appears... with 'people' (whose brains appear to be the source of 'their' awareness)... but it is all story...

from michael's perspective... the 'brain' is simply a 'concept'... apart from this concept... no 'brain' can be found anywhere...

interestingly… 'gravity' can only be described with any rigour using mathematics...

The equation for the force of gravity for all objects relatively close to the Earth is:
F = mg
where
• F is the force pulling objects toward the Earth; it is also the weight of the object
• m is the mass of the object
• g is the acceleration due to gravity; this number is a constant for all masses of matter
• mg is the product of m times g
This acceleration due to the force of gravity on Earth g equals 9.8 m/s² in the metric system and 32 ft/s² in the English system.
However… this ‘formula’ is not a ‘force’… it simply ‘images’ the 'numerical relationships' that exist between apparent 'objects'... these 'formulations' have no 'substantial reality'... they are 'pure number'...

the correlation between 'mathematics' and 'the apparent movement of apparent objects in the apparent world'... says something very 'deep' about this manifestation...





toombaru


Try applying math to the concept of "God".









it says is that 'at base'... the relationship between 'forms' in this 'world story'... is 'numerical'... for number can only reflect number...

'number' cannot be reduced to anything else...

and 'number' exists only in the knowing of it...

all that 'gravity' 'is'... is 'known'... inseparable from the knowing of it...

'gravity' is a 'pure conception'... expressed in ‘number’…
toombaru wrote:I do not believe in God because there is no evidence......and no reason to do so.


I can offer evidence for gravity, electricity and evolution........Can you offer anything to substantiate the belief in a God.....in any form?
I don't believe in God... in any form... so I can offer no concepts to substantiate such belief…

from this perspective... it appears that 'toombaru' is guilty of the same sin of which he is accusing others...






toombaru:



Of course.....the logic of all humans is the same process.........only a few are able to see that......and once seen.......ohoooooooo baby!













he claims that there are 'brains' which are the ‘source of separate awarenesses’ that are 'deluded into believing there is a 'god' outside themselves’...








toombaru:

No........Awareness filtered through the human mechanism invariably produces the illusion of a separate self and the story of imaginary autonomy.









yet the words of the various scriptures themselves declare there is no such god... or any such 'separate people'... with 'separate awarenesses'..












toombaru:


Not the scriptures that I've read.












for they all say that 'God is One'... that there is only 'God' and that 'God is the invisible seeing and unheard hearing... that God and Awareness are One... that everything else is 'God's dream'...








toombaru:

They say a lot of stuff..........and point to nothing.













from toombaru's perspective the words are read as though they are referring to some 'separate creator' 'out there'... which is what he says 'others believe'... yet it is the same concept that he 'disbelieves'… which he claims others 'believe in'...

but it is all conception…









toombaru:


Agreed.








the same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of toombaru… is this same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of michael... no difference...









toombaru:



That........is speculation.......Just another god theory.












there are no 'more or less' enlightened 'persons'... or 'brains'... or 'separate awarenesses'... or ‘more enlightened conceptions’…

I am not even 'arguing with myself'... :D

there is just this conception… one with the knowing of it... telling this 'world story'... experienced from different 'perspectives'... as it is ‘imaged’ through sensations… one with the sensing of them…

like watching a drama unfold from the viewpoint of one character in the story... and then seeing the same story re-told from the viewpoint of another character in the story...

in 'witnessing the movie'... in experiencing each 'life'... I do not 'become' the character... I do not 'adopt' or 'identify with' the 'views expressed through the character'... though it appears so...

for there is only...

One… (no concept ‘what’ this ‘One’ is)…

Just this…

Love
Michael,





toombaru



The dream cannot be seen from within the dream........and......the dream is all there is.

....and that is the Ultimate Understanding.




toombaru







:roll:



toombaru
empty-and-full
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: Unknown

Post by empty-and-full » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:56 pm

Is it just me or are these posts getting ridiculously long? :roll:
aquarius
Posts: 2408
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 4:07 pm
Location: The united kingdom of heaven

Post by aquarius » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:28 pm

Why not just live in the mystery.......without giving it a name?


why not practice then, what you preach, :?

also toombaru are you not conscious of the amount of bandwidth you are taking up for the mere few words you personally deposit ?

