You don't exist, so don't worry about it

March 19, 2006

I understand what you're saying although I don't totally agree with the paradigm presented. When you say you don't exist essentially you mean in a personal sense as body, separate mind, brain, etc. That's not very difficult to grasp. Trying to prove you wrong by saying that if you hit someone in the face they'll see how real it is doesn't verify anything. There are billions of agreements one has made concerning solidity. Yes the fist hits the face and the face seems to feel and impact and so does the fist. However, what animates the body to cause this action? Is it the brain? Then what causes the brain to cause this action? The ears are designed to hear but what is aware of hearing? The eyes are designed to see but what is aware of seeing? The nose is designed to smell but what is aware of smelling? Things, forms, objects, patterns, etc, arise and recede over the course of an apparent time continuum that is primarily based upon agreement itself. Along this continuum there is that which is aware and fundamentally changeless.

You're attempting to apply finite concepts to what is inherently infinite. There's a huge difference between knowing about and knowing. Someone can read a thousand books and know all about some thing but at the end of the day all they know is about other peoples interpretations on things and in addition they have now arrived at a point where they can evolve yet another interpretation. Words being labels that are used to name things within universes don't meet the occasion when one is attempting to discuss that which is essentially nameless, changeless, formless, boundless and dimensionless. It makes no sense to attack him based upon one article. Even from a physical perspective as a human being a person simply cannot understand what they have no yet realized.

What is real it permanent, actual and not apparent. Words like truth, love, spirit, pure awareness can be used in a descriptive sense but that which is nameless cannot be defined within a human context. Spirit is nothing or a no-thing but that's from an inverted view a human view. So-called people are not looking at the game from the same viewpoint and location they were in when they seemingly entered the game. Spirit may very well be neither a nothing nor a something and at the same time that which conceives and perceives all things.

The part where you mention that living as a fictional identity in an illusion is better than nothing at all or total idleness makes sense, except that it's not an illusion it's more of a delusion. In other words it started as an illusion and then one proceeded to disown the illusion and said somebody else must have done it. Few people like the idea that all entrapment is preceded by choice. Human sense seeks to avoid truth at every turn and all one needs to do is look around to see how they feel about responsibility. If entrapment is preceded by choice then you are responsible for the mess you're apparently in and you're responsible for getting out. That's a tough one for most people to accept at any level. Ultimately the apparent bondage where one seems to be enveloped in matter is unreal and non-existent, as it's impossible to separate from ones own essence. One doesn't have a life so can never lose a life. One is life and all else is fiction. The infinity of ideas conceived and perceived by spirit have no substance within them as all spirit belongs to spirit only. Spirit is ALL and you are spirit. Not even nothing exist outside of spirit as there is no outside to ALL. This doesn't mean we are all the same or we are all one (a paradoxical statement that is insane). The number one cannot be discussed within the context of what is essentially dimensionless and this is actual reality. The physical world is a world of relative realities and relative truths and things tend to change quite often depending upon time, place and conditions. One day scientist come out and say this is the way it IS and a few years later they say sorry we found something else. This is the nature of what is essentially not real to begin with. It's inherently unreliable. The is the underlying anxiousness that upon close observation can be recognized in the vast majority of people. They think or believe they are things and they see things come and go and so they feel this will happen to them. This creates uncertainty, insecurity and fear. Welcome to humanity. This simply can't be grasped by the fictional human mind because it would be the end of it. The best I can do is say that I am prior to I AM and cause over myself, you, everyone, everything and everywhere and so are you. Human sense will reject all of the above because truth precludes the existence of humanity and a world of duality. It's the end of the game of separation, elevation, I, me, mine, those people, them, etc.

Note the world is real, universes are real and actual. They're just not the way humans think or believe they are. Spirit being all is changeless and ideas conceived by spirit are changeless and perfect. From a spiritual perspective and that's the only real perspective there is only now. Once you begin to deal with the fictional story of time you're already lost in a fictional story that can only look to other fiction for verification. You can expect human sense to reject all of this and to be offended and upset. This is not religious dogma, a new belief system or any new kind of New Age thought system. This is the nature of actual reality. One doesn't talk about truth or think about truth. One simply beholds truth and all the rest that apparently existed is revealed to have never existed. The realization of truth is ultimately transparent because truth, spirit or whatever word you choose to use to mean all-inclusive absolute pure awareness knows nothing other than its own essence. In other words, truth being all knows of truth only. Reject the above, be offended by it truth cares not as it really didn't happen and your own rejection leaves you living as a fictional character in a fictional story. Truth is truth and knows nothing of fiction. When I say fiction I mean non-existent. Never happened means never happened at any level anywhere.

March 20, 2006

I strongly dislike this concept of everyone chooses all that happens to them in life.

To me it is just a modernized version of saying the rape victim is responsible for the rape because "they wanted it."

Ya, it's call responsibility.

March 20, 2006

Weird. I've been in this trap of thinking at this level for the past few weeks. Combination of architectural theory, media studies, art, history, understanding of science and technology, basically seeing patterns in existence then coming down to these fundamental problems with the resulting gaps, trying to get my own correct balance of gray so I can just go ahead and live my life already. Problem is, I have an epic life goal, and it's hard to think about objects next to me in the book we're all in together.

I've been stumbling through this with the uncanny and unconscious coincident guiding me. Typing in phrases that come out as eloquent to me, "don't worry about it" has been the dominant philosophy with me for a while now-- but it's hard not to, because, yes, responsibility seeps in and all of a sudden the adult "real" world is telling you to grow up from ideas and just "do" already.

Hahah, like-minds. We're all making it, we're all realizing it. What if the actors addressed the audience as people? Better yet, address them as fellow actors.

March 23, 2006

pheight remarked,

"...The nose is designed to smell but what is aware of smelling? Things, forms, objects, patterns, etc, arise and recede over the course of an apparent time continuum that is primarily based upon agreement itself. Along this continuum there is that which is aware and fundamentally changeless."

Now the last statement,

"along this continuum there is that which is aware and fundamentally changeless"

Is it a conclusion based on the previous observations ? Why should there be any permanency underlying all impermanent things ? Is it to console ourselves that "something of us" survives after our death ? Or there is always "something of us" more permanent existing eternally inspite of the superficial impermanency that we feel and experience ?

Is there any evidence to prove this ? Is it just an hypothesis or a conjecture - a fanciful thinking ?

Can't all the things we experience happen without any underlying permanency (fundamentally changeless ) ???????????

:-)

Sharath Chandra S

March 23, 2006

Two questions:

1. If everything is an illusion, isn`t the illusion an illusion that to ?

2. If everything is an illusion, then everything doesn`t exist, so then there is no that... that... OK I`m lost !...

March 27, 2006

pheight remarked,

"...The nose is designed to smell but what is aware of smelling? Things, forms, objects, patterns, etc, arise and recede over the course of an apparent time continuum that is primarily based upon agreement itself. Along this continuum there is that which is aware and fundamentally changeless."

Now the last statement,

"along this continuum there is that which is aware and fundamentally changeless"

Is it a conclusion based on the previous observations ? Why should there be any permanency underlying all impermanent things ? Is it to console ourselves that "something of us" survives after our death ? Or there is always "something of us" more permanent existing eternally inspite of the superficial impermanency that we feel and experience ?

Is there any evidence to prove this ? Is it just an hypothesis or a conjecture - a fanciful thinking ?

Can't all the things we experience happen without any underlying permanency (fundamentally changeless ) ???????????

:-)

Sharath Chandra S

I sense your desire to know and understand and I acknowledge your efforts. I can tell you that the answers you seek will not come from another. They will not come through thinking and figuring or any other form of mental gymnastics.

