136 thoughts on “Certainty

    • Elizabeth, Vin was saying that it is not “certainty” that matters in the search for truth because a person can be certain of anything regardless if they are right or not.

      We see this in eyewitness accounts of crimes where DNA evidence refutes eyewitness testimony. We see it in science where yesterdays certainty dissolves into today’s new and more accurate understanding. We see it when remembering the color of clothing someone wore only to find out later that it is not that color at all. Zealots of every religion are certain no matter how different their certainties are.

        • But you see the point about certainty, right? It is good to have certainty when moving the body around; the car; eating my food without spilling too much down my chin.

          On the other hand, certainty about fixed ideas like which god is the strongest seems to have another purpose and another goal. Trying to make the MEST hold still for certainty to take hold is like riding a wild horse. When we believe in things, have certainty in things that we don’t understand we suffer.

        • yes, one have to have certainty in the MEST to be able to operate in it. that is the reason for all the rules and regulations and laws and AGREEMENTS.
          that is one of the reason you were tought by many from the begining: mother, teachers ETC….

      • I happen to agree with you guys…. My certainity is not in the MEST universe… not even for second..
        The certainity in the Mest is the uncertainity of the whole package..

  1. There is no MEST universe by itself, There is a “Consideration-MEST” universe. Considerations cannot be separated from MEST. Hubbard was incorrect in saying that THETA and MEST are two separate universes independent of each other.

    THETA and MEST are simply two aspects of the same universe. They are not independent of each other.


  2. Two certainties manifesting themselves in different ways at the same time. Elizabeth and Vinaire both have certainty in different ways about the same thing. Are both right in their own way? Only one right? Neither right? And does the Certainty (absence of doubt) have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of their views?

  3. It is not a matter of right or wrong because there are no absolutes in such matters. It is only a matter of resolving inconsistencies.

    When one is considering earth to be flat with “certainty”, one is diligently ignoring the inconsistency generated by observations, such as, ships seems to vanish under the horizon as they move far away. Besides, all other heavenly bodies seem to be spherical, then why not earth?

    So, certainty is fine as long as no inconsistencies are present. The primary factor is consistency. Certainty is a secondary factor.


      • I read your comment a couple more times then I made my own example. Possibly you are referring to stable data like the sacred geometry of pi as “3.14” or phi as “1.618?” These associations lend consistency to the world around me.

      • Well, as we search for consistency through KHTK Axioms, the more this consistency is defined through these axioms the better we feel about them. This sort of gives us some confidence which may be looked upon as certainty. However, in this case one is not fixed in this certainty as one is constantly striving toward better consistency.


  4. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

    Impossible is a funny concept.

    In one setting something may be impossible, while e while in another it may be possible.

    Certainty, for it to exist in perfect alignment with the Tao of reality, would first have to begin with a permanent impossibility.

    If nothing is truly impossible, than … any certainty is correct in some context. And if we consider “The Truth” as a reality of having ultimate reality with ultimate certainty, than me thinks that …

    The Truth is a lie.

    • The only thing ungraspable is the background of the manifested reality. A manifested reality may be difficult to grasp in the presence of inconsistencies.


      Corollary: Anything known or knowable is part of manifested reality.

      Corollary: Speculations on the unmanifested are part of the manifested reality.


      • Vin, I think that is what KG wrote. Ungraspable = Unknowable; Potatoe = Potahto.

        I think you are writing to something there that hasn’t been understood. But I think KG is writing to the unspeakable word that you call unknowable. He called it ungraspable. Same diff to me. Do you not get the same extrapolation? Unknowable is an invention anyways so splitting hairs about the exact definition of that which cannot be defined might not be productive.

        • Ok. I see what you mean. My goal is to understand the communication first. Worry about picayunish second. I find that if I am in sync with the understanding of another, then I can gradually bring the language closer together. But I might find that I am not in sync, then the subtler arts of language only provides a tool for conflict. In that case, I can just let it drop. That’s the way I prioritize it.

          Between those of us blogging together, none of this is particularly new ground. The blogging we’ve done this past week has been pointed at resolving the inconsistencies right up to the limit of what is. Sometimes I think we take it for granted how far we’ve come through the years in this endeavor. The work you and Maria did on refining the axioms for KHTK have been splitting some pretty fine hairs and you are to be congratulated; however, inconsistencies regarding absolute answers remain and shall remain so. The entire sense of badgering the poor Unknowable, which I like, I can think with it , but which I am ready to leave alone to be the placeholder that you defined. I want to know more about the world before I spend much more time on what is not the world. My sense and intuition tell me that the Unknowable will tap me on the shoulder when it is ready to open a window through which to peer.

