Do you understand the meaning of this quote?

[whatisreal7]

Enlightenment is hard to understand because if you "understand" it, in the worldly sense of the word, then you have blasphemed it (is that a word?). Similarly, if you can describe it verbally or w/ written language, or even THINK it, then it is also not, "it". "It" is beyond all worldly thought and reason.

In the end, you can only "reflect" it.

Interestingly, if you depart/realize that the worldly is actually a figment of your imagination, that everything is essentially empty, or "void", then you have essentially dwelled on the concept of "void", and in this process of dwelling on the "void" turned it back into worldliness. Guess what the solution is?

Lastly, on the concept of time. The perception of time results from the perceived passing of one worldly thought to another. This perpetuation of thought, from one frame to another, creates the illusion of movement, which we have come to describe as the passing of time. I often wonder what it would be like to truly stay in a moment in thought. Does time cease to exist? It is a rhetorical question.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I often wonder what it would be like to truly stay in a moment in thought.

If you are in thought, you are not present. If you are present (what you are referring to as 'a moment'), then you are not in thought. The two cannot coexist. That is actually the doorway out.

 

[whatisreal7]

Yes, allow me to rephrase...not "thought", but just "being".

I find it funny and ironic that we are waxing high philosophy and talking about detachment from worldly things when we are all brought together for one reason...owning an expensive supercar that 95% of the world cannot afford to buy =)

My life is filled with contradictions.

 

[Ojas]

zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

Ah, but what of mathematical situations?

- Ah, but no math nor science have ever defined Zen.

Hm... What happens when you consider a mathematical system itself rather than just a problem within it? ...

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that within any mathematical system there are statements that can neither be proven to be false or true. Or stated in a contradictory, self-referencing sort of way...

If a formal system can prove its own consistency, then it is inconsistent.

...

from http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html:
Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced.

...

from Gödel-Escher-Bach:
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth

 

[TURBO2GO]

I find it funny and ironic that we are waxing high philosophy and talking about detachment from worldly things when we are all brought together for one reason...owning an expensive supercar that 95% of the world cannot afford to buy =)

My life is filled with contradictions.

"The snow falls, each flake in its appropriate place". This is how it is supposed to be. :wink:

I can actually become quite present while driving the NSX. Everytime I make a mistake on the track, it is because I've started thinking.

 

[docjohn]

Dave I think(sic) its time for you to take it to the next level. you,a toltec concoction of blood/various shrooms,a bunch of other plants,crushed up beetles,and a comfy deprivation tank.:wink:

 

[Big_D]

Ignorance is Bliss....

 

[docjohn]

Tis folly to be wise......:wink:

 

[davidg]

Everything is nothing.

 

[docjohn]

There is a garden in her face......

 

[MartinSD]

Greetings

Reading this post, "You learn things you never knew you never knew!"

Cheers,
Martin

 

[ChongLee]

Re: zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

LMAO
No Mind !

 

[naaman]

Re: zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

Hm... What happens when you consider a mathematical system itself rather than just a problem within it? ...

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that within any mathematical system there are statements that can neither be proven to be false or true. Or stated in a contradictory, self-referencing sort of way...

Okay so I read the article... any simple examples?

I'll try one:

1/3 cannot be expressed in decimal or integer form, since 0.999... is not equal to 3 * 1/3.

To put it another way: one divided by three equals one-third. But in "long division" the result is 0.3333..... When 0.3333.... is multiplied by 3, the result is 0.99999...., not 1.0.

Is that along the lines of the Incompleteness Theorum?

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Re: zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

Okay so I read the article... any simple examples?

I'll try one:

1/3 cannot be expressed in decimal or integer form, since 0.999... is not equal to 3 * 1/3.

To put it another way: one divided by three equals one-third. But in "long division" the result is 0.3333..... When 0.3333.... is multiplied by 3, the result is 0.99999...., not 1.0.

Is that along the lines of the Incompleteness Theorum?

There are a lot of inconsistencies, incompleteness and oddities in math. As you get into higher and higher orders, you’ll see that math and physics turns more into philosophy than actual science and that much of what we think are absolute are actually just theoretical representations. Once you get to quantum physics, relativity theory and other high levels of math, the foundation of mathematics really starts to fall apart. Another interesting one is the concept of an imaginary number. An imaginary number (i) is defined as the square root of -1. That is because no number exists that the square of results in a negative number. However, this is a very real number because if I squared i, or basically squared the square root of -1, I get a real number of -1. So in other words, if I take a number that doesn’t exist and multiply by itself (another number that doesn’t exist), it results in a actual real number. This phenomenon is used, practically every day in electrical engineering and other fields.