E and F you are right the posts are ridiculously long,

it's arrogance.

sorry!!
I love talking about nothing ...
it is the only thing i know anything about.
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by awakening » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:01 am

Hope this one is trimmed to an acceptable length.. :D
toombaru wrote:The "first cause" is a classic so called proof that there must be a god.

But when you think about its logic.......eg: everything needs a cause......that would also have to apply to the imagined god.

What caused god?

"Oh".........you say......"God IS the first cause."

But that refutes the logic that arrives at the conclusion that there is a god.
Indeed, it refutes the logic. I do not hold this chronological view of events, but applied the same logic which is applied to the evolution theory: Namely that the present is caused by past events. Although it is named a ‘theory’ you say that it is not a story presently arising, but ‘something’ which really happened.

In such a cause and effect story the idea of a first cause is inbuilt. The whole evolutionary chain, stretching back through time, sounds sensible, but explains nothing as it is still ‘something’ out of nothing’….or the futile ‘turtles all the way down’ argument you mention below.

And yes THIS appears to be something out of nothing and no ‘logic’ has ever explained this.

toombaru wrote:To say that God did it is an easy way out of the confusion very similar to the "turtles all the way down" theory.

It is an unsuccessful attempt to enclose reality within the illogic of conceptual thought.

Call it God , the Uncaused First Cause or mystery, but it is not an attempt to explain like the evolution/time theory: it is exactly the opposite. It is the admission that so called logical thought, when taken to the limit ends in mystery. That it is unable to supply real answers, while it proudly claims to do so. It is logic that seems ill at ease with mystery and seeks to explain it.

toombaru wrote:Conceptual mind watches the thought stream flow by and attempts to understand by imagining all the parts of its dream to ultimately be one big thing.........and it calls this Thing of all things".......or "God".
The word ‘mind’ suggests that we’re dealing here with a ‘thing’ while it is actually referring to a process. Conceptual mind IS the stream of thought and it does not watch, it is part of the ‘watched.’ Thought is known by THAT which is not a thought.
toombaru wrote:Why not just live in the mystery.......without giving it a name?
Logic seems to prefer solving riddles over 'living in the mystery'.. which is itself one of the great mysteries. :D

And by calling it ‘mystery’ IT has already been named… and there’s nothing wrong or right with that. Such is the nature of verbal communication…which does not mean that one is trying to survive on the word bread. Or like Alfred Korzybski said "The word is not the thing...the map is not the territory it stands for."


toombaru wrote:........falling through time.
If evolution is believed to be real
if there seems to be the passing of time
as well as someone to fall through it
then that is how the dream unfolds
in This Eternity…
which is not a very long time,
but its very absence…



toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:51 am

aquarius wrote:
Why not just live in the mystery.......without giving it a name?


why not practice then, what you preach, :?

also toombaru are you not conscious of the amount of bandwidth you are taking up for the mere few words you personally deposit ?

E and F you are right the posts are ridiculously long,

it's arrogance.

sorry!!




Oh.............you thought I was here to please you?


It's all arrogance my dear.





toombaru
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:10 am

awakening wrote:Hope this one is trimmed to an acceptable length.. :D
toombaru wrote:The "first cause" is a classic so called proof that there must be a god.

But when you think about its logic.......eg: everything needs a cause......that would also have to apply to the imagined god.

What caused god?

"Oh".........you say......"God IS the first cause."

But that refutes the logic that arrives at the conclusion that there is a god.
Indeed, it refutes the logic. I do not hold this chronological view of events, but applied the same logic which is applied to the evolution theory: Namely that the present is caused by past events. Although it is named a ‘theory’ you say that it is not a story presently arising, but ‘something’ which really happened.

