Depends on Who's Looking

[Sloppy Zhang]

I'd like to start this thread from a couple of conversations that have popped up over the Golden Dragon Body thread. I'd really like to discuss this topic, and since a lot more could be said on this topic that isn't directly related to Kunlun, I figured it'd be good for its own thread

 

Basically: is there anything that is "real", or "true"? There are lots of examples of things that "depend" on something else. Is there a point where we can get to where we can successfully say something is "true"?

 

Posts that inspired this topic:

 

I completely agree with all this as well

 

 

 

I do remember this story

 

 

 

Now all of what's been brought up is very good.... but where does it leave us? If everything depends on who's looking, and if every process is subject to alternate agendas which aim to create reality.... then we're left with nothing really said for any shared sense of reality.

 

A "real" teaching can be just as "real/fake" as a "fake" teaching. A practice that "hurts" you can be just as "effective/ineffective" as a practice that "helps" you.

 

Don't know how I feel about that one. There is just some stuff that does not work. There are just some people who are not what they say they are.

 

You could go out on a limb and say, "well the stuff that doesn't work teach you how NOT to do something", but that's pushing it, and when you get into points like that.... well, if nothing is real anyway, what's the point?

 

 

"...A "real" teaching can be just as "real/fake" as a "fake" teaching. A practice that "hurts" you can be just as "effective/ineffective" as a practice that "helps" you..." by SZ

 

I feel that is wrong. For instance real food can nourish, while food that looks the same but is more or less "fake" does not nourish nearly the same.

 

 

But then one can respond that it all depends on who is eating. Some people have super high metabolisms and can eat a whole bunch of horrible food, but stay super skinny. Some people eat one piece of pizza and it goes straight to their belly! Some smoke and drink heavily in their early years, and live till their 80's or 90's, while others carry on the same behavior and suffer from massive organ failure in their 20's!

 

I'm not saying I necessarily agree. But I see where the argument comes from. If this is the case, there are some pretty large implications that should be explored.

[Sloppy Zhang]

freeform discussed some pretty good situations in which even something that is dedicated to seeking an "impartial" truth (like science) can still be molded and shaped by outside influences, personal agendas, and things of that sort:

 

These 'scientists' you guys are talking about seem way more mystical than the Maxs and John Changs of this world.

 

I reckon it's a little immature to think of 'scientists' as these benevolent truth verifiers.

 

The science world is just as enmeshed in politics, economy and dogma as the rest of us.

 

Firstly - What kind of scientist would risk his career to study 'paranormal people'... think about it. It's likely to be a scientist with no real 'career' to speak of... There are thousands of scientists with no reputation studying 'the paranormal'... is their research being taken seriously?

 

Secondly - Research costs money. A lot of money. To get to the point where it would even register on the scientific community's radar it would cost millions. Of course even with a lot of money it could easily be dismissed... the creationists are pumping loads of funds into disproving the existence of dinosaurs before man. The only people willing to give out this level of funding almost always have an agenda - whether political or good old $$... There are very few organisations with money and power that would benefit from this sort of research. In fact there are very many organisations with a lot of money and a lot of power and already involved in funding many scientific studies that would greatly benefit from keeping this kind of research out of the labs.

 

Thirdly - lets say in a highly unrealistic alternate universe a prominent scientist, with good reputation in his field decides he's ready to face the mockery of his skeptical peers and takes on the opportunity to study a person such as Max... And he manages to partner with a similarly unlikely, but credible billionaire, ready to squander his riches on this sort of project. What exactly would they study? I mean he can't exactly 'verify' that Max can turn into a brilliant white light... He needs something to measure... ok he could measure the amount of photons coming off of Max (this phenomenon has been studied already in plants and animal cells)... But would the headline "Scientist discovers man who gives off unusual amount of photons!" really change the world as dramatically as we'd all like? There are hundreds of studies on all manner of qi-related phenomena... qi gong masters having unusual electrical properties, giving off inaudible, low frequency sound, affecting in-vitro cells etc... there's statistical data on the effects on patients in qi-gong hospital in china... none of that has broken through to the mainstream to challenge our world-view yet.

