Wonderful Excerpts of SPN Member Confused ji's Post

Archived_member14 · #28 (**permalink**) 07-May-2012, 14:38 PM

Parma ji,

Quote: Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse.

Parma: The disagreement begins at you saying thought does not exist. We went through that debate, and the end has come to this meaningless exercise.

C: I say thoughts do not exist and you say it does, and that’s it? I want to find out what you think about other aspects of phenomena so as to see what the difficulty is and you say it is a meaningless exercise?
What if I said that you are copping out from a difficult exercise for fear of your own weakness being exposed?
I suggest that you prove that I’m wrong by responding one by one to all those propositions I put forward.

Quote: Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this.
I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair.

Parma: Your basis of knowledge of the concept of no thought, is a hypothesis you have no facts to back it no scientific facts at all.

C: You want scientific facts when both of us are in fact having the experience now and can refer to it, something which a scientist will also have to do in order to be able to say anything worthwhile about the subject? Indeed this is something without which, I wouldn’t be able to write this message nor you be able to read it, or the scientist to come up with any answer about it.

So it is not I who is putting forward a hypothesis, but you, who in referring to scientific fact, is looking for one, and this is due to your not knowing reality.

Parma: Please prove the facts, otherwise I can conclude that you are giving a baseless hypothesis on that thoughts do not exist.

C: In putting forward all those propositions, this is just what I was attempting to do. Let’s say then, that you make an attempt to respond to it the way I suggested.

Parma: P.s. You wanted to change the wording of Object of thought to concept of thought.

C: Apparently you did not carefully read what I wrote.
I differentiate thought from thinking and suggested that the former is the object of the latter. I said that thought does not exist, so why would I then go on to say that thought has an object? Neither did I refer anywhere to “concept of thought”. What I did was to suggest that if you wish to limit “thought” to a meaning other than what I use, we can replace thought with concept as being object of thinking. To recap:

Thoughts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks thoughts. If you do not like the way I use the word “thought”, we can replace it with “concept”. So we then have concepts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks concepts.

Parma: Why dont you just call it thought as that is what we were debating, thought is a word it has a meaning a definition in the dictionary. You say it does not exist.

C: If you wish to stick to the dictionary meaning, then we should replace thought with “concept”. But this is from one dictionary:
THOUGHT
Noun:
1. the act or process of thinking; deliberation, meditation, or reflection
2. a concept, opinion, or idea
3. philosophical or intellectual ideas typical of a particular time or place German thought in the 19th century
4. application of mental attention; consideration he gave the matter some thought
5. purpose or intention I have no thought of giving up
6. expectation no thought of reward
7. a small amount; trifle you could be a thought more enthusiastic
8. kindness or regard he has no thought for his widowed mother

The way I have been using it is as in number 2. You should not unnecessarily argue with me about this, given how I have been using it is quite clear. If you wish to debate semantics, don’t bother doing it with me. I’m interested in discussing about reality and not the labels. If you consider any word I use inappropriate, I’d even accept a new word invented by you. But let’s not waste time arguing about such things.

Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words.

Quote: Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me.

Parma: I believe I have through all my postings

C: If I have used a great many words, it is with the intention to be as clear as possible. Indeed you should try to match that, and if you can’t just say so and it is fine. But don't go on to speak as though you have done a great job whereas I have failed.

Quote: Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors.

Quote: Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/buddhism/38276-wonderful-excerpts-spn-member-confused-jis.html

Parma: You are making assumptions here! I have not stated that I am the only one sikh the whole world is sikh = student, this is going off topic a bit and could be discussed at a later addition.

C: I did not imply that you were the only one, but the one that I now know with the particular qualification.

Parma: I have not stated that I have any higher qualities as you are assuming, I have constantly written about me being a sikh and constantly learning.

C:This is from your original post:

Quote:
Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language. I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it.

Although I was being somewhat sarcastic, this apparently was not without a base.

Parma: You seem to be aware on how to totally break free from unwholesome tendencies, but fact is it is all contradiction

C: My understanding is mostly at the intellectual level, hence light years away from being free of unwholesome tendencies.
How did I contradict myself?

Parma: you are constantly breaking and learning even a thought at the pinnacle of peace it is constantly adapting and changing and forming that is why god is the unknowable. What I am stating is I am a sikh I am willing to learn only I will not take miss information as learning it is a hinderance to learning.

C: If you would care to go step by step, I will be able to provide arguments to support the suggestion that yours is in fact learning that is based entirely on concepts which can never be proven through experience, but only through reliance on agreed upon convention, or in other words, by force of thinking.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

Parma: Just like your assumption that thought does not exist. Sorry if I have not been clear on the above explaination. What I am getting at is that one truthful word is paramount to a thousand miss conceptions of dense untruthful words

C: I invite you to start from the very beginning to find out if in fact what I stated is based on assumption.

Parma: To stand up to oppression is a humble act. You may not think so. I do. As my individual importance of existance is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression

C: To stand up to oppression while coming from the perception of “I” vs. “they” is most definitely not a humble act. Any attempt at further qualification by such suggestions as “my individual importance of existence is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression” is just a game played by conceit.

Quote: Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets.

Parma: It is quite sad that you have such unwholesome tendencies towards poems, it is a shame as civilised cultures have given birth to such beautiful literature through poetry. The Guru Granth Sahib ji is compositions of beautiful raag's, some individuals may call it very poetic aswell. Your loss you are missing out on a whole world of literature that may help you on your journey to relieve these unwholesome tendencies

C: You would not consider the different authors in the Guru Granth Sahib as poets, of course.

I used to like poetry such as those by Wordsworth and Rilke, and I heard poets being praised for their ability to see things which the average person is incapable of. Later however, after having some understanding about reality, I came to the conclusion that both the poet and those who praise them are in fact “uninstructed worldlings”, namely those who have absolutely no clue as to what reality / Truth is.

Therefore although my dislike for poetry may in fact be aversion, hence unwholesome and wrong, my having no regard for poets is however not. And if I point out their wrongness to other people, this must in fact be a good thing. If you can’t appreciate this, the loss is yours, not mine.

Parma · #29 (**permalink**) 08-May-2012, 01:22 AM

Confused ji,

Quote: Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse.

Parma: The disagreement begins at you saying thought does not exist. We went through that debate, and the end has come to this meaningless exercise.

