Ozay Rinpoche writes.......To have a 'Belief' is not a rational thing, one should "KNOW" God, or god, or be rational enough to say: One does NOT know.
OR= Ozay Rinpoche
Bill overcamp writes......OR: "To have a 'Belief' is not a rational thing, one should 'KNOW' God, or god, or be rational enough to say: One does NOT know."
In the Presanctified Liturgy of Gregory of Rome, there is a prayer referring to the rational worship of god. For it seems that if god wishes to be worshiped by rational beings then it would be most natural to expect them to offer rational worship. Indeed, what good would irrational worship be? Little good can come of it.
Unfortunately, men have little understanding of what reason is. I think Descartes confused many.
Going back to the Scholastic theologians, one conceived of the proof of god's existence as a tapestry of interwoven arguments, rather than a single thread of logical argument. Descartes, however, placed all his emphasis on forming such a single thread. Only in mathematics do men consider a single argument sufficient to prove a hypothesis. In the sciences, many different experiments answering on a single question may be considered, as well as theoretical, mathematical arguments.
Unfortunately, Descartes has been given too much weight in philosophy. Thus we frequently demand standards which would be laughed at by any scientist, forced to live up to them in his own work.
Belief that there is a First Cause is certainly rational. No one has brought forth a conclusive argument against it... the very thing atheists demand of those who believe. Atheists will produce their own tapestry of arguments and then complain when believers do the same.
Ozay Rinpoche writes.......There is a state of consciousness that goes beyond mind, it is here that god or what is labelled god can be identified by individuals separately within each self, as scientists we may call this zero point energy as everything stops even breath, but this can only be repeated within each person who pursues these deep levels of research of their own human psyche, I can vouch for this level as I have made my own research in deep levels of meditation.
John Tyrel wrote.......So Ozays what you saying is the more aware we become of existence the greater our realization of truth and "God".
Understanding through development.
Truth through evolution.
Questions formed, changed and answered in time.
Now what of evolution, what guides its course?
OR= Ozay Rinpoche
Bill overcamp writes......OR: "To have a 'Belief' is not a rational thing, one should 'KNOW' God, or god, or be rational enough to say: One does NOT know."
In the Presanctified Liturgy of Gregory of Rome, there is a prayer referring to the rational worship of god. For it seems that if god wishes to be worshiped by rational beings then it would be most natural to expect them to offer rational worship. Indeed, what good would irrational worship be? Little good can come of it.
Unfortunately, men have little understanding of what reason is. I think Descartes confused many.
Going back to the Scholastic theologians, one conceived of the proof of god's existence as a tapestry of interwoven arguments, rather than a single thread of logical argument. Descartes, however, placed all his emphasis on forming such a single thread. Only in mathematics do men consider a single argument sufficient to prove a hypothesis. In the sciences, many different experiments answering on a single question may be considered, as well as theoretical, mathematical arguments.
Unfortunately, Descartes has been given too much weight in philosophy. Thus we frequently demand standards which would be laughed at by any scientist, forced to live up to them in his own work.
Belief that there is a First Cause is certainly rational. No one has brought forth a conclusive argument against it... the very thing atheists demand of those who believe. Atheists will produce their own tapestry of arguments and then complain when believers do the same.
Ozay Rinpoche writes.......There is a state of consciousness that goes beyond mind, it is here that god or what is labelled god can be identified by individuals separately within each self, as scientists we may call this zero point energy as everything stops even breath, but this can only be repeated within each person who pursues these deep levels of research of their own human psyche, I can vouch for this level as I have made my own research in deep levels of meditation.
John Tyrel wrote.......So Ozays what you saying is the more aware we become of existence the greater our realization of truth and "God".
Understanding through development.
Truth through evolution.
Questions formed, changed and answered in time.
Now what of evolution, what guides its course?
TJ, it depends what you consider existence really means, realisation of truth is coming to see that everything is an illusion created by the sense perceptors, ,moving through this life teaches us that nothing is permanent, it teaches everyone in this way: First we desire, then we get, then we become attached to, but because the nature of existence is impermanent then it has to go or transform, our attachment wishes to keep the same as it is an unwillingness to let go, yet we cannot keep anything the same it moves on or moves away or changes, this holding on and then the taking away causes great suffering for all eventually, we can call this evolution as this teaches wisdom.
For us then evolution is through attachment, suffering then letting go each time this happens there is a new realisation, and then there is a final illumination and that is the peak of human realisation, the Buddhists would call it enlightenment when one recognises not only the nature of mind, but also the nature of life itself.
John Overcamp copied.......OR:(Ozay Rinpoche) "First we desire, then we get, then we become attached to, but because the nature of existence is impermanent then it has to go or transform, our attachment wishes to keep the same as it is an unwillingness to let go, yet we cannot keep anything the same it moves on or moves away or changes, this holding on and then the taking away causes great suffering for all eventually, we can call this evolution as this teaches wisdom."
John Overcamp.......Kind of like the woman in your profile picture, holding on to you?
John Overcamp copied.......OR: (Ozay wrote)..."everything is an illusion created by the sense perceptors.
John Overcamp wrote......."It would seem that the natural function of those sense organs is to inform the animal of things in its environment the knowledge of which is useful or even necessary for the survival of the species. As such, the word, 'illusion' seems somewhat misplaced... The lion which stalks the antelope is very real and may destroy the latter. He is lucky if he sees the lion. The lion, on the other hand, would be lucky if the antelope sees only an illusion and not the real lion.
Ozay wrote.......
For us then evolution is through attachment, suffering then letting go each time this happens there is a new realisation, and then there is a final illumination and that is the peak of human realisation, the Buddhists would call it enlightenment when one recognises not only the nature of mind, but also the nature of life itself.