The apparent experience of life is a game. There are those who design the games and make the rules but don't have to live by them. There are those who know it's a game and know the rules and play to the best of their ability. There are those who know it's a game but don't know the rules. There are those that are more or less pieces in the game and they have a sense that it's a game but have no grasp of the rules or the game itself. And lastly there are those who are the broken pieces who have no sense that it's a game and no idea what the rules are. This would be the vast majority of humanity.

Truth is rather unpopular in this universe we know as the physical universe being that it causes games to vanish by revealing the fragility and ultimately the non-existence of duality. People who are spiritual beings get somewhat attached to the various positive and negative poles that exist in a dualistic universe. The wins and loses, ups and downs, joys and sorrows, pleasures and pains add to a myriad of spices that make up the very structure of this game we have come to know as life.

All that persist is essentially a lie at various harmonics because some lies have been altered to further degrees. These manifestations can be observed within the context of the game. The game is not about the wins and loses but it's all about staying in the game and it's primarily about playing. I use the word lie but not in a negative sense. It's simply the word that fits the paradigm. In any game you need opponents. In the absence of opposition there is no game and this is the essence of truth. Truth has no opposition for it is truth beyond the word truth. We can't really even discuss truth without altering truth and thus we're no longer discussing truth. A very tricky scenario. It's more important to acknowledge truth and know that you are truth. In essence you are that which you are seeking.

In regards to your post. Pure cause needs no prior experience in order to declare I or I AM. Permanency doesn't really underly anything it's simply real because it is permanent, eternal, changeless, timeless, formless and dimensionless. The way in which dimension comes into play is a bit more complex especially when one is attempting to look from the position they assume they're in within the physical universe. This is an inverted view and thus it's very easy to trick oneself.

I am not consoled by knowing that I am immortal and saying something survives after death is based in an assumption that there is a beginning to life and that life actually dies. There is not something of us that exist eternally, as you are neither a something or a nothing. What is eternal when in actual reality there is only now. What you experience with your human senses can't be trusted as they are designed to accept the illusion of solidity. Even within the context of the fictional story we have seen that our best physicists and scientists have already proven that matter is fundamentally empty space. So we already know that the apparent solidity of matter is not actual but apparent. We can understand this even from a perspective within the context of the delusion. It's not that all is really an illusion it's really a delusion. It perhaps starts out as an illusion from ones perspective and then evolves into a delusion when one feel overwhelmed by the illusions. Sensing overwhelm one seeks to disown having anything to do with creating the illusions and thus it is decided that the only option is that someone else did it. This is delusion of a very high magnitude. Not to worry as this is really not real and there's always the potential to awaken and realize you never were un-awakened.

I would suggest investigating the entire concept of time, as this is the fundamental lie. Just look into time and how it operates and how we agree on it and how we allow things to keep time for us. Looking and direct observation are always preferred to thinking and figuring. Just look at time and what it's based on and how we've empowered a mere concept to the point where it runs on its own continuum, If you get a handle on time, if you acquire enough discriminating knowledge regarding time and if you attain understanding then a self-generated certainty will be yours. All knowledge in the world of form is invented but knowing is beyond words, concepts, ideas and data. Keep looking and you will have a realization of that which you desire. It will not be like knowing about things and realizations about things within the world of form. It will come as a transparent realization where you will just know with no reliance on data, facts, figures and so-called physical evidence. After all what physical evidence is there when it has already been proven that the nature of physicality is non-physical?

Good luck!

pheight

March 31, 2006

I sense your desire to know and understand and I acknowledge your efforts. I can tell you that the answers you seek will not come from another. They will not come through thinking and figuring or any other form of mental gymnastics.

You speak like God. What makes you so cocksure to declare that the answers I seek will not happen in the ways you mention? Can your ever fathom the complete scale and spectrum of a man's thinking, imagination and feeling ?

Buddha, the first original thinker of mankind, who lived 2500 years ago, just did that by meditative thinking.

The apparent experience of life is a game. There are those who design the games and make the rules but don't have to live by them. There are those who know it's a game and know the rules and play to the best of their ability.

Somebody knowing the rules of the game ????????? Strange and highly surprising. The number of stars in the galaxy is much more than the grains of sand on all the beaches on the oceans and seas of this planet earth.With such a trivial existance of man, has anyone ever defined in clear terms what the rules of the game are :no:

1. What is the purpose of life, not just man, but any life in general ?

2. Tell me what is the purpose of man on this earth, rather, what is the goal of humanity ?

3. Does each individual matter ? If so, how ? How are we inter-related in the grand design, if there is one ?

4. Do the terms Good and Bad have absolute, unambiguous clear definitions valid for all times ? I am stressing on Good and Bad, because all of our society and its values are based on this.So do all the religions.

5. Do you invoke God as the creator of these rules? Or, did they happen just like that, right from the BigBang ? :rolleyes:

Don't you think it is pointless and useless to have a system going, where some players know the rules of the game, some don't, while some know it is a game and some don't even know it is a game !! What great goal is achieved in playing such a game ???? To cap it, you also declare that it is not possible to know it by any amount of thinking or mental gymnastics or by anyone else !!!! What a hopeless situation

Truth is rather unpopular in this universe we know as the physical universe being that it causes games to vanish by revealing the fragility and ultimately the non-existence of duality.

Nobody knows what the real nature of THE WHOLE TRUTH is, to be declared it as unpopular.

Nothing ever vanishes. It does so, only when YOU SLEEP or when YOU DIE or maybe when you GO MAD or DEPRESSED. Duality exists as long as the Univerese exists. It was born with the Universe and dies with the Universe. Duality is an inseparable part of the Universe.

People who are spiritual beings get somewhat attached to the various positive and negative poles that exist in a dualistic universe. The wins and loses, ups and downs, joys and sorrows, pleasures and pains add to a myriad of spices that make up the very structure of this game we have come to know as life.

As long as positive charged Protons and negative charged Electrons exist, so long does Duality exists No need to hype so much about it and seek/long for a Non-Dual universe.

All that persist is essentially a lie at various harmonics because some lies have been altered to further degrees. These manifestations can be observed within the context of the game.....I use the word lie but not in a negative sense. It's simply the word that fits the paradigm.

Actually it is not lie, but they are Ephemeral or Transient. Just because events and experiences don't exist for long, it doesn't mean it is a lie. On the same lines one can then argue and show that "the present moment" is also a lie. But it is not !

The game is not about the wins and loses but it's all about staying in the game and it's primarily about playing.

Well, now you are contradicting yourself. Having declared that a vast majority of the humanity have no sense that it is a game and no idea what the rules are, how can these "vast majority" stay in the game and play ??? :innocent:

To what end should we play the game, especailly, when the goals are not realizable in any one individual's life time.

Truth has no opposition for it is truth beyond the word truth. We can't really even discuss truth without altering truth and thus we're no longer discussing truth. A very tricky scenario. It's more important to acknowledge truth and know that you are truth. In essence you are that which you are seeking.

Why would Truth get altered if we discuss it, dissect it and probe it ??? Can you give an example. On the oher hand it just gets more interesting and complicated as we probe Truths deeper and deeper :hmm:

If I am the Truth then going by your earlier argument I am also a Lie, because as you have declared "all that persists is essentially a lie at various harmonics"

There are Truths beyond what one is seeking. Truth doesn't cease to exist if one turns a blind eye on them. Truth is not a function of Seeker. IT JUST EXISTS whether there are seekers are not.

Bye for now. Rest later...

S.Sharath Chandra

sharath_chandra@fastmail.fm

Edited March 31, 2006 by S Sharath Chandra

March 31, 2006

For illusion to exist, there has to be evidence proving it to be illusion. If the evidence is the illusion, the illusion is the evidence and thus there is no illusion. What we see objectively is what exists for us, and if we base the fact that "all is illusion" on what we sense, then we are accepting what is around us to be of some relevence- some form of existance. If you accept that everything is illusion, you accept evidence and thus nothing is illusion.