C: I say thoughts do not exist and you say it does, and that’s it? I want to find out what you think about other aspects of phenomena so as to see what the difficulty is and you say it is a meaningless exercise?
The difficulty is you don’t understand what thought is. Simple end of. There is nothing else to the debate on the issue if you end with not agreeing with each other’s ideas I guess you have to agree to disagree and move on otherwise you end up just debating ego’s yours is lot bigger than mine so I stopped at that point debating. You obviously are a conceited individual so what do you expect to gain from me, by carrying on it will only lead to you projecting your own conceited view without reasoning with mine, which has no relevance for me unless you are willing to reason. Will I don’t want to discuss other aspects of phenomena next you’ll be talking about ghosts and aliens, totally off the point of debate. You don’t think you have thought so from my point there is no point to discuss with you as that would be the equivalent of talking to a brick wall. You have not agreed with my suggestions that thought exist then it becomes end of and so good luck to you. Unless you are considering a whole new debate. To be really truthful without being nasty you just bore me with your reply’s and I can’t be bother to engage with something that bores me. Too much information in a web posting dude get a life. Sorry to be blunt, but I work as well

What if I said that you are copping out from a difficult exercise for fear of your own weakness being exposed?
What if I said that you are only carrying on with this in fear of exposing your own weakness? Your debates are making no sense so what is the worth of your debating unless it is conceit.
You feel you can expose a weakness out of me, what is there to expose? I could be a criminal a priest anything what is there to expose of me, (I am a human)? I am already the learner the Sikh. If that is your whole basis of you wanting to carry on with this debate then that is you exposing your own weakness, how much of a conceited individual you must be. You really are a piece of work if that is the whole basis of your own development. What weakness are you trying to expose? If we are to work on this together then for me it would be to expose an Idea that doesn’t make sense that you are debating. The debate was about thought, moving away to create a debate on a strong or a weak individual instead of idea is your own confusion. I am already the weak, I am already the humble, and whatever I have in me is by god’s grace. I am saying unless the debate can produce further knowledge on the whole point then you just end up debating each other as we are now and not the topic.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

I suggest that you prove that I’m wrong by responding one by one to all those propositions I put forward.
I do not want to prove you are wrong if after all the debating you think you are still right carry on. I am not your councillor. I am not here to judge you. Appreciate your own mind if you are happy with it and you are not oppressing knowledge or life carry on. Life will teach you, waheguru god.

Quote: Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this.
I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair.

Parma: Your basis of knowledge of the concept of no thought, is a hypothesis you have no facts to back it no scientific facts at all.

C: You want scientific facts when both of us are in fact having the experience now and can refer to it, something which a scientist will also have to do in order to be able to say anything worthwhile about the subject? Indeed this is something without which, I wouldn’t be able to write this message nor you be able to read it, or the scientist to come up with any answer about it.

So it is not I who is putting forward a hypothesis, but you, who in referring to scientific fact, is looking for one, and this is due to your not knowing reality.
No, both of us are not having the same experience here and now not both of us anyway. You said you don’t think there is any thought so you are not then having the experience. P.s. You can not scientifically prove something so in-depth on a few comments Mr Delusion boy! The experiment could be unfair I could be discussing with more the one person in your reply’s and other factors aswell

Parma: Please prove the facts, otherwise I can conclude that you are giving a baseless hypothesis on that thoughts do not exist.

C: In putting forward all those propositions, this is just what I was attempting to do. Let’s say then, that you make an attempt to respond to it the way I suggested.
You could maybe write about the study of the mind but to scientifically prove it is an unwholesome experience on a few postings

Parma: P.s. You wanted to change the wording of Object of thought to concept of thought.

C: Apparently you did not carefully read what I wrote.
I differentiate thought from thinking and suggested that the former is the object of the latter. I said that thought does not exist, so why would I then go on to say that thought has an object? Neither did I refer anywhere to “concept of thought”. What I did was to suggest that if you wish to limit “thought” to a meaning other than what I use, we can replace thought with concept as being object of thinking. To recap:
Same as what I said I think you did not carefully consider and read what I wrote

Thoughts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks thoughts. If you do not like the way I use the word “thought”, we can replace it with “concept”. So we then have concepts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks concepts.
Madness do you think like this all the time? Or do you not think?

Parma: Why dont you just call it thought as that is what we were debating, thought is a word it has a meaning a definition in the dictionary. You say it does not exist.

C: If you wish to stick to the dictionary meaning, then we should replace thought with “concept”. But this is from one dictionary:
THOUGHT
Noun:
1. the act or process of thinking; deliberation, meditation, or reflection
2. a concept, opinion, or idea
3. philosophical or intellectual ideas typical of a particular time or place German thought in the 19th century
4. application of mental attention; consideration he gave the matter some thought
5. purpose or intention I have no thought of giving up
6. expectation no thought of reward
7. a small amount; trifle you could be a thought more enthusiastic
8. kindness or regard he has no thought for his widowed mother

The way I have been using it is as in number 2. You should not unnecessarily argue with me about this, given how I have been using it is quite clear.
What is clear here?
If you wish to debate semantics, don’t bother doing it with me.
So you are no better either, don’t bother doing it with me either. I don’t want to do anything with you either, lover boy!
I’m interested in discussing about reality and not the labels.
If you are really interested in discussing reality just look around you be sincere and to the point instead of mumbling. Just get to the point be concise and clear, which you are not
If you consider any word I use inappropriate, I’d even accept a new word invented by you. But let’s not waste time arguing about such things.

Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words.

Quote: Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me.

Parma: I believe I have through all my postings

C: If I have used a great many words, it is with the intention to be as clear as possible.
That is the point your intention to make things clear in fact makes the process unclear, you use so many words like your paragraph below for instance, that it makes no sense at all. If I am curt with you child it is because you are getting on my nerves (which is not down to low self esteem, it is down to only one fact, that you are annoying). I have explained to you once and again that your style is making no sense. I would be able to make more sense of it, if you simplified it otherwise it is just a waste of mental matter.
“ Thoughts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks thoughts. If you do not like the way I use the word “thought”, we can replace it with “concept”. So we then have concepts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks concepts.”

Indeed you should try to match that, and if you can’t just say so and it is fine.
I will match something that is clear and to the point if I can make sense of it. If I cannot match it due to your confusion and delusion of words, which is what your style is based on when debating. Your style then is not of any better intellect to call that a win or a better intellect in a debate is in fact a weak response.
But don't go on to speak as though you have done a great job whereas I have failed.
Confused you have not failed you are worthy in your own right to your own thoughts. Sometimes I do go off on a tangent as well we are only humans but when someone is annoying you we do have our limits. Try having a debate without mentioning my name

Quote: Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors.

Quote: Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities.

Parma: You are making assumptions here! I have not stated that I am the only one sikh the whole world is sikh = student, this is going off topic a bit and could be discussed at a later addition.

C: I did not imply that you were the only one, but the one that I now know with the particular qualification.

Please read what you wrote you wrote one Sikh. You did not imply that at the time you are now making it up!

Parma: I have not stated that I have any higher qualities as you are assuming, I have constantly written about me being a sikh and constantly learning.

C:This is from your original post:

Quote:
Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language. I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it.

Although I was being somewhat sarcastic, this apparently was not without a base.`
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276
What base dude are you now on about music?

Parma: You seem to be aware on how to totally break free from unwholesome tendencies, but fact is it is all contradiction

C: My understanding is mostly at the intellectual level, hence light years away from being free of unwholesome tendencies.

How did I contradict myself?
You live in light years? Are you in space?

Parma: you are constantly breaking and learning even a thought at the pinnacle of peace it is constantly adapting and changing and forming that is why god is the unknowable. What I am stating is I am a sikh I am willing to learn only I will not take miss information as learning it is a hinderance to learning.

