The present is eternity..

By spirituality, you seem to mean things (religions) like catholicism.

I like to see it as a comedy
Perhaps a game is more fit, seeing how we participate. But it the end, none of it matters...

Ah Zen
I still don't understand (if you would be so bold to agree that zen and perhaps all buddhism is spiritual ) why you would call spirituality inversely proportional.

I believe the 'spiritual suicide' of which Zen tends to not-speak is the evaporation of the drop of water that we are. Thus becoming one. Yet always existing; but in essence, the true emptiness is once more reflected.

reX: You see, I called spirituality inversely proportional to ego. Ego is taking one's self seriously, which is the opposite of taking life as a comedy or game. So you're view is a spiritual one, and we agree.

The point is not to destroy the ego, but merely to see its nature. It's impossible to destroy the ego, because the ego is illusion, and any attempt to destroy it only strenghtens it. So there is pretty much nothing we can do but watch.

We're watchers of nature.

The drop of water separated from the waterfall is consciousness, and we eventually join the water again.

I understand now. (yeay, I'll always understand, I've always understood. Isn't that right? :p )

I think we always understand. But a lot of times we forget that we understand. Or we actually forget how to tune into the understanding. The understanding is always there. But we devise countless ways to avoid it.

Coluber, it could not be said more clearly:

"The point is not to destroy the ego, but merely to see its nature. It's impossible to destroy the ego, because the ego is illusion, and any attempt to destroy it only strenghtens it. So there is pretty much nothing we can do but watch."

I hope Rex and Extra Medium are serious: what they say is true.

JL,

Yes, I was serious. I know, when folks start joking a bit online, then it becomes difficult to tell when one is being serious, or not.

What do you think about this: Yes, its impossible to destroy the ego. But how about attempting to "improve" the ego? That is, for example: instead of satisfying my ego by trying to drive a better car than my neighbor, I'll try to modify my ego so that it is satisfied by becoming a better supporter of worthwhile charities.

Even though, either way may not ultimately matter.

The difficulty I have with the concept that life is a game or a dream or a movie that we are watching is that it may lead us to not care as much as we might about certain situations. For example, lets say I see a kid hurt on the side of the street. Normally, I would probably try to load him in my car and try everything I could to get him to the hospital. But, if I'm thinking life is but a dream, a movie, I may not be quite as concerned whether the kid lives or dies. I'll be a bit more disinterested. I'll still try to get him to the hospital, but I won't take it too "seriously" if he passes away. I may try just a little bit less hard to get him to the hospital ASAP, because after all, its all a dream. Is this a possible negative consequence of this outlook on life?

Extra Medium, consider the similarity between Coluber's statement (that I quoted) and that of Robert Linseen (Living Zen, p.17):
"The fact that we are Reality, and that we have never ceased so to be, and that in consequence the realization [of that fact] is but liberation from a mirage, is frequently brought out in all works on Zen. Because a mirage is in a certain sense non-existent the fact of being delivered from it is--from the point of view of the sage (and not the layman)--non-existent."

This points to the fact that to be liberated or enlightened is not to be without ego; it is to not be attached to a sense of self, to "see its nature," as Coluber advises. To "see" is to be aware in a non-evaluative and profoundly disinterested way. To merely watch what is and what is happening. This is the style of meditation called Shikantaza (Soto Zen) or "choiceless awareness" (Krishnamurti). Reality is what it is, complete and perfect (even if our ego doesn't think so). So there's no need to change anything, only appreciate it for what it is. To try to change it only serves to strenghten the illusion of self, as Coluber so clearly puts it. This is why zen meditation is both so easy and so difficult. For our egos it is impossible, so we must do it in an absolutely passive way, giving ego nothing to do, no role or function.

Have no fear, Extra Medium, being unattached to experience, because it eliminates the role of ego, mysteriously and paradoxically enhances our compassion toward others. You will take the injured child to the hospital, full of concern for his suffering and the anxieties of his parents. And this will be a selfless concern. You will identity with the child and his parents because they will fill the space otherwise filled with your illusory ego. You and they do not exist as substantial egos, but your experiences are real. Predicates without subjects. As someone put it earlier, there is suffering but no sufferers.

jumping into the fray
Plato was one of the first to divide what we can see and what we can know into two groups. I don't recall the specific but it went something like this. There are two sides to the universe, that which is real and that which we perceive. Taken much deeper by people like Immanuel Kant and others there is the physical world that can be measured of which time is just another measurement and there is the perceived world where our life and experiences may be measured by the passage of time but are no more than the sum of a finite number of instances.

Personally I view time the same way I do height, width, or length. An infinite linear progression with no starting point and no ending point and no smallest subdivision. Made up of an infinite number of points that are infinitely indivisible. There can be no first second, no last second, and no finite number to the times you can divide a second in half.

