Nikolai1

That's right! And therefore overcoming the seeming paradox presented by the wave and the particle is not something we can do emprically. Any empirical attempt will have presupposed what kind of evidence it will take as evidence. The resolution of the paradox has to take place within us, from the place that sees that reality is disctinct from our intellectual approaches. Then we shall have no more confusion with this paradox and shall be at peace.

Whether things do or don't exist independently are actually two different intellectual overlays, as I've said to you many times. The wise can approach reality with both lenses. The unwise only have one. In the case of wave-particle duality there is confusion when we think that there is an independently existing photon. The wise see that the confusion comes through trying to combine two logically incommensurable arguments.

The behaviour we record is itself part of the intellectual overlay. So when we approach with one overlay we intepret the behaviour that is congruent with it. So when we approach the smeared pigment of oil we do find the chemicals associated with oil, not bananas. When we approach the painting as a banana, we may actually start salivating, even though it is nothing but a smear of toxic chemicals. The painting itself, the essential reality of it is unchanged...but our intelllectual approach dtermines everything. All this talk about our thoughts changing the behaviour of reality is a little bit naive. What is more accurate to say is that our thoughts ARE our reality. As we think, so things are.

So true! This issue interests me a lot why some people not only consider enlightenment impossible, but actively discourage people from thinking it is. For example, Jesus promised all his followers that they will 'do all that he has done and more', also said that 'they would sit beside him' as a brother, a kind of co-worker. But anyone who actuallly takes this literally would be accused of blasphemy, gross spiritual pride or even madness. It seems it takes a great deal of maturity before we can recognise that enlightenment is an actual possibility. It's almost like we have to subliminally sense its reality first before we can start to pursue it. Some people simply can't sense it in themselves.

We cannot help but see that our dearest convictions can be completely ignored by our neighbour. What we see as inviolable truth, he sees as obvious nonsense. Which of us is right? The third person we ask to arbitrate, must simply agree with one of us or the other. But why must truth be the majority opinion? We might say that our truths are simply our beliefs. But even this is disputed: 'What you call my "mere belief" is an accurate conception of objective truth,' says one man. 'It is your version that is the belief - an erroneous one at that.' 'How do you know? 'Believe me, I know!' If we do not think there is an objective truth, we might say that our convictions are just events in the flow. Provisional, because not universally shared, but universal because they carry all the power of the Gods and have enchanted us entirely. But if we think our truths are for us and us alone, we are hardly enchanted. Who could live and act by such a truth? Who could reach that level of faith which the ordinary man has in the outside world? For it is that faith that inspires him to action. Revelation is the way out. When we feel called upon to act with the greatest possible urgency, and yet simultaneously know with our fullest consciousness that it is meaningless folly. This is true action, and action in Truth. It is being driven towards something with no possibility of intellectual assent. This is wu-wei, spontaneous action. It is the action which becomes possible only when our intellect is left in tattered ruins behind us. Our own behaviour becomes a source of numinous awe. We cannot help but prostrate ourselves before...ourselves. We become the puppet of an Overlord who is none other than ourself. We are left stricken and vulnerable before the force of our own inscrutable will. We are plunged hedlong into situations that make no sense, and yet are irresistable. These are the trials that mark the Hero's Quest. And yet they are trials only because we are divided against ourselves. We have not learnt to become our own taskmaster. A part of is is still in rebellion...against ourselves. Your capacity to rebel comes from ignorance. The dilemma only besieges the person who does not know their own true will. But after several of these trials you will learn to discern the true from the false. Heeding your own will becomes obvious and easy...but it will never again make sense to anyone and least of all yourself.

I'm pretty active here - yet in six short weeks Karl has posted significantly more than I've done in 3 and half years!!! He has got the time and the frantic desperation to dominate. Most of the threads in General, have deteriorated into the same kind of futile discussion on the role of logic. He's a blight. He just corrupts threads. It could take a long time before he gets bored because he clearly has time on his hands. And anyone who has reached his age and still has his views is hardly going to be the model of intellectual flexibility. Politely asking him to leave is what I suggest.