 

I mean if tens of thousands of witnesses who directly witnessed a 'miracle' at Fatima can be discounted, discredited or just plain laughed at, then what do you reckon would happen if someone like Max turned into a bright light on stage?...

 

I get your sentiments guys. Of course I would love for things that us Taobums cherish, practice and study deeply every day to be validated and accepted or at least seriously studied and examined... but the sad truth is it's just not that simple. It's naive to think that the world at large is curious enough and more importantly open-minded enough. Most of us are set in our ways. The sheer terror of having our world-view torn apart by these 'miraculous' phenomena is just too much to bear - and so we do anything in our power to keep to the status-quo.

 

Just to illustrate the point it's very common for entire families to disbelieve/disregard/distort/excuse/hide from very clear, obvious, unequivocal, evidence of sexual abuse in their family... because the horror of coming to terms with the reality is far too painful - so their entire psyche blocks the possibility of this being true in every way it can... and this can be the case for dozens of members of the same family...

 

You might think of this as an over-dramatic comparison - that maybe so, but the mechanism is the same... It's also the same when a follower or maybe a couple of thousand followers of a guru are presented with unequivocal evidence that he or she is a complete charlatan would disbelieve/disregard/distort/excuse/hide from the evidence.

 

I propose true skepticism.

 

Most people claiming to be skeptics are never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. It's most important to be skeptical with your own beliefs and assumptions.

 

 

 

That's the only truly skeptical answer here...

 

And taomeow related an interesting story that suggests that what's happening might really depend on who's looking (and also provided the title for the thread ):

 

 

I think I told the story before but since most people in this thread probably either didn't hear it or don't remember, I will indulge myself and tell it again.

 

At the second kunlun seminar I attended, some two years ago, there was a woman for whom it was her first one, who got into some deep, soul-shattering feeling. She started crying and couldn't stop for a while. She was mumbling something incoherent and trying to communicate her feeling to others -- all I could make out was "we're all the same... I understand now... compassion... all the same... compassion..." Every attempt to express this just brought about more uncontrollable sobbing. Finally Max came up to her and did something, a mudra I think, I couldn't quite see from my spot, or else don't remember what it was. All of a sudden, the woman stopped crying and jumped three feet up in the air, her jaw hanging open, looking at Max it utter disbelief. He started saying something comforting, she interrupted him: "but why... but why... but why did you just go transparent?.." Max quickly changed the subject and distracted everyone's attention from this interesting exchange.

 

After the seminar, I bumped into this woman on my way out. I asked her how she was feeling. She immediately started crying all over again, hugged me, and said, "I wish for you to experience someday what I experienced today."

 

What I gleaned from that episode was that seeing a rainbow body or not seeing it is a co-creation between who's showing and who's looking. Most people won't see! Whoever is not ready to see, won't see! There's no way in hell that the woman was "fake," an actress hired to perform. I can tell a human hug from an act.

 

So the point about the pictures is mute. It is very possible that the camera can't see. It is very possible that the pictures showing what people who can see actually see can be made, as an educational aid. That they were created for this purpose instead of just snapped is possible and even likely, but this wouldn't render anyone or anything fake, in and of itself, if you follow my logic.

 

Oh, and what she wished for me that day came true.

[Marblehead]

Excellent topic. I hope it gets some attention.

 

It is my belief that "true" and "real" are more matters of perspective for most people rather than whether something has been varified as a fact or a truth according to the scientific method.

 

And it is true, I think that many people will swear to something they don't even really believe depending upon who is listening.

[Taomeow]

Excellent topic. I hope it gets some attention.

 

It is my belief that "true" and "real" are more matters of perspective for most people rather than whether something has been varified as a fact or a truth according to the scientific method.

 

And it is true, I think that many people will swear to something they don't even really believe depending upon who is listening.

Yup, perspective, and awareness... I've a nice short test to post that illustrates the point...

 

[Birch]

Nice one ;-)

[suninmyeyes]

 

Basically: is there anything that is "real", or "true"? There are lots of examples of things that "depend" on something else. Is there a point where we can get to where we can successfully say something is "true"?

 

Posts that inspired this topic:

 

On one level there are truths that are "made up" and are "real"and "not changable",we are thought .They are commonly accepted as da law.Be it psychological or physical law.