March 31, 2006

Theory kinda reminds me of gnosticism.

But even if this reality is a shadow an illusion. There has to be a scource or a real for there to be a copy or a fake.

But anyways if I am an illusion then the illusion is my reality.

March 31, 2006

1. What is the purpose of life, not just man, but any life in general ?

2. Tell me what is the purpose of man on this earth, rather, what is the goal of humanity ?

None. There is no general goal or purpose. Every living being tries to define and justify its purpose of existence in its own way.

3. Does each individual matter ? If so, how ? How are we inter-related in the grand design, if there is one ?

Each individual does not matter, in fact nothing does matter. Every living being voluntarily or involuntarily tries to make everything matter to them in some way or the other to make sense to themselves because it gives them a sense of "belonging and worth." And...there is no grand design.

4. Do the terms Good and Bad have absolute, unambiguous clear definitions valid for all times ? I am stressing on Good and Bad, because all of our society and its values are based on this.So do all the religions.

Good and Bad are not absolute, only relative. There is no universal defenition of good or bad. What may be good to you may be bad to somebody else and vice versa. Society, religion & values keep changing all the time. What a majority of the world thinks to be right at a moment in time is generally accepted as "right" at that time.

Do you invoke God as the creator of these rules? Or, did they happen just like that, right from the BigBang ?

There are no universal rules, we only make rules for ourselves, so that we can define boundaries and work safely within them. Rules give us involvement and a sense of purpose. Rules give a sense of direction and prevent people from going mad thinking of the infinite possibilities. Rules need not make sense to everybody but they do work.

Don't you think it is pointless and useless to have a system going, where some players know the rules of the game, some don't, while some know it is a game and some don't even know it is a game !! What great goal is achieved in playing such a game ????

There is no point.

March 31, 2006

Good and Bad are not absolute, only relative. There is no universal defenition of good or bad. What may be good to you may be bad to somebody else and vice versa. Society, religion & values keep changing all the time. What a majority of the world thinks to be right at a moment in time is generally accepted as "right" at that time.

You know how many times I try to tell satanics this. Im glad someone other than me realizes this.

March 31, 2006

None. There is no general goal or purpose. Every living being tries to define and justify its purpose of existence in its own way.

Each individual does not matter, in fact nothing does matter. Every living being voluntarily or involuntarily tries to make everything matter to them in some way or the other to make sense to themselves because it gives them a sense of "belonging and worth." And...there is no grand design.

Good and Bad are not absolute, only relative. There is no universal defenition of good or bad. What may be good to you may be bad to somebody else and vice versa. Society, religion & values keep changing all the time. What a majority of the world thinks to be right at a moment in time is generally accepted as "right" at that time.

There are no universal rules, we only make rules for ourselves, so that we can define boundaries and work safely within them. Rules give us involvement and a sense of purpose. Rules give a sense of direction and prevent people from going mad thinking of the infinite possibilities. Rules need not make sense to everybody but they do work.

There is no point.

See Pheight we already have one set of rules rolling and that is, there are no rules whatsoever. The whole world and the life in it doesn't matter much.No grand design. No universal rules at all And you say there are rules which some are aware of :geek:

Who knows if we wait a little longer, maybe someone will come out with another set of rules and then the real game starts, "WHICH RULES ARE CORRECT?" :unsure:

Will reply to the rest of your mail shortly,

S.Sharath Chandra

March 31, 2006

The little "shadowy" things that wink in and out of existence was the cause of a great debate in school. When they "wink out" where do they go? It's not easy to say that they cease to exist. . .the idea that they are blinking in and out of this dimension was more widely excepted. quantum fluctuation is the source of much debate. I was just reading about it in one of my Astral projection books, weirdly enough. . .Anyways, I, myself, find it pretty easy to accept. . .but the way the writer of this article puts everything makes it sound so silly. The same thing with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. . .it's pretty easy to understand, but the writer makes it seem really far out there. . . The Heisenberg theory wasn't made to say that we don't exist in the way that the writer is trying to suggest, it means "the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method." (I got that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle it explains it SO much easier than I can) Which this can be interpreted in many different ways. . .But it's rather simple and unshocking from my point of view. . .it allows for the possibility of free-will and the fact that fate is not pre-determined. Einsten disagreed with this theory and had one of his own called "local realism". John Bell also came up with a theory that is a sort of a compromise between both of these theories, and it's called the Bell inequality.

The thing that most people fail to understand is that most of these are theories. Until proven they may or may not be true.

April 1, 2006

That is a theory that doesn't have factual reasoning to back it up. Its just a fabricated idea conjured up by someone who had one cheeto too many for lunch! <_<

April 1, 2006

That is a theory that doesn't have factual reasoning to back it up. Its just a fabricated idea conjured up by someone who had one cheeto too many for lunch!

cheetos are cheetos ok

April 1, 2006

I read "Life is all an illusion" type stories and I imagine someone walking right up to the author and punching them in the nose. "Feel that!?" :rofl:

April 1, 2006

On the third marble up Sun street is a halodeck where spirits go to school they enter to learn the necessary lessons of charater developement. It is the more advanced student who can conceptualize more than the grade schooler. All really is not as it seems, "Life" as we call it is nothing more than a "dream" like existance ... when will you start to "direct" your dream?

Enjoyed the read, thank you. To all the other posters, stop and truely think about this ..... could it not be possible?

two pits

April 2, 2006

I got that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle Which this can be interpreted in many different ways. . .But it's rather simple and unshocking from my point of view. . .it allows for the possibility of free-will and the fact that fate is not pre-determined. Einsten disagreed with this theory and had one of his own called "local realism". John Bell also came up with a theory that is a sort of a compromise between both of these theories, and it's called the Bell inequality.

The thing that most people fail to understand is that most of these are theories. Until proven they may or may not be true.

Well to be more precise in the above referenced link, are two important points made :

".. Therefore, the product of the uncertainties only becomes significant for regimes where the uncertainty in position or momentum measurements is small. Thus, the uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored. "

Before jumping off to quote Heisenberg one should all always bear in mind that it applies only to quantum particles which exhibit both wave and particle like behavior. But not so are the objects of the macro world we live in.

As it has been rightly pointed out there,

".. the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form?but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements...."

In the real world our eyes aren't sensitive enough to see a single photon leave alone measuring it. Also we don't deal with individual electrons...forget about Quantum Healing

Inshort, the Quantum world and the macro world are governed by two different sets of rules..

Bye for now,

S.Sharath Chandra

April 2, 2006

You speak like God. What makes you so cocksure to declare that the answers I seek will not happen in the ways you mention? Can your ever fathom the complete scale and spectrum of a man's thinking, imagination and feeling ?

Buddha, the first original thinker of mankind, who lived 2500 years ago, just did that by meditative thinking.

I. When you say I speak like God what concept of God are you speaking of? Are you attached to or do you have a predefined idea of what the word God means to you? Who says Buddha was the first original thinker? Everything the Buddha said and did was reinterpreted and no doubt reduced down to a concept. The Buddha's primary message was one of no "self" and yet people went out and made billions of statues representing the Buddha and there are few practicing Buddhist today who actually feel that attaining the state of enlightenment that others interpreted that the Buddha did is possible for them.

Somebody knowing the rules of the game ????????? Strange and highly surprising. The number of stars in the galaxy is much more than the grains of sand on all the beaches on the oceans and seas of this planet earth.With such a trivial existance of man, has anyone ever defined in clear terms what the rules of the game are

1. What is the purpose of life, not just man, but any life in general ?

2. Tell me what is the purpose of man on this earth, rather, what is the goal of humanity ?

3. Does each individual matter ? If so, how ? How are we inter-related in the grand design, if there is one ?

4. Do the terms Good and Bad have absolute, unambiguous clear definitions valid for all times ? I am stressing on Good and Bad, because all of our society and its values are based on this.So do all the religions.