In quantum physics, there are objects and numbers that can have two values at the exact same time. Today’s standard computers can only process two numbers. 0’s and 1’s. Everything is represented by either a 0 or 1 and a “bit” can only have the value of 0 or 1 at any given time. However, quantum computers work on the concept that a bit can be both 0 and 1 at the same time based on superposition.

So in essence, we look at the concept of math, some things that appear to be absolute: like all numbers must be real or exist to be tangible or that something can only have one value at a given time. But the reality we see math is just a continuing theory that is never absolute. We continue to adjust and revise our understanding of it as we learn more. Just think, a few hundred years ago the concept of zero, was laughable. The idea that the number zero or even negative numbers could even exist or be used was absurd.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Vegas that was an excellent post. I was just about to say the same exact things but you did it even better. I am suprised of the quality of some of the posts on this thread.

These same sorts of phenomena appear not only in mathematics but also in physics (especially particle physics) where we look to the small, and in astronomy where we look to the large. The mind starts to fail in its ability to "see" reality as science starts to describe it. Of course a scientist can still push forward and solve formulas, but he is no longer able to visualize what it is he is doing. The mind's visualizations must be left behind.

The screen in front of you appears solid, but physics will tell you that it is actually almost completely empty space. Events seem to take place one after another in a linear fashion in time, yet relativity theory will tell you that time is not linear.

All of what we see as reality is not really the truth. We live in a world where we see objects, yet matter itself does not truly exist. Matter is only energy as seen by the mind. Our senses essentially create for us this false picture, that we mistake for reality.

The point of the quote was that the Sage, has gone beyond the mind. Beyond thought, beyond not only ignorance, but also beyond knowledge. Beyond, limitation.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

I am suprised of the quality of some of the posts on this thread.

Who would have thought, all this discussion would have developed from one simple quote?

 

[Ojas]

Re: zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

Is that along the lines of the Incompleteness Theorum?

It's actually different. Vega$ did an outstanding job in his explanation above. As far as Gödel's theorum goes, I'll skip how he proved this and try to explain what it means...

Basics: axioms, theorems, and proofs

You might remember the notions of axioms, theorems, and proofs from math class. Just to refresh, here's the gist of it...

Within a mathematical system (arithmetic, calculus, geometry, set theory, etc.), axioms are true statements that are considered to be "self-evident". Think of them as the foundation of a mathematical system. If we are talking about arithmetic, some axioms would be statements like:

• if x equals y, then y must equal x
• if a equals b and b equals c, then a must equal c

There are a few more, but what they all have in common is self-evidence... They are so fundamental and obviously true, we don't bother proving them.

Now, theorems are also statements that are true. The difference is they are not self-evident. Rather they are proven to be true based on axioms or other theorems using rules of deduction or logic.

Knowing everything

So, since axioms are true and we have a way of coming up with more truths by deducing theorems from axioms and even more theorems from other theorems and so on... we should be able to know everything about arithmetic, calculus, geometry, or any mathematical system. Makes sense, right? It made sense to me.

 axiom        axiom      axiom  axiom   axiom
   | \         /|         /|\    | |     /|
   |  \       / |        / | \   | |    / |
  ...  \     / ...      / ... \  |...  / ...
       theorem         /       \ |    / 
         \  \         /        theorem
          \  \       /          /  |
           \  \     /          /  ...
            \ theorem --- theorum  
            ...   |          |
                 ...        ...      ...
                                      |
                                   theorem
   ... ...     ...  ...  ...         / \
    |  /         \   |   /         ... ...
  theorem         theorem
     |             |   |
    ...           ... ...
                     .
                     .
                     .

In fact, in the early 1900s, this is exactly what Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell (two mathematicians/philosophers) set out to do in writing Principia Mathematica: "Derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic". This is the idea of completeness.

Well, a few decades later, another mathematician/philosopher named Kurt Gödel published his incompleteness theorem which proved there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived with the axioms defined in Principia Mathematica.

So what's the big deal? Maybe Whitehead and Russell just forgot something. Since we don't need to prove axioms, can't we just start with Principia Mathematica and add a few more axioms to cover the truths that we missed?

This is where it gets weird.

