system of ethics based on realization of ultimate reality

[otiosedodge]

I didn't refer to myself as an agnostic altruistic; I said that I thought that many agnostic altruists realizing the ultimate nature of reality would justify the construction of an ethical system predicated on the ultimate nature of reality.

Alright, but why do think that these agnostic altruists, or any sort of altruists, should need to construct a system of ethics? Does not pure altruism represent the ideal in ethical behaviour? Further more, you have still not said why it is that you think that those who are not altruistic, and who have not realized their true nature, would willingly submit to such an ethical system.

As far as a fully awakened one acting spontaneously: are you speaking from experience? Or if you're speaking from an analytical standpoint, perhaps you could justify your point.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is unfolding exactly as it must, and if we wish to put an end to suffering, be it our own or that of other’s, we need only realize our intrinsic nature, and act accordingly. Just as it is in the nature of a knife to cut, or a of fish to breath water, it is in the nature of a human being to sooth the suffering of other sentient beings. To accomplish this function, we do not require plans or systems, for inherent within each of us is that which is required to fulfil our intended purpose - compassion.

First of all, you are conflating altruism and pure altruism. I never said that agnostic altruists practice pure altruism. Furthermore, I am not clear on what you mean by pure altruism. I will assume that you mean that it is acting spontaneously from one's true nature. I also said that I thought the proposed ethical system would appeal mainly to agnostic altruists, and not to others. Therefore, there is no reason for me to say why this system would appeal to those who are not altruistic and/or have not realized their true nature. More to the point: there would be no reason why those who are not altruistic and/or have not realized their true nature would submit to the ethical system. However, I think that with time and more empirical data on the benefits of being guided by such a system (e.g. psychometric testing to measure degrees of life satisfaction), the system would be adopted by greater numbers of people.

As far as the link between realizing our intrinsic nature and acting spontaneously to remedy suffering: while I agree with you that a fully awakened person would not need any guidelines to act, for the vast majority of people, who are at various places on their path to realization, I think a system would be useful.

[Jehu]

As far as the link between realizing our intrinsic nature and acting spontaneously to remedy suffering: while I agree with you that a fully awakened person would not need any guidelines to act, for the vast majority of people, who are at various places on their path to realization, I think a system would be useful.

Indeed it would, but only if you can persuade people to follow such as system. Many established religions have adopted to employ fear of God’s retribution as a means of convincing people that they should conduct themselves in accordance with the church’s commandments, precepts, etc.; however, they have had only marginal success. The truth of the matter is this: so long as people hold an erroneous (i.e., realistic) view of the world, they will interact with the world in accordance with that view.

Now, you or I may tell them that things are very different than they appear, and that if they live their lives in accord with this other view they we suffer less, but until they realize this truth for themselves, they will continue in their habitual patterns of behaviour. So, as I said before, it is not another ethical system that people require, but a comprehensive and coherent philosophical system that will bring them rationally to the correct view; or at least those that are capable of understanding this new view. The remainder will have to be kept in check by threat of punishment – either in this world or in the next.

[pointexter]

how do you know you're awakened ?

When the sleeping stops. The dreaming stops. The Dreamer passes. Such is the 'price' of being awake. Do not awaken Sleep Walkers. That can be very dangerous, especially to them.


otiosedodge,
ethics, morals, virtues, standards, codes, laws, regulations are measuring sticks of social interactions. Useful in the context of co-existing in the bounded tribes of society. Meaningless for one disinterested in limits. A system is bounded conceptualising. Such a thing would place one at odds with the ultimate nature of reality, ie. boundless, total, all, no limits. The desire to conceptualise boundedness (systems) contradicts the stated realisation of ultimate reality (no boundary).

There is no system for realising totality. Such a concept would bind one's thoughts. There is no prescription. An ultimate truth, is that thought creates limits or boundaries. Thought can be used to explore or 'see' the limitations of its operation, but it cannot be used to step outside of itself. It can focus, sharpen or point. But it cannot touch any-thing but itself. Which l see as a grand illusion.

While morality undoubtedly has some of its roots in the herd-instinct, at a fundamental level, it is based in our search for happiness.

The search is what is making you unhappy. It also springs from being unhappy. You have no accepted reality. As it is. Its 'is-ness.' You seek change it, to replace it with other, starting with separating thoughts, like systems of morality. For the purpose of projecting that onto others, thus controlling or at least influencing their actions to change in accord with your thoughts.

The alternative is to abandon false notions which give rise to emotional relativities such as happy/sad, which propel self identity. There is nothing to overcome, nor transcend, nor improve. It is as it is. Neither perfect nor flawed. This will not satisfy the Thinker's desire to think their thoughts, nor the Knowers addictions to knowledgeable Self fulfillment. This will not satisfy 'egos' desire to play with itself. More likely, it will rise to defend its territory. Its boundaries.