          I know I rambled … My son popped in and he and I were visiting right in the middle so I lost my train of thought a bit.

        • I think KHTK pretty much settles what we don’t need to bother about. We need to bother about only the manifested reality. And that is where we start to get into KHTK AXIOM ONE.

          The important thing that has come out of Axiom zero is that any speculation about the unmanifested turns around and becomes a manifested reality in terms of considerations. These considerations then put constraints on looking.

          So, a very important part of looking is the inconsistencies in the considerations that we are subscribing to. I do not see all the considerations that KG is holding on to, or you are holding on to at the moment. I hope those considerations will come out in our discussions. We can then note the inconsistencies and level them out.

          You and KG may find what is noted about self, soul and atman under KHTK Axiom One to be interesting.


  5. Good post. Consistent!

    Please say a bit more and help me understand your comment, “Certainty, for it to exist in perfect alignment with the Tao of reality, would first have to begin with a permanent impossibility.” Maybe an example.

      • Vin, I speak bullshit. S’all I got on the topic.

        Foolish notions.

        Chris, it depends on the brand of Buddhism you speak of. In Soto Zen Buddhism, the “no self” thing means exactly that.

        Making an independent, free-will self … impossible in its definitions.

        Impossible, it’s … um … funny.

        DOGEN’S HERETICAL QUESTION: “If we are all already enlightened, why practice?”

        • Hi Elizabeth! I’m goofing off as usual, you? I wish you and the rest of the gang were here at my house today because Shelley has cooked up a big Thanksgiving feast of turkey, potatoes, dressing, cranberries, etcetera and it would be sooo fun if we could just all sit around and eat and watch a football game. Maybe stick our toes in the pool — that’s all we would want to do as the water is too chilly to swim. That would be spiritual and a good time for me.

    • By permanent impossibility I’m getting that you mean something like a contradiction of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. So for certainty to align with reality must begin with something not allowed in the temporal world. So lack of certainty invites degrees of probability. Did I stay with you on that or not?

      • Yeah. That’s it.

        I’m a sucker though. I want a soul to have some kind of reality. I’m even willing to jump fully into irrationalism to find it.

        Soul addiction.

        Far better to sit zazen and STFU.

        • KG, I understand. I used to have a soul and I used to have attention on that. Now I don’t know why I don’t — I just don’t. It fell away around the beginning of this year. I am as curious as I can be about things. There is no emoticon to express the joy that I feel at existing and at marveling at the temporal world. I hesitate to begin giving my reality about who and what I think I am until I find a good way to say it. In the meantime, my curiosity for me comes from an egotism – a MEST-oriented curiosity. It is both about MEST and it is from myself as MEST. It does not come from what I am. “I am” is the peace at the end of it all, and “I am” doesn’t really give a shit. Does that make any sense?

          Reading that back to myself, I’m pretty sure that won’t communicate very well. I just want to say that “I get it” in a good way, without anxiety, and with a blessing spoken over you and over all.

      • Soul seems to have two different definitions for me.

        (1) The essence of Self, which are the abilities to CONSIDER and to OBSERVE.

        (2) The mental energies remaining after death, that are stored in space as program patterns. These patterns are activated when they get into contact with a new born body.


  6. Here Vin, let me relieve you of that kind complement right away with some complete madness.

    In my time spent as a Scientology outsider, I came across a “squirrel” document that was very hard for me to understand because it was written in Scientologese.

    It was a book titled, “The Resolution of Mind” by Dennis Stephens. In it, he creates a liberation methodology based in game theory and a practical application of Zazen he calls “Time Breaking.”

    Aside from some serious unsupported claims, I found the work fucking brilliant once I understood it. You don’t have to believe a thing he says, the practices stand alone.

    He also has recorded lectures.

    In his “Insanity Lecture” he discusses that Insanity occurs when two opposing postulates occupy the same idea space. In his words, “You can’t go to China and not go to China and trying to do is … insane.”

    I agree.

    Now, what would happen if you took the two most important things most of us humans DESPERATELY WANT and forced them into the same idea space as being “true.”

    ABSOLUTE #1. There is a self and this is an absolute truth that is is exclusive and never changes.
    ABSOLUTE #2: There IS a self and this is an absolute truth that is exclusive and never changes.