5. Do you invoke God as the creator of these rules? Or, did they happen just like that, right from the BigBang ?

Don't you think it is pointless and useless to have a system going, where some players know the rules of the game, some don't, while some know it is a game and some don't even know it is a game !! What great goal is achieved in playing such a game ???? To cap it, you also declare that it is not possible to know it by any amount of thinking or mental gymnastics or by anyone else !!!! What a hopeless situation

II.

1. How are you defining life? What makes you assume there is a purpose.

2. Why must there be a purpose for man or humanity? Perhaps your purpose is whatever you are doing right now no matter what it is.

3. When you say individual are you saying each identity? In any case if you say you matter then you do. If you say you don't then you don't.

4. Within the context of society what is often good for one person is not for another and there are billions of degrees of good and bad. If you are talking about good and bad within the context of humanity then actions and decisions could be measured by how constructive or how destructive a particular action or decision happens to be relative to all involved.

5. Again, what God do you speak of? What concept of God are you attached to and what does that mean to you.

There's nothing hopeless if you have a sense of play. In other words it's one thing to be in a game knowing it is a game and knowing the rules and it's quite another to be in a game and have no idea it is a game. Why does there have to be a great goal? What's great and what's not so great? These are concepts and they mean different things to different people.

Nobody knows what the real nature of THE WHOLE TRUTH is, to be declared it as unpopular.

III. When you say, "nobody knows what the real nature of the whole truth is" you are in effect saying you found out that nobody can know so you know.

Duality and the universe are inseparable I agree. However, why do you assume there is only one universe only one kind of universe?

Nothing ever vanishes. It does so, only when YOU SLEEP or when YOU DIE or maybe when you GO MAD or DEPRESSED. Duality exists as long as the Univerese exists. It was born with the Universe and dies with the Universe. Duality is an inseparable part of the Universe.

As long as positive charged Protons and negative charged Electrons exist, so long does Duality exists No need to hype so much about it and seek/long for a Non-Dual universe.

IV. What's a positive charged proton or negative charged electron? These are concepts and labels. What do you mean by exists?

Actually it is not lie, but they are Ephemeral or Transient. Just because events and experiences don't exist for long, it doesn't mean it is a lie. On the same lines one can then argue and show that "the present moment" is also a lie. But it is not !

V. Wonder if the so-called events and experiences you speak of never existed at all? Perhaps what you think, see and feel is not as it appears and perhaps your interpretation of events and experiences are totally unique unto you and the story apparently begins the moment you say I, me, mine.

Well, now you are contradicting yourself. Having declared that a vast majority of the humanity have no sense that it is a game and no idea what the rules are, how can these "vast majority" stay in the game and play ???

VI. The vast majority can can stay in the game and play because they can be manipulated by others within the context of the game. Consider that not knowing it is a game is but another way to play the game.

To what end should we play the game, especailly, when the goals are not realizable in any one individual's life time.

VI. What goals are you speaking of in terms of being realizable? The playing is the goal and thus it is realized by playing alone.

Why would Truth get altered if we discuss it, dissect it and probe it ??? Can you give an example. On the oher hand it just gets more interesting and complicated as we probe Truths deeper and deeper

If I am the Truth then going by your earlier argument I am also a Lie, because as you have declared "all that persists is essentially a lie at various harmonics"

There are Truths beyond what one is seeking. Truth doesn't cease to exist if one turns a blind eye on them. Truth is not a function of Seeker. IT JUST EXISTS whether there are seekers are not.

VII. Who said truth actually gets altered? Why are you a lie when you are not your name, body, mind, race, nationality, identity? Regarding your comment about truths being beyond what one is seeking. Where are the boundaries to truth? Are you saying truth is limited and fragmented? Who's seeking truth? Is that the way you see and interpret others or is that truth? Does truth need to seek truth, merge with truth, arise to truth or enter another realm? If so what other realm? Truth is NOW. Time is that point when NOW is absent. When does this fictional happening occur?

Take it easy it's not all that serious, unless of course you say it is. Which perspective offers peace right now?

Rest now. ph?

Bye for now. Rest later...

S.Sharath Chandra

sharath_chandra@fastmail.fm

April 2, 2006

When you say I speak like God what concept of God are you speaking of? Are you attached to or do you have a predefined idea of what the word God means to you?

AH...AHA.. You are now playing with words instead of dwelling on ideas and understanding of concepts.Remember you said,

" I can tell you that the answers you seek will not come from another. They will not come through thinking and figuring or any other form of mental gymnastics."

To me it appeared like the 11 th Commandment of God Hence, I invoked God.

Who says Buddha was the first original thinker?

Simply because we don't quote much from anything or anyone earlier than Buddha.And his way of "seeing and understanding things" are still valid today.Check my next post.

Everything the Buddha said and did was reinterpreted and no doubt reduced down to a concept. The Buddha's primary message was one of no "self" and yet people went out and made billions of statues representing the Buddha and there are few practicing Buddhist today who actually feel that attaining the state of enlightenment that others interpreted that the Buddha did is possible for them

Let me play your word game What is the definition of SELF and what does ENLIGHTENMENT means to you? Are you attached to or you have a predeterminded idea of what Enlightenment means to you ?When you say Enlightenment, which concept of Enlightenment you are speaking of ?

1. How are you defining life? What makes you assume there is a purpose.

2. Why must there be a purpose for man or humanity? Perhaps your purpose is whatever you are doing right now no matter what it is.

3. When you say individual are you saying each identity? In any case if you say you matter then you do. If you say you don't then you don't.

4. Within the context of society what is often good for one person is not for another and there are billions of degrees of good and bad. If you are talking about good and bad within the context of humanity then actions and decisions could be measured by how constructive or how destructive a particular action or decision happens to be relative to all involved.

5. Again, what God do you speak of? What concept of God are you attached to and what does that mean to you.

Another play of words, going off tangentially from the topic of discussion, evasive tactics

Let's get back to the corresponding original posting where you remarked, rather proclaimed:

"The apparent experience of life is a game. There are those who design the games and make the rules but don't have to live by them. There are those who know it's a game and know the rules and play to the best of their ability. There are those who know it's a game but don't know the rules. There are those that are more or less pieces in the game and they have a sense that it's a game but have no grasp of the rules or the game itself. And lastly there are those who are the broken pieces who have no sense that it's a game and no idea what the rules are. This would be the vast majority of humanity."

1. How are you defining "the game" ? Explain clearly what are "the rules" of the game? How many rules are there, one or many ? What happens if the rules are broken, knowingly and/or unknowingly? What makes you assume "the apparent experience" of life is a game?What is "apparent experience"? If there is an "apparent experience" then there must also be a "real experience". What is "real experience" then?

2. Who are those who design these games ? Are they related you ? On whose authority did they design the games and frame the rules ?

3. Why do "those" who design the games and make the rules don't have to live by them ?What makes them so extraordinary or exceptional so they don't have to live by them?

4. Why some know it's a game, some don't? Why some know the rules, some don't ? Why didn't "they" who designed the games and framed the rules ensure that everyone was made aware of the games and the rules, before the game began, assuming it is already begun ?

5. You also said that "The game is not about the wins and loses but it's all about staying in the game and it's primarily about playing" Playing what ? With whom ? For what purpose ? Why should I play a game designed by someone, without my consent ?

6. Who declared unto you that the vast majority of the humanity have no sense it's a game

and no idea what the rules are ? Are you in effect saying that you know everything ?

7. You say, "In any case if you say you matter then you do. If you say you don't then you don't." Then why should one stay in the game and play, if all that ultimately matters is what I say or I don't say?