Negation of falsehood will yield truth, by deduction or default. Negation is not ignorance. It is the persistent (at times very tiring) application of logic. There is nothing to search for. Its already apparent. One is then free to live according to truth, because that is all that remains. Hence, systems for living become redundant.

There really is no you, me, us, them, save for the thought. Totality means ALL. Forget the parts. In the ultimate sense of totality, there's nothing to link up, nothing to unite, no separate parts to connect nor restore. ALL is not apart from.

Forget linking up 'ethical' thoughts into systems of morality. Its a pleasurable distraction. A fancy. Falsehood. That is society's call to falsification. It is a conditioned reaction and is extremely difficult to over ride. Beckoning you away from truth and back into its self-serving fictions.

I would begin an ethical system with an analysis of the ultimate nature of reality

Unbounded Totality

in order to awaken and then build the ethical system on top of that realization.

Putting them back to sleep in the dreamy comfort of boundaries. Slaves to another system.
The quicksand would devour the building.

[Is.]

I think it is nonetheless important to get as many people as possible wake from the nightmare of purely conventional thought.

Of course! Morality and ethics are extremely important. Many people become confused because they think that just because something doesn't enjoy a status of inherent existence, it is therefore meaningless and non-valid. This is not so.

[otiosedodge]

As far as the link between realizing our intrinsic nature and acting spontaneously to remedy suffering: while I agree with you that a fully awakened person would not need any guidelines to act, for the vast majority of people, who are at various places on their path to realization, I think a system would be useful.

Indeed it would, but only if you can persuade people to follow such as system. Many established religions have adopted to employ fear of God’s retribution as a means of convincing people that they should conduct themselves in accordance with the church’s commandments, precepts, etc.; however, they have had only marginal success. The truth of the matter is this: so long as people hold an erroneous (i.e., realistic) view of the world, they will interact with the world in accordance with that view.

Now, you or I may tell them that things are very different than they appear, and that if they live their lives in accord with this other view they we suffer less, but until they realize this truth for themselves, they will continue in their habitual patterns of behaviour. So, as I said before, it is not another ethical system that people require, but a comprehensive and coherent philosophical system that will bring them rationally to the correct view; or at least those that are capable of understanding this new view. The remainder will have to be kept in check by threat of punishment – either in this world or in the next.

How about saying that people will need both types of system until they are fully awakened? At first, they will need a philosophical system which will bring them to some degree (not full) of awakening, and then they can use an ethical system which is based on the philosophical system until they have achieved full awakening and can thus discard the ethical system.

[otiosedodge]

how do you know you're awakened ?

When the sleeping stops. The dreaming stops. The Dreamer passes. Such is the 'price' of being awake. Do not awaken Sleep Walkers. That can be very dangerous, especially to them.


otiosedodge,
ethics, morals, virtues, standards, codes, laws, regulations are measuring sticks of social interactions. Useful in the context of co-existing in the bounded tribes of society. Meaningless for one disinterested in limits. A system is bounded conceptualising. Such a thing would place one at odds with the ultimate nature of reality, ie. boundless, total, all, no limits. The desire to conceptualise boundedness (systems) contradicts the stated realisation of ultimate reality (no boundary).

There is no system for realising totality. Such a concept would bind one's thoughts. There is no prescription. An ultimate truth, is that thought creates limits or boundaries. Thought can be used to explore or 'see' the limitations of its operation, but it cannot be used to step outside of itself. It can focus, sharpen or point. But it cannot touch any-thing but itself. Which l see as a grand illusion.

While morality undoubtedly has some of its roots in the herd-instinct, at a fundamental level, it is based in our search for happiness.

The search is what is making you unhappy. It also springs from being unhappy. You have no accepted reality. As it is. Its 'is-ness.' You seek change it, to replace it with other, starting with separating thoughts, like systems of morality. For the purpose of projecting that onto others, thus controlling or at least influencing their actions to change in accord with your thoughts.

The alternative is to abandon false notions which give rise to emotional relativities such as happy/sad, which propel self identity. There is nothing to overcome, nor transcend, nor improve. It is as it is. Neither perfect nor flawed. This will not satisfy the Thinker's desire to think their thoughts, nor the Knowers addictions to knowledgeable Self fulfillment. This will not satisfy 'egos' desire to play with itself. More likely, it will rise to defend its territory. Its boundaries.

Negation of falsehood will yield truth, by deduction or default. Negation is not ignorance. It is the persistent (at times very tiring) application of logic. There is nothing to search for. Its already apparent. One is then free to live according to truth, because that is all that remains. Hence, systems for living become redundant.