This "thruts" are imposed on us and have shaped us into us .And we belive and obey them :"..becouse this is how it is supposed to be and becouse Mr.Banana said so and scientist have proved it,and.."

For most of our lives they are our God.They rule us,we worship them by not wanting to break free .And by being in a comfort zone of: "this is how it is supposed to be ,and you are not supposed to do this becouse it is dangerous ,be scared becouse it is comfortable to stay that way as you are used to it since birth etc..".

So true to a degree and common acceptability.

 

"..Is there a point where we can successfully say something is "true"?

I say no.You cant say it,but you can be it and feel it as constant fabric of every expirience.

[Apech]

Yup, perspective, and awareness... I've a nice short test to post that illustrates the point...

 

 

Brilliant.

[suninmyeyes]

hahaha just saw the video Taomeow posted.Good one.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I have seen that video before but I played the game and sure enough, I did not see the bear during the initial viewing because I was concentrating on the number of passes. Yes, I did count correctly - thirteen.

 

The video is consistent with the concept of 'wu wei' in that in the condition of 'wu' (not concentrating on any one thing) we would have seen the bear but in the condition of 'yo' (concentrating on one thing and more specifically, the material) we miss the bear.

 

 

"..Is there a point where we can successfully say something is "true"?

I say no.You cant say it,but you can be it and feel it as constant fabric of every expirience.

 

I think we can say yes for any given point in time. That is, I can say I am sitting in a chair at the computer at this very moment in time. But, because all is change, I will not be sitting in this chair at the computer for a very long period of time.

 

So even though a thing can be true at the moment it may not always be true.

 

Even the thoughts and beliefs we have are subject to change. What was true in our mind yesterday is no longer true because we have considered a concept that has negated the truth that we held yesterday.

 

To state absolutes is nothing less than placing limits on ourself. Yes, in the manifest world there are limits - I cannot fly. But in the spiritual world we are without limit - free to travel wherever and whenever we wish.

 

And it is because of this that I always try to point out that while in a philosophical or spiritual discussion we need to define whether we are talking about the physical world (manifest) or the spiritual world (mystery).

[Mokona]

I can't see many of the things I feel, but sometimes the things I feel turn into a visual type picture in my mind. It depends.

[hagar]

Ah, finally we're there.

 

What is knowledge?. Is truth an aquisition?

What if I realize I don't really know?

"The more you look, the less you really know"

[C T]

 

 

What is knowledge?. Is truth an aquisition?

What if I realize I don't really know?

Can that which is acquired remain constantly in process - workable, adaptable? If it can, i think this will bring one close to the shores of wisdom, only if its not asserted, either to oneself or to others. Why is assertion a factor? Because we all have a different view of the horizon. The moment we assert any 'truth' it becomes a dead-end, and Truth has no business up dead-end streets nor dogmatic alleyways.

 

The very nature of Truth is liberation, freedom, emancipation - whenever someone tries to encapsulate it, or box it up neatly, or put it on a mantle, then by its very simple nature, without it having to resist in the slightest, Truth will remain elusive to the seeker. It can be a rather tricky situation... very often the act of seeking for Truth itself creates a parallel, deniable resistance to what it actually means to live in its presence.

 

This is my own transitional understanding anyway. Not yours, not nobody's... just my own.

 

Btw, please pardon the interruption. Bad TTB habit. (have to consider a Blastoic move soon i'd say)

[suninmyeyes]

 

 

Marbelhead ,my answers are not so visable sorry .But do read on ..

 

 

"I think we can say yes for any given point in time. That is, I can say I am sitting in a chair at the computer at this very moment in time. But, because all is change, I will not be sitting in this chair at the computer for a very long period of time.

So even though a thing can be true at the moment it may not always be true."

 

 

-I forgot to write in previous post that truth is is unchangable(it does like to wear different clothes and lots of make up though) and this is where my opinion derives from.

So my answer to you now would be that your mindand odily composition is subject to change ,although very real at some level ,they are more like vessels for expression of the truth.

Now that was complicated sounding.

 

 

 

"Even the thoughts and beliefs we have are subject to change. What was true in our mind yesterday is no longer true because we have considered a concept that has negated the truth that we held yesterday.