C: If you would care to go step by step, I will be able to provide arguments to support the suggestion that yours is in fact learning that is based entirely on concepts which can never be proven through experience, but only through reliance on agreed upon convention, or in other words, by force of thinking.
Yes sunshine lets go step by stop! And then step by step

Parma: Just like your assumption that thought does not exist. Sorry if I have not been clear on the above explaination. What I am getting at is that one truthful word is paramount to a thousand miss conceptions of dense untruthful words

C: I invite you to start from the very beginning to find out if in fact what I stated is based on assumption.
Assuming you are thinking are you the thought?

Parma: To stand up to oppression is a humble act. You may not think so. I do. As my individual importance of existance is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression

C: To stand up to oppression while coming from the perception of “I” vs. “they” is most definitely not a humble act. Any attempt at further qualification by such suggestions as “my individual importance of existence is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression” is just a game played by conceit.
Playing with conceit can be so mundane can’t it. Are you implying you play with yourself, that is conceited? Do you have problems with this, is this the point of the debate!

Quote: Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets.

Parma: It is quite sad that you have such unwholesome tendencies towards poems, it is a shame as civilised cultures have given birth to such beautiful literature through poetry. The Guru Granth Sahib ji is compositions of beautiful raag's, some individuals may call it very poetic aswell. Your loss you are missing out on a whole world of literature that may help you on your journey to relieve these unwholesome tendencies

C: You would not consider the different authors in the Guru Granth Sahib as poets, of course.

I used to like poetry such as those by Wordsworth and Rilke, and I heard poets being praised for their ability to see things which the average person is incapable of. Later however, after having some understanding about reality, I came to the conclusion that both the poet and those who praise them are in fact “uninstructed worldlings”, namely those who have absolutely no clue as to what reality / Truth is.
Uninstructed worldlings, are you above the world can you see the sky can you smell what the rock is cooking?

Therefore although my dislike for poetry may in fact be aversion, hence unwholesome and wrong, my having no regard for poets is however not. And if I point out their wrongness to other people, this must in fact be a good thing. If you can’t appreciate this, the loss is yours, not mine.
So you agree unwholesome is wrong so you have a loss of appreciation, you are unwholesome. Tragic!!!

Archived_member14 · #30 (**permalink**) 08-May-2012, 10:53 AM

Parma ji,

I apologize for causing you annoyance. Although I did hesitate to do it, the reason I suggested that you were copping out was to incite you so that you will respond to the particular message of mine. It is unfair of me to throw so many words at you, but it can’t be helped given who I am and the nature of the discussion. But to insist that you follow my rules, this I have no excuse. Perhaps I should not indulge in debates here, but then again no one is obliged to read and respond to them. Besides I continue to think that some of what I write is useful. And I have the impression that you have the energy, the boldness and mental capacity to test me. It is with this that I try again to engage you. Given what you said however, namely that I have been annoying, if you don’t bother to respond, it would be fine and fair.

Please tell me what you think with regard to the following:

“Thinking” is a mental reality arisen at the mind door, in a corresponding way as “seeing” which arises at the eye-door (one of the five sense doors).
Seeing experiences what is called “visible object”, and thinking correspondingly, experiences “thought” (or concept).
Visible object, like sound, taste and smell are physical realities. Thought is not a physical reality, but neither is it a mental reality, but are the creation of the thinking process, hence no ontological existence.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

Let us take the example of the experience of two computer screens, one which you are working on right now and another one elsewhere which sometime you also use.

Just as you would imagine what this other screen looks like, the one that is in front of you right now, is likewise the product of imagination. The basic difference between them is in that, that other monitor in your experience will not be interspersed by the experience of seeing consciousness of visible object, hence the impression of being more or less blurry. This one on the other other hand is more solid and real, and this is mainly because seeing consciousness arises in between alternating with the thinking.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

The function of thinking is to ‘make sense’ of the experiences through the five senses. Without these five sense experiences, there would not be any thought or concept. Therefore in the case of computer screen, if there was no seeing which experiences visible object and touch which experiences the earth, fire and wind elements, there would be no such concept or thought. These thoughts are the result of a particular set of mental activity and based on memory.

Can you tell me what you don’t agree with in the above?

Archived_member14 · #31 (**permalink**) 23-May-2012, 11:34 AM

Harry ji,

I have been putting off responding to this and will do so now only to some parts.

Quote:

I understand Karma from your point of view, what I am trying to do is to take that understanding and attempt to gain some wisdom from it bearing in mind I have no belief in reincarnation. However, this is impossible, so it is a concept I am going to have to respect but I am unable to hold it dear.

I’ve suggested a few times, that belief in rebirth is a natural consequence of a correct understanding about karma. This implies that if you do not believe in rebirth but think that you understand karma, it is at best only as a philosophical idea. But karma being in fact a reality i.e. the mental factor of intention can be understood only when it manifests in the present moment. The understanding / wisdom that I refer to, is therefore not about an abstract idea which one reasons about and accepts, seeking consequently, to apply or as you suggest, “gain some wisdom from”. Wisdom when arisen, understands either a mental or physical phenomena there and then. Any “application” is in the very understanding itself. So from where I stand, the way you are thinking about the concept indicates that it is something other than wisdom which is at work.

Although the reality itself does not engender thoughts with regard to some particular scale of time, but being of the nature of cause, there must be result of this in the future. If one insists however, that either it works within one particular lifetime or not at all, this can only be due to the influence of a particular view from which the belief has arisen. So the question that must be asked is what is the view behind this belief? Why do you think this one lifetime as the only one in which consciousness arises, one following the other, each due to the coming together of a host of conditions? And why do you think that at death, the kind of conditionality suddenly stops? Can you give an answer to this Harry ji?

Quote:

Confusedji, Strangely enough, I have had a terrible night, no sleep, agitated mind, but what you have stated here as the non preferred option has struck a chord with me, 'one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place', all we have, given a non belief in reincarnation is this.

But see, you keep thinking about it wrongly. The belief in rebirth is not a condition for understanding karma, but in fact the result of it. And understanding karma is about the present moment and not some story about things happening in time. You can perhaps now note, that it is your thinking in terms of this lifetime, which is a movement away from the present moment (hence possibility of understanding karma) and therefore the problem.

Indeed as I've suggested before, understanding karma being that it is based on the present moment, encourages a tendency not to think in terms of the past and future. On the other hand, views such as yours, which must come across to you as having a sense of urgency, namely, “to be achieved in this one lifetime”, is in reality a case of being lost in stories about “self” moving in time. Real sense of urgency must in fact come as a result of seeing the impermanent and insubstantiality of conditioned phenomena, and therefore to the importance of better understanding a *present moment reality*. Why do you think no one shows any interest in this? It is because they prefer to be involved in ideas about past and future motivated by views which serve only to increase the sense of self and attachment to the happiness which comes with this, such as when thinking about all that can and must be done within this one lifetime.

Quote:

We are clearly at near opposites here , it is self identification that is my meaning of life, anything that furthers this, is in my opinion a good thing, as it is knowing the self, that in my view, will bring me closer to God, and eventual understanding.

Me, mine and I are respectively, self-view, attachment and conceit, the three proliferations and ways in which 'self' manifests. Of these the worst and first one needed to be dealt with is “me” or “self-view”, otherwise no chance that the other two will ever lessen. So yes, we are indeed quite opposite in this regard and not unexpectedly. The Buddha after all is called the Anattavadin, or the teacher of No-Self. No other religion or philosophy has any clue about this particular mental reality and its insidious nature.