There's nothing hopeless if you have a sense of play. In other words it's one thing to be in a game knowing it is a game and knowing the rules and it's quite another to be in a game and have no idea it is a game. Why does there have to be a great goal? What's great and what's not so great? These are concepts and they mean different things to different people

When the vast majority doesn't even know it is a game and are not even aware of the rules where does "sense of play" come ?

I thought a game must have a goal. Usually the games we play, if you have played one you would have appreciated the fact, end with some goal or victory. So you mean to say there is no goal or point in "your game", no rewards nothing ? Where does this game lead to in the end, assuming there is an end? Or is it played generations after generations without any end or goal ?

If a simple word like "great" can mean different things to different people how would you expect all humanity to play one game with "a sense of play" , with no goals, no well defined rules, designed by "those" ?

(Incidentally, my usage of the word "great" was just to distinguish from the goals of the mudane games we usually play around in the fields.By the way have you ever played any games?)

When you say, "nobody knows what the real nature of the whole truth is" you are in effect saying you found out that nobody can know so you know.Duality and the universe are inseparable I agree. However, why do you assume there is only one universe only one kind of universe?

What a wonderful deduction

It was actually a remark to counter your wonderful first hand observation,

"Truth is rather unpopular in this universe we know as the physical universe being...."

You are speaking as if you have mastered all there is to know, to declare to the world that

"Truth is unpopular in this universe"

Having then travelled the nook and the corner of this universe to declare about the unpopularity of the Truth, by the way, how many parallel universes have you visited so far ? :innocent: especially the ones where there was no duality. How could you manage to come back from such a dulity-less world to this world ?

IV. What's a positive charged proton or negative charged electron? These are concepts and labels. What do you mean by exists?

Yes, exactly like the concepts and labels which distinguish between "pheight" and "S.SHARATH CHANDRA".

Tell me "to what", you ascribe "concepts" and "labels" and I will then tell you what "exists" means.

V. Wonder if the so-called events and experiences you speak of never existed at all? Perhaps what you think, see and feel is not as it appears and perhaps your interpretation of events and experiences are totally unique unto you and the story apparently begins the moment you say I, me, mine.

Perhaps everything existed always.Perhaps what you say all above is wrong. Perhaps the opposite of what you say above is right.

VI. The vast majority can can stay in the game and play because they can be manipulated by others within the context of the game. Consider that not knowing it is a game is but another way to play the game.

Oh, now we also have manipulators in "the game"! This game is getting more and more interesting.

Not knowing to play the game is yet another way to play the game !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Terrific. Man I am stumped.From which dimension of which parallel universe did you get these ideas.Can I borrow your time machine for a minute or you do astral travel. :wacko:

VII. Who said truth actually gets altered?

We can't really even discuss truth without altering truth and thus we're no longer discussing truth.

:innocent:

Why are you a lie when you are not your name, body, mind, race, nationality, identity?

The next time when somebody asks my Identity card, I tell them that all it contains is a big lie:)

Regarding your comment about truths being beyond what one is seeking. Where are the boundaries to truth? Are you saying truth is limited and fragmented? Who's seeking truth? Is that the way you see and interpret others or is that truth? Does truth need to seek truth, merge with truth, arise to truth or enter another realm? If so what other realm? Truth is NOW. Time is that point when NOW is absent. When does this fictional happening occur?

WHAT IS TRUTH ? DEFINE NOW ? WHAT'S ABSENT MEAN? ABSENT FROM WHERE? WHAT DOES "NOW IS ABSENT" MEAN? "NOW IS ABSENT" to WHOM ? CAN "NOW BE ABSENT" TO ALL AT THE SAME TIME? IF NOT WHY ? WHAT IF "NOW IS ABSENT" TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES? THEN, WILL THERE CORRESPONDING TRUTHS ALSO BE DIFFERENT?IF THERE CAN BE AN ABSENCE, THERE MUST ALREADY BE A PRESENCE, SO WHAT DOES "NOW IS PRESENT" MEAN?LIKEWISE, WHAT IS FICTIONAL HAPPENING MEAN?

Take it easy it's not all that serious, unless of course you say it is. Which perspective offers peace right now?

Rest now. ph?

Well do YOU consider all this was serious ?

Rest now ...... The game has hardly begun :tu:

S.Sharath Chandra

April 3, 2006

AH...AHA.. You are now playing with words instead of dwelling on ideas and understanding of concepts.Remember you said,

To me it appeared like the 11 th Commandment of God Hence, I invoked God.

Simply because we don't quote much from anything or anyone earlier than Buddha.And his way of "seeing and understanding things" are still valid today.Check my next post.

Let me play your word game What is the definition of SELF and what does ENLIGHTENMENT means to you? Are you attached to or you have a predeterminded idea of what Enlightenment means to you ?When you say Enlightenment, which concept of Enlightenment you are speaking of ?

Another play of words, going off tangentially from the topic of discussion, evasive tactics

Let's get back to the corresponding original posting where you remarked, rather proclaimed:

"The apparent experience of life is a game. There are those who design the games and make the rules but don't have to live by them. There are those who know it's a game and know the rules and play to the best of their ability. There are those who know it's a game but don't know the rules. There are those that are more or less pieces in the game and they have a sense that it's a game but have no grasp of the rules or the game itself. And lastly there are those who are the broken pieces who have no sense that it's a game and no idea what the rules are. This would be the vast majority of humanity."

1. How are you defining "the game" ? Explain clearly what are "the rules" of the game? How many rules are there, one or many ? What happens if the rules are broken, knowingly and/or unknowingly? What makes you assume "the apparent experience" of life is a game?What is "apparent experience"? If there is an "apparent experience" then there must also be a "real experience". What is "real experience" then?

2. Who are those who design these games ? Are they related you ? On whose authority did they design the games and frame the rules ?

3. Why do "those" who design the games and make the rules don't have to live by them ?What makes them so extraordinary or exceptional so they don't have to live by them?

4. Why some know it's a game, some don't? Why some know the rules, some don't ? Why didn't "they" who designed the games and framed the rules ensure that everyone was made aware of the games and the rules, before the game began, assuming it is already begun ?

5. You also said that "The game is not about the wins and loses but it's all about staying in the game and it's primarily about playing" Playing what ? With whom ? For what purpose ? Why should I play a game designed by someone, without my consent ?

6. Who declared unto you that the vast majority of the humanity have no sense it's a game

and no idea what the rules are ? Are you in effect saying that you know everything ?

7. You say, "In any case if you say you matter then you do. If you say you don't then you don't." Then why should one stay in the game and play, if all that ultimately matters is what I say or I don't say?

When the vast majority doesn't even know it is a game and are not even aware of the rules where does "sense of play" come ?

I thought a game must have a goal. Usually the games we play, if you have played one you would have appreciated the fact, end with some goal or victory. So you mean to say there is no goal or point in "your game", no rewards nothing ? Where does this game lead to in the end, assuming there is an end? Or is it played generations after generations without any end or goal ?

If a simple word like "great" can mean different things to different people how would you expect all humanity to play one game with "a sense of play" , with no goals, no well defined rules, designed by "those" ?

(Incidentally, my usage of the word "great" was just to distinguish from the goals of the mudane games we usually play around in the fields.By the way have you ever played any games?)

What a wonderful deduction

It was actually a remark to counter your wonderful first hand observation,

"Truth is rather unpopular in this universe we know as the physical universe being...."

You are speaking as if you have mastered all there is to know, to declare to the world that

"Truth is unpopular in this universe"

Having then travelled the nook and the corner of this universe to declare about the unpopularity of the Truth, by the way, how many parallel universes have you visited so far ? especially the ones where there was no duality. How could you manage to come back from such a dulity-less world to this world ?

