GENIUS FORUMS

The first thing to understand is that you're not enlightened. You have insight and you're on 'the path', but it seems you're still very confused, uncertain, and frankly, you demonstrate that you cling to a heap of delusions. My advice: want wisdom more. It comes hand in hand with absolute certainty,...

Once the above is thoroughly understood can one grasp the true meaning of emptiness, to which wisdom cumulatively leads. That things exist * is * the ultimate joke. Nice quotes, they clearly outline the materialistic assumption Jupiviv's reasoning is based on, and contrast it well to a more accurat...

I have discovered from personal experience that if a person has no interest in questioning why they experience a sense of loss/incompleteness, they are not ready to find out the reason why. I have been married for 40 years and my husband has made it clear to me that he has no interest whatsoever in...

You said "without involving the former", clearly such reasoning would involve emotions and beliefs, but you derail the clear point- that the emotions, beliefs and so on, are not the subject of that contemplation. The post made it clear that the terms 'inward' and 'outward' were not literal...

"Outward" contemplation being when a person contemplates an external topic. Science, politics, society and so on. "Inward" contemplation being when a person contemplates one's own emotions, mistakes, thoughts, beliefs, views, actions, and so on. Everyone is capable of the first, ...

The confusion is to think that the "thing" is actually anywhere else! Naturally a lot of things conspired to give rise to the "event of the appearance" but since you can only infer or imagine what's going on exactly, for all ends and purposes it should be clear that the thing ap...

Lots of people wishing for immortality, and here moving is going for an never ending Rest In Peace. Existence is endless, the wisdom of eternal life allows one to be liberated from many things, such as the belief in duty and the fear of death/loss, as does recognition of the ephemeral nature of the ...

It is simply a way of explaining/reasoning the fluidity of the "ocean" of relativity that is reality and the appearance of "its" wave we call consciousness. The ocean of relativity or reality that you say consciousness is a wave of- and therefore you imply reality must have diff...

I am happy to continue our metaphysical discussion if there is mutual agreement to use our "I" and only our "I", be it stated or implied Ok, one way of describing it in language: I am absolutely certain that the nature of reality is the same as the nature of experience or being ...

I can distinguish an actual pebble, the sensation of one and the thought of one well enough. It's near impossible to explain how nonsensical you are. You do realize that all you've 'got' is consciousness right? That it makes up the entirety of your insight and knowledge? All you have of "the p...

No, sensations are not all I am capable of referring to. I can refer to the law of causality responsible for the pebble and the hand for the consciousness that perceives both, a law that can be proven by logical deduction. I was referring to aspects of consciousness, ideas such as that one count. Y...

Jupiviv's concept of "pebble" is of the nature of consciousness, however, the physical pebble he holds in his hand is not of the nature of consciousness (is external to consciousness). The 'physical pebble', and 'the hand', are all references to sensations. It's all you're capable of refe...

things that are not conscious (like a pebble) are not identifiable as conscious things, because they are not . Of course a pebble isn't conscious, what are you on about? Something has to be conscious itself for it to be a thing of consciousness? What about a dream or a thought? No one ever implied ...

Mind and appearance changes, mind and appearance is temporal and finite. Truth does not change, truth is eternal. I assume you consider that your view of "mind and appearance is all" is absolute truth, which implies does it not that its truth exists regardless if mind and appearance ackno...

Also, I should probably ignore your use of the word "create". Your reasoning that reality must be 'created' from this viewpoint follows from nowhere. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, but were just using the word generally? Solipsism is entirely different from Idealism, and neither...

Reality is, by definition, more than you know it to be. If it weren't then the two options are a) you are or create reality (solipsism) b) someone else does (supernaturalism). A belief in either of these is self-annihilating. the "more" of that which is different in nature, is always impl...

But aren't you now implying there's a some kind of perception before perception? Or at least a "raw" version leading to something more processed ? No, I'm talking about perceptions and then ideas, and they usually happen in one order or another, but to try and distinguish between these ab...

With causality I'd say that it is a term we apply to our perception of relations, something which is imposed more so than it is the fundamental nature of reality, at least I get the sense that this is how moving always speaks about causality, as in the language 'reality' or 'spirit' are equated wit...

Your intended meaning is not clear to me. You could mean that from your perspective (what I would call your 'spiritual' or 'existential' or 'perceptual' position, you have little need or use of 'philosophy'. Arising out of that stance, logically, you make the statement that philosophy is imbued wit...

Pretty much this is all I have for you, and for you-all: questions . And I would be on the opposite end of the spectrum, with little to no questions to ask in regard to philosophy. I would say that this drive to question is really a drive of creation - creation of questions and thus the search for ...

You asked seventeen questions in your reply Alex, you haven't answered any of them, am I supposed to go first? So what the fuck are you talking about? We haven't had a discussion of any kind as far as I'm concerned, I wanted to begin from a different direction, which I saw as a necessary start, you ...

So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between? S: I never implied that there weren't "things" other than "my" consciousness, which implied that I was saying that the specific ("my" consciousness) was the tota...

Does this newfound uncertainty have *anything* to do with my having put your internet-assembled philosophy out to pasture in that other thread? Just asking. I wasn't even aware you had replied on that thread until now. I just checked and you did, I hadn't seen it. Will read it today. SeekerOfWisdom...

Take 'wisdom' for example. Now, let me get this straight: Two youngsters, one from India and one from Australia, both severely undereducated, but both phenomenally willful, imagine that they can carry on a plausible conversation about what is, and what is not, wisdom ? Am I the only one to hear the...

Yeah, I'm fine with making statements, I'm just no longer claiming I can explain with any certainty that it will be received. I didn't mean to exclude "starts" and "leads" from cause and effect, only pointing out that I didn't use the term, just to clarify what I said about expla...