Quote:

I agree with you on this, my definition of present reality is sometimes just to sit down and say to myself, 'what the **** is actually going on here', if I can get a grasp on what is going on, regardless whether I can do anything about it, then thats half the battle.

What you describe is the process of introspection, and this is not understanding / wisdom, but thinking. Thinking about the present is not the understanding of a present moment reality. Thinking to understand the present while ignorant about realities is likely motivated by desire and self-view. So yes, introspection when involves the perception of 'me' and 'situations' is not the Path.

I know that this is not easy to see and accept at all, especially since introspection usually comes across as sincerely trying to assess oneself in order to become a better person. But as I said, self-view is insidious, and in fact behind most of the 'cheating states' which I earlier referred to.

Quote:

I think as it is even now, that yours is the kind of perception everyone else has. A vague conceptual idea with regard to what is good and what is bad action, such as, drinking alcohol and taking drugs is bad, womanizing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad etc. This is thinking in terms of situations and not the understanding which knows the nature of momentary realities. They amount to being simply attempts at convincing oneself to action by way of reason and not by way of understanding. This is why I stress understanding the realities, because once you understand this, you don't need to talk yourself into doing what you think is right, something which does not address the underlying tendencies and is subject to doubt and to wavering.

I think to do this with any success, you have to take wide view of life, and factor into this the past and the present.

You need to come to realize that the reality “now” is the only valid object of study.

Quote:

Come on Harry ji, it is you who has made it into an ideal. I just simply gave you a description of certain principles and you have built a story around it and then choose whether to accept or reject it. And what “reality” are you referring to? I'm sure it is not the reality which I have been talking about which when understood conditions detachment. But this kind of detachment is not as you appear to be suggesting, one which is out of touch with 'reality'. Indeed it is because there is no understanding of reality, that one is involved in the conventional world while mistaking this for reality instead. So really, what I'm pointing at is based on understanding the distinction between reality and concepts, therefore the ability to recognize the conventional world for what it is and not be fooled by it.

I agree with you on this completely given your background and beliefs, but for me, given the single life, I cannot accept this, in the absence of any belief in reincarnation, all I can do to accept your philosophy in any way is to build stories.

OK, no need to tie karma with the idea of past and future lives and forget rebirth / reincarnation. Does this solve the problem and lead you to being interested in understanding karma? I don’t think so. And this is not because Karma is associated with past and future lives, but that you prefer to continue thinking in terms of a “self” in time, only in this case it does not extended beyond this particular one.

In other words, while objecting to the perception of a “me” that had a past life and will be reborn again in a future one, you are moved by attachment to the “me” who has got only this one life to work with. But understanding a present moment reality where no “me” can find any ground, this you continue to resist, and this is why you have not yet begun to understand karma. No matter how much I shout out that karma is intention which can be understood as a reality “now”, you keep thinking in terms of the past and the future which is the only way you see anything at all, not only the concept of karma and rebirth.

Quote:

If there are a multitude of lives, then one can afford to feel compassion towards aggressors, as it is a big merry go round, in the next life the aggressor is the victim, the victim is the aggressor, etc etc, for any of our concepts to be understood completely, one must try and see the others point of view, I have tried my best to view yours, and to some extent integrate it into my own, but with the greatest respect, you have tended to view your belief as eternally correct, and mind as eternally incorrect, I have no ruck with this, but I feel I should point out that the purpose of this debate, for me anyway, is to learn as much from you as possible that I can embrace within the confines of my understanding of Sikhism. It means huge tracts of Buddhism are of no use to me, but it also means that certain concepts are, and could be beneficial on my own path, and I appreciate your time in explaining those to me.

It could also mean that your understanding with regard to the most basic teachings of any religion namely, seeing value in good and the harm in evil, is wrong.
Quote:
“If there are a multitude of lives, then one can afford to feel compassion towards aggressors…”

What an odd thing to suggest!! It shows how much you have been dragged in by the idea of “justice” that instead of applying it only to your own reactions, you can't help but point a finger at the actions of other people. When it should be that on perceiving someone as acting badly towards another, one might see one's own reaction if lacking in kindness, as perhaps being unjust. Being so involved in judging other people, the desire for justice, must in reality then come down to being an excuse to give vent to one’s own aversion. And this is what you consider just?!!

But of course, the fault is in the very idea of justice to begin with, which from where I stand is what someone who lacks morality is left with and goes by. After all why would someone who knows the value of kindness, compassion and moral restraint not want to encourage these and instead, appeal to the idea of seeking justice? Is it not because a person does not in fact know the value of good and is unaware of his own mental state that “justice” is conceived of and used to deal with a given situation? The one, who knows morality and has some degree of wisdom, will if anything, understand that whatever has befallen another is due to conditions and therefore “must be what it is”.

Someone who sees the value of kindness and compassion and at the same time, the wrong in aversion and attachment, will not think about this the way you do. And I think the founders of most of the major religions, would all agree with me regarding this. After all if it is wrong that person x acts with aggression towards person y, then it must be equally wrong for z to act towards x in such a way. X was lacking in kindness, hence the problem. Why should z then not be wise enough to show kindness to x?

Regarding something being “eternally” correct and incorrect, don’t you sometimes also have similar attitude with regard to what you believe in? Yes, I do not allow for “relative truths”, for me good and evil, right and wrong paths are absolute. If you disagree with any of this, then you should either be willing to enter into a discussion about the subject or else take care not to speak about anything as being the “Truth”.

Quote:

We judge situations to the best of our abilities, but I feel it important to judge on what is happening hear and now, rather than what has happened, will happen etc

Well, what is happening here and now is a perception conditioned by so many possible realities. If it involves the concepts of victim vs. aggressor and justice needs to be done, you can be sure that amongst the realities involved are ignorance, attachment, wrong understanding, aversion and conceit. No compassion, no wisdom, no kindness and no morality.

Quote:

I am not an aggressive person, even in quite violent situations, (having a knife pulled on me by a customer), I tend to crack jokes, try and calm down the person, and 99% it ends in a hug. If I see a scenario whereby I would have to be aggressive, I groan inwardly, I have no aggression to express.

I often picture you as having good qualities much more than I do. But I have also seen you express much wrong view. And this I believe will in the long run only make any good that you've accumulated, to diminish.

Quote:

However, being a Sikh, I feel a responsibility towards the world, protect the weak, the helpless, the hungry, call it a bit romantic if you will, maybe I am deluding myself, and yes, it does involve judging who is the victim, who is the aggressor, and judging what is the right thing to do, but I believe this to be part of life, you either get it wrong, or you get it right, and yes, it is Maya, but it also has consequences, so it is not on the same level of Maya that you are viewing it, call it Maya lite! Maya with very real consequences.

Of course with very real consequence, but one which is equivalent to adding fuel to the fire, and being part of the mess. The Buddha said:

Never here by enmity
are those with enmity allayed,
they are allayed by amity,
this is the timeless Truth.