In such a cause and effect story the idea of a first cause is inbuilt. The whole evolutionary chain, stretching back through time, sounds sensible, but explains nothing as it is still ‘something’ out of nothing’….or the futile ‘turtles all the way down’ argument you mention below.

And yes THIS appears to be something out of nothing and no ‘logic’ has ever explained this.

toombaru wrote:To say that God did it is an easy way out of the confusion very similar to the "turtles all the way down" theory.

It is an unsuccessful attempt to enclose reality within the illogic of conceptual thought.

Call it God , the Uncaused First Cause or mystery, but it is not an attempt to explain like the evolution/time theory: it is exactly the opposite. It is the admission that so called logical thought, when taken to the limit ends in mystery. That it is unable to supply real answers, while it proudly claims to do so. It is logic that seems ill at ease with mystery and seeks to explain it.

toombaru wrote:Conceptual mind watches the thought stream flow by and attempts to understand by imagining all the parts of its dream to ultimately be one big thing.........and it calls this Thing of all things".......or "God".
The word ‘mind’ suggests that we’re dealing here with a ‘thing’ while it is actually referring to a process. Conceptual mind IS the stream of thought and it does not watch, it is part of the ‘watched.’ Thought is known by THAT which is not a thought.
toombaru wrote:Why not just live in the mystery.......without giving it a name?
Logic seems to prefer solving riddles over 'living in the mystery'.. which is itself one of the great mysteries. :D

And by calling it ‘mystery’ IT has already been named… and there’s nothing wrong or right with that. Such is the nature of verbal communication…which does not mean that one is trying to survive on the word bread. Or like Alfred Korzybski said "The word is not the thing...the map is not the territory it stands for."


toombaru wrote:........falling through time.
If evolution is believed to be real
if there seems to be the passing of time
as well as someone to fall through it
then that is how the dream unfolds
in This Eternity…
which is not a very long time,
but its very absence…






Evolution merely is an acceptance of the fact that living organisms change and adapt to their ever changing environment over time through natural selection and random genetic mutations.

It has nothing to say about the origin of the universe.

To deny its reality makes as much sense as denying gravity because no one has ever seen anything that actually attracts bodies in space........or to deny magnetism or electricity because they cannot be directly observed.


If one considers it merely another story ......... the same logic must be applied to all observable phenomena.








toombaru
hybrid
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:46 am

no escape from duality

Post by hybrid » Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:14 am

hey guys,

keep talking, keep falling.
words are like webs, the more you talk, the entangled you are.

but what the heck!!
Do not seek the Truth, just drop your opinions.

you cannot seek it without thoughts
you cannot get it with thoughts - zenrin
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: no escape from duality

Post by awakening » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:59 am

hybrid wrote:hey guys,

keep talking, keep falling.
words are like webs, the more you talk, the entangled you are.

but what the heck!!

Entangled?
Not necessarily Hybrid...
Regardless that this would require actual entities to be entangled
there is the possibility that a thorn can remove another thorn..
and then they may both be dropped...

Humor cannot be explained...
But this does not stop us from telling jokes...
Or you from making the above post.

After all... this is a forum..
a place for words, pictures and emoticons
a place for the sport of verbal fencing
a place for poetry, silliness and heartfelt words.

"… and there’s nothing wrong or right with that. Such is the nature of verbal communication…which does not mean that one is trying to survive on the word bread. Or like Alfred Korzybski said "The word is not the thing...the map is not the territory it stands for."

But on the other hand...
Toombaru is convinced of the reality of evolution and time as ... 'facts'
and clearly there is no way to move 'him' from that belief..
So perhaps 'I' will shut up
(it happened 'before') :D
Perhaps I'll find myself typing again.
Patiently...
Tenaciously...

Or like you I'll say
"but what the heck!!"
and busy myself with the important things of life right now
like a morning kiss
paying the rent
walking the dog
having a coffee..
and so on..



awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: no escape from duality

Post by awakening » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:24 am

awakening wrote: Or like you I'll say
"but what the heck!!"
and busy myself with the important things of life right now
like a morning kiss
paying the rent
walking the dog
having a coffee..
and so on..