The thing is Gödel's proof didn't pertain to just Principia Mathematica. He proved that for any axiomatic system which set out to do what Whitehead and Russell attempted, there would always be true statements that could never be proven. This is what's meant by "provability is a weaker notion than truth". So, even if you add more axioms in your attempt to deduce every possible truth, your system has only two possible outcomes:

• Incomplete - There are more true statements out there, but the axioms (and the theorems derived from them) are not powerful enough to prove them.
• Inconsistent - You'd have truths that contradict each other.

These are the only two possible outcomes for any axiomatic system - not just mathematics.

 

[WingZ]

Even most Buddhists do not grasp the concept of what the Buddha was trying to convey.

The easiest path, is to take away the concept of time from your mind. You can never "achieve" or "reach" enlightenment, because that is the mind's way as it seeks something through time. My teacher would say "you are here already". The reason you do not feel you are here, and see a difference between "here" and "there" is because your mind is making too much noise. If you learn to quiet your mind, you are left with your natural, enlightened state of being. If your attention is always in the present moment and nowhere else, you are walking away from time... the mind-made concept that keeps you from your natural, enlightened state.

Nice that your going deep in giving people something to think about but be careful as certain philosophies can be crippling in application. A meditative state is wonderful for a small percent but could society function if everyone was in that same state????

If you are in thought, you are not present. If you are present (what you are referring to as 'a moment'), then you are not in thought. The two cannot coexist. That is actually the doorway out.

I disagree with this thought process as man is able to be in both. Remember man is essentially a tri-being made up of spirit soul and body. The Spirit is ether yet exists and thus the binding agent between soul ( mind ,will and emotions ) and body. The soul maybe in a moment yet the body remains present. Complex philosophies keep people from the simple. Ultimate enlightenment is conceived of by everyone everyday yet thrown away by complexity by everyone everyday.

"The snow falls, each flake in its appropriate place". This is how it is supposed to be. :wink:

I can actually become quite present while driving the NSX. Everytime I make a mistake on the track, it is because I've started thinking.

Same here. A friend of mine gave me some great advice on this " begin to see a car in front of you. This car and it's driver look exactly like you. Your goal is to chase that car and it's driver. That car and it's driver are you:biggrin:

 

[TURBO2GO]

A meditative state is wonderful for a small percent but could society function if everyone was in that same state????

I am not sure what "state" you are talking about, everyone has their own imagination of what meditation is yet very few people actually understand it.

What I am talking about is the state of being present, which means your mind is relatively quiet. You are no longer being controlled as much by this concept of time, which I have tried to explain is not as we normally see it. If you study Einstein's theory of relativity, you will see that even the concept of time falls apart as we know it. I am not sure if you have ever heard of the experiment where two atomic clocks were synchronized, one put on a plane, flown around the planet, and when it was brought back it read a slightly different time than the one it was synchronized to. Anyway I am not wanting to delve deep into the science of it, but the talk here is that a human's vision of reality is at best incomplete.

You are asking of society could function in that state... yes, it can. As an individual you function best in this state. When your mind is focused on what is happening now, and not on what you will do in the future (which is an obsessive quality of the thinking mind that few people are aware of). Every action is done with grace. The entire concept of Zen is that you always stay absolutely focused in the present moment. There is something magical here, that is very unimportant to the thinking, logical brain. If you ask to be explained this concept, the Zen master will never give you a satisfactory explanation. It is something the mind cannot understand. Therefore, it assigns it the label of "nonesense" or "unimportant". If you feel what I am talking about is exactly that, then your mind is doing its job.

 

[WingZ]

I am not sure what "state" you are talking about, everyone has their own imagination of what meditation is yet very few people actually understand it.

What I am talking about is the state of being present, which means your mind is relatively quiet. You are no longer being controlled as much by this concept of time, which I have tried to explain is not as we normally see it. If you study Einstein's theory of relativity, you will see that even the concept of time falls apart as we know it. I am not sure if you have ever heard of the experiment where two atomic clocks were synchronized, one put on a plane, flown around the planet, and when it was brought back it read a slightly different time than the one it was synchronized to. Anyway I am not wanting to delve deep into the science of it, but the talk here is that a human's vision of reality is at best incomplete.

You are asking of society could function in that state... yes, it can. As an individual you function best in this state. When your mind is focused on what is happening now, and not on what you will do in the future (which is an obsessive quality of the thinking mind that few people are aware of). Every action is done with grace. The entire concept of Zen is that you always stay absolutely focused in the present moment. There is something magical here, that is very unimportant to the thinking, logical brain. If you ask to be explained this concept, the Zen master will never give you a satisfactory explanation. It is something the mind cannot understand. Therefore, it assigns it the label of "nonesense" or "unimportant". If you feel what I am talking about is exactly that, then your mind is doing its job.