John Overcamp copied.......OR:(Ozay Rinpoche) "First we desire, then we get, then we become attached to, but because the nature of existence is impermanent then it has to go or transform, our attachment wishes to keep the same as it is an unwillingness to let go, yet we cannot keep anything the same it moves on or moves away or changes, this holding on and then the taking away causes great suffering for all eventually, we can call this evolution as this teaches wisdom."
John Overcamp.......Kind of like the woman in your profile picture, holding on to you?
John Overcamp copied.......OR: (Ozay wrote)..."everything is an illusion created by the sense perceptors.
John Overcamp wrote......."It would seem that the natural function of those sense organs is to inform the animal of things in its environment the knowledge of which is useful or even necessary for the survival of the species. As such, the word, 'illusion' seems somewhat misplaced... The lion which stalks the antelope is very real and may destroy the latter. He is lucky if he sees the lion. The lion, on the other hand, would be lucky if the antelope sees only an illusion and not the real lion.
Ozay wrote.......
@Bill Overcamp
When she transforms(dies) or when I transform there will be suffering, that fact of attachment cannot be denied, yet if we are truly like scientists then we should condition ourselves to the truth, nothing has permanence, which means a new adage can be used, everything is an illusion a dream.
Bill Overcamp copied......OR: (Ozay Rinpoche wrote) "If some thing has permanence then that is real because it is unchangeable, is this correct? And if some thing is changeable it has no permanence and therefore cannot be real?"
Bill Overcamp writes.......In my humble opinion there is real being in each of the 'categories.' Being is, however, predicated by analogy. Thus the being of time is to the being of space as time is to space... and similarly for the other 'categories.'
Bill O wrote.......In my humble opinion there is real being in each of the 'categories.' Being is, however, predicated by analogy. Thus the being of time is to the being of space as time is to space... and similarly for the other 'categories.'
Ozay R writes.......Being? Being in the real and the unreal, then what do you consider "being" means?
How can time have being? Especially when one considers that time is really only motion??? And space is emptiness, are you saying that space and time have being of their own?
When she transforms(dies) or when I transform there will be suffering, that fact of attachment cannot be denied, yet if we are truly like scientists then we should condition ourselves to the truth, nothing has permanence, which means a new adage can be used, everything is an illusion a dream.
Bill Overcamp copied......OR: (Ozay Rinpoche wrote) "If some thing has permanence then that is real because it is unchangeable, is this correct? And if some thing is changeable it has no permanence and therefore cannot be real?"
Bill Overcamp writes.......In my humble opinion there is real being in each of the 'categories.' Being is, however, predicated by analogy. Thus the being of time is to the being of space as time is to space... and similarly for the other 'categories.'
Bill Overcamp copied.....OR: (Ozay Rinpoche writes) "When she transforms(dies) or when I transform there will be suffering, that fact of attachment cannot be denied, yet if we are truly like scientists then we should condition ourselves to the truth, nothing has permanence, which means a new adage can be used, everything is an illusion a dream."
Bill Overcamp wrote.....What I wonder when I see that picture is who is holding on to whom. Given your notion that all is illusion, I have to believe that it is really you who is holding on to her.
Bill Overcamp wrote.....What I wonder when I see that picture is who is holding on to whom. Given your notion that all is illusion, I have to believe that it is really you who is holding on to her.
Bill O...writes.....What I wonder when I see that picture is who is holding on to whom. Given your notion that all is illusion, I have to believe that it is really you who is holding on to her.
Ozay R writes.....We are both holding each other off the photo in this life also, that is correct, but the image does not portray the truth only the illusion that her and I wish to have each other permanently, but we are both impermanent and therefore we have to accept one day though we may reject the truth today that we are illusions impermanent, and that truth is greater than I alone or you.
Ozay R writes.....We are both holding each other off the photo in this life also, that is correct, but the image does not portray the truth only the illusion that her and I wish to have each other permanently, but we are both impermanent and therefore we have to accept one day though we may reject the truth today that we are illusions impermanent, and that truth is greater than I alone or you.
Bill O wrote.......In my humble opinion there is real being in each of the 'categories.' Being is, however, predicated by analogy. Thus the being of time is to the being of space as time is to space... and similarly for the other 'categories.'
Ozay R writes.......Being? Being in the real and the unreal, then what do you consider "being" means?
How can time have being? Especially when one considers that time is really only motion??? And space is emptiness, are you saying that space and time have being of their own?
Surely being is life force?
Nov 26, 2010 10:33 am
OR: "Surely being is life force?"
There may be some sense in which all material forms are alive, but no, the word being refers to all that is said to be. Thus it includes both living and non-living being.
There may be some sense in which all material forms are alive, but no, the word being refers to all that is said to be. Thus it includes both living and non-living being.