 

To state absolutes is nothing less than placing limits on ourself. Yes, in the manifest world there are limits - I cannot fly. But in the spiritual world we are without limit - free to travel wherever and whenever we wish."

 

-Just becouse you cant fly physically it does not mean someone has not suceeded in being able to fly.I am serious now,I believe in it.

I mean why not ,it would require mastery over elements thats is all.

 

In another words IMO physical limitations are much less that what we are thought to believe.

They are products of our thoughts and opinions .

Which is in agreement with the title of the thread"depends whos looking".

Edited October 20, 2010 by suninmyeyes

[Marblehead]

Hi Suninyoureyes,

 

Ah, yes. I must first state that what I say here is based on my opinions and understandings.

 

That said, yes, I know that there are many people who believe things of the physical and the spiritual that I simply cannot accept. I don't have a problem with that as long as no one tries to force their understanding down my throat.

 

I know there are people who belive that some people have physically flown or levitated. If that is what they wish to believe, that's fine. I, personally, don't accept it as a truth.

 

I do agree, the "truth" is, always has been, and always will be. I'm not sure I know what that is though. In other words: "I don't know."

 

Yes, 'my' truths are valid for me. True, they may be truths for others as well, or not. Doesn't matter, really.

 

Please understand that when I make statements about physical reality I speak only from the point of my understanding. Most of my understandings are a result of personal experience. So therefore I am speaking only to what I have witnessed. I cannot speak to what I have not witnessed or what no one has convinced me into believing.

 

I think that this can be said for nearly everyone. Oh, sure, we can have 'faith' that such and such can happen. And we can live our life based upon this 'faith'. But I will suggest that this 'faith' has little substance if this whatever we have faith in has never been done to our knowledge and when we try it we always fail. For me this would tell me that my faith is misplaced.

 

So yes, superman can fly. But superman isn't real. He is only the imagination of the authors and artists.

 

Try before you buy.

 

So regardless of who is looking the truth is the truth. But if two people view a truth differently, that is, one accepts it and the other doesn't, can we really say that it is a truth? Or just an opinion?

[suninmyeyes]

Hi Marbelhead,

haha I didnt think you would be into idea of being able to fly.

Dont worry I am also easy with whatever peoples believe in and will not force anyone to try follow my believes.

 

"Yes, 'my' truths are valid for me. True, they may be truths for others as well, or not. Doesn't matter, really."

 

-Agreed.

 

".. So therefore I am speaking only to what I have witnessed. I cannot speak to what I have not witnessed or what no one has convinced me into believing.

 

-Ok what about intuition?

 

I think that this can be said for nearly everyone. Oh, sure, we can have 'faith' that such and such can happen. And we can live our life based upon this 'faith'. But I will suggest that this 'faith' has little substance if this whatever we have faith in has never been done to our knowledge and when we try it we always fail. For me this would tell me that my faith is misplaced.

 

So yes, superman can fly. But superman isn't real. He is only the imagination of the authors and artists.

 

Try before you buy."

 

 

- I dont think youll buy into this but I am going to say it anyway.One time my body actually lifted byitself about 20cm off the ground.SuperSun .I am laughing now becouse it may sound so wierd but there you go .

What you say about faith I agree to a degree.Not about the failing bit though,what about pioneers of whatever(or inventors..?)-they were the first ones in their fields or anyone like suffrogetes for example or first man on the moon..?

 

 

"But if two people view a truth differently, that is, one accepts it and the other doesn't, can we really say that it is a truth? Or just an opinion?"

 

_- Good question,it is personal standpoint plus some governing laws of physical existance that are also constantly changing.What was daily reality 150 years ago is not real anymore.Thats is why I have mentioned in previous post about not being able to sucesfully point something out in physical existance as permanent truth. My point about the truth in physical manifestation is that it is wishy- washy .Becouse everything is subject to constant change,so even my bodily composition is different that 2 minutes ago ,my cells have aged and my stomach is full of dates Ive just eaten.So technically I am not even the same person.

[Marblehead]

Hi Marbelhead,

haha I didnt think you would be into idea of being able to fly.

Dont worry I am also easy with whatever peoples believe in and will not force anyone to try follow my believes.