What the heck...
how did I end up here again... :wink:


awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by awakening » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:31 am

toombaru wrote:



Evolution merely is an acceptance of the fact that living organisms change and adapt to their ever changing environment over time through natural selection and random genetic mutations.

It has nothing to say about the origin of the universe.

To deny its reality makes as much sense as denying gravity because no one has ever seen anything that actually attracts bodies in space........or to deny magnetism or electricity because they cannot be directly observed.


If one considers it merely another story ......... the same logic must be applied to all observable phenomena.

toombaru
One man's fact
is an other man's fiction..

But if there were such things as time and facts
then time could indeed be a fact.


michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:47 am

toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Why is the belief in one god less silly than the belief in many gods?

(bumper sticker).........(that will probably get you in a fistfight.)

toombaru :shock:
the god that you don't believe in... is just a belief... :D

(front bumper sticker) :shock:

Love
Non-belief is not a belief.
for the words: "a belief in god is silly"... to mean anything... there must be in awareness a concept of the 'god'... that is not believed in... and which it is believed 'others' foolishly believe in...

otherwise... it is a meaningless statement... :D

any 'concept of god' (any 'meaningful statement about god')...is not God...
Of course it is........."God" exists only in the imagination if the fear-based delusion of self and the artificial-individual meaning that is infused into that concept.

It is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination.

There are people who believe in fairies......there are people who believe in luck.......there are people who believe in astrology......there people who believe in reincarnation.....and there are people who believe in God.....in spite of there not a shred of evidence to support their acquired beliefs.
of course it is silly to believe in anything that exists only within the imagination…

and while it seems from the perspective of toombaru that the word ‘god’ refers to a concept… it would be silly to believe in it…

I do not believe in any conception of god…

for the word 'God' is not a symbol for any concept...

it is a symbol for this that reads these words and knows the meaning associated with them...
toombaru wrote:the word God is merely another concept that attempts (unsuccessfully) to explain everything that the conceptual entity does not understand and thereby fears.

It is a futile effort to conceptually fill in the blank places on the map in which the mind navigates through its fearful dream of separation.
Yes… while these ‘marks’ are read as referring to any concept…

but these ‘marks’: “god” have no meaning… except that which ‘you’ give them…

‘this awareness’ alone ‘defines’ (not 'conceptually... but through its own 'beingness'... as it 'is'... and 'is not')... the word 'God'...
The conceptual mind cannot think outside of its own ever growing accumulation of mnemonic debris; and in fact.....that is its totality.
the conceptual mind cannot 'think'... it is a 'concept'... one with the knowing of it
toombaru wrote:it can only arrange and rearrange its self-referential misconceptions.

Anything that is beyond itself....that is all inclusive...is only a futile attempt to grasp the ungraspable.
the conceptual mind can do nothing...except 'be known'... one with the knowing of it... for it is nothing but a concept... and there are no 'things' beyond 'conception'...

the ‘word’ 'God' is just another ‘symbol’ for ‘consciousness’ or ‘suchness’… or 'the leading edge’… or 'naked awareness'... for 'this that is now aware of these apparent words'... :D

which may apparently name itself by any name... 8)
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:There is no reality behind any concept....be it wave, river of God.
of course… including the concepts of ‘substantial-nature’ and ‘gravity’ and ‘evolution’
They point to something observable and repeatable....something tangible......As opposed to all thoughts spiritual....which are based only on either fear based speculation or endorphin induced stupor.
all 'tangibility' is sensed as 'feeling'... any apparent object feels 'solid' and 'heavy' 'rough' or 'smooth'... all 'feelings'... pure sensations... whatever 'thing' these sensations’ appears to be... that 'thing' is purely conceptual... just like in a 'nightly dream'...

have a go... see if it is possible to feel anything but a 'feeling'... one with awareness of it... and then see if you can find the 'substance' of that 'feeling'...

only 'concepts can be 'known' and no 'thing' else... see if you can locate a single 'thing' in awareness... that you don't know what it is... ie that is not a 'concept'...
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:
michael wrote:
toombaru wrote:Actually.......I don't believe in anything.
except... perhaps... the theory of evolution... :wink:

Love
I do not believe in gravity or electricity........or evolution as there is no question about their relative reality.
‘relative reality’… is just another concept…
There is the relative reality of the natural world and there is the speculative reality of the phantom of self.