OR: "Surely being is life force?" There may be some sense in which all material forms are alive, but no, the word being refers to all that is said to be. Thus it includes both living and non-living being. |
Nov 26, 2010 11:03 am OR: "Being in the real and the unreal, then what do you consider "being" means?" The word 'being' is the present participle of the verb, 'to be.' As a noun, it refers to whatever is. OR: "How can time have being? Especially when one considers that time is really only motion?" Motion belongs to the category of action, not time. The category of time includes such things as 'today,' '12:00 AM,' 'Christmas,' etc. OR: " And space is emptiness, are you saying that space and time have being of their own?" The category of space includes such things as 'Chicago,' 'France,' 'the surface of the moon,' etc. How do such things exist, or be? If I say "Christmas is December 25th." or "France is in Europe," I use the word, 'is' which is a form of the verb, 'to be.' Thus I am asserting the being of those terms. It would hardly make sense to talk about those terms if they didn't in some sense exist. Now clearly some things exist primarily as substance and some exist secondarily as properties of substance. If I speak of a horse or an oak, I speak of being in the primary sense. If I speak of Christmas, or France I speak of being in the secondary sense. For example, if I say "Some Children enjoy Christmas" or "Some children live in France" the words 'Christmas' and 'France' are understood to be properties of some children. Being is understood by analogy. Thus, for example, the being of 'some children' is to the being of 'Christmas' as 'some children' is to 'Christmas.' |
Nov 26, 2010 11:09 am Bill Overcamp .......There may be some sense in which all material forms are alive, but no, the word being refers to all that is said to be. Thus it includes both living and non-living being. Ozay Rinpoche.......Are you saying that a stone has life? what is your definition of life and the living if you can call a stone life? In certain religious cultures "being" is also referred to as the inner spirit or life force, or that which possess life. |
Nov 26, 2010 11:09 am OR: "We are both holding each other off the photo in this life also, that is correct, but the image does not portray the truth only the illusion that her and I wish to have each other permanently, but we are both impermanent and therefore we have to accept one day though we may reject the truth today that we are illusions impermanent, and that truth is greater than I alone or you." I see nothing in the picture that implies permanency. You may be under such illusion, but the picture simply reproduces a moment in time. Thus any illusion is limited to yourself. |
Nov 26, 2010 11:38 am OR: "Are you saying that a stone has life? what is your definition of life and the living if you can call a stone life?" I do not imagine that a stone is alive. But there may be life in the stone. Life is generally taken in to mean growth, reproduction, sensitivity, motion and rationality. Some things are said to be living in one sense, some in another. The formulable essence of such a thing is said to be its soul. Thus one speaks of the soul of a frog or an oak. Quantum physics tells us that the elementary particles seem to be sensitive and to move in ways which suggest something more than deterministic laws can explain. Thus the word life may be applied to them. Thus, even though the stone is not alive, there may be elemental life within the microcosm hidden by it. OR: "In certain religious cultures "being" is also referred to as the inner spirit or life force, or that which possess life." I am simply using the word being in the way that English speakers use it. Had I intended some religious meaning, I suspect that i would have made that clear. |
Nov 26, 2010 11:53 am Bill Overcamp wrote......I see nothing in the picture that implies permanency. You may be under such illusion, but the picture simply reproduces a moment in time. Thus any illusion is limited to yourself. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......I think you have miss understood me for some reason. I have been saying all along that which is impermanent cannot be real, we are impermanent therefore it is an illusion. I am not sure how you managed to switch my meaning, but why you did it I find more interesting. |
Nov 26, 2010 12:06 pm Ozay Rinpoche wrote: "Are you saying that a stone has life? what is your definition of life and the living if you can call a stone life?" Bill Overcamp wrote.......I do not imagine that a stone is alive. But there may be life in the stone. Ozay Rinpoche writes........Most people would be very hard pressed to go there with you, tell me why you think there is life in the stone? Bill Overcamp wrote......Life is generally taken in to mean growth, reproduction, sensitivity, motion and rationality. Some things are said to be living in one sense, some in another. Ozay Rinpoche writes......As far as I know a stone does not grow but actually weathers away, I could understand what you mean if you said a tree lives in one sense and a man in another sense, but a stone? I fail so far to see your logic. Bill Overcamp wrote......The formulable essence of such a thing is said to be its soul. Thus one speaks of the soul of a frog or an oak. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......But the soul of a STONE? have you any researched proof of this? Bill Overcamp wrote......Quantum physics tells us that the elementary particles seem to be sensitive and to move in ways which suggest something more than deterministic laws can explain. Thus the word life may be applied to them. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Is this a theory? But it is interesting one. If it is true do you think this would explain why a so called psychic can perform psychometry with inanimate objects such as jewellery and be able to tell the life history of the person that once owned it? I have sat in these demonstration myself and seen this example repeated over and over several times. Thus, even though the stone is not alive, there may be elemental life within the microcosm hidden by it. OR: "In certain religious cultures "being" is also referred to as the inner spirit or life force, or that which possess life." I am simply using the word being in the way that English speakers use it. Had I intended some religious meaning, I suspect that i would have made that clear. |
Nov 26, 2010 2:06 pm OR: "I think you have miss understood me for some reason. I have been saying all along that which is impermanent cannot be real, we are impermanent therefore it is an illusion. I am not sure how you managed to switch my meaning, but why you did it I find more interesting." I don't know what you are getting at. I use the words 'real' and 'illusion' according to the typical English usage. I find it interesting that you wish to set yourself up as the sole judge of these matters. I suppose you have some obscure motive in doing so. |