Actually yes! Your inability to understand is entirely due to your unwillingness to accept anything that doesn't fit your own facile wordlview. The spiritual quest starts at that point where our trust in your worldview breaks down. You are incapable of making this step. If you were capable you would be listening more. As it stands, you are still writing on a forum where you are clearly not valued. You are incapable of following the conversation. You derail every thread you hit upon because you can't understand what's being talked about. You're just a nuisance. Why are you actually here?

You are incapable. Every thing you write broadcasts that loud and clear. The moment a person 'gets' a koan you are operating from an intellectual plane that is beyond you. They cannot be discussed as ideas. The truths they reveal are momentary, provisional and therefore eternal. There are no right answers. All of this is alien to you. Why have you not got the basic sense to know when you are so out of your depth. Even the most vulgar of intellecr will fall silent before the koan, knowing deep down that something important is being asked by the question. But you stumble on, you wretched soul. You belong with the children. Go to them.

Listening to you try and explain koans is a truly painful experience. You are so far off the page I cringe for you.

Actually that's not really my style. I recognise that the search for liberation takes many forms according to the nature of the seeker. For some it is liberation from their own mental tendencies, for another it is liberation from the oppressive tendencies of others. Neither of these is better or higher than the other. So I would be more than happy to hear how you think we could gain political liberation.

I'd be happy to read anything. Why don't you start a thread for them?

Brian - there is an undercurrent to Karl's frantic faith in logic which if you read his posts you will discern. Karl's worldvew is the fearful paranoia of the man who firmly believes that we are all puppets being manipulated by a cartel of Malevolent Beings whose sole aim is to keep us obedient and deluded so that we serve them better. He has no concept of spiritual liberation. The only liberation he can understand is the political liberation from the Overlords that control us. He can conceive of only one method of liberation and that is to try and expose the lies we are being fed on a daily basis. If you believe you are being lied to, its stands to reason that you believe that there must be a truth we can attain. In his frantic despair, Karl is placing all his hopes on this thing he calls Logic.

I started by asking: Karl then replied:

Yes I know, but the correctness of a view may last a split second! There is no correct view that is universally correct, whatever happens.

Hi Seeker, I couldn't agree more! One of the hardest thiing to get people to understand is that seeing the equivalence of all views does not mean that we are no longer safe to cross the road! It is literally impossible to get people to understand that you can hold a view, say in the reality of the car, and see its emptiness simultaneously. Another good way of putting it is that there is no view that is universally true. We can therefore adopt views and drop them as the situation requires. This ability is basically skilful living. Unskilful living is subtly holding opinions as 'rules for living', and applying them inappropriately. So when we win £1000 we are free to feel happy at the real money, and enjoy how we spend it. If we lose £1000 pounds we are free to see that the moment is already ancient history, or we are free to feel happiness for the person who found our £1000 and so on... Karl's whole worldview is about the independent reality of things. Obviously this is the default view of mankind, and this is why Buddha placed particular emphasis on the teaching that things don't have independent existence. But neither view should be subscribed to as a fixed rule.

At first I thought you were a troll. Now I can see you're genuine, but just on a very strange website considering your worldview. Anyway ,you're clearly getting something from being here!

After twenty years, Yes. At first the dicovery alternates between the subtle, and the nothing at all. Now the subtle is always there, always. I can speak from it because it never goes. It will grow stronger and stronger.

Yes I totally agree. There aren't many people who would benefit from my words, and many that would suffer hugely were they to hear them. Words only get understood at the level of the understander. This, though, is a website for people seeking liberation. This is the place to air these views. I like to think that I can tailor my views according to where people are at. In fact, my wordlview allows this because I don't feel morally compelled to always speak the truth, like those who have truths do. To have a fixed truth, is to worship it, and to feel compelled to share it for the betterment of everyone. You have come here presenting a distinctive, monolithic philsophy in a robust manner. I've felt no probelm unearthing all the ancient philsophical arguments of the centuries On the other hand, I once had a girlfriend who started to have a panic attack when i talked about the boundlessness of space. This is a person who must only be told small truths at a time.

