I challenge anyone to find a flaw with what I'm saying below: 

If time, space, causality are just constructions of the human brain, then there's nothing to be done and no state to be achieved.

If time, space, causality have existence independent of human faculties -
a) what is the evidence for it?
​​​​​​​b) Further, I proved in an earlier post (unfortunately, I've deleted my posts but those who have seen it probably know) that based on the Majjhima Nikaya model of kamma and rebirth, we reach absurd conclusions, thus, kamma and rebirth do not hold, thus, nothing needs to be done along the Buddhist path.

Please be precise and succinct. Point out exactly where I am wrong. Refrain from name calling, else I'll just cut you off.

The flaw in your argument is that you're not willing to have a discussion about it!

George - nothing to discuss if there is nothing wrong! Just internalize the message so it lives in the depth of your heart.

too quick off the mark, i replied in your account termination post.

At the risk of attempting some humor again, is it not a little funny to invite a discussion when you are convinced that there is nothing to discuss?! For some reason the whole dynamic here reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch where John Cleese refuses to continue arguing. 

George -- Find the flaw in the argument, there will be something to discuss! I've not seen Monty Python.

I can't find a flaw within your argument. What concerns me is the framing of the argument, but you're not willing to discuss that. ​​​​​​​

If time, space, causality are just constructions of the human brain, then there's nothing to be done and no state to be achieved.
This sentence contain abrupt random conclusion completely unrelated to given argument. If everything is already set in stone then it doesn't invalidate simple fact that you get what you sow. No way around it.

Besides structure of universe can be such that it contains a lot of repetition and most of the time the same things happen most of the time, kinda like if whole universe evolved over and over again in the same exact way, with occasional changes which then introduce these changes to further iterations of the evolving universe. Evolving in different time direction than what we perceive as arrow of time.

Imho you closed yourself in classical yes/no box where your whole line of reasoning, questions and answers to them are in a box and this box is only in your head. In either way ignorance does not guarantee good future as even lacking ignorance doesn't guarantee there won't be a bad future. Besides what your real issue is and what drives these questions and haphazardly constructed answers is "relief seeking behavior" which is a fetter. These answer and this is immediately obvious exist only for purpose of providing answer to stop questions as this is what you believe will bring you relief. And they will, but little that you might know relief is essence of dukkha.

So enjoy your dukkha

Ni Nurta =
What's the evidence that you get what you sow?
​​​​​​​

What is Mu? 

I'm agreeing with replies above:  non sequiturs and framing the question to prevent any challenge.

However:

If time, space, causality have existence independent of human faculties -
a) what is the evidence for it?

Billiard balls.

What's the evidence that you get what you sow?

This thread

This one is simple. It is your obsession

Cross-posting a reply from another topic:
​​​​​​​
There is a mysteriousness to the universe and our experience of it that evades the kind of logic the human brain prefers. Things we experience can be both more and less than they immediately appear. Absurd conclusions are often the result of applying the logic of one domain to a domain that doesn't use the same kind of logic. For example, I could assert that there is no "Chris" here at all. In the "ultimate" or "absolute" domain this is the case. But there are clearly a series of processes and a specific physical presence that we call "Chris", which allows us to navigate the universe, apply names to and classify things (objects), in the "relative" domain. There is a unique "Chris" that we assume exists. So if you switch domains and apply the logic of the absolute domain to the relative domain, you will sound silly, maybe even insane. And vice-versa. The tricky part is that there aren't really two separate domains. We live in the indeterminate confluence of the absolute and the relative, all the time. So while from the absolute domain we say things like "time, space and causality are imaginary constructs," we have to contort our view for that to be "true" in a universal manner, "across" domains. We have to accept only the logic of the absolute because, in the relative view, time, space, and causality all exist and are all very useful. 

Nagarjuna, you know.

I'm inserting a different view (my own and that of others I know) into this apparent dilemma, which I don't actually believe to be a dilemma if we can see the two-sided nature of our existence.
​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​YES, correct - time, space, and causality are just constructions. So, also, is the idea of a human brain as any kind of source or center of anything... there is no source or center.

YES there is nothing to be done and no state to be achieved... but there is also NO-ONE to DO or ACHIEVE anything.

All separatenesses are constructions, INCLUDING the idea that there is anything to construct or not construct.

They key for many is the sudden moment of noticing that the self is just a construction too... just another object.


Without making any presumptions about your understanding - if there is a possible flaw in your statements it is in how they are presented. It would appear to be that there is still a self in the perspective that lends an imprecision to your understanding.

The insight you are looking for is not an intellectual/conceptual grasp of an idea, but an EXPERIENTAL insight/gnowing (gnosis). It is SEEING that underlying reality, and never not being able to see it again. If it is by logic you arrive at your conclusions, then you will eventually come to doubt and eventually discard them. Insight into the nature of reality is the END of seeking.

Stirling, Logic has been a important part of the journey, and yes, in part, it is logic that I've used to arrive at my conclusions. My goals has been the end of questions. As I said in an earlier post: What the intellect sees can seep right into the depths of the heart if one is open to it. Maybe let me use a Buddhist-style statement: I've used the intellect to go beyond the intellect -- the intellect is just a faculty and in part, I've used the intellect to come to this conclusion. The conclusion then seeps into the heart. Intuition has been part of the journey too - I've talked about the intuitive experience of the Brahman elsewhere.
I agree, self is just a construction. The way I like to put it is that ego and self are faculties - some thing I've seen.
But I've noted what you said -- and I'll let time take its course, and I'll let time tell, if I discard what you say I'll discard. I doubt it though -- the traditions that I come from give importance to arguments and logic much more than I find people on this forum believe its importance to be.

Goodbye all. 
I thank anyone and everyone who keeps this forum running, and I thank those, who interacted with me respectfully and offered comments over the last year or so. I consider myself blessed if anything I said was useful to you.

Just out of interest Mike - is this how you see yourself, coming into our den to challenge us? 

It sounds like you've reduced everything to constructions of the "human brain" and "human faculties". But what gives this "human brain" and these "human faculties" a different ontological status to things like trees, cars and mountains? How do you justify saying that the latter are 'constructs' while the former are not?

Mike, this probably amounts to pissing away my last drop of credibility with you, but as one who thinks of himself as your friend, I do want to say that I think the best thing you could do for yourself right now is to just stop posting here, to consider your accoubt terminated in your own mind, and to run out your new sense of arrival free of DhO. It is painful watching this prolonged finality play out, truly. I really think your best move is to just stop, leave whatever is here in whatever state it is, and test drive that heart you've come into on fresh roads. Turn the rear-view mirror up to the ceiling for a while and just drive on, man. See where the road leads. If our roads ever cross again, I would be delighted, as I'm sure a lot of people here would. But what you're doing right now is not doing anyone any good, yourself least of all. Vaya con dios, amigo.

I agree.

Mike, you might get some benefit out of looking into separation anxiety.

Sincerely,
George