Nov 26, 2010 2:31 pm OR: "Most people would be very hard pressed to go there with you, tell me why you think there is life in the stone?" Perhaps you know little about Quantum Mechanics. There are many ways of interpreting it, of course. Some of them leave open the question. OR: "As far as I know a stone does not grow but actually weathers away, I could understand what you mean if you said a tree lives in one sense and a man in another sense, but a stone? I fail so far to see your logic." Perhaps you didn't read all I wrote. A stone certainly is not alive. But there may be quantum life within it. There are many meanings to the word life. Growth is only one of the ones I mentioned. The two which seem to be reflected in quantum physics are sensitivity and movement. OR: "But the soul of a STONE? have you any researched proof of this?" Now you are getting ridiculous. I wrote of the soul of a frog or an oak, but said nothing of inanimate things like a stone. What I said is that there may be life in a stone. I never said that stones are alive. Philosophy isn't like being a psychic. When you are in a seance you may speak in loose terms to your customers, but in philosophy, one must speak in the strictest terms. To read philosophy, one must really read it, something you don't seem to be doing. OR: "Is this a theory? But it is interesting one. If it is true do you think this would explain why a so called psychic can perform psychometry with inanimate objects such as jewellery and be able to tell the life history of the person that once owned it? I have sat in these demonstration myself and seen this example repeated over and over several times." Magicians generally employ the simplest of tricks. I think Quantum effects are way above the typical illusionist. |
Nov 26, 2010 4:49 pm Bill Overcamp .......I don't know what you are getting at. I use the words 'real' and 'illusion' according to the typical English usage. I find it interesting that you wish to set yourself up as the sole judge of these matters. I suppose you have some obscure motive in doing so. Ozay Rinpoche.......You are your own witness, and you are speaking with me, another witness, I am just a mirror of what you have spoken, a judge is NOT a WITNESS, I am in this discussion with you, that make me WITNESS, I am speaking to you, we are WITNESS to each other, a judge has to decide from the evidence given by the WITNESSES, who is guilty or who is innocent so we do not need a judge, it is merely simple to see, nothing to prove, you have written I have read and seen. |
Nov 26, 2010 5:15 pm Bill Overcamp wrote.....Perhaps you didn't read all I wrote. A stone certainly is not alive. But there may be quantum life within it. Bill Overcamp wrote......Life is generally taken in to mean growth, reproduction, sensitivity, motion and rationality. Some things are said to be living in one sense, some in another. Ozay rinpoche writes........If there is life in such a thing as a stone, then in your understanding or how you understand quantum physics; there can be no such thing as death? For surely if a stone lives, so does the bone of a dead animal live, so though the animal is dead it is not, it is alive? Is this correct? |
Nov 26, 2010 5:20 pm "THE investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, we do not collectively fail, but every one says something true about the nature of things, and while individually we contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed. Therefore, since the truth seems to be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit, in this respect it must be easy, but the fact that we can have a whole truth and not the particular part we aim at shows the difficulty of it. "Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds, the cause of the present difficulty is not in the facts but in us. For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all. "It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought. It is true that if there had been no Timotheus we should have been without much of our lyric poetry; but if there had been no Phrynis there would have been no Timotheus. The same holds good of those who have expressed views about the truth; for from some thinkers we have inherited certain opinions, while the others have been responsible for the appearance of the former." ~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book II; Part 1 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.2.ii.html |
Nov 26, 2010 5:50 pm OR: "If there is life in such a thing as a stone, then in your understanding or how you understand quantum physics; there can be no such thing as death? For surely if a stone lives, so does the bone of a dead animal live, so though the animal is dead it is not, it is alive? Is this correct?" Once again, I did not say that a stone lives, only that there may be life in it. Now if as some believe, elementary particles are in some sense alive, I suppose one might speak of the death of such a particle when it is destroyed. So, for example, if an electron meets a positron, they may both be destroyed. Now, just as there may be life in a stone, so there may be life in the bones of a dead animal. That life would not, however, be the life of the animal, but merely the life of some minute parts of the animal. Consider for a moment a living animal, say a man. It is known that there are normally far more bacteria in his intestines than there are human cells in his body. What is the exact relationship between the life of the bacteria and the life of the man? It is a thorny question for a philosopher to consider. Certainly while the man is alive the bacteria do in some sense participate in what it is to be a man. But once the man is dead that participation ends. At first it makes little difference to the bacteria. Twenty minutes is a lifetime to a bacterium. But eventually the bacterial environment changes. There is a decrease in the amount of oxygen available, for instance... and the food supply changes, as no new undigested food is added to the digestive tract. Instead, the man's body becomes bacterial food, as the body's defenses --- so active in life --- fail. Such bacterial life may continue for a long time. But eventually it comes to an end. Can we say, while it continues, that the man is alive? Certainly not. Bacterial life is not human life. |
Nov 26, 2010 6:11 pm OR: "Most people would be very hard pressed to go there with you, tell me why you think there is life in the stone?" Bill Overcamp .......Perhaps you know little about Quantum Mechanics. There are many ways of interpreting it, of course. Some of them leave open the question. Ozay Rinpoche.......Then if a question is left open that means the answer is only speculation which means it is worthless until it is proven true. OR: "As far as I know a stone does not grow but actually weathers away, I could understand what you mean if you said a tree lives in one sense and a man in another sense, but a stone? I fail so far to see your logic." Bill Overcamp .......Perhaps you didn't read all I wrote. A stone certainly is not alive. But there may be quantum life within it. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......There is quantum life within a stone, how about then quantum life within the bone of a dead animal, though it is dead, quantum says it is alive the bone that is? So you, or quantum physics are saying the animal is not dead but it is quantum alive, when it is physically dead? And a stone though it has no roots though it has no heart no brain it is quantum alive.Knowing all this does it make any difference to any of my points? That is my earlier point being that there can be no death, because we do not die we transform, energy cannot be destroyed, therefore we are forever under constant change, and that means if this is so we are like an illusion, like a dream, though we are impermanent in one form, yet we are permanent in many forms. Then really all physics has done is recognised that there are different forms of energy after the heart stops beating and the brain is dead, when the roots have rotted and the tree has fallen energy transforms, is that what this means?... Bill Overcamp .......There are many meanings to the word life. Growth is only one of the ones I mentioned. The two which seem to be reflected in quantum physics are sensitivity and movement. Ozay Rinpoche writes......Actually according to the Oxford dictionary "LIFE" means; The condition which distinguishes active animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. OR: "But the soul of a STONE? have you any researched proof of this?" Bill Overcamp .......Now you are getting ridiculous. I wrote of the soul of a frog or an oak, but said nothing of inanimate things like a stone. What I said is that there may be life in a stone. I never said that stones are alive. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Life? and alive?I have given you the standard meaning from the Oxford dictionary above for the meaning of "LIFE", now I will give you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary for "ALIVE": Of a person animal plant etc: Living not dead. If you are not sure about the meaning of Dead I will check that out for you also: "DEAD" No longer alive. As you can see this is why I fail to see your logic? Please do not get Offended. Bill Overcamp .......Philosophy isn't like being a psychic. When you are in a seance you may speak in loose terms to your customers, but in philosophy, one must speak in the strictest terms. To read philosophy, one must really read it, something you don't seem to be doing. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Who has customers in a séance? Certainly not I, I am not sure who you implied that to. Well thank you for the tip about Philosophy, and as you can see above I have gone to the trouble to actually look up certain meanings to certain words, as you say strict terms are needed without any deviation from word meaning, but I have noticed there is a little problem here for instance the example of the word "LIFE" and the interpretation you and quantum physics have given it, it does not seem to fit in with the Oxford dictionary. OR: "Is this a theory? But it is interesting one. If it is true do you think this would explain why a so called psychic can perform psychometry with inanimate objects such as jewellery and be able to tell the life history of the person that once owned it? I have sat in these demonstration myself and seen this example repeated over and over several times." Bill Overcamp .......Magicians generally employ the simplest of tricks. I think Quantum effects are way above the typical illusionist. Ozay Rinpoche writes........No I was not talking about magicians, perhaps this is where you need to read me more closely, I was talking about psychics, yes I have watched Magicians and I have watched psychics, and I have also experimented with the psychic phenomena myself, and have had enough results to know that it is not trickery. If you do not "KNOW" about these things maybe it is better not to take on any 'belief' until you yourself have done some research into the subject matter, to make such a statement is not a scientific attitude, a scientist will either "KNOW" or he does "NOT KNOW" he cannot afford to take a stand in 'BELIEF' It can damage the reputation of his science and his work. |
Nov 26, 2010 6:31 pm Bill Overcamp ......"THE investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Can we not say that Black is black and white is white? And if we cannot prove anything then we stay in the I DO NOT KNOW factor until proven, theories are ok so long as they are not used as facts, after all, truth got a man on the moon. Bill Overcamp ...... while, on the other hand, we do not collectively fail, but every one says something true about the nature of things, and while individually we contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed. Therefore, since the truth seems to be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit, in this respect it must be easy, but the fact that we can have a whole truth and not the particular part we aim at shows the difficulty of it. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Then the truth is, we "CANNOT KNOW TRUTH", that is a truth, and everything is an illusion because we filter through our subjective minds, what do you think after all you have said? Bill Overcamp ......"Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds, the cause of the present difficulty is not in the facts but in us. For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Can a soul reason? For sure a mind reasons, but a soul, is that not free of mind, we develop a mind because the animal, our body has to survive in this material environment, but the soul is without a body and therefore without a need of a mind to reason such things. Bill Overcamp ......"It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Maybe it is thought itself that is the block, because the nature of mind is fragmented, that is every thought is fragmented from the last one, all thought arises because it has a dual aspect attached to it, duality means we are in conflict constantly and this conflict deviates our energies, without thought then we can see beyond thought, like a bat cannot see in the way we do but it see's some thing else, another dimension another reality, and consciousness may also be like this there is one that is beyond mind and our thoughts. Bill Overcamp ......It is true that if there had been no Timotheus we should have been without much of our lyric poetry; but if there had been no Phrynis there would have been no Timotheus. The same holds good of those who have expressed views about the truth; for from some thinkers we have inherited certain opinions, while the others have been responsible for the appearance of the former." Ozay Rinpoche writes....Descartes once stated his famous statement " I think therefore I am" I can tell you he was wrong, it would have been more correct to say " I think, therefore I sleep" for when mind can be stilled there is a greater reality, and it is a "SEEING" But in order to SEE one has to stop thought, therefore one can say thought is sleep, mind constantly bickers, ponders, reasons, concoct events etc, consider your mind and self when it is still. I know this is possible also I have researched it. ~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book II; Part 1 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.2.ii.html |
Nov 26, 2010 6:55 pm OR: "Then if a question is left open that means the answer is only speculation which means it is worthless until it is proven true." The word 'worthless seems a bit narrow. There are many open questions in science, today. I think a real scientist would say that those are the most interesting questions. OR: "There is quantum life within a stone, how about then quantum life within the bone of a dead animal, though it is dead, quantum says it is alive the bone that is? So you, or quantum physics are saying the animal is not dead but it is quantum alive, when it is physically dead? And a stone though it has no roots though it has no heart no brain it is quantum alive.Knowing all this does it make any difference to any of my points? That is my earlier point being that there can be no death, because we do not die we transform, energy cannot be destroyed, therefore we are forever under constant change, and that means if this is so we are like an illusion, like a dream, though we are impermanent in one form, yet we are permanent in many forms. Then really all physics has done is recognised that there are different forms of energy after the heart stops beating and the brain is dead, when the roots have rotted and the tree has fallen energy transforms, is that what this means?..." Once again, saying that there is life in a thing does not make it live. The bacteria in a corpse do not amount to a living animal. OR: "Actually according to the Oxford dictionary "LIFE" means; The condition which distinguishes active animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I am going back to Aristotle's ***On the Soul.