So it is not a matter of your view being romantic, but lacking in confidence with regard to the power of good deeds such as that of kindness. What is worse is that it involves the misperception that yours is a good intention and the deed a good one. The truth is that it is just a game that ignorance plays, one moment fueled by attachment, one by aversion and another by conceit.

Quote:

I believe you have to try different things, and giving, giving, borrowing to give, nope, I would not do that again, and I am not joyful...

A cue perhaps, from what you wrote here, namely “borrowing to give”. Borrowing is never good, so why would you do this just so that you could please someone else? Could it be that you were in fact acting out of pity / aversion to a particular situation when instead compassion should have been there? Compassion does not drive one to borrow money to help another, does it?

And by the way, joyful does not come from merely having the chance to give, but is from understanding the value of giving. This means that even if you can't give as much, you can still be quite joyful.

Quote:

I thought this for a long time, that it was not the giving that was wrong, that it was the level of my understanding that was letting me down, I feel like the wife of a wife beater, blaming herself for her husbands aggression, no, dear friend confusedji, the kindness we gave was wrong, it was given without understanding, wisdom, discretion, and respect for consequences, it was, in fact ours to give!

You need to separate each individual mental reality from another. Just because there were many unwholesome mental factors motivating in between moments of genuine giving, does not make the giving any less wholesome, provided of course, that it was not aimed at some personal gain, in which case it becomes akin to being a business deal.

Quote:

the only way in which some good could come out of this is if I believed in more than one life, so this one concept is affecting everything in our thinking, both yours and mine.

No, good is done because it is the right thing to do and not because it will bring positive results. If one saw the harm of bad and the need to be rid of them, good is the only sensible choice. If I were thinking in terms of receiving the fruit of my actions in a future life, this would be a case of attachment to self.

Quote:

But do you see the problem? I have only described reality, but you read it as a prescription and not only that, but as you admit, think to follow it to the full or not at all. This is not what the Middle Way is about. It is understanding things as they are with reference to one's own moment to moment experience. Not overreaching, let alone having an idealistic attitude as you are inclined to have.

Confusedji, you cannot, as you told me, have my cake and eat it. the above quote implies discretion, the middle way, balance, but it does not match the below quote in intention or meaning

Quote:

There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.

That’s your interpretation and version. You are coming in from the annihilationist position to decide what the Middle Way should be.

The Middle Way is synonymous with right understanding . Right understanding with regard to the nature of a present moment reality. In the case of a good deed, this includes the limits of this. For someone whose kindness is weak, knowing this, he does not think to do more since that would inevitably be motivated by greed. In the case of one whose kindness is great, the question of overreaching does not even arise, since his kindness just flows unhindered and at no time he has any doubt with regard to its value.

The first quote is not saying as you appear to think, discretion with regard to whether or not one should give and and an attempt to balance things. These are thoughts of someone who does not understand the value of good for their own sake. The “moment to moment” experience is pointing to the fact that there'd be unwholesome states coming in between and this need to be known. Otherwise what follow, instead of being kindness, is desire / ambition and conceit. Better accept that one's kindness and generosity is still very weak and leave it at that, than to fall prey to desire and make the concept of good yet another object for this to feed upon.
In short, it is not an excuse not to give, but making sure that the giving is not motivated by some unwholesome reality.

Quote:

Why show an interest in religion if this is what you really believe? Any religion will tell you that the nature of kindness for example, is such that it will only increase with its encouragement while at the same time, discouraging its opposite, namely hatred. In other words it takes much development along a certain path involving increase in inclination towards the one and away from the other. Also religion tells you that alcohol and drugs encourage the underlying unwholesome tendencies precisely because it leads to being unmindful and therefore should be avoided. This too after realizing how so much ignorance, attachment, aversion and so on arises as it is, even when we are sober.

whilst what you write is technically correct, the reality is that many many people have turned to religion after drink/drug addiction. The reason is that the states of drink/drug addled minds is a high, and being an addict, you want a bigger high, and then one day you realise that the biggest high is to be in consonance with Creation.

And the result is that the attitude towards the religion is no different to what was before, when in fact it should have opened a door to a totally different kind of outlook. If you think that the goal you have projected, namely “consonance with Creation”, is of the same stuff as what one experiences with drugs and drink, then you can be sure that you are on a very wrong path!

Quote:

The belief behind the proposition that the goal is to find happiness and contentment is incompatible with the one which understands the Truth. This is because; all conditioned existence by their nature, is impermanent and unsatisfactory. The person who understands this does not therefore think that the goal of life is to find happiness and contentment, but seeks instead, only to understand. The Buddha stated somewhere:

Do Good,
Avoid Evil,
Cultivate the Mind.

This to me is what the meaning of life comes down to. Anything that does not match this criterion is from my perspective, unworthy of pursuit.

I reject your meaning of life, and in fact take an opposite stance, The meaning of life in my view is to find happiness and contentment, not by a change in circumstances, but understanding that it is 'all good', to break the programming that conditions existence, I think the most important thing is connection to Creation, to Creator, the state of Naam, not arising from prayer or meditation, but from connection.

It looks like that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What I think about your path aside, I don't see why your meaning of life cannot be seen as about encouraging good, discouraging evil and cultivating the mind?! Or are you in fact suggesting that in seeking happiness and contentment, this sometimes goes at the expense of good and is alright? If so, then what difference is this attitude to that of any billionaire, dictator or average epicurean? And note, all of these would in fact be motivated by the idea that there is *this one lifetime to live*!

Quote:

Thank you again for your reply, it has helped me hugely come down from the agitated state I was in when I sat down

Thank you for giving me a chance to think about these things and to express them in writing.

Parma · #32 (**permalink**) 07-Jun-2012, 03:06 AM

Confused ji, if ever you find it in your heart please respond to my persnal message I sent to you. For the love of humanity if nothing else. With love and best wishes a man seeking peace

Archived_member14 · #33 (**permalink**) 07-Jun-2012, 20:30 PM

Parma ji,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parma

Confused ji, if ever you find it in your heart please respond to my persnal message I sent to you. For the love of humanity if nothing else. With love and best wishes a man seeking peace

I have no love for "humanity". I don't go by such concepts, which according to me is only an abstraction based on other abstractions and easily becomes the object of idealism. And idealism, I consider to be quite dumb.

But to "you" I have reacted to, by just sending off a private message. I hope you find something useful there.

harry haller · #34 (**permalink**) 20-Jul-2012, 15:55 PM

Confusedji

Apologies for the time taken to reply to your post, but I like to give my time to your thoughts, so it is something I have to put aside an hour or even two for .

Quote:

I’ve suggested a few times, that belief in rebirth is a natural consequence of a correct understanding about karma. This implies that if you do not believe in rebirth but think that you understand karma, it is at best only as a philosophical idea. But karma being in fact a reality i.e. the mental factor of intention can be understood only when it manifests in the present moment. The understanding / wisdom that I refer to, is therefore not about an abstract idea which one reasons about and accepts, seeking consequently, to apply or as you suggest, “gain some wisdom from”. Wisdom when arisen, understands either a mental or physical phenomena there and then. Any “application” is in the very understanding itself. So from where I stand, the way you are thinking about the concept indicates that it is something other than wisdom which is at work.