Yes, exactly like the concepts and labels which distinguish between "pheight" and "S.SHARATH CHANDRA".

Tell me "to what", you ascribe "concepts" and "labels" and I will then tell you what "exists" means.

Perhaps everything existed always.Perhaps what you say all above is wrong. Perhaps the opposite of what you say above is right.

Oh, now we also have manipulators in "the game"! This game is getting more and more interesting.

Not knowing to play the game is yet another way to play the game !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Terrific. Man I am stumped.From which dimension of which parallel universe did you get these ideas.Can I borrow your time machine for a minute or you do astral travel.

The next time when somebody asks my Identity card, I tell them that all it contains is a big lie:)

WHAT IS TRUTH ? DEFINE NOW ? WHAT'S ABSENT MEAN? ABSENT FROM WHERE? WHAT DOES "NOW IS ABSENT" MEAN? "NOW IS ABSENT" to WHOM ? CAN "NOW BE ABSENT" TO ALL AT THE SAME TIME? IF NOT WHY ? WHAT IF "NOW IS ABSENT" TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES? THEN, WILL THERE CORRESPONDING TRUTHS ALSO BE DIFFERENT?IF THERE CAN BE AN ABSENCE, THERE MUST ALREADY BE A PRESENCE, SO WHAT DOES "NOW IS PRESENT" MEAN?LIKEWISE, WHAT IS FICTIONAL HAPPENING MEAN?

Well do YOU consider all this was serious ?

Rest now ...... The game has hardly begun

S.Sharath Chandra

No one ever said that the position from where I view from would conform to yours but that's okay. I'm not interested in making this a personalized debate. In terms of communication we use words in order to convey a message and very often that message gets lost in translation or misinterpreted.

In regards to a game it's quite easy to look at the process of living and put it into the framework of a game. Of course a person (including myself) can't comprehend what they have not yet realized but in terms of games and the way we have defined and agreed upon the word we can see games everywhere. Games are composed of goals, purposes and barriers. Who is the authority? For you that would be you. Perhaps you're not playing a game without your consent. Perhaps you consented. In terms of winning and losing that's easy. If you win any game in order to continue playing you must create another game or join an existing one.

I'm not saying I know everything and have never made that statement. Why do you want to make it personal? Would you rather be right or would you rather be free? From a personal perspective I'd say I don't know anything in an absolute sense.

Regarding why should one stay in the game and play, if all that matters is what one says or doesn't say. What you consider determines the game and your experience of the game. I'm not saying you have to play. Don't play, that's your business. There are potentially billions of games within larger games with more expansive purposes. A goal could be to forget that you're in a game. A purpose could be to play well, have fun and integrity. The point is if you know everything there is no game. If you know what's it's going to be like when you get there it's not nearly as much fun to go, as you already possess what you were seeking to find when you get there. Just an example but it's essential to any game to not know everything. If you play chess with someone and you already know every move they're going to make it's hardly worth it and not nearly as interesting.

From the vantage point of the mind within the context of this physical realm your beliefs end up determining your reality and your experience of reality. For example, many people have discussed their fear of death with me, upon further inquiry they reveal a story about death they have attached to and how they think about death. They believe in this story and this thinking pattern. They always come to realize that they are more afraid of their story about death then death itself.

If it's more important for you to be right then I'm quite okay with that. You are only responding to what I've said based upon what you interpret it to mean to you and whatever meaning you impose into what I've said. So you are essentially having a discussion with yourself. Everything you're reading is going through a filter and that filter is you. I have no problem with anything you've said in any of you're post and if I were to get personal for a moment I would say that I'm completely open to the potential that someone else has seen clearly what I have yet to see for myself.

I consider nothing serious, but that's me. I find this perspective to be helpful because if it was serious it might prompt resistance and if I can't approach something because I take it to be serious then I can't hope to understand it. The way you interpret all that I have written, what it means to you and how you response to it isn't up to me but you. I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm simply a concept to you and that concept is not based upon who or what I am but it is based upon your concept of who you think or believe I am, it is based upon your unique perspective.

I'm speaking for me and not for you. I never suggested you should believe anything I've written here. In fact I would suggest you don't. I would suggest you go take a look for yourself and I trust you're doing that but ultimately that's your business and my suggestions could be meaningless to you and that's perfectly fine.

Can anyone be sure that someone else doesn't know what they're seeking to know? The person who says no one knows is in effect saying they know. I accept and love reality and understanding the nature of reality has been essential to that perspective. Is that the right perspective or should it be yours? I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying I am joyful because I see everything that happens as happening for me and not to me. I simply notice that I suffer less and live with a sense of freedom from judging and evaluating what I think about reality. That's me and that's my perspective. There's no right or wrong to it. I accept that I'm totally responsible for what I see, think and feel and I sense myself beyond words and labels and therefore I sense beyond what I see, think and feel. But to be honest, it's more than a sense for me, it's my acutality. I don't try to grasp it or understand it mentally. I observe the thinker that is pretending to be me and through doing so I find I take my thinking a lot less seriously. This is my perspective.

It just works for me and never would I say this is the way it is for you or anyone else.

Good luck!

April 3, 2006

As promised let me first venerate Buddha as to why Buddha is the first original thinker of mankind before I answer your diatribe.

The Kalama people lived in Kesaputtanigama, India, a village, during the time of Buddha, a place through which many religious teachers passed. Each of these teachers taught that his personal doctrine was the only truth, and that all others before and after him were wrong. The Kalamas could not decide which doctrine they should accept and follow. The Buddha once came to their village and the Kalamas brought up this problem with him: that they did not know which teacher to believe. So the Buddha taught them what is now known as the Kalama Sutta.

The Buddha taught them, and us, not to accept or believe anything immediately. He gave ten basic conditions to beware of in order to avoid becoming the intellectual slave of anyone, even of the Buddha himself. This principle enables us to know how to choose the teachings which are truly capable of quenching suffering (dukkha). The ten examples which the Buddha gave in the Kalama Sutta follow.

1. Ma anussavena : do not accept and believe just because something has been passed along and retold through the years. Such credulity is a characteristic of brainless people, or "sawdust brains"

2. Ma paramparaya : do not believe just because some practice has become traditional.

3. Ma itikiraya : do not accept and believe merely because of the reports and news spreading far and wide.

4. Ma pitakasampadanena : do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a pitaka. The word "pitaka, " which is used for the Buddhist scriptures, means anything written or inscribed upon any suitable writing material. Memorized teachings which are passed on orally should not be confused with pitaka. Pitakas are a certain kind of conditioned thing which are under humanity's control. They can be created, improved, and changed by human hands. So we cannot trust every letter and word in them. We need to use our powers of discrimination to see how those words can be applied to the quenching of suffering.

5. Ma takkahetu : do not believe just because something fits with the reasoning of logic (takka). This is merely one branch of study used to try to figure out the truth. Takka, what we call "logics," can go wrong if its data or its methods are incorrect.

6. Ma nayahetu : do not believe just because something is correct on the grounds of naya (deductive and inductive reasoning) alone. These days, naya is called "philosophy."

7. Ma akaraparivitakkena : do not believe or accept just because something appeals to one's common sense, which is merely snap judgements based on one's tendencies of thought. We like using this approach so much that it becomes habitual. Boastful philosophers like to use this method a great deal and consider it to be clever.

8. Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya : do not believe just because something stands up to or agrees with one's preconceived opinions and theories. Personal views can be wrong. or our methods of experiment and verification might be incorrect, and then will not lead to the truth.

9. Ma bhabbarupataya : do not believe just because the speaker appears believable. Outside appearances and the actual knowledge inside a person can never be identical.