There really is no you, me, us, them, save for the thought. Totality means ALL. Forget the parts. In the ultimate sense of totality, there's nothing to link up, nothing to unite, no separate parts to connect nor restore. ALL is not apart from.

Forget linking up 'ethical' thoughts into systems of morality. Its a pleasurable distraction. A fancy. Falsehood. That is society's call to falsification. It is a conditioned reaction and is extremely difficult to over ride. Beckoning you away from truth and back into its self-serving fictions.

I would begin an ethical system with an analysis of the ultimate nature of reality

Unbounded Totality

in order to awaken and then build the ethical system on top of that realization.

Putting them back to sleep in the dreamy comfort of boundaries. Slaves to another system.
The quicksand would devour the building.

Hi,

While I agree with your apt characterization of the nature of ultimate reality (as far as language can accurately describe it), my proposed ethical system would operate within the bounds of conventional reality in order to awaken as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. As I said in my previous post, I think it would be a good signpost for people who have had a substantial level of awakening, but still need some guidance as to how to help other people who are still fully trapped in their nightmares.

[otiosedodge]

I think it is nonetheless important to get as many people as possible wake from the nightmare of purely conventional thought.

Of course! Morality and ethics are extremely important. Many people become confused because they think that just because something doesn't enjoy a status of inherent existence, it is therefore meaningless and non-valid. This is not so.

Yes, I agree. It's a slippery slope to nihilism sometimes with these ideas.

[Pam Seeback]

otiosedodge: I'll jump right in: it's only recently that I've realized the ultimate nature of reality. This discovery is obviously a shatteringly beautiful experience, and now my mission is to share it with as many people as possible. With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock. Other very important elements would be emotions, since they're universal, and we all seek happiness (though the vast majority of us don't know what real happiness is).

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

Whose interpretation is a "shatteringly beautiful experience," the mind of you that is thinking of reality from the perspective of belief in dualism or reality itself wherein no dualities exist?

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

the mind of you that is thinking of reality from the perspective of belief in dualism or reality itself wherein no dualities exist?

the mind of you that is thinking of reality from the perspective of belief in dualism

as opposed to

reality itself wherein no dualities exist?

You wouldn't be dealing in dualities yourself would you?

[cousinbasil]

While I agree with your apt characterization of the nature of ultimate reality (as far as language can accurately describe it), my proposed ethical system would operate within the bounds of conventional reality in order to awaken as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. As I said in my previous post, I think it would be a good signpost for people who have had a substantial level of awakening, but still need some guidance as to how to help other people who are still fully trapped in their nightmares.

It is quite natural to want to help other people who are trapped in their nightmares when you have apparently just shed your own. Have you identified the people you want to help? That is the first step I think.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,

the mind of you that is thinking of reality from the perspective of belief in dualism

as opposed to

reality itself wherein no dualities exist?

You wouldn't be dealing in dualities yourself would you?

Dennis, you believe you are exposing me, when I have already [many times] exposed myself as remaining caught in my belief in dualism. Countless times a day, I accept this, and in doing so, reject that. I am acutely aware of my attachment to form. What I don't do is confuse this accepting and rejecting of form with the nature of Reality, which being the Thinker of every form, is without attachment to itself. The discovery I come to share of myself is that if I want to get to know the reality of me that does not accept and reject that which it [already] is, I must begin the processing of getting to know that ME of pure awareness. I can only do that by first withdrawing my energy from my prejudices, then my biases, then, my preferences. There is a biblical scripture that addresses this gradual process of becoming detached - precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little.

My question to otiosedodge is based on my discovery of the confusion man makes in assigning acceptance and rejection of form to the reality of themselves, when this activity of dualism belongs only in the realm of their human, sensing mind. If this distinction is not realized, man goes about in the world believing that when he is choosing this over that [usually what he perceives to be good over evil] that he is demonstrating the nature of reality when he is doing no such thing. He is demonstrating a law, principle and pattern of reality of which he has become aware, that is, the law of sense awareness/sense interpretation, but he is not demonstrating his conscious awareness of reality itself, which is not of sense awareness/sense interpretation.

[Blair]

pusweavel.

What have you discovered..something, something something??

Do tell.

[Pam Seeback]

pusweavel.

What have you discovered..something, something something??

Do tell.

That you believe yourself to be pusweavel.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,
What is wrong with dualism?
What is the fuss about?

You can't escape it.

It's fine if understood.
Let it roll.

Trillions of thoughts, sensations, emotions arising of themselves, just happening, just showing up,
eventing,
Wrapped in a feeling of a me.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,
What is wrong with dualism?
What is the fuss about?

You can't escape it.

It's fine if understood.
Let it roll.