 

I will speak up if I think what another I care about is practicing might be harmful to them and when others are trying to be forceful but other than that, whatever helps a person through their life, I think, is good for them even though it may be harmful to someone else.

 

So therefore I am speaking only to what I have witnessed. I cannot speak to what I have not witnessed or what no one has convinced me into believing.

 

Ok what about intuition?

 

Fair question. Yes, I hold to the concept of intuition. I follow my intuition almost always. And you know what? When I oppose my intuition and take an alternative action I always screw up. I have learned my lesson - I now always follow my intuition.

 

No, I do not know where intuition comes from. That is one of the Mysteries. But I know it happens.

 

I dont think youll buy into this but I am going to say it anyway.One time my body actually lifted byitself about 20cm off the ground.SuperSun .I am laughing now becouse it may sound so wierd but there you go.

 

Nope. I don't buy it. But then, my opinion means nothing regarding your belief that it happened. I really shouldn't totally deny the possibility of things like this happening but I do need my own points of referrence regarding the physical world so to eliminate as many conflicts as possible.

 

What you say about faith I agree to a degree.Not about the failing bit though,what about pioneers of whatever(or inventors..?)-they were the first ones in their fields or anyone like suffrogetes for example or first man on the moon..?

 

I put these thing in a category different from what I refer to as 'faith'. Faith, IMO, is believing something without a logical reason. The many acts of wonder that have occurred throughout time were based on mostly logical reasoning and the challenge to test the limits of the physical.

 

I have no problem with aspirations based on logical reasoning. That is how improvements and new technology and other advancements are made.

 

Faith, for me, is the holding to a belief without any logical reason to do so and if the belief were tested it would be proven unfounded.

 

"But if two people view a truth differently, that is, one accepts it and the other doesn't, can we really say that it is a truth? Or just an opinion?"

 

Good question,it is personal standpoint plus some governing laws of physical existance that are also constantly changing.What was daily reality 150 years ago is not real anymore.Thats is why I have mentioned in previous post about not being able to sucesfully point something out in physical existance as permanent truth.

 

My point about the truth in physical manifestation is that it is wishy- washy .Becouse everything is subject to constant change,so even my bodily composition is different that 2 minutes ago ,my cells have aged and my stomach is full of dates Ive just eaten.So technically I am not even the same person.

 

Yes, Tao (and the entire universe) is dynamic - constantly changing. The only thing I am willing to accept as static are the processes that dictate the operation (function) of the universe. These are sometimes called the "Laws of Physics". I refer to them as Tzujan.

 

Indeed, a truth is valid only for so long as the conditions do not change. Since everything changes can we really say that there are any truths whatsoever?

 

Sure, in the short term we can state a truth and because the change of that whatever is so slow it appears that it is a truth. I think that most of us operate according to this principle. Afterall, we need to have some security in our life. For example, knowing that the chair is going to support us when we sit in it. But over time even the chair will no longer be able to serve its intended purpose.

 

But it is good that every now and again a number of people do have truths in common. I think this too is good because it helps with that security concept, knowing that something we believe is believed by others as well.

[C T]

 

Faith, for me, is the holding to a belief without any logical reason to do so and if the belief were tested it would be proven unfounded.

 

Hi MH..

 

I have a question: Do you not find it problematic sometimes, being a such a staunch believer in logical realities, to simultaneously also rely on intuitive functions? How do you reconcile the two?

 

You mentioned that faith is the holding on to ideas that do not possess any logical foundations. Would it not be possible to also see faith as a form of dynamic, inner conviction that what one does/practices will lead to fruitful outcomes? Sometimes things do turn out according to the way its been intended to, would you disagree with this? Of course there are times when they just decide to go haywire, but for those whose beliefs are steadfast, such moments only act as fuel to hasten the journey. I think the unpredictability of outcomes should not deter one from setting out with a practical sense of dogged determination to traverse the roads that lead to certain destinations. To hold up the destinations as motivation to persist with one's plan of action, no matter how insignificant, does require some form of inner strength and conviction, which some like to call 'faith'. Sometimes i confuse faith with wishful thinking, and this is often the cause of my misery, so i have set out to learn to tell the difference, and have since resolved to keep my sights firmly held on the learned experience that what i do each day faithfully ensures how i sleep at night. There is no longer any need to wish for a peaceful night's sleep.. by thinking and acting with the least amount of conflict, the sleep takes care of itself. Perhaps faith and logic can co-exist harmoniously after all... well, i guess this all depends on who's looking.