I agree with you, one cannot understand the Karma you speak of, unless one accepts the concept of reincarnation.

Quote:

Why do you think this one lifetime as the only one in which consciousness arises, one following the other, each due to the coming together of a host of conditions? And why do you think that at death, the kind of conditionality suddenly stops? Can you give an answer to this Harry ji?

I worry about lots of things, perhaps, worry is the wrong word, but things concern me. I have put my faith in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, so to that end, any question that can be answered by such, I tend not to contemplate, as the contemplation has already been carried out. I cannot answer your question, I have no personal thoughts on the matter, I guess I have just accepted that this life ends at death. It seems the concept most suited to my personality, there was a time when I was convinced in rebirth, in my twenties, all it did was make me complacent about this life, to the point where I enjoyed dicing with death, I saw death as a liberation from the game, in fact, taking Hesse's writings about suicide, I saw life as a very bad joke, a lucid dream, this concept can be strengthened if you accept death as the ultimate escape hatch, you end up stronger and fearless, up until the point where you are called on to put up or shut up, by which time you either burn out in a brilliant light, or accept everything you know is wrong. After several attempts that all ended in hilarious disasters, I gave up and accepted the consequences I always thought I would never have to face, fun times, but it is too dangerous for me to accept rebirth, I hope you can see that.

Quote:

But see, you keep thinking about it wrongly. The belief in rebirth is not a condition for understanding karma, but in fact the result of it. And understanding karma is about the present moment and not some story about things happening in time. You can perhaps now note, that it is your thinking in terms of this lifetime, which is a movement away from the present moment (hence possibility of understanding karma) and therefore the problem.

Agreed, but I have no wish to think about it rightly, such thinking is damaging for me

Quote:

Indeed as I've suggested before, understanding karma being that it is based on the present moment, encourages a tendency not to think in terms of the past and future. On the other hand, views such as yours, which must come across to you as having a sense of urgency, namely, “to be achieved in this one lifetime”, is in reality a case of being lost in stories about “self” moving in time. Real sense of urgency must in fact come as a result of seeing the impermanent and insubstantiality of conditioned phenomena, and therefore to the importance of better understanding a *present moment reality*. Why do you think no one shows any interest in this? It is because they prefer to be involved in ideas about past and future motivated by views which serve only to increase the sense of self and attachment to the happiness which comes with this, such as when thinking about all that can and must be done within this one lifetime.

Again, I accept what you are saying, I even agree with the concept, but the risk of sliding back to my previous form is too great.

I will come back to the rest of your post later confusedji, debating with you requires all my thinking, and I cannot do your post justice unless I immerse myself in the topic. Its been an hour, and I have not even got half way!

Archived_member14 · #35 (**permalink**) 20-Jul-2012, 21:50 PM

Harry ji,

This may be due to my own shortcoming, but it appears that you keep missing my point and on some occasions, read what I say to mean the exact opposite of what I intend and not just one time. I have decided therefore, not to continue with this discussion.

Archived_member15 · #36 (**permalink**) 21-Jul-2012, 00:05 AM

Dear brother/sister Confused ji kaurhug

I know that this was directed to brother Harry, nonetheless I was intrigued by your thoughts and would like to deepen my understanding of what you are trying to communicate.

We should not bring viewpoints and opinions shaped by personalistic beliefs about reality into this discussion. The Way of Things is the Way of Things, regardless of our finite understandings. Rather we should aim to seek for the truth at the heart of things. We should all aim to uncover what is rather than what we would like it to be. So I am not going to offer you "opinions", to the best of my ability, but rather a genuine explanation of how reality is as far as I can discern it.

My thoughts are a bit convoluted at the minute and long-winded, so I hope you are not bored by the length.

If you can give your opinions and critique of my thoughts, I would much appreciate it.

Read this:

"...Do not compute eternity
as light-year after year
One step across that line called Time:
Eternity is here

How fleeting is this world
yet it survives.
It is ourselves that fade from it
and our ephemeral lives.

Were I to lose myself in the God
I'd find again the Ground
that held and nurtured me
before this earthly round

I have known wealth and fame
poverty and utter shame
Yet all was transitory
Beyond time I found bliss and glory

Timelessness
Is so much a part of you, of me -
We cannot hope to find
the Ground
until aware of our eternity

Time is of your own making,
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead.

Just one step out of time
I enter God's eternity
and I am wholly freed
from human transciency

Until you lose your Me
you cannot see God's face -
The moment you recover it
you fall from grace

How short our span!
If you once realized how brief,
you would refrain
from causing any beast or man
the smallest grief, the slightest pain.

I am God's alter ego
He is my counterpart
In timelessness we merge -
in time we seem apart

Most sacred:
The Void's immobility
that makes all move,
retaining its tranquility.

He has not lived in vain
who learns to be unruffled
by loss, by gain,
by, joy, by pain.

You are not real, Death,
for I die every minute
and am reborn in the next
into life infinite

The sage does not fear death.
To often has he died
to ego and its vanities,
to all that keeps man tied.

At the end of that
which we call history
God is who IS:
for Him there is no past
nor future yet to be..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic

Does not this Catholic mystic hit upon the very same truth that you have? He says that Time is an illusion created by conditioned mind. Step over the line, through the present moment, and find eternity and Immeasurable Being in the here and now. And yet he is a Catholic who does not believe in either karma or reincarnation - and that is my contention, these concepts are not necessary to the truth you have touched upon, which is universal, whereas karma and reincarnation are particular metaphysical concepts born of a specific culture just like the ideas of eternal life, heaven or hell.

My understanding - and I am only 20 so I am open to new developments - is that reality is in a continual state of emptying. The way I would compare it is to rivers coming out from a sea and returning back again in one unending cycle of outflowing and back-flowing. This flowing forth from the unconditioned Absolute which I call "God" - which is a negation of all negation - is continual and simultaneous. The purpose, as I see it, of human life is to be the mediator or instrument through which that which comes from the unconditioned Absolute can return to the unconditioned Absolute. The whole of spiritual life can thus be viewed as one massive cosmic heart-beat, in-flowing and out-flowing continually, a movement of expansion and contraction which is happening in every moment.

This is the insight which impermanence brings.

Everything is in a state of becoming within time, emptying upon emptying. Once the idea of permanence is cast aside, we are free to experience divine reality in each moment as it arrives and falls away, that out-flowing and back-flowing I explained earlier. Everything is like breath, a chasing after the wind.

The reality of reality is emptiness. Everything is empty, nothingness because only God is BEING - is ISNESS, is the True Reality.

We all want the world to function on our time. Reality is not like this and living like it were, when it isn't, causes needless suffering. We have to be always awake to the demands of the present moment which might not be what we want it to be.

But we have no power over this out-flowing and back-flowing; that is, over this emptiness and transcience at the heart of material reality. It is like the wind, it blows wherever it chooses and we cannot chase after it once it has fled, nor contain it, or trap it. We have to accept it for what is and try and move with its flow or else suffer the consequences of living in the illusion that we can have power over the flow.

This is the dilemna that hits us. We cannot stop the ceasless flow of emptying time. It is completely unaffected by our pain, hopes, fears, concerns and keeps on ceaslessly giving in each moment of time, in rapid sucession, forever and ever.