*** He carefully lists the attributes of living beings. The definition you give is not wrong, but neither is the list of attributes which Aristotle gave. OR: "Life? and alive?I have given you the standard meaning from the Oxford dictionary above for the meaning of "LIFE", now I will give you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary for "ALIVE": Of a person animal plant etc: Living not dead. If you are not sure about the meaning of Dead I will check that out for you also: "DEAD" No longer alive. As you can see this is why I fail to see your logic? Please do not get Offended." I am not offended. I was simply applying what Aristotle said in the context of your question. OR: "Who has customers in a séance? Certainly not I, I am not sure who you implied that to. Well thank you for the tip about Philosophy, and as you can see above I have gone to the trouble to actually look up certain meanings to certain words, as you say strict terms are needed without any deviation from word meaning, but I have noticed there is a little problem here for instance the example of the word "LIFE" and the interpretation you and quantum physics have given it, it does not seem to fit in with the Oxford dictionary." The question is whether there is a difference between saying that something is alive and saying that there is life in it. The important word is 'in.' Saying, for instance, that there is life ***in*** a building is not the same as saying that the building is alive. OR: "No I was not talking about magicians, perhaps this is where you need to read me more closely, I was talking about psychics, yes I have watched Magicians and I have watched psychics, and I have also experimented with the psychic phenomena myself, and have had enough results to know that it is not trickery. If you do not "KNOW" about these things maybe it is better not to take on any 'belief' until you yourself have done some research into the subject matter, to make such a statement is not a scientific attitude, a scientist will either "KNOW" or he does "NOT KNOW" he cannot afford to take a stand in 'BELIEF' It can damage the reputation of his science and his work." Perhaps someone will one day win James Randi's million dollar prize... http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html Who am I to say? |
Nov 26, 2010 7:27 pm (edited on Nov 26, 2010 7:37 pm) OR: "Can we not say that Black is black and white is white? And if we cannot prove anything then we stay in the I DO NOT KNOW factor until proven, theories are ok so long as they are not used as facts, after all, truth got a man on the moon." Certainly, black is black and white is white. There is no illusion in saying that. Nevertheless, the investigation of truth is even as Aristotle said, in some ways easy and in some ways difficult. OR: "Then the truth is, we 'CANNOT KNOW TRUTH,' that is a truth, and everything is an illusion because we filter through our subjective minds, what do you think after all you have said?" Indeed, black is black and white is white, even as you said. Clearly we know some truths, such as the example you so graciously provided. OR: "Can a soul reason? For sure a mind reasons, but a soul, is that not free of mind, we develop a mind because the animal, our body has to survive in this material environment, but the soul is without a body and therefore without a need of a mind to reason such things." A soul is the formulable essence of a natural body having life potentially in it. Thus a body is essentially joined to the soul as its matter. The mind is understood differently. Aristotle had his ideas on the subject, but I do not believe he was right. In my humble opinion, the mind is the animal engaged in thought. OR: "Maybe it is thought itself that is the block, because the nature of mind is fragmented, that is every thought is fragmented from the last one, all thought arises because it has a dual aspect attached to it, duality means we are in conflict constantly and this conflict deviates our energies, without thought then we can see beyond thought, like a bat cannot see in the way we do but it see's some thing else, another dimension another reality, and consciousness may also be like this there is one that is beyond mind and our thoughts." It is far from clear what block you are talking about. Clearly it is thought that enables man to surpass other animals. I suppose bats have fascinating experiences as they search for little insects to eat by bouncing sounds off their bodies. I would, however, not want to trade my ability to think abstractly for a bat's ability to locate things by 'sonar.' OR: "Descartes once stated his famous statement ' I think therefore I am' I can tell you he was wrong, it would have been more correct to say ' I think, therefore I sleep' for when mind can be stilled there is a greater reality, and it is a 'SEEING' But in order to SEE one has to stop thought, therefore one can say thought is sleep, mind constantly bickers, ponders, reasons, concoct events etc, consider your mind and self when it is still. I know this is possible also I have researched it." I know someone who sleeps far more than I. Sleep is for such a one a defensive reaction. When life becomes difficult, one goes to sleep. One who is brave will face life head on. As for Descartes... I generally agree with C. S. Peirce... http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html |
Nov 27, 2010 7:07 am OR: "Then if a question is left open that means the answer is only speculation which means it is worthless until it is proven true." Bill Overcamp .....The word 'worthless seems a bit narrow. There are many open questions in science, today. I think a real scientist would say that those are the most interesting questions. Ozay Rinpoche.......If we were to venture together to find the truth by researching the evidence then we would say: "Those are most interesting questions". But here are we summarising what has been found, and therefore referencing TRUTH, as we now know it to be today, Therefore I say speculation here is worthless, we could throw into the basket all kinds of theories, one theory will be the opposite of another, or one speculation can be the opposite of another speculation, then you have a circular argument that can never be come to any real point of truth or understanding, that kind of approach is worthless in this situation, but if we were to research then only this would be a good time to bring those speculations or theories forward, and work with, if there is some thing we can prove or disprove in this situation then it is fine. So here it is relevant to either have "KNOWING" or brave enough to say it is "NOT KNOWN" Therefore again I will say "Speculation here is worthless". OR: "There is quantum life within a stone, how about then quantum life within the bone of a dead animal, though it is dead, quantum says it is alive the bone that is? So you, or quantum physics are saying the animal is not dead but it is quantum alive, when it is physically dead? And a stone though it has no roots though it has no heart no brain it is quantum alive.Knowing all this does it make any difference to any of my points? That is my earlier point being that there can be no death, because we do not die we transform, energy cannot be destroyed, therefore we are forever under constant change, and that means if this is so we are like an illusion, like a dream, though we are impermanent in one form, yet we are permanent in many forms. Then really all physics has done is recognised that there are different forms of energy after the heart stops beating and the brain is dead, when the roots have rotted and the tree has fallen energy transforms, is that what this means?..." Bill Overcamp .....Once again, saying that there is life in a thing does not make it live. The bacteria in a corpse do not amount to a living animal. Ozay Rinpoche........So there is life in this house, but there is no life in the building, is this what you are saying? Clever words to use in that way, for what purpose, did it really strengthen your argument, or was it some form of obstacle? As for the bacteria and the corpse are they not separate life forms with different genetics, unless of course we connect them in this way, the corpse is food for the bacteria, and therefore the bacteria cannot live without the corpse, in that respect the one cannot live without the other so does this make them the same life, because what was the corpse has now transformed its energy into the bacteria, is that what you are saying? In this case I can say, I am the porridge I have just eaten and the porridge is me, or I am the chicken I have eaten and the chicken has become me, I am one in life with the chicken and the porridge? OR: "Actually according to the Oxford dictionary "LIFE" means; The condition which distinguishes active animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Bill Overcamp .....I am going back to Aristotle's ***On the Soul.