One is verifiable....the other is not.
hmmm... as all appearance is one with awareness of it... how is the existence of a 'substantial-natural world outside awareness of it'... verified?

any evidence for 'gravity' is 'purely conceptual'... the same with 'electricity'...
toombaru wrote:Hold a large stone over your foot and drop it.....or touch some bare electrical wires.......and then ask your god to protect you from harm.

That should tell you the difference
ahh... toomby... you have not read a word I've said have you... :D

there is no 'god' separate from this awareness...

what harm can come to this awareness... that it requires saving... and from 'what'...

what colour seen could harm the seeing of it... or odour harm the smelling of it... or flavour harm the tasting of it.. or sound harm the hearing of it... or feeling harm the feeling of it... or what concept could harm the knowing of it...

for colour and seeing are one... so too sound and hearing... and flavour and tasting... and odour and smelling... and feelings and feeling... and concepts and the knowing of them... all one...

inseparable...

'michael' exists only as a concept in this awareness.... as does 'toombaru'... manifested through sensations that give the appearance of 'substance'...

how could 'michael' ever be harmed... except 'conceptually'...

as for dropping a stone on a foot... the appearance may or may not be associated with any feeling of 'weight' and/or 'pain'... though in this 'world story' it would appear to 'crush the foot'...

but nothing in the seeing is actually 'crushed'... how could an appearance in the seeing 'crush' the seeing of it...

no appearance 'in awareness' can harm awareness... for it (the appearance) is one with awareness... this includes awareness of 'pain'...

from toombaru's perspective... 'awareness' arises inside a 'substantial-natural brain'... that exists in a 'substantial-natural world'...

from 'toombaru's perspective'... 'awareness' ('his own' and 'everyone else’s') is a function of 'substantial-natural brain activity'...

the difficulty is that this 'awareness' (supposedly arising inside brains) can never directly observe the presumed 'brain'... simply because the appearance is 'inside the presumed brain'...
toombaru wrote:"Awareness' is filtered through the brain and in the human mechanism the by-product of that process is the I amness.
and you've observed this actual 'substantial-natural brain' and this actual process???!!!

from the perspective of toombaru (indeed from all perspectives)... 'his own brain' and its 'processes' and 'by-products'... is a 'pure concept'...

for 'he' can never get outside his (supposed brain) to confirm that it is the source of 'his' awareness...

indeed... on 'his' conception of 'reality'... 'he' and 'his whole conception of a substantial world' and 'brains as the cause of awareness'... is only a 'thought' that thinks it is... arising in a 'substantial-natural brain'... :roll:

a dog chasing its tail...
toombaru wrote:It's not quite the same.

What the dog is chasing is substantial.....What the self searches for......never existed.
here there is only smiling...

what appears (ie the 'dog and its tail') is taken for 'substance'... while this very sensing and knowing... is regarded as 'non-existent'...

and of course it is 'non-existent'... to the senses and the knowing... to 'awareness'... to 'itself'...

for this 'sensing and knowing' cannot be sensed or known... apart from its image... which is formed of sensations and concepts... that are one with it...

so it appears that only the dream 'is'... when really... the dream 'is not'...

while that 'is'... never appears and remains forever 'unknowable'...

and yet how plain... :D

from the perspective of michael... the 'substantial-natural world' is exactly the same as that conceived from the perspective of toombaru... with 'gravity' and 'electricity' and 'evolution'... and all else that science describes... in all its infinite complexity and diversity... and underlying simplicity…

EXCEPT... there is no belief that this 'conception' has any 'independent' or 'substantial-natural' existence beyond the conception..
toombaru wrote:Even if it did........ the conceptor could never know that.
because there is no such 'thing' as a 'conceptor'... it is a pure 'concept' inseparable from the knowing of it...