It becomes agnozing to realize how powerless we truly are. Impermanence is the only constant. Change, emptying, ceaseless moving forth and back, is all there is. If we cling to past moments, or long for imaginery future ones, we experience suffering because there is no satisfaction to be found in temporal reality because all is impermanent, empty, ever-changing, ever-moving. This material reality is not the Unconditioned Absolute. It is nothing. Emptiness.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

The universe is governed by the law of rythm.

You speak of wisdom.

Wisdom for me is not realizing karma. I avoid, or try to avoid, the needless pageantry of destiny, karma, divine reward or punishment. It is only Me that makes me fail, my ego. If I remove the ego, my 'me', when its chains are broken then I am free.

By severing my attachments to habits, objects, aims, goals etc. is to destroy the ego, the very illusion of self-permanence.

In our ordinary state there is no escape from suffering caused by the unending emptying of reality. And in the end death comes, taking away everything, whether good or evil.

We must recognise this nothingness which is at the heart of the universe - this is what makes it changeable and perishable, full of instability and suffering. This is because it is not the Unconditioned Absolute - he alone is the Real. He is everywhere within his creation but he also infinetly transcends it. He alone exists, everything else is a lesser form of existence, deriving its very reality from him who is the reality of realities, soul of the universe.

Nevertheless it is the emptiness in things that make the universe a reflection of God, a sharer in his existence.

This realization creates the attitude of detachment.

Standing within our Ground, where we find the Absolute Unconditioned One revealed to us in the present moment, we detach ourselves from self and created things. The wearisome succession of life and death, of past and future, of emptying upon emptying no longer oppresses us or holds us captive because we are freed from it and dwell in the Unconditioned Absolute accepting every moment as it arises and falls away, giving no thought for past or future, existing in the Eternal Now.

The way to overcome suffering is to unite with God through the manifestation of his will in the present moment. Through detachment from self and created things we throw away our creatureliness and emptiness, we are filled full with God's divinity.

And yet this in an ongoing process. To boast that I am free from craving, possessing or knowing only proves that our desires and illusions are still being fanned by the flames of our ego.

This is a journey without end. It will continue throughout our lives as we try to live in synch with what reality dishes us in each moment. There is no destination in sight, its like a sea without a shore that we are continually gazing out at and I think that this is what brother Harry was trying to say and that you have mistaken for a fixation with this 'lifetime'. There is no destination. Its a wayless way, groping in the dark led only by our inner Light of conscience within as we discern the Divine Presence of the Unconditioned Absolute in each moment of our lives and in all creation.

'Karma' is to me imagining more than reality actually gives us. I see no scientific basis for it just as there is none for an afterlife. That doesn't mean that it is not true. It might be and I see no harm in believing it to be the natural outcome of the presumed reality of the karmic law of cause and effect, if that is what one genuinely believes is the reality of things. I for one believe that conciousness continues to perpetually transmute and grow after death, in another state as it returns to the Unconditioned Absolute from which it came, just as our body returns to the dust of the earth and continues to go through the same old cycles of emptying and change.

However that isn't really important to me. Reincarnation or immortality of conciousness, they both might be true and subjectively we both think they are but they both have no bearing on this present reality.

In fact if these concepts are abused, they could easily lead us away from focus upon the present moment and enlightenment in the here and now, to thoughts about some illusionary future lifespan or fairytale heaven or Pure Land (as with Pure Land Buddhism).

We all crave permanence and so invent concepts of immortality and reincarnation. Immortality can take on a personal aspect; we will live forever in eternal time, hellish or heavenly. Reincarnation posits future lives were we can attain enlightenment. People might dream of working hard in this life at prayer or monastic living so as to be reborn in a Pure Land paradise, or as a Princess or an Emperor. It is all escapism - attempts to overcome the reality of our permanence rather than seek the stillness of the divine Ground within us and then bring that out into the world and effect change. As long as we cling to such notions we will fail to embrace the preciousness of this mortal existence, this very moment which is divine and the only real thing we have.

The present moment is the closest thing to Timelessness.

The best way to embrace the present moment is to recognise the impermanence of all things, and that life is life, only lived once and that there are no second, third, fourth lives: no second, third or fourth chances to know what you can know now, right here, in the midst of your menial, common, everyday life.

Your arguement, dear brother, is wise. You might suggest that I am clinging to a permanent sense of self in my emphasis placed upon this life whereas you see reincarnation as the natural way out of this conundrum through karma, which is the basis of reality as you see it: when one reincarnates, it is not you as a person. New body, mind, brain, family, friends, life etc. In this sense you might say that there is no me living that second, third, fourth life. I the illusionary self with all my attachments, ceased to be when I died.

However I feel no need to attest to reincarnation which has no scientific proof nor any bearing on how to help me cope with the reality of impermanence, of ceaseless emptying, in the here and now.

Reality gives us all we need if our eyes are truly opened. It is selfless, above all distinctions, above all conditions, all persons, all thoughts, all ideas - it is a dark state of unknowing.

And it gives us everything we need to live wisely in the midst of so much uncertainity and impernance in the present moment.

The present moment is the ambassador revealing the Will of that Unconditioned Absolute.

Do not fooled - when I speak of Will in the context of the Unconditioned Absolute I am not personalizing it, nor referring to the personal God revealed in the Bible or the Qur'an. I am speaking not of 'God' but The God - not the three persons of the Christian Trinity who utter themselves forth and express themselves and thus receive names: Father, Son, Holy Spirit or in other traditions Brahma, Shiva, Allah etc. but the Silent Desert of Meister Eckhart, the Abyss of Transcendence, above and beyond all names and forms, which does not beget, nor create and which is not a 'Person'. The God is silent and impersonal; it has no name, is nameless; when it utters itself and express itself it becomes 'Father' and Son and Holy Spirit and Allah and Brahma etc. The God remains eternally transcedent and enfolded within the Divine Abyss of the Godhead.

The God has will. It isn't the anthropomorphic God of the average theist who talks with his Creation and intervenes from time to time in individual affairs. The God is transcends everything utterly. It sets the universe in motion, it is the source of that unceasing out-flowing and back-flowing - expanding and contracting eternally like a cosmic heart. The God is the heartbeat of the universe, the beating pulse of reality who is responsible for its impermanence, hollowness, emptiness and who creates this world as such to allow human beings to discover how best to live with the reality of emptiness, of change, transcience and impermanence. This discovery does not steam from Divine Revelation or supernatural/mystical experiences. It has been discovered by generations of enlightened human beings, to varying degrees as expressed through different languages, cultures and myths. That is why the Catholic Church said in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate:

"...From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history...This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language...Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions..."

- (Nostra Aetate)

Lao Tzu called it the Tao, the sages of the Vedas Brahman. The Lord Buddha - one of the most glorious spiritual teachers to have ever lived, I believe, made reference to the Unconditioned Absolute when he said so very wonderfully:

"...There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move..."

- Lord Buddha (Udana 8:3)

One of my favourite descriptions of the Uncreated Absolute comes from Saint John of the Cross:

"...I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

Where no knowing is I entered,
yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.