*** He carefully lists the attributes of living beings. The definition you give is not wrong, but neither is the list of attributes which Aristotle gave. Ozay Rinpoche writes.......Aristotle has been outdated by modern science and technology, if Aristotle had a specific point you wish to bring forward then it is a good idea to bring that specific point forward, one at a time if you like then we can consider, to mention his name just opens a whole collection of possible ideas from a philosopher life's works, which in effect leave your comment rather void of meaning here for me. OR: "Life? and alive?I have given you the standard meaning from the Oxford dictionary above for the meaning of "LIFE", now I will give you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary for "ALIVE": Of a person animal plant etc: Living not dead. If you are not sure about the meaning of Dead I will check that out for you also: "DEAD" No longer alive. As you can see this is why I fail to see your logic? Please do not get Offended." Bill Overcamp .....I am not offended. I was simply applying what Aristotle said in the context of your question. Ozay Rinpoche.......It is not always a good idea to quote like a parrot some one else's reasoning, you may not always comprehend the way that original person comprehended what he himself reasoned, is not Philosophy about your "OWN" ability to debate and reason and come to your own inner understanding of the truth? If Aristotle say a some thing, yes follow what he says but his finger must point inside of you so that you can come to it yourself and understand the relationship with the self that "YOU" are, then it is real and not some one else's speculation? OR: "Who has customers in a séance? Certainly not I, I am not sure who you implied that to. Well thank you for the tip about Philosophy, and as you can see above I have gone to the trouble to actually look up certain meanings to certain words, as you say strict terms are needed without any deviation from word meaning, but I have noticed there is a little problem here for instance the example of the word "LIFE" and the interpretation you and quantum physics have given it, it does not seem to fit in with the Oxford dictionary." Bill Overcamp .....The question is whether there is a difference between saying that something is alive and saying that there is life in it. The important word is 'in.' Saying, for instance, that there is life ***in*** a building is not the same as saying that the building is alive. Ozay Rinpoche.........If there is life in the building, it is not saying that the building is alive but rather saying there is an organic life form in the building, in the same way the stone cannot have life but rather there is some form of organic matter in the stone, but it is not the stone, can you see this is just playing with words when it can be said in much more simple terms so that there is no uncertainty about the meaning, if some one is in the building then I will put the word "ONE" in the sentence to clarify my meaning, and if the is some thing living in the stone, then I will distinguish it by saying "THING" because the "THING" separates from the stone, if words are used to deliberatly make others misunderstand that will mean there can be some other motivation for it other than a philosophical debate, we may be going into an area of the ego, which then means it becomes a personal thing identifying to how one is percived as an image created by mind.. OR: "No I was not talking about magicians, perhaps this is where you need to read me more closely, I was talking about psychics, yes I have watched Magicians and I have watched psychics, and I have also experimented with the psychic phenomena myself, and have had enough results to know that it is not trickery. If you do not "KNOW" about these things maybe it is better not to take on any 'belief' until you yourself have done some research into the subject matter, to make such a statement is not a scientific attitude, a scientist will either "KNOW" or he does "NOT KNOW" he cannot afford to take a stand in 'BELIEF' It can damage the reputation of his science and his work." Bill Overcamp .....Perhaps someone will one day win James Randi's million dollar prize... Ozay Rinpoche......You have failed to recognise one of the most fundamental criterion for an unbiased research study when you mention James Randi and his million dollar offer, the offer of 1 million dollars has made the research he carries out void, because he is motivated to find other reasons other than Psychic ability even if psychic ability is responsible for phenomena because he stands to lose 1 million dollars, on top of this, we can say Randi could have been motivated to become famous, which he has become by making this offer, and this fame will also bring in the dollars, ie exposure to media, so his example is a very poor example to back your point. I have sat in circles of from 6-20 with other mediums and psychics, not to make money, and not to get fame, but a strong desire to learn the truth for myself. 'BELIEF' has no sway in it for me "TRUTH" only has meaning for me, I can tell you for instance that nearly every one after one hour of proper meditation will produce some form of phenomena that is significant, let us say where we are doing a reading for instance we are trying to communicate with some one who has left the body, these kind of things happen: Often A description of the illness, that's not so impressive, if it is heart disease or cancer or stroke because you have a one in 3 chance of accuracy, however if it is cancer in a certain area of the body then the statistics of getting that correct change significantly because there are so many organs that can be attacked by cancer, I have witnessed this on many occasions in fact it is very common for me to see. I have also been witness to the cause of death being murder, drowning accidents and naming specifics of the accidents right down to date and times, places which again all goes against the law of probability, in fact the law of probability for much of this goes through the ceiling. Then after the cause of death has been identified we go into descriptions, height weight, colour of hair eye colour what cloths they usually wore, on certain occasions, I have even heard such things as telephone numbers mentioned though this is not common but it happens, I have heard and also myself been able to describe the place where the person lived by giving street name and door number, holidays that they may have went on before they died and even who they met. Now I could write a whole book on what I have witnessed, and having done some of my own mathematics with probability know that there is some thing significant, and