No he didn't. He repaeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, advised people to hear that teaching and then drop it. 'Do not attempt to carry the raft of my teaching across land. Drop it at the side of the river.' In reality, you can't drop the raft until you have found the feet to keep walking. These feet are not intellectual, and they are subtle and hard to find. This is why most Buddhists still repeat Buddha's teaching as if it is Truth.

You've probably noticed yourself that the most unintelligent people you know have fixed views and find it hard to change them. They simply cannot see what you are trying to say when you present an alternative view. What I have discovered is that everyone has their limit. For some they can't see why another person might buy a different brand of tea. They are not able to acccount for taste. They see quite clearly that one tastes better and turn their own view into a fixed truth, that people either get right or wrong. Another person cannot get their hed round how a person can be a City fan AND a top bloke. It baffles them, and disturbs them. We all have our limits. I've dicovered that intelligence can soar so high that even the most fundamental categories can become just provisional concepts. This is the intelligence beyong intelligence. It is why Socrates and Confucius both observed that they actually know nothing.

I still argue, but yes, you are right that my attitude is basically ironic. I understand that the greatest source of human suffering is attachment to ideas that are unsound. I onlu hope to get people to hold things less strongly. Like Buddha said, holding opinions on anything is the greatest source of suffering. His genius was to show that time, space, self, existence itself are just nothing more than ...opinions.

OK Well firstly we see that the stranger made an assumption that you were talking to one person on the phone. This assumption led him to see, quite validly, that your directions were contradictory. A person can't be sat in a pub that is on both sides of the road. His argument was rendered invalid when it came to pass that you were talking to two people, and therefore dealing with two differnent perspectives. So that which sounds illogical to one perspective can become logical when two perspectives are taken into account. At the verbal level nothing is changed. You words were that the pub is on the right-hand side and on the left. The point of all this is, that any thinker, before he accuses illogic, must always at least bear in mind that there might be a perspective that he is not taking into account. Now getting the stranger in the pub to understand that your speaking to two people was a defence against his charge was probably quite easy. If you were talking to a child, or an autistic teenager, who struggles to flip smoothly between perspectives, you may have found your task harder. This is the situation that faces the person who has discovered the non-existence of existence. It is a perspective that is rare, and literally unimaginable to those who haven't experienced first hand. Of course I say that things both exist and don't exist but even that is a bit unsatisfactory. Just as saying that the pub is on BOTH the right and left side is a bit lame...but it comes as close as anything. In truth there is no relation between the pub and the concepts 'right-side' or 'left-side'. The reality transcends such concepts, even though the concepts can be extremely useful, provisionally speaking. Both your ladyfriends found you at the bar without a hitch. If you want me to talk more about the vision of non-existence, which incidentally, occupies an immense amount of the Buddha's teachings, as well as great teachers across all traditions, then I can do so. In the meantime, you need to have the humility to realise that there are things that might be beyond your grasp at present.

The stranger did make the assumption and challenged you. What did you say?

Hi Karl Actually it's because I hold these concepts so lightly that I spoke of the danger of taking them too seriously in the first place. This is what happens on the AYP site I think. Because there is no scepticism surrounding them, no deep sense of their provisionality as concepts, people argue over them too vociferously. The two culprits are: those who defend AYP and those who attack it. And it can be easily observed that people can pendulum from one to the other until they learn to hold the concepts les strongly and locate truth somewhere else.

Hi Karl Imagine you are sat in the Nag's Head and you are arranging to meet two friends there, one is coming from the south of town and the other from the North. You phone them both on conference call from your mobile to save time. An eavesdropper distinctly hears you say: "the pub's on the left" AND "the pub's on the right". Because you are contradicting yourself, he assumes you are trying to confuse your friend. As you put the phone down he reproaches you for this, and says you gave contradictory directions. Why is he wrong to do so?