I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending

And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

Its source I do not know because it has none.
And yet from this, I know, all sources come,
Although by night.

I know that no created thing could be so fair
And that both earth and heaven drink from there,
Although by night.

Its radiance is never clouded and in this
I know that all light has its genesis,
Although by night.
......................

The current welling from this fountain's source
I know to be as mighty as its force,
Although by night..."

- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591),
Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation,
Catholic mystic and Doctor of the Church

Saint Nikolai Velimirovic, an Eastern Catholic saint, said of Lord Buddha:

"The royal son of India teaches my heart to empty herself completely of every seed and crop of the world, to abandon all the serpentine allurements of frail and shadowy matter, and then in vacuity, tranquillity, purity and bliss to await nirvana. Blessed be the memory of Buddha, the royal son and inexorable teacher of his people!"

To return to what I was saying this Unconditioned Absolute has a Will.

From its source in The God there emerged a world that would eventually come to know itself. We are the local embodiement of that Universe which through us has become aware of Itself, after so many billions of years of evolution to this state. Humanity is the material universe in a self-aware state.

The will of the Unconditioned Absolute does not will as a person wills but rather it gives rise to all things, their arising and falling back in each moment. The present moment is therefore the manifestation of the Divine Will of this Unconditioned Absolute for us: the local, self-aware embodiement of its material creation which sprung forth from it and will return to it.

Time is really a creation of our own mind. We are called to timelessness. Eternity is time. Eternity is not some future event. Eternity is discovered to be at the core of the present moment - wherever that moment exists which, as I have explained to you, is the manifestation of the Will of that Unconditioned Absolute I call The God.

To embrace the present moment and move beyond time we must renounce self. When I speak of self I am referring to all the external, social personalities, projections, illusions, private thoughts and emotions which we associate with a permanent self but which is really not who we are.

As the modern Catholic mystic Cyrprian Smith, commenting on the thought of Meister Eckhart, explains:

"...I am not who I think I am, and 'You' are not who you think 'You' are. What we call 'I' and 'You' is indeed a projection, and if we go far enough in withdrawing the projections and in piercing the veils, we shall reach a point at which there is no longer any 'I' or 'You'. We shall reach a point at which we realize that our true self has nothing to do with 'function'...a lawyer, a chimney-sweep, a doctor, a dustman, a priest...These are only functions, things we do; they are not us...These roles and functions are real projections...they give us a sense of security, a sense of identity and belonging. They prevent us from glimpsing the awful void and emptiness within ourselves: they make us feel solid, needed, valued and permanent...But it is not only our external, social personalities that are a tissue of projections and illusions. The same is true of much of our inner, private world, which we may well be tempted to regard as our 'self'...We are not our social functions or roles; but neither are we our private thoughts or emotions...If we watch our emotions and thoughts long enough, we may eventually become aware of something which is not not these emotions or thoughts...There is something within me which is at all times perfectly detached, tranquil and serene. It is never excited about anything, never downcast or depressed by anything. It is like a deep, perhaps, bottomless lake; my various thoughts and emotions are like ripples or waves upon the surface. But below the surface, in the depths, there are no ripples; everything is still...We are a different 'self' depending on the moods or activities of the moment...There is nothing to give any unity or continiuity to my identity...I am not one self but a sequence of different or even conflicting selves...We are not real, unified 'selves', we are not capable of true action, until we learn to enter the Ground...It transcends place and time. Anyone who enters the Ground no longer cares about the past or the future: he is aware only of the present moment, and the present moment is shot through with Divine Light, because it is in the present, and in the present alone, that the world of time touches the world of eternity. Standing within this impregnable citadel, we are troubled neither by the thought of our past experiences nor of possible troubles and preoccupations still to come..."

- Cyrprian Smith OSB, Catholic theologian and mystic

As the Catholic mystic Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677) explains:

"Eternal Spirit, God becomes
All that He wills to be—but still
Abideth ever as He is,
Without a form, an aim, a will."

Though the Unconditioned Absolute manifests his will in the present moment, It remains changelessly without form or desire. Only the illusory, the conditioned mind creates form, aims, and desires.

Silesius also said:

"Here in the midst of Time God doth become what He,
The Unbecome, was not in all Eternity."

Time is an illusion created by conditioned mind. We must strive to heed the Will of The God in each moment that comes our way.

Did not Jesus say, "Take no thought for tommorrow, for tommorrow will take thought for itself"?

The Islamic mystic Rumi said, "The Sufi is the son of the present moment".
Catholics call this "The Sacrament of the Present moment".

A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace...every moment is a sacrament, in every moment, in the quiet stillness of the Eternal Now we can find God. Not tommorrow, not yesterday or even worse - certainly not "next lifetime"!

Only the Present Moment is Eternal. There will ALWAYS BE A NOW. There will not always be a tommorrow and yesterday is gone. It is thus the closest thing to eternity - moment-by-moment - THE ETERNAL NOW. The God exists beyond all time and place in the Eternal Now and we can only receive him in the present moment and there find our liberation from temporality and material attachments.

Of the GODHEAD Silesius also said:

"God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more thou graspest after Him,
The more he fleeth thy embrace."

"To leave the past to the mercy of God, the future to his providence, is the kind of excellent advice we would cheerfully prescribe to others. How difficult though to practice it ourselves! The present moment is the only moment we have. It is only in the here and now that we meet God" - Bishop John Crowley

"Morning, afternoon, evening- the hours of the day, of any day, of your day and my day. The alphabet of grace. If there is a God who speaks everywhere, surely he speaks here: through waking up and working, through going away and coming back again, through people you meet and books you read, through falling asleep in the dark" - Frederick Buechner

Saint Faustina, a Catholic mystic, once wrote:

"...When I look into the future, I am frightened,
But why plunge into the future?
Only the present moment is precious to me,
As the future may never enter my mind at all.

It is no longer in my power,
To change, correct or add to the past;
For neither sages nor prophets could do that.
And so, what the past has embraced I must entrust to God.

O present moment, you belong to me, whole and entire.
I desire to use you as best I can.
And although I am weak and small,
You grant me the grace of your omnipotence.

And so, trusting in Your mercy,
I walk through life like a little child,
Offering You each day this heart
Burning with love for Your greater glory..."

But why the need for karma and reincarnation to embrace this truth of impermanence and timelessness?

Catholic mystics have understood this truth while not believing in karma or reincarnation - and actually, while being theists! kaurhug

All that we achieve in this short human lifespan will perish when the world ends. Our life will end, our children's lives will end, their grandchildren's lives will end, this land will in millions of years be different, this earth will one day be swallowed up by the sun and so on. But that's all in the future. Why casts our minds there? That is the reality of impermanence and it hits us hard. We cannot find satisfaction from attachment to any impermanent thing - I think perhaps even to the concept of reincarnation, which has no scientific proof, or of karma which falls short in my opinion of the true nature of reality. Lets seek for that which transcends this life, within our Ground where there is immeasurable being unrestrained by time or place, by goals or desires, by cravings, by projections and illusions and which is ever pure, still, unperturbed by outward interference and where the flame of ego is extinguished.

Much love to you brother/sister Confused and sorry for making this so darn long! kaurhug