often me being the one to select who is going to have the reading, those people taken from around the country and chosen at random, therefore I know that my findings have much more significance and accuracy than James Randi does. For instance what are the chances of anyone getting your first name right? then what are the chances of getting your second name right, then add to this what are the chances of getting your occupation right etc etc as I have said the chances rocket through the roof, it should not happen but it does and I have witnessed it. Now my question about Randi is this, why did he miss all of this data, if I were you I would go look at some one's research on psychic medium-ship who has "NOTHING" to lose and a good scientists, unfortunately because science broke away from religion where these kind of phenomena are concerned our scientist tend to take on an attitude of hocus pocus without even looking into it, but there are some who have broken away, you have to realise also that many scientist are backed with research funds from their organisations who do not want to be seen in the context of messing around with the hocus pocus aspects, this means because of this attitude there is already a biased which can corrupt any honest scientific enquiry. http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html Who am I to say? |
Nov 27, 2010 7:46 am OR: "Can we not say that Black is black and white is white? And if we cannot prove anything then we stay in the I DO NOT KNOW factor until proven, theories are ok so long as they are not used as facts, after all, truth got a man on the moon." Bill Overcamp .....Certainly, black is black and white is white. There is no illusion in saying that. Nevertheless, the investigation of truth is even as Aristotle said, in some ways easy and in some ways difficult. Ozay Rinpoche........Then there must be an ultimate truth that covers the whole spectrum, and what I have come to is some thing that represents some of the wise of the East, and science has now come to it: It is all an illusion. When the end of the universe comes and all the lights are switched off dark matter will also fall away when this happens all the atoms that held together and made material manifestations will not hold any more hence the dream has come to and end, the illusion is finished. OR: "Then the truth is, we 'CANNOT KNOW TRUTH,' that is a truth, and everything is an illusion because we filter through our subjective minds, what do you think after all you have said?" Bill Overcamp .....Indeed, black is black and white is white, even as you said. Clearly we know some truths, such as the example you so graciously provided. Ozay Rinpoche ........It is as it is, as we 'speak' therefore so do we shroud that truth, that ultimate truth that can only be seen from within where there is no mind obstacles to obscure it, in fact, are we not made of star stuffs, therefore the answer to the universe lies within us, and the answer to us may lie within the universe, that must be a fact we can come to by reason. OR: "Can a soul reason? For sure a mind reasons, but a soul, is that not free of mind, we develop a mind because the animal, our body has to survive in this material environment, but the soul is without a body and therefore without a need of a mind to reason such things." Bill Overcamp .....A soul is the formulable essence of a natural body having life potentially in it. Thus a body is essentially joined to the soul as its matter. Ozay Rinpoche.........Formulable has no meaning in my dictionary. Essence is the soul and the spirit is the personality which joins to the body, when the body is dead the spirit and soul leave the body, the spirit is energy created through out the life of the body by the minds ability to create its image identity and its ego, that is the spirit, energy once created cannot be destroyed, the soul is that part of you which is not created by the working of the mind creator it already is, like a drop from a great cosmic sea (GOD), the soul is that part which can be identified when you are in total still, it is awareness without a mind often the location will rest in the belly area of the body, the spirit on the other hand is more linked to the brain area of the body. Bill Overcamp .....The mind is understood differently. Aristotle had his ideas on the subject, but I do not believe he was right. In my humble opinion, the mind is the animal engaged in thought. Ozay Rinpoche.........Yes the mind was developed by the instinct of survival(Animal) identity, image ego are all related to the instinct of the animals need of survival, but it has moved also into the need of the ego for survival after all good communication with others is a survival trait we need, we need the identity image ego for the animal to become sustained. OR: "Maybe it is thought itself that is the block, because the nature of mind is fragmented, that is every thought is fragmented from the last one, all thought arises because it has a dual aspect attached to it, duality means we are in conflict constantly and this conflict deviates our energies, without thought then we can see beyond thought, like a bat cannot see in the way we do but it see's some thing else, another dimension another reality, and consciousness may also be like this there is one that is beyond mind and our thoughts." Bill Overcamp .....It is far from clear what block you are talking about. Clearly it is thought that enables man to surpass other animals. I suppose bats have fascinating experiences as they search for little insects to eat by bouncing sounds off their bodies. I would, however, not want to trade my ability to think abstractly for a bat's ability to locate things by 'sonar.' Ozay Rinpoche.......Block in understanding what I have said, or block being the mind it self from seeing a greater perspective. Yet a bat is here it has survived as a species through all the great changes as we have, and our senses are here to make us live as long as possible, would you wish then to trade for a certain species of jelly fish that is said to live to infinity? What does this jelly fish know or not know or have or not have that makes it live to infinity? Yet I consider that we have a soul that is like this jelly fish this lives to infinity. OR: "Descartes once stated his famous statement ' I think therefore I am' I can tell you he was wrong, it would have been more correct to say ' I think, therefore I sleep' for when mind can be stilled there is a greater reality, and it is a 'SEEING' But in order to SEE one has to stop thought, therefore one can say thought is sleep, mind constantly bickers, ponders, reasons, concoct events etc, consider your mind and self when it is still. I know this is possible also I have researched it." Bill Overcamp .....I know someone who sleeps far more than I. Sleep is for such a one a defensive reaction. When life becomes difficult, one goes to sleep. One who is brave will face life head on. Ozay Rinpoche.......Then all who think are cowards of death, and it is funny because as we have been discussing here, death must be the greatest illusion, or is it that life is the greatest illusion, do you see even this final point once considered by mind becomes a dual aspect, but yet when experienced without mind it just IS. If you fear death then you fear life, that causes sleep. Bill Overcamp .....As for Descartes... I generally agree with C. S. Peirce... Ozay Rinpoche..........You have to be specific here CS Peirce may have done a whole life time of work made many many comments, he may have even have changed his ideas just before he died some time after they were put into writing, so be specific if you have a point to make, because it means nothing here to me. |
No comments:
Post a Comment