What does it mean. It means that whether the present is eternal or the past is eternal or the future is eternal its all finite for each of us. Our existence is relative to our time on this planet in the grand scheme of things we are nothing more than a point in time. So I say treat every morning and every day as if its your last because you never know when it just might be.

(very sorry if I brought everyone down, not the intention)
thats my 2 cents, rebate forms available upon request.

JLN,

You describe a pretty attractive path. One that I've started down a time or two. Do you ever feel like you hit a "glass ceiling" in your journey? A place where you sort of stop learning new things, or the learning curve, the rate of learning, slows way down?

JLN:
"I understand now. (yeay, I'll always understand, I've always understood. Isn't that right? :p* )"
I wasn't serious when writing that, I was trying to point out that because not understanding what was said at one time and understanding it now meant that there is a time difference. Therefor the equation of present = eternity must be erroneous.
Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at the same time as einstein would continue to point out.

But I'm serious now. And agree that there are very basic things, natural things with which we've 'lost' touch but are never completely out of reach. Such as understanding (or 'feeling' something. I'm thinking of my personal experiences of aikido). Again I quote: If you can't understand it, it's intuitively obvious.(you just 'feel' it)

extra medium at JLN:
A conclusion is where you go when you're sick and tired of thinking.

I've been reading about the Omega Number just now http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html (trying to find mathematical basis on rejecting the validity of knowledge acquired by math. I'm sure this sort of epistemology is appreciated by JLN but perhaps he fails to follow such a scientific approach) and I'm confident that at one point I'll say: To hell with it! It's not important. The only reason I was reading it and liked some of the aspects that disagreed with JLN's point of view is because the first time I heard there's an alternative way of thinking about time they suggested a spiral, that just stuck with me. A point from which to start (as intangible as the present, a point** too) and continuously spiralling outward. Infinity as the ending 'point'. This thought reoccurred because I read more and more about the big bang and the inflation theory which stated that there IS a starting point (thus disproving eternity, both in time and space) and therefor there is also an ending point, in which time ends (this tail, conclusion of logic, I do not always follow. If only for the sake of argument)

But today I was able to do the same thing with real life problems.
None of it _really_ matters. If it indeed does not affect anybody any more, if the only 'real' possible consequence has become that people can be angry (read: frustrated), most likely me, then there is nothing to worry about and one can let go. Once you realise nothing matters, just smile. You could cry too, but it's more pleasant to smile.

Notes:
* When I just write one line, one quick comment. There are usually two possible endings:
:p = hehe, I'm saying you're wrong. I feel you're wrong, in everyday use, in the dualistic way in which we communicate, isn't this blatantly obvious?
= the wisdom cannot be found in the words. But in your own understanding of the nature of things

**If you feel you're missing the 'point' (no pun intended) of my use of the word 'point' in time. If is simply that I'm astonished by the fact that what we use to describe the smallest 'thing' imaginable(a point) is in fact intangible and has no surface or anything like that. It, in essence, does not exist; this emptiness can be found in the unitary existence of the universe. Even in the sum of its parts.

And if you're wondering why the hell I'd bring science up, I'd reply with more science http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/why.html for which I'd need to go the the science and mathematics forum to figure out what the hell it all means, so please don't wonder

Nipok, some people say we should live each day as if it, or tomorrow, were our last; I prefer to live each day as if yesterday were my last. Gravy.

Extra Medium, I no longer feel that my learning curve has flattened out, that I've hit a "ceiling" because I do not think of my "spiritual life" in terms of progress. All is complete as it is. I've nowhere to go but here. It's my desire for more, for progress, that is frustrating, and that desire is a function of my illusory ego.

Two wonderful quotes:

"Our effort in our [meditative] practice should be directed from achievement to non-achieivement." (Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Be ginner's Mind, p.59).

"I have truly obtained nothing from complete, unexcelled Enlightenment."
(The Buddha).

Actually although it sounded like a good closing to the post I don't practice what I preach. Maybe too many people living for today is part of the global problem. The other part of the global problem is too many living day to day not taking the time to re-examine their life, smell the flowers, question the unknown, or take the road less traveled.

Time may be nothing more than a measurement and a concept but that does not make it any less precious than gold. Those that have the time to waste it do and those that don't have the time to waste it don't. Those in the middle that make time to side step their daily routine to experience that which is outside their body and that which inside their body will find their time well spent.

So if I can make time to spend time can I get rich ?

You ask how to get rich? First ask yourself how to be happy.
I believe balance is the answer and that time is the most valuable of resources.

It was a PUN "make time" "spend time".

But the PUN was backwards anyway. If I find a way to make time to spend time will I go broke is what I meant.

whatever you do with your time; find a way to extract the 'content' possitively.

and thus, said ZaReXathustra, to be happy.