from this perspective... there is only this 'awareness'... one... without a second... 'no multiple awarenesses in multiple brains'...

the 'conceptual overlay' is just that... a 'conceptual overlay'... that exists only in the knowing... with which it is one… any idea of it existing in a brain.. is just that… an ‘idea’…

yet… as this ‘conception’ is 'overlaid' upon sensations... an apparent 'substantial-natural world' appears... with 'people' (whose brains appear to be the source of 'their' awareness)... but it is all story...

from michael's perspective... the 'brain' is simply a 'concept'... apart from this concept... no 'brain' can be found anywhere...

interestingly… 'gravity' can only be described with any rigour using mathematics...

The equation for the force of gravity for all objects relatively close to the Earth is:

F = mg

where
• F is the force pulling objects toward the Earth; it is also the weight of the object
• m is the mass of the object
• g is the acceleration due to gravity; this number is a constant for all masses of matter
• mg is the product of m times g

This acceleration due to the force of gravity on Earth g equals 9.8 m/s² in the metric system and 32 ft/s² in the English system.

However… this ‘formula’ is not a ‘force’… it simply ‘images’ the 'numerical relationships' that exist between apparent 'objects'... these 'formulations' have no 'substantial reality'... they are 'pure number'...

the correlation between 'mathematics' and 'the apparent movement of apparent objects in the apparent world'... says something very 'deep' about this manifestation...

it says is that 'at base'... the relationship between 'forms' in this 'world story'... is 'numerical'... for number can only reflect number...

'number' cannot be reduced to anything else...

and 'number' exists only in the knowing of it...

all that 'gravity' 'is'... is 'known'... inseparable from the knowing of it...

'gravity' is a 'pure conception'... expressed in ‘number’…
toombaru wrote:Try applying math to the concept of "God".
try dropping any conception of the meaning of the word 'god'... and treat it as simply a name for this nameless... that is right now aware of these apparent words...

there is no 'separate god' 'out there'... and no scriptures that say there is... just interpretations of the scriptures that make 'god' less than 'all' (no concept in mind) :roll:
toombaru wrote:I do not believe in God because there is no evidence......and no reason to do so.

I can offer evidence for gravity, electricity and evolution........Can you offer anything to substantiate the belief in a God.....in any form?
'toombaru' can offer no 'evidence' for 'gravity' or any 'thing' else... except for 'concepts' and 'sensations'...

like a man watching a film may show the mathematical relationship between the objects that apparently move on the screen... but all he has demonstrated is the mathematical relationship... there is no force moving objects on the screen... and there are no 'forces' moving the apparent objects in awareness... for the same reason... there are no actual objects... nor any 'thing' actually moving... it is all appearance...

I don't believe in God... in any form... so I can offer no concepts to substantiate such belief…

from this perspective... it appears that 'toombaru' is guilty of the same sin of which he is accusing others...
toombaru wrote:Of course.....the logic of all humans is the same process.........only a few are able to see that......and once seen.......ohoooooooo baby!
there are no 'few'...

there is only this awareness reading these words now... entirely alone

it is only 'toombaru' who claims that there are 'brains'... which are the ‘source of separate awarenesses’... that are 'deluded into believing there is a 'god' outside themselves’...

and 'toombaru' exists only as a conception... manifested through sensations...

see if anything at all can be found of this 'toombaru' that is not a concept or a sensation
toombaru wrote:No........Awareness filtered through the human mechanism invariably produces the illusion of a separate self and the story of imaginary autonomy.
until the 'real' brain (that is supposedly observing this post) is observed... that whole conception remains what it is... just another story... :roll:

the words of the various scriptures themselves declare there is no 'separate god'... or any 'separate people'... with 'separate awarenesses'...
toombaru wrote:Not the scriptures that I've read.
the words of scripture are a part of the play...

whatever meaning is read into the words... it is the meaning 'you' give them...

from some perspectives however... the words as not conceptualised at all... they are 'seen' (like many of the words on this site)... as simply pointing to...