    This would create (according to Stephens) a self that is totally insane. It is like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. It’s akin to throwing matter and anti-matter into the same bucket.

    And now for the freaky part. . .

    What if THAT reality of inanity IS the actual soul? What if the base of the soul isn’t blissful awesomeness of being, but rather an all-powerful-all-helpless madness created by permanently fused and mutually exclusive postulates of self? A reality that NEVER appears as certain in any Universe and yet is ALWAYS certain?

    And now for the big, unsubstantiated leap of STUPID … (Here is where I show you wrong about me “getting it” Vin.)

    If the BASE of the soul is a raging insanity where everything is possible, then what is sanity for such a one? How does the ultimate nut-job-soul find freedom?

    Well, that would be a free will choice of WILL.

    Thus free will is the decision to create a sanity or insanity relative to the raging chaos of being. Each of us would then be a choice born from this permanently raging chaos. And in the terms of Scientologese, perhaps this irrational, insane source of power would be something like theta.

    This won’t go far, me thinks. Convincing people that the folks who are in the asylums are more natural than the sane JUST doesn’t seem sellable …

    HERE IS A WORD PICTURE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS CONCEPT: One of the greatest aircrafts is the F-16. It CANNOT fly on its own aerodynamics. IT IS AN INSANE DESIGN.

    But … the DECISION to be sane is run by the software, The computer USES the base insanity to make the plan respond WAY faster than normal “sane” aircraft. The fly by wire software “releases” the crazy so that the imbalance turns the plane faster.

    In this case, sanity is a decision. And it’s a way more savage sanity than we know of.

    So, maybe freedom is learning more to use the crazy than to build the boring.

    • OK, KG, so you are talking about TROM. To me it is just another algorithm that tells you how and where to look. In contrast, I let the mind follow the natural sequence of looking. I then follow up on inconsistencies as they appear and until they are resolved. I try to start from the fundamentals of any subject as much as possible.

      So, you want to directly dive into some inconsistency about self and existence as indicated in TROM. Then you are taking up a conjecture about the soul. If I were you, I would strictly follow the scientific method because I am of a scientific bend.

      I wonder how much of a free will there is. One is always constrained by one’s considerations. Considerations have a tendency to get locked into each other. So, free will simply be the room one has within the constraints extended by one’s considerations.

      You are making certain conclusions here out of your original conjecture. How have you tested those conclusions! I shall be very interested in the results of those tests.


    • Hi KG!!! 🙂
      I studied and practiced The Resolution of Mind and I find your coments about it fascinating, I’m certain there is truth in them although I have no idea of what is it.

      Your coments are always very stimulating, the crazier the better. To the very least, they help me open my Mind.
      And that means a lot to me 🙂

      • Rafael, I did know you had one “mind” that is. Is it house broken yet or at list paper trained?, do you take it for evening walks, give it a good daily exercise, is it allowed to roam free or you keep that thing on leash?

        • I know Rafael… I know… By now You should know that we share universes. I thought you might see humor in what I have written…
          Chris is having family dinner, I just talked with him on the phone…

        • Now, humor reached Mexico city!!! So how are you my friend? I live north of the State you live south of it, dont forget all americans feeding on the dead bodies of birds today…. and thanking the Gods for abundance!!!

        • Sorry E, my post about being certain was meant as a general answer for the blog post but ended erroneously here. I did saw the humor on your post 🙂 my answer for it was the one following. Best wishes for you my friend!!

  7. Vin,

    I am openly calling my claims bullshit. I am calling these notions mythology. These notions are purely wishful thinking.

    I’m not calling them science.They are not “true.”

    These are constructs that are (pointing back to the original post) … NOT … CERTAIN.

    And these notions do NOT agree with Stevens’ notions in TROM at all. They are counter his notions actually.

    I like some of Stephen’s ideas. His table of Postulate Failure is brilliant. But then he makes some sweeping claims that I feel are silly.

    Hey, if you love mythology, Joseph Campbell’s lectures are now on iTunes. “A Personal Mythology” is one of my favorite lectures.


  8. KG, I want to address your comment, but I’m not sure whether to address you as though you are stressed about the things you write.

    If you are just writing and conjecturing and discussing I would tell you that as individuals it is my opinion that we are wee bits of consciousness, encrusted by and individualized by considerations that generally tell us to take ourselves too seriously. This is quite simple and low-powered. The madness only sounds loud to the madman, like ear-bud earphones only sound loud to the wearer. No one else is paying much attention and whatever becomes of us matters little in any overall grand design. It is just an opinion that helps quell my egotism, dropping it down to a low roar in the ear-buds of my own ego.