 

Your views?

[suninmyeyes]

Hi Marbelhead,

Fair question. Yes, I hold to the concept of intuition. I follow my intuition almost always. And you know what? When I oppose my intuition and take an alternative action I always screw up. I have learned my lesson - I now always follow my intuition.

 

-Yeah same here.

 

I put these thing in a category different from what I refer to as 'faith'. Faith, IMO, is believing something without a logical reason...

 

-How do faith and intuition compare or differ for you?

 

I have no problem with aspirations based on logical reasoning. That is how improvements and new technology and other advancements are made.

 

-We agree here,but may have different definitions for logic.For example intuition for me is logical.

 

 

Indeed, a truth is valid only for so long as the conditions do not change. Since everything changes can we really say that there are any truths whatsoever?

-My point exactly.

 

Sure, in the short term we can state a truth and because the change of that whatever is so slow it appears that it is a truth. I think that most of us operate according to this principle. Afterall, we need to have some security in our life.

For example, knowing that the chair is going to support us when we sit in it. But over time even the chair will no longer be able to serve its intended purpose.

 

But it is good that every now and again a number of people do have truths in common. I think this too is good because it helps with that security concept, knowing that something we believe is believed by others as well.

 

-You know this all got me thinking very deeply right now.And it is exactly security you have mention that is the reason for my imprisonment and slavery.

 

P.S Ive tried to colour my letters to but am obviously not succesfull

Edited October 21, 2010 by suninmyeyes

[suninmyeyes]

Hi MH..

 

I have a question: Do you not find it problematic sometimes, being a such a staunch believer in logical realities, to simultaneously also rely on intuitive functions? How do you reconcile the two?

 

You mentioned that faith is the holding on to ideas that do not possess any logical foundations. Would it not be possible to also see faith as a form of dynamic, inner conviction that what one does/practices will lead to fruitful outcomes? Sometimes things do turn out according to the way its been intended to, would you disagree with this? Of course there are times when they just decide to go haywire, but for those whose beliefs are steadfast, such moments only act as fuel to hasten the journey. I think the unpredictability of outcomes should not deter one from setting out with a practical sense of dogged determination to traverse the roads that lead to certain destinations. To hold up the destinations as motivation to persist with one's plan of action, no matter how insignificant, does require some form of inner strength and conviction, which some like to call 'faith'. Sometimes i confuse faith with wishful thinking, and this is often the cause of my misery, so i have set out to learn to tell the difference, and have since resolved to keep my sights firmly held on the learned experience that what i do each day faithfully ensures how i sleep at night. There is no longer any need to wish for a peaceful night's sleep.. by thinking and acting with the least amount of conflict, the sleep takes care of itself. Perhaps faith and logic can co-exist harmoniously after all... well, i guess this all depends on who's looking.

 

Your views?

Just read this Cowtao,sounds similar to what Ive asked Marblehead few minutes ago,about the difference between intuition and faith.And saying that intuition is logical for me.

[Marblehead]

Hi CowTao,

 

Hi MH..

 

I have a question: Do you not find it problematic sometimes, being a such a staunch believer in logical realities, to simultaneously also rely on intuitive functions? How do you reconcile the two?

 

I have never had the need to reconcile the two. As I stated above, I do not know where intuition comes from but I have experienced it so I must admit to its existence.

 

You mentioned that faith is the holding on to ideas that do not possess any logical foundations. Would it not be possible to also see faith as a form of dynamic, inner conviction that what one does/practices will lead to fruitful outcomes?

 

Sure. But I would call this 'conviction' rather than faith. What we are doing is based on reasoning of some sort even if it includes faulty logic.

 

Sometimes things do turn out according to the way its been intended to, would you disagree with this?

 

Nope, I do not disagree. Oftentimes things turn out exactly how we had anticipated. And most generally it was because we had a logical plan and we followed the plan through to the end. (Being as careful toward the end as we were at the beginning. Hehehe. I just had to add that.)