Based on your explanation which is what I thought you were talking about to begin with my answer still holds and a cold look at reality at least in this country confirms this.

If everyone is focused on the present who would be considering what the future will be?
Do we really want to go back to living in farm communities and no tech? Not saying that that wouldn't be a nice peaceful way of contentment as these things have added stress to our lives.

That way of life is great for people seeking a center as people do get lost along the way in the things we deal with daily. Of course once the center is gained each individual must find for themselves is the process a way of life for them. My personal belief is that to get stuck in the process is never to have understood that the process was nothing more to begin with.

The atomic clock thing is pretty cool thanks for sharing as I'm googling that now.

Google is a nice thing we wouldn't have if we were all in Zen:wink: J/K

 

[01blacks4]

Vance this quote has nothing to do with religion or Obama rallies.

Sure it does, actions of the ignorant and/or mis-informormed translates easily into the quote. I think he was using it as an example.

Turbo, why are so many of your posts so condescending lately?
I know you say that is not your intent, yet that is how they are perceived.

 

[WingZ]

Sure it does, actions of the ignorant and/or mis-informormed translates easily into the quote. I think he was using it as an example.

Turbo, why are so many of your posts so condescending lately?
I know you say that is not your intent, yet that is how they are perceived.

Not to interject but wouldn't that be "zendescending" ..LOL

 

[01blacks4]

I agree, some really great responses …..Makes me really glad that after five years of engineering, I don’t have to use 99% of what I was taught. I like my nice simple world…….

 

[Tom239]

Re: zen-like self-refencing contradiction on undecidability...

1/3 cannot be expressed in decimal or integer form, since 0.999... is not equal to 3 * 1/3.

To put it another way: one divided by three equals one-third. But in "long division" the result is 0.3333..... When 0.3333.... is multiplied by 3, the result is 0.99999...., not 1.0.

1/3 can be expressed in decimal, it's just that the decimal has an infinite number of digits.

0.99999... (with an infinite number of 9s) is just another decimal representation for 1.0. This is one of the quirks of decimal representation: some numbers can be written in more than one way.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1

 

[TURBO2GO]

If everyone is focused on the present who would be considering what the future will be?
Do we really want to go back to living in farm communities and no tech?

You can consider the future. But even a change that you have decided to make, must be done one step at a time with complete focus in the present. This rarely happens for most of us. Most of the time, our focus is actually not here. It is some place else. We think it is here, but if one's mind is active with thought, it is actually some place else. Being completely present and thinking can't coexist. The active mind will not allow a person to even see the possibility of quiet. It too desperately needs facts, evidence, explanations, it has too many questions. You ask it to be quiet, and it wants to know why first. It wants something to make "sense" and what I say makes none. The state of "no thought", must be experienced. You may have experienced it for brief periods when you are in what they call "the zone" at a sport. Your mind is quiet. Action is flowing through you without thought. The euphoria that you feel in that state is because you are; for a brief period, fully present.

This moment, this thing right here, has no importance to the mind. But it is the *only* thing in many eastern philosophies. Meditation is the art that facilitates entrance to it. As you "watch" the thoughts that enter your head, they begin to subside. Time starts to lose its power, and eventualy you even lose the concept of yourself, the seperation of you and the world. The most beautiful art, forms of expression, and the most graceful action is born from this state. There is no "I", and task. It is all one. You become an instrument as they say, through which something is born.

Your idea of no tech and farm communities is just a human mind's imagination of living in a state it cannot understand. You can practice being present while doing anything. Einstein himself often said that the best always came to him when he stopped thinking. All of reality is born out of this silence that is the essence of all of eastern thought. To know it, your mind must be silent. It cannot be an object of understanding. It cannot be talked about. Lao Tzu said in the Tao Te Ching "he who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know". This was not a funny way to point out dumb people. It is about something much deeper.

Sure it does, actions of the ignorant and/or mis-informormed translates easily into the quote. I think he was using it as an example.

Turbo, why are so many of your posts so condescending lately?
I know you say that is not your intent, yet that is how they are perceived.

I think Vance was making some general judgements and assumptions about someone who is at an Obama rally. I think his implication that they are stupid will probably offend more people than my saying that the point of my thread is not political nor religious. But in any event my intention was not to offend him, and I think he knows that. If I did... Vance, please accept my apology.