    If you are stressed about what you write then I would direct you to check your overall general health, check for any specific complaint, get some food and rest and then direct you to an ARC break session. I don’t know your capabilities in this area and I don’t know what or how much reach you feel to do something about this condition. But I am glad to discuss it here or otherwise. I don’t find all madmen to be mad and I don’t find all sane men to be sane. A good healthy dose of skepticism is useful and so is a little bit of gullibility. Balance can found and equilibrium can be maintained. Hope is important.

    • My notions are just creative ideas for the sake of discussion.

      I have never seen any religion consider that the base soul of man is madness and that sanity is a choice made from free will that emerges from said madness.

      Hinduism views the “Atman” as pure. Pythagoreans view it as a mathematical paradox. The Buddhists see it as a “Non-Being.” The Christians see it as a pure thing created by God that is corrupted by sin that can be pure again.

      NOBODY sees the spirit as a raging paradox of chaos that is harnessed and tamed by an evolving free will.

      So … it’s up for discussion. Don’t see a lot of takers though.

      • I would be glad to take it up and the more specific types of statements and questions that you can provide the better. We could even do another OP statement. Maybe that’s a good way to start.

        The first thing about your comment that interests me is your “raging paradox of chaos.” Maybe you could write a clean statement of what that paradox is. Then say some more about “an evolving free will.”

        How do you suppose certainty fits into your model? Is raging paradox of chaos a kind of universal baseline of some sort? Again raging because it is tumultuous? or angry? or other? Again what is paradoxical about it?

      • One may consider whatever one wants. What matters is, “Is that consideration consistent with the actual reality (what is)?”

        If it is not then it is madness. The world is already mad enough. I want to reduce the madness not increase it.


      • The way I see it, it’s important to keep the three lenses clean and just LOOK at what each shows us.

        1. The science lens.
        2. The artistic lens.
        3. The religious lens.

        Each lens is useful. And each lens can create a profound sense of certainty. I am trying to imagine ways in which the soul may exist that haven’t been thought of before.

        If you guys want science behind that, I got nothing. This wacked-out shit is right out of the art and religion lenses.

        THINK. LIKE. A. KID.

      • Well, I can’t back this shit up and I’ve already admitted that.

        However, I do have a story. . .

        I just finished listening to Joseph Campbells lectures on Buddhism and was reminded on a key point.

        According to tradition, when the Buddha attained enlightenment, he sat in bliss for seven days and then stated …

        “This CANNOT be taught.”

        In other words, there is no “bridge” or “path” or “method” or “recipe” to experience freedom. There is also no way to prove you have attained freedom. And there is no way for one to “know” if that freedom is the same the Buddha had.

        So … my choice is to be free anyway and THEN … and THEN …


        Because freedom cannot be taught. It is instead passed on as a reality from one free person to the next.

        So good luck teaching the unteachable. You guys can really do it IMHO. Best that I see that I can do is BE IT and STFU. Hopefully, nobody will notice and wake up like it was their idea all along.


        Because it is.

      • Chris, that branding passed my legal team if you choose to be a franchisee of “Be it and STFU.”

        Now that the concept of “Changing the universe for the better by being a better person” is now my exclusive intellectual property, I should rake in the bucks.

        I want you all to know you three passed my ordination process! All this time you have known me, I have been shaping you.

        A small group of my followers who know not they are my followers have your certificates ready online. Mention my name and they will be clueless.

        Yes. I’m serious. They know not their mentor!


        And now a final word of advice from my teacher. Someone you would LEAST SUSPECT to be a Zen Master. He plays the fool so well …

        “Shhh. Be vewy, vewy quiet … Uh-uh-uh-uh…”

        – Elmer Fudd,

        • Katageek, Thanks for posting up Bodhidharma’s Zen Precepts. I especially like the pictures. I found that these teachings dovetail smoothly into my own observations and actions. I’ve copied them here:

          1. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the everlasting Dharma, not raising the view of extinction is called “not killing.” 2. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the ungraspable Dharma, not arousing the thought of gain is called “not stealing.” 3. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of nonattachment, not raising the view of attachment is called “not being greedy.” 4. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the inexplicable Dharma, not expounding a word is called “not lying.” 5. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the intrinsically pure Dharma, not arousing ignorance is called “not being intoxicated.” 6. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the faultless Dharma, not talking about sins and mistakes is called “not talking about others’ faults and errors.” 7. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of equality, not talking about self and others is called “not elevating oneself and putting down others.” 8. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the genuine, all pervading Dharma, not clinging to one single thing is called “not being stingy.” 9. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of no-self, not contriving a reality of self is called “not being angry.” 10. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of oneness, not raising a distinction between Buddhas and beings is called “not slandering the Three Treasures.” These I strive to follow, not because they are precepts but because this is the only true way to live with awareness. I only just discovered these precepts today and yet I have been striving to meet them my whole life. There are many ways to live in ignorance, but only one way to live in awareness.

        • Bodhidharma was AMAZING. Much of his story I am sure is now mythology, but this guy 1. Reportedly Started the Martial Arts Traditions for the Shaolin which evolved to the present forms of Kung Fu. 2. Founded Zen which evolved into various sects leading up to my main man Dogged.

          Talk about projecting goodness across centuries.

          My Favorite Bodhidharma Story on Certainty:

          Emperor Wu: “How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?”
          Bodhidharma: “None. Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit.”
          Emperor Wu: “So what is the highest meaning of noble truth?”
          Bodhidharma: “There is no noble truth, there is only void.”
          Emperor Wu: “Then, who is standing before me?”
          Bodhidharma: “I know not, Your Majesty.”

        • KG: Emperor Wu: “How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?” Bodhidharma: “None. Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit.” Emperor Wu: “So what is the highest meaning of noble truth?” Bodhidharma: “There is no noble truth, there is only void.” Emperor Wu: “Then, who is standing before me?” Bodhidharma: “I know not, Your Majesty.”

          Chris: Good reference KG. In my view, this situation comes about when too much consciousness leaks into reality and overbalances the lies of reality and individuality with the truth of nothingness.

      • According to Brad Warner, a US Soto Zen Master, the word “Dharma” in Bodhidharma’s precepts means “the way things are.” His book “Hardcore Zen” has another version of these that I like a lot.

        Glad you like them.

        Warners versions each start with

        “Self nature is incredibly profound…”

      • Dear Elizabeth, how good is to hear comm from you !!!. The new identity is an alternative one logged in my wordpress account. I am pretty fine and in comm with my family and friends. Dear Elizabeth, you are right on the simpler observation, any thing can be always simpler and better. And please tell me, how are you, are your family and friends well ?.

        • Rafael I am super… What can I say doing the same as usual, having sessions with that the drama falls away and life become even more simpler… Since winter is here, my outside activity is gone.. but i still take long walks…All is well and I am delighted seeing you here. Love to you my friend.

        • Yes, I want to second that. Nobody works harder to be simpler!

          On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Chris Thomps

        • Chris i had a feed back from some people: they dont come to aften to your blog because they find the english and the topic to complicated. I have too find some of the expressions– the way things worded by you also complicated, beyond my undertanding.. I get lost… but this is my reality..

        • I was not given an example outside of that simple items concepts were discribed so intricately… over explained.. over blown to make to look intelectual-smart..

        • LOL — Elizabeth says I am a wanna-be, pseudo-intellectual, so now my pedigree is complete. “Pseudo-everything!” Seriously though, if I am doing something to put people off and can understand it, I will make adjustments. I really do want to communicate.

        • I dont get what you mean, I did look up the word but still cant comprehand , please explain..

      • simplicity…. my reality what is…. out of my blog..
        Our universe is a very simple place… it is so simple that its simplicity is nearly incomprehensible and because of that simplicity the spirit made it complicated by adding immense amount of considerations to that basic simplicity the original creation.
        The creation: the foundation is so simple and because of that simple existing moment the ‘’NOW” that is not accepted, the spiritual being finds that in etiquette- not sufficient or abundant enough stimulating enough therefore the continual loading on-staking onto that original creation in order to have more and more and by these continual creation which the Being do, with that piles up immense amount of energy and that is the complication, the burden each being carries.
        That immense hoarded never as-ised piled up creation is the BANK, the MEST Universe and that is ones track ones past, ones havingness, ones very own universe ones thoughts, considerations, agreements and confusions and have become by now one’s burden.
        And most of all ones very own self-made prison..
        The simplicity is “NOW” and in that moment we don’t have past we don’t have future, we never died and we never lived in fact… There is no time, no space; there are no beings, or individuality: you or I, me or them, those are just concepts, so is death, or life or living.
        If one closely examine this “second-‘’NOW’’ this very second than with that examination one would realize whatever happens only can happen in this moment of ‘time’ in that moment is the creation+ experience.
        In that moment there is no past or future there is nothing—no considerations-agreements …… you see: in the moment of creation that moment is so short one has no time to alter to add too, to name, or to distort yet….
        That moment is pure unaltered, perfect in every way… therefore free of lies and that is Theta.