 

Of course there are times when they just decide to go haywire, but for those whose beliefs are steadfast, such moments only act as fuel to hasten the journey.

 

Indeed. Reminds me of the time I put a larger sprocket on one of my bikes (bicycle) and in the process I let the transmission fall out of the hub. I found sixteen different way to put it back together improperly. But patience is one of my virtues and I finally got it back together properly.

 

And I will agree that if one's faith is strong enough they will endure the unthinkable. But I suggest that their faith prevented them from making adjustments which could have resulted in success.

 

I think the unpredictability of outcomes should not deter one from setting out with a practical sense of dogged determination to traverse the roads that lead to certain destinations. To hold up the destinations as motivation to persist with one's plan of action, no matter how insignificant, does require some form of inner strength and conviction, which some like to call 'faith'.

 

Totally agree. But in most cases I would call that conviction rather than faith.

 

Sometimes i confuse faith with wishful thinking, and this is often the cause of my misery, so i have set out to learn to tell the difference, and have since resolved to keep my sights firmly held on the learned experience that what i do each day faithfully ensures how i sleep at night. There is no longer any need to wish for a peaceful night's sleep.. by thinking and acting with the least amount of conflict, the sleep takes care of itself. Perhaps faith and logic can co-exist harmoniously after all... well, i guess this all depends on who's looking.

 

Acceptable logic there. Indeed, I think that if we have no unresolved major issues in our life we will have a sound, dreamless sleep and we will awaken without worry.

 

And I do agree, conflict will cause us sleepless nights if the conflict is not dealt with.

 

Your views?

 

That's about it. The real problem I have with the word 'faith' is the concept is held by many who have faith that something impossible will happen to change their life in a wonderful way. But they sit on their behind and watch the game shows on TV instead of doing something to better their life. They are searching for divine intervention. It is my opinion that we alone must take responsibility for our present condition and for our potential in the future. To have faith that some god will give us what we want is something I do not view very highly.

[Marblehead]

Hi Marbelhead,

Fair question. Yes, I hold to the concept of intuition. I follow my intuition almost always. And you know what? When I oppose my intuition and take an alternative action I always screw up. I have learned my lesson - I now always follow my intuition.

 

-Yeah same here.

 

Good.

 

I put these thing in a category different from what I refer to as 'faith'. Faith, IMO, is believing something without a logical reason...

 

-How do faith and intuition compare or differ for you?

 

Fair question. I don't know if I can answer it well but I will try.

 

Faith, to me, is equal to wishful thinking, as Cowtao alluded to above. We have faith but we have not reason for having faith and we are doing nothing to insure our wishful thinking come to life.

 

Intuition, on the other hand, has caused a bodily and mental reaction to a set of conditions. Our senses have picked up on something but we are not conscious of what it is. But our sub(un)conscious mind knows and it causes conscious thoughts as to the situation and suggests what we should do. If we act we are following our intuition, if we try to rationalize the intuitive thought we are likely to misinterpret the message.

 

I have no problem with aspirations based on logical reasoning. That is how improvements and new technology and other advancements are made.

 

-We agree here,but may have different definitions for logic.For example intuition for me is logical.

 

Yep. We differ here. Hehehe. Although I would suggest that following one's intuition is logical.

 

Well, wait a minute. Hehehe. I suppose that we could say that intuition is logical even though the logic was being done in the subconscious mind instead of the conscious mind.

 

Indeed, a truth is valid only for so long as the conditions do not change. Since everything changes can we really say that there are any truths whatsoever?

-My point exactly.

 

Well, you see my support for your point.

 

Sure, in the short term we can state a truth and because the change of that whatever is so slow it appears that it is a truth. I think that most of us operate according to this principle. Afterall, we need to have some security in our life.

For example, knowing that the chair is going to support us when we sit in it. But over time even the chair will no longer be able to serve its intended purpose.

 

But it is good that every now and again a number of people do have truths in common. I think this too is good because it helps with that security concept, knowing that something we believe is believed by others as well.

 

-You know this all got me thinking very deeply right now.And it is exactly security you have mention that is the reason for my imprisonment and slavery.