10. Ma samano no garu ti : do not believe just because the samana or preacher, the speaker, is "our teacher." The Buddha's purpose regarding this important point is that no one should be the intellectual slave of someone else, not even of the Buddha himself. The Buddha emphasized this point often, and there were disciples, such as the venerable Sariputta, who confirmed this practice. They did not believe the Buddha's words immediately upon hearing them, but believed only after adequately considering the advice and putting it to the test of practice. See for yourselves whether there is any other religious teacher in the world who has given this highest freedom to his disciples and audiences! Thus in Buddhism there is no dogmatic system, there is no pressure to believe without the right to examine and decide for oneself. This is the greatest special quality of Buddhism which keeps its practitioners from being the intellectual slaves of anyone, as explained above.

Remember Buddha, The Light of Asia, said it 2500 years ago, which is valid till today

S.Sharath Chandra

April 5, 2006

As promised let me first venerate Buddha as to why Buddha is the first original thinker of mankind before I answer your diatribe.

The Kalama people lived in Kesaputtanigama, India, a village, during the time of Buddha, a place through which many religious teachers passed. Each of these teachers taught that his personal doctrine was the only truth, and that all others before and after him were wrong. The Kalamas could not decide which doctrine they should accept and follow. The Buddha once came to their village and the Kalamas brought up this problem with him: that they did not know which teacher to believe. So the Buddha taught them what is now known as the Kalama Sutta.

The Buddha taught them, and us, not to accept or believe anything immediately. He gave ten basic conditions to beware of in order to avoid becoming the intellectual slave of anyone, even of the Buddha himself. This principle enables us to know how to choose the teachings which are truly capable of quenching suffering (dukkha). The ten examples which the Buddha gave in the Kalama Sutta follow.

1. Ma anussavena : do not accept and believe just because something has been passed along and retold through the years. Such credulity is a characteristic of brainless people, or "sawdust brains"

2. Ma paramparaya : do not believe just because some practice has become traditional.

3. Ma itikiraya : do not accept and believe merely because of the reports and news spreading far and wide.

4. Ma pitakasampadanena : do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a pitaka. The word "pitaka, " which is used for the Buddhist scriptures, means anything written or inscribed upon any suitable writing material. Memorized teachings which are passed on orally should not be confused with pitaka. Pitakas are a certain kind of conditioned thing which are under humanity's control. They can be created, improved, and changed by human hands. So we cannot trust every letter and word in them. We need to use our powers of discrimination to see how those words can be applied to the quenching of suffering.

5. Ma takkahetu : do not believe just because something fits with the reasoning of logic (takka). This is merely one branch of study used to try to figure out the truth. Takka, what we call "logics," can go wrong if its data or its methods are incorrect.

6. Ma nayahetu : do not believe just because something is correct on the grounds of naya (deductive and inductive reasoning) alone. These days, naya is called "philosophy."

7. Ma akaraparivitakkena : do not believe or accept just because something appeals to one's common sense, which is merely snap judgements based on one's tendencies of thought. We like using this approach so much that it becomes habitual. Boastful philosophers like to use this method a great deal and consider it to be clever.

8. Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya : do not believe just because something stands up to or agrees with one's preconceived opinions and theories. Personal views can be wrong. or our methods of experiment and verification might be incorrect, and then will not lead to the truth.

9. Ma bhabbarupataya : do not believe just because the speaker appears believable. Outside appearances and the actual knowledge inside a person can never be identical.

10. Ma samano no garu ti : do not believe just because the samana or preacher, the speaker, is "our teacher." The Buddha's purpose regarding this important point is that no one should be the intellectual slave of someone else, not even of the Buddha himself. The Buddha emphasized this point often, and there were disciples, such as the venerable Sariputta, who confirmed this practice. They did not believe the Buddha's words immediately upon hearing them, but believed only after adequately considering the advice and putting it to the test of practice. See for yourselves whether there is any other religious teacher in the world who has given this highest freedom to his disciples and audiences! Thus in Buddhism there is no dogmatic system, there is no pressure to believe without the right to examine and decide for oneself. This is the greatest special quality of Buddhism which keeps its practitioners from being the intellectual slaves of anyone, as explained above.

Remember Buddha, The Light of Asia, said it 2500 years ago, which is valid till today

S.Sharath Chandra

If you feel my post was a diatribe that is totally within the framework and scope of your own interpretation, thinking and belief. Read it again and you'll find it to be quite civil as I never suggested to believe or blindly accept anything I've ever posted.

The oldest known written history of workable knowledge on this planet dates back to prehistoric times. This was contained in the Vedic hymns. The next great philosophic advance within our written history was accomplished by Gautamna Sakyamuni and this work was part of a religion known as the Dharma. The Dharma, existing for some time before the advent of Gautama is a religion preached by individuals known as Buddhas. A Buddha is simply one who has attained Bodhi. A Bodhi is one who has attained an ideal state of intellectual and ethical perfection by purely physical means. There have been many Buddhas and there are expected to be many more.

In the Western World, if you walk up to a person casually and you say, "Buddha," they'll say, "an idol", which was the furthest thing from Buddha's thoughts - to be an idol. He would have laughed and probably did laugh when he came back and took a look around and saw everybody building temples, burning joss to Buddha. Most if not all religions owe the Buddha a debt of gratitude. The Buddha taught that there is a way to escape the viscous cycle of birth and death and the inevitable suffering that comes with attachments and desires.

The religion of Buddhism, carried by its teachers, brought civilization into the existing barbarisms of India, China, Japan and the Near East - or about two thirds of Earth's population. A great contribution indeed but the original Vedic peoples should never be discounted for the hymns are said to have been passed down for thousands of years prior to the appearance of Gautamna Buddha on the scene. There's so much more beyond escaping the vicious cycle of birth and death and in the Buddha's own words, "strenuousness is the path of immortality, sloth the path of death. Those who are strenuous do not die; those who are slothful are as if dead already."

The road to certainty is a wonderful thing. The fundamental aspect common to most Eastern practices would be the goal of abandonment, desertion. It is through resistance, non-acceptance and the unwillingness to experience what IS that one empowers and solidifies the apparency of what IS. Attempting to escape the apparent cycle of birth and death by eliminating desires and attachment is limiting at best. This is my perspective and I make no suggestion that you adopt what I see.

The way out is the way through. That which one cannot accept chains one. A ruler's motto could be "make them resist", and his people would become enslaved. Metaphorically speaking resistance and restraint are the barbed-wire of this concentration camp. Accept the barbed-wire and there is no camp.

I don't rely on belief, hope or faith and to be clear I don't suggest you believe anything within what I have posted here.

? pheight

ALBERT EINSTEIN:

Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.

April 5, 2006

Like Isaac Asimov's laws of robots, Buddhas tests of Truth should be standardized for Unilateral declarations people make on Truths

No one ever said that the position from where I view from would conform to yours but that's okay.

If we both think exactly alike, then one of us is unnecessary

Now isn't that exactly what Truth is all about. Are we (you,me and everybody included) bounded by any common Truths? Or not ? If yes, what are they?

In regards to a game it's quite easy to look at the process of living and put it into the framework of a game. Of course a person (including myself) can't comprehend what they have not yet realized but in terms of games and the way we have defined and agreed upon the word we can see games everywhere. Games are composed of goals, purposes and barriers. Who is the authority? For you that would be you. Perhaps you're not playing a game without your consent. Perhaps you consented. In terms of winning and losing that's easy. If you win any game in order to continue playing you must create another game or join an existing one.

The book "Games People Play" by Eric Berne would better explain, what you are confusing at. Well, I am not talking of those games. The bigger question I am pondering is, "Is this whole life a Game (Like in the MATRIX movie) ?" Game bigger than what we have devised ? If yes, who are the designers ? Or was it by accident ? Similar to the question whether Life came on earth by Creation or Evolution. What exactly are the rules of this life game? Like the rules that govern the material world (Newton's Law, Boyles Law,Faraday's Law etc.) are there any rules which govern all of us ? If yes, what are they?