this...

for they all say that 'God is One'... that there is only 'God' and that 'God is the invisible seeing and unheard hearing... that God and Awareness are One... that everything else is 'God's dream'...
toombaru wrote:They say a lot of stuff..........and point to nothing.
yes... just like the words in this forum...

they point to no 'thing' at all... :D

from toombaru's perspective the words are read as though they are referring to some 'separate creator' 'out there'... which is what he says 'others believe'... yet it is the same concept that he 'disbelieves'… which he claims others 'believe in'...

but it is all conception…
toombaru wrote:Agreed.
just like the 'substantial-natural world' is all conception... one with the knowing of it...

but it is impossible to conceive of this that is aware of these words...

which is the 'nothing' being pointed to in this forum... and in the scriptures...

the same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of toombaru… is this same awareness that experiences life from the perspective of michael... no difference...
toombaru wrote:That........is speculation.......Just another god theory.
there is no speculation... for there is no assertion of any other awareness beyond this...

(unlike the 'speculation' proffered from toombaru's perspective... of separate brains and separate awarenesses... of which there is no 'evidence' at all :roll: )...

as for this awareness being able to experience apparent 'life' from any perspective...

as both 'michael' and 'toombaru' are both concepts in this awareness... one with all concepts... one with the knowing of them...

the same that shapes these sensations to create the appearance of 'michael' is the same that shapes these sensations to create any appearance... including 'toombaru'...

unless these sensations image 'toombaru'.. there is no awareness of 'him' at all... yet 'he' remains as 'he' is... one with all other concepts known...

forever hidden from awareness... until imaged through sensations...

this 'hiding' is not by 'choice'... it is simply that 'awareness' is 'sensing sensations and remembering meaning'...without sensations arising to image meaning... there is no 'awareness' of 'things'...

in this there is no change... whether sensations are rising and falling or are stilled... all is as it ever is...

there are no 'more or less' enlightened 'persons'... or 'brains'... or 'separate awarenesses'... or ‘more enlightened conceptions’…

I am not even 'arguing with myself'... :D

there is just this conception… one with the knowing of it... telling this 'world story'... experienced from different 'perspectives'... as it is ‘imaged’ through sensations… one with the sensing of them…

like watching a drama unfold from the viewpoint of one character in the story... and then seeing the same story re-told from the viewpoint of another character in the story...

in 'witnessing the movie'... in experiencing each 'life'... I do not 'become' the character... I do not 'adopt' or 'identify with' the 'views expressed through the character'... though it appears so...

for there is only...

One… (no concept ‘what’ this ‘One’ is)…

Just this…

Love
toombaru wrote:Michael,

The dream cannot be seen from within the dream........and......the dream is all there is.
so it appears... but there is no 'dream'... just this sensing sensations arising in concord with this knowing of these concepts... ever unchanged...

to see colours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'seeing/colour'... inseparable

to feel feelings is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'feeling/feelings'... inseparable

to hear sounds is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'hearing/sound'... inseparable

to smell odours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature... of 'smelling/odours'... inseparable

to taste flavours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'tasting/flavours'... inseparable

to know concepts is no dream'... for this is the nature of knowing/concepts... inseparable

yet... as if by 'magic'... through the concord of sensations and meaning... instantly 'things' and 'people with awareness'... a 'whole world'... appears... though it 'is not'...

only sensing/sensations and knowing/concepts 'is'...
toombaru wrote:...and that "the dream is all there is"... is the Ultimate Understanding.
yes... the ultimate 'understanding'... but this that understands... can never be understood...

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by awakening » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:04 pm

michael wrote: so it appears... but there is no 'dream'... just this sensing sensations arising in concord with this knowing of these concepts... ever unchanged...

to see colours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'seeing/colour'... inseparable

to feel feelings is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'feeling/feelings'... inseparable

to hear sounds is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'hearing/sound'... inseparable

to smell odours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature... of 'smelling/odours'... inseparable

to taste flavours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'tasting/flavours'... inseparable

to know concepts is no dream'... for this is the nature of knowing/concepts... inseparable

yet... as if by 'magic'... through the concord of sensations and meaning... instantly 'things' and 'people with awareness'... a 'whole world'... appears... though it 'is not'...

only sensing/sensations and knowing/concepts 'is'...
A dream is as a dream is
it just isn't what it portrays to be.