 

I am glad that our discussion has caused you deep thoughts.

 

Yes, security is an important concept. But I must suggest that there are two different aspects of security. One is the physical, having enough 'things' to make our life secure and physically comfortable. The other is spiritual security. This is the harder one to obtain, I think. And it is also the higher form of security. I doubt that I could ever express with words my feelings on this subject. But, in short, kinda like the state of 'wu wei'. We do nothing because there is nothing to be done. But, when there is something to be done we act and place no expectations on the outcome nor do we linger on the result of our efforts, whether success or failure.

 

Imprisonment and slavery are nasty concepts. Reminds me of a story. A man was once sent to prison, taken to a cell and there he spent the next ten years of his life not knowing that the cell door was never locked and he could have left any time he had the courage to try the door.

 

To slavery, I was once told that I had to submit myself to a master in order to be saved. I replied that I submit to no man and I don't need to be saved as I am not in peril.

 

P.S Ive tried to colour my letters to but am obviously not succesfull

 

No problem. I am working with you here. The next time you try: First highlight the text you want to color, then go the the text color icon and select the color you want. After you do that you will see: before the first word you highlighted and: after the last word you highlighted. But don't worry too much about it as anyone interested in reading what you said will take the time to figure it out.

[The Observer]

In reply to the original post, I think our current plane of reality is "real" in the relative sense (ie you, aka the average person, cannot walk through walls or materialize objects from thin air) but in the absolute sense (viewed from the perspective of non duality) it is not real, a dream if you will; if all things are one why do we perceive things as separate and many? Why is it that scientists can not pin down the smallest unit of existence, the quantum (er, I maybe fudged up on the details here, but you get the point)? Why is it that every time we think we've found an answer, it slips through our fingers or morphs into something of a different nature?

 

I guess it's more a matter of our minds being conditioned to believe in a certain reality with set rules and boundaries (waking consciousness). Theoretically, as unfortunately I've never seen it entirely for myself, if we shift our identity from the individual to our intrinsic Godhead/Buddha-nature/Superconciousness whatever so does our perception and relation to reality. This would explain the miracle healings and different feats such as bi-location we hear of from holy men across the globe etc...

 

Unraveling reality appears to be unlearning everything you were ever taught.

[Marblehead]

Hi The Observer,

 

Valid points, I think.

 

And to your points is exactly why I try to emphasize the importance of understanding that the manifest is a subset of the mystery. The manifest (the Many) is just as real as the mystery (the One).

 

And it shouldn't be too hard to understand that all essence originates from the same source. The Big Bang theory supports this concept.

 

Sure, we can investigate what thing are composed of. That's not a problem. We should try to understand. But we should also remember to put that thing back together again after we have finished our investigation else we will think we are left with nothing.

[The Observer]

Hi The Observer,

 

Valid points, I think.

 

And to your points is exactly why I try to emphasize the importance of understanding that the manifest is a subset of the mystery. The manifest (the Many) is just as real as the mystery (the One).

 

Agreed! It's all a matter of perspective but more or less the Many are only a reflection of the One.

 

And it shouldn't be too hard to understand that all essence originates from the same source. The Big Bang theory supports this concept.

 

Agreed. I think it's funny, however, that scientists took so long to realize what many people have been saying forever and that they needed to invent a whole technical vocabulary as well as various mathematical systems in order to express this realization; and even then the Big Bang Theory is still inadequate to truly describe it all (IMO).

 

Western society tries to define existence; impossible, the Mystery cannot be placed in a box!

 

It can only be experienced from an intuitive, right-brain perspective!

 

 

Sure, we can investigate what thing are composed of. That's not a problem. We should try to understand. But we should also remember to put that thing back together again after we have finished our investigation else we will think we are left with nothing.

Agreed. But even nothingness is all encompassing everything if you catch my drift!

[suninmyeyes]

MH,

RE :

Security...To clarify ,I feel there is no real security until we are able to embrace uncertanty.Any other security can be helpful ,but is stagnant and a trap.

 

-Imprisoment and slavery may sound nasty ,but are honest expression.As I feel that most of my life has been spend like a that guy you mention in prison.

 

Anyways nice talking to you .See you later alligator!