Trillions of thoughts, sensations, emotions arising of themselves, just happening, just showing up,
eventing,
Wrapped in a feeling of a me.

Dennis, again, I tell you that there is nothing wrong with dualism. It is what it is. But being what it is does not make it a permanent 'thing.' Based on my discovery that I am not separate from the non-dual me or the dual me, I believe you believe that you cannot exit dualism because you believe that "your trillions of arising thoughts, sensations, emotions wrapped up in your feeling of you are 'just happening, just showing up, just eventing.'" This tells me that you have not gone into the depth of your silence [your non-dual reality] and observed for yourself why and how you divide yourself into two, then into fragments of this initial dividing. What this means is that you do this, "It" does not "just happen."

Think on this. You are aware of duality. Which means, that the you that is aware of duality is itself, not dual. How then, is it not possible to exit that which is of you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are aware of duality. Which means, that the you that is aware of duality is itself, not dual. How then, is it not possible to exit that which is of you?

No Pam, it appears for you that way, but you cannot just conclude on faith that the 'you' that is aware of dualities is, in fact, non-dual. Only logic can guide here to prevent delusion.

Actually the awareness arises out of these dualities. The observer is caught inside its own reflections. No matter how silent one imagines the observer to be.

[Dennis Mahar]

I must begin the processing of getting to know that ME of pure awareness. I can only do that by first withdrawing my energy from my prejudices, then my biases, then, my preferences. There is a biblical scripture that addresses this gradual process of becoming detached - precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little.

Pam, appreciate you and admire your sincerity somehow. Thanks.

What you've got there is a possibility for a reward.
A 'something is at stake' gist to it.
A sense of a gamble.
Have you considered bookmaking as a career?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote: You are aware of duality. Which means, that the you that is aware of duality is itself, not dual. How then, is it not possible to exit that which is of you?

No Pam, it appears for you that way, but you cannot just conclude on faith that the 'you' that is aware of dualities is, in fact, non-dual. Only logic can guide here to prevent delusion.

No Diebert, it does not appear for me that way. And yes, I can conclude that the me that is aware of dualities is, in fact, non-dual. Going into the depth of one's conscience where no human thought exists is evidence of this. What you propose is that dualism forms dualism, which is insane thinking. How can that which is divided form that which is divided?

Logic does not prevent delusion, for logic is a product of belief in dualism. Logic keeps one deluded into believing that Reality is divided into polar opposites. This is akin to saying that God or Life is human, is logical. Surely you are not saying that Life beyond the appearance of being human has an intellect? Does a plant use logic? Does the moon use logic? Does the ocean use logic? Logic is helpful to cut away the abstractness of idle thinking, but logic has nothing to do with Reality. Where will logic get you when you exhale your last breath and you come face to face with that silence of yourself, no senses to guide you, no human relativism to support your logic? Surely as a student of Reality, you are aware that you are not separate from Reality in anyway, not the sense of you or the spirit of you? And in my use of the word spirit here, please contemplate the essence of this word, its metaphorical suggestion. It is meant to suggest the conscious awareness of you that exists prior to being born. To use your own metaphor, it is the you of you that is unborn. Where will be your logic when you are unborn?

Logic is helpful to prepare the mind to see clearly, but logic is not the final knife that cuts away human attachment. That knife is the knife of humility, of being silent, of acknowledging that God/Life gives life to man, not the other way around.

Actually the awareness arises out of these dualities. The observer is caught inside its own reflections. No matter how silent one imagines the observer to be.

Diebert, please reconsider this deluded statement. What you are saying, as I pointed out above, is that life is first split in two, and then, out of this split, another split arises. This is akin to saying that the fallen Humpty Dumpty who is on the ground shattered into a thousand pieces, is that which puts himself back together again.

When you go into the depth of the silence of yourself, there are no dualities. How can you deny this simple truth? It is not until one become uncomfortable with this silence, that the dualities arise. If there is no awareness of a rising up or a tension present, how can there be dualities? When you are fully present with your silence, you are fully present with the unborn light of yourself.

Locking God or Life into the human mind of dualities is the arrogance of the human intellect laid bare. I am the God of dualism, of logic, the human intellect declares, which give me license to say and do anything I want. I can rape, I can kill, I can steal, I can take whatever I want, mental or physical and hey, no problem, for I am God. I need to eat, therefore, it is logical that I compete or steal. I need to keep my logic alive, therefore, it is logical that I seduce and/or become bound to a man or a woman so that I can pass on my seed of logic unto the next generation. Can you not see how logic becomes man's justification for his ego/flesh survival?

[Pam Seeback]

I must begin the processing of getting to know that ME of pure awareness. I can only do that by first withdrawing my energy from my prejudices, then my biases, then