Rest of what you say is pure hogwash :sleepy: There are some who know rules, some don't, some know it's a game, some don't, wins and losses don't matter, play/don't play that's your business but the only thing that matters is playing! , sense of play is all that is .....blah blah blah....

Regarding why should one stay in the game and play, if all that matters is what one says or doesn't say. What you consider determines the game and your experience of the game. I'm not saying you have to play. Don't play, that's your business. There are potentially billions of games within larger games with more expansive purposes.

Expansive Purposes !! What a loose phrase. The only thing that can be said with utter confidence is that the Universe is expanding. Where did this "Purpose" come from ? Is it then not the same as the goal I mentioned earlier? Is this "Expansive Purpose", is according to what YOU CONSIDER or what I CAN CONSIDER or what TOM,DICK AND HARRY CAN CONSIDER?

A goal could be to forget that you're in a game. A purpose could be to play well, have fun and integrity. The point is if you know everything there is no game. If you know what's it's going to be like when you get there it's not nearly as much fun to go, as you already possess what you were seeking to find when you get there. Just an example but it's essential to any game to not know everything. If you play chess with someone and you already know every move they're going to make it's hardly worth it and not nearly as interesting.

Knowing the game AND knowing the rules IS NOT the same as knowing the results !! :no:

You sure are an expert in twisting issues out of context. What does your statement,

"If you know what's it's going to be like when you get there it's not nearly as much fun to go, as you already possess what you were seeking to find when you get there"

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Knowing that Check mating the King ends the game doesn't in any way lessen the pleasures of the game :innocent:

From the vantage point of the mind within the context of this physical realm your beliefs end up determining your reality and your experience of reality. For example, many people have discussed their fear of death with me, upon further inquiry they reveal a story about death they have attached to and how they think about death. They believe in this story and this thinking pattern. They always come to realize that they are more afraid of their story about death then death itself.

First you talk of the "experience of reality" and then you give the example of death. Death is not an event that you can live to experience.You can go to the brink of death and come back, but still you are not dead. So whatever you describe of death, can be known only AFTER you die, provided you survive it, after leaving the body Death is but like any of the many fears people harbor for varying reasons.

True, belief system plays an important role only so for as the psychological build up of an individual is considered. But it ends there. If a man were to believe that he is immune to fire and keeps his hands inside a burning flame or he believes that no poison can affect him and drinks Cyanide or believes that dogs are divine and gets bitten by a Rabid one... then the "experience of reality" dawns on him. :mellow:

If it's more important for you to be right then I'm quite okay with that. You are only responding to what I've said based upon what you interpret it to mean to you and whatever meaning you impose into what I've said. So you are essentially having a discussion with yourself. Everything you're reading is going through a filter and that filter is you. I have no problem with anything you've said in any of you're post and if I were to get personal for a moment I would say that I'm completely open to the potential that someone else has seen clearly what I have yet to see for myself.

I am not trying to find out who is right and who is wrong, but rather WHAT is right and WHAT is not, if there happen to exist such things called right and wrong.

Can anyone be sure that someone else doesn't know what they're seeking to know? The person who says no one knows is in effect saying they know.

This was the most funniest and hilarious conclusion drawn. The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) has named seven classical Problems where $1 million would be awarded to each problem solved by anyone. Going by your conclusion the Clay Mathematics Institute already knows the answers and they just want to give away $7 million, as it was pinching their pockets.

I declare that nobody knows what the real nature of the Truth is, simply because if known we wouldn't have had this website called, "http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com". If all Truth/s were known, then there is no such thing called Unexplained and certainly no more Mysteries. On the contrary check your own declaration,

" I can tell you that the answers you seek will not come from another. They will not come through thinking and figuring or any other form of mental gymnastics."

Now that means YOU are declaring YOU know EVERYTHING !!! This statement of yours was exactly what prompted me in the first place to respond to your posting.So I applied Buddha's testing to your unilateral declaration, to see what exactly you know.

Well Buddha's test passed :tu:

Good Bye and Good Luck to you too,

S.Sharath Chandra

April 6, 2006

If you feel my post was a diatribe that is totally within the framework and scope of your own interpretation, thinking and belief. Read it again and you'll find it to be quite civil as I never suggested to believe or blindly accept anything I've ever posted.

If I were to read it again I surely can find many many more insconsistancies, factual errors and most importantly absurd assumptions based on wishful thinkings. Also refrain from using cliches like, if you want you can accept or not accept/adopt or not adopt/ follow or not follow/believe or not believe of whatever you say. I am at liberty to choose what I want. It would help a lot for the cause of Truth if you restrict to answering my doubts rather than pondering on my choices. Here nobody is forcing anything down anybody's throat !

The next great philosophic advance within our written history was accomplished by Gautamna Sakyamuni and this work was part of a religion known as the Dharma. The Dharma, existing for some time before the advent of Gautama is a religion preached by individuals known as Buddhas.

Check the Wikipedia site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Gautama

He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha (literally Enlightened One or Awakened One) of our age. He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni or Sakyamuni ("sage of the Shakya clan") and as the Tathagata ("thus-come-one").

There didn't exist any individulas by name of Buddha/s before Gautama. Gautama Sakhyamuni or Buddha was the first Enlightened one. Nor was there any religion known as Dharma before Gautama Buddha :no: WHAT BUDDHA SAID WAS ALL HIS OWN.IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY RELIGION. So much for your accuracy and respect for facts !!

A great contribution indeed but the original Vedic peoples should never be discounted for the hymns are said to have been passed down for thousands of years prior to the appearance of Gautamna Buddha on the scene.

Let's apply Buddhas fourth test mentioned earlier,

Ma pitakasampadanena : do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a pitaka. The word "pitaka" which is used for the Buddhist scriptures. For our test, the scriptures would be Vedas. Only the Rig Veda is considered by scholars to be the oldest. We will restrict to that.

Now the test,

"CAN YOU QUOTE ONE SINGLE MEANINGFUL SENTENCE OR IDEA FROM THE RIG VEDA WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS OUR LIVES, SOMETHING AS PROFOUND LIKE THE BUDDHA'S TEACHINGS WHICH TOUCHES EVERYBODY'S LIVES FOR ALL TIMES? JUST ONE SENTENCE PLEASE, JUST ONE.

TO MAKE MATTERS SIMPLE FOR YOU QUOTE AT LEAST ANY FAINT REFERENCE TO CONCEPTS LIKE AHIMSA, KINDNESS, COMPASSION, LIBERATION,NIRVANA, CYCLES OF BIRTH/DEATH, DESIRES AND ATTACHMENTS ? "

Buddha who came thousands of year later than the rote parrot like memorization of hymns of the Rig Vedic people, gave a lasting contribution for as long as the humanity lasts.

That which one cannot accept chains one. A ruler's motto could be "make them resist", and his people would become enslaved. Metaphorically speaking resistance and restraint are the barbed-wire of this concentration camp. Accept the barbed-wire and there is no camp.

Well my attitude is, "Define your limitations then go beyond them"

I don't rely on belief, hope or faith and to be clear I don't suggest you believe anything within what I have posted here.

Don't fret. I am not going to follow you or believe you, even in my wildest dreams

ALBERT EINSTEIN:

Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."

S.Sharath Chandra

You don't exist, so don't worry about it

Recommended Posts

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

as_if

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Immortal Norway

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thoughtform

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heru

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bone_Collector

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heru

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

theGhost_and_theDarkness

Link to comment

Share on other sites

IndigoChild

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Astronema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Imaginary Friend

Link to comment

Share on other sites

twopits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pheight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

S Sharath Chandra

Link to comment