Sensing sensations is as real or unreal as a dream.

"only sensing/sensations and knowing/concepts 'is'... "
Only IS is
only IS
IS

I-Ssssssss

sssss

:D :-# :-#
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:54 pm

awakening wrote:
michael wrote: so it appears... but there is no 'dream'... just this sensing sensations arising in concord with this knowing of these concepts... ever unchanged...

to see colours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'seeing/colour'... inseparable

to feel feelings is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'feeling/feelings'... inseparable

to hear sounds is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'hearing/sound'... inseparable

to smell odours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature... of 'smelling/odours'... inseparable

to taste flavours is no 'dream'... for this is the nature of 'tasting/flavours'... inseparable

to know concepts is no dream'... for this is the nature of knowing/concepts... inseparable

yet... as if by 'magic'... through the concord of sensations and meaning... instantly 'things' and 'people with awareness'... a 'whole world'... appears... though it 'is not'...

only sensing/sensations and knowing/concepts 'is'...
A dream is as a dream is
it just isn't what it portrays to be.
yes... it isn't what it portrays to be...
awakening wrote:Sensing sensations is as real or unreal as a dream.
as the 'colour red' is seen... it is as it appears... it does not appear to be any 'thing' other than what it is... 'red'... though 'what' 'red colour' 'is'... is 'unknowable'... :roll:

on the other hand... if the 'red' appears to be a 'sports car'... then it is a dream'... for the 'red colour that is seen'... can never be any 'thing' but 'red'...

'what' it appears 'as' (a sports car) is simply a 'concept'

('what' a 'concept' 'is'... is unknowable... for only its 'meaning' is known)

this concept may be imaged in words: as in 'sports car'... or it may be imaged like this...

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cCv ... rolscaddy.

in either case... the meaning known is the same... only the apparent form differs...

in the case of the 'picture'... the 'red image' that is seen... is just a 'splotch of colour'... it appears to be a 'red sports car'... only as the meaning 'red sports car' is associated with it...

this meaning is recognised instantly... before any 'thought' is 'verbalised'...

just as the meaning is recognised instantly when the words 'red sports car' appear...

there is no 'pre thought' that 'identifies the meaning of the words' before they are recognised... the words appear and the meaning is recognised in the same instant...

just so... there is no 'pre-thought' before the 'red splotch of colour' is recognised as a 'picture of a sports car'...

as there is no 'pre-thought' as another 'red splotch of colour' is seen as 'an actual red sports car driving by'...

'subsequently' a thought may also appear... "ahhh... those words say 'red sports car' "... or "ahhh look... a picture of a 'red sports car' "... or "wow... a red sports car' " (as an 'actual car' appears to drive by)..

yet...

as the 'marks' "red sports car" are not the meaning... (if they were the 'meaning'... the marks 'rouge automobile' would not have the same meaning as 'red car')...

so the 'red splotches' are not themselves 'meaningful'... they appears AS a 'picture of a red sports car'... or AS 'an actual red sports car'... only as this concept is 'wordlessly' and instantly associated with the coloured image...
awakening wrote:["only sensing/sensations and knowing/concepts 'is'... "
Only IS is
only IS
IS

I-Ssssssss

sssss

:D :-# :-#
no denying 'is'... 'is'...

but nor is there any denying sensing/sensations and knowing/meaning 'is'...

no denying 'awareness' 'is'...

no denying 'consciousness' 'is'...

though 'what' 'is' 'is'... or 'consciousness' 'is' or 'awareness' 'is' or sensing/sensations and knowing/number/form/meaning 'is'...

is unknowable...

all 'meaningless' words pointing to this...

Love
Last edited by michael on Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Post Reply