        • KHTK Propositions:

          NINE: Unknown generates desire to know.
          TEN: Desire to know generates considerations.
          ELEVEN: Considerations may be categorized as speculation, interpretation, conjecture, assumption, etc.
          TWELVE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc., are all considerations generated by a desire to know.


        • Vinaire: “TWELVE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc., are all considerations generated by a desire to know.”

          Chris: You’ve omitted Unknowable from the list. Please consider adding it.

        • I don’t know what you mean by “being.” It doesn’t need to be anthropomorphic to be a being. Maybe unknowable is a tautological hypocrisy and therefore True.

        • V.. as I said creation is in the same moment is the experience or the awarness. But all that is In the ”’NOW””

  9. Elizabeth said: “V.. as I said creation is in the same moment is the experience or the awarness. But all that is In the ”’NOW””

    I do not understand this CREATION business. I just see APPEARANCE.

    Are these two different? If yes, then how?


    • creation is something existing in the moment. that something is created-experienced, one becomes aware of that in the moment of NOW.
      if you want to use ”appearance” by all means. being there in the moment… Ok by me.

    • Creation has the implication that something or somebody is behind it, who is bringing it into existence. Appearance doesn’t have that implication attached to it.

      Please explain which way you mean it.


      • V… I simply can considerate that i postulated that thing into existance, and an the other hand dont have to consider nothing… nothing at al… Not even have a thought it is existing or there. nothing is just that…

      • But what is making you postulate in the first place? Is THAT also postulated by you?

        I agree that what you consider becomes a what-is. But does every what-is comes into existence because you consider it?

        Can there be a what-is without “I” considering it? Can “I” be a consideration and a what-is in its own turn?


        • being in the Universe that is things work…. I can believe it was postulated by me… or I am viewing somebody elses creation… Or I dont have to view anything and be happy with nothing.
          I dont need the “I” in order to view anything or experience anything, that “I” very much belongs to the SOLID UNIVERSE WHERE INDIVIDUALITY EXIST and of course ownership. That “I” IS NOT in the spiritual universe where solid bodies are in use..
          Yes the “I” is a consideration… and we talked of this more than once..
          Next time please put Elizabeth front of the questions… you know I get last in blogs regularly.

  10. Chris said: “I don’t know what you mean by “being.” It doesn’t need to be anthropomorphic to be a being. Maybe unknowable is a tautological hypocrisy and therefore True.”

    By “being” I mean existing. THAT, which is unknowable, is unknowable because it does not exist.


    • Vinaire: “By “being” I mean existing. THAT, which is unknowable, is unknowable because it does not exist.”

      Chris: We are only speculating about that and need to be mindful that the entire concept is manufactured. If it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t know about it. Since you know about it, it exists. Or else, let’s couch our language differently and speculate out loud. Speculation is a layer of manifestation.

        • Agreed, but not unknowable. Nothing is unknowable. Double entendre is intended. This is still a good axiom. I am starting to see how “the known” is built. For instance people were sick, bacteria had to be discovered. Later they were attributed to various illness. The anti-biotic was conceived and then invented… The magic can be described as a mathematical iteration. This is consistent with the statement that truth is relative, conditioned, and impermanent.

          On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Chris Thomps

    • Vinaire: By “being” I mean existing. THAT, which is unknowable, is unknowable because it does not exist.

      Chris: Maybe KG is right that the “Truth is a lie.” When I say that, I might be consistent with both Godel and Heisenberg. If the truth is relative, conditioned, and impermanent. Then it follows that the truth is manifested, therefore it is a lie.

      I enjoy our exercises and I enjoy how active it makes my mind. I think the path for me is to continue to dissolve the inconsistencies. I will probably spend the remainder of my life doing so, and unless something unexpectedly profound occurs, I predict that the final inconsistency; the final identification with this illusion of body and of universe will be dissolved when I pass away.

      My admiration to you for writing this up the way that you are. By doing so, you are doing more than I am to put in the pitons so that we don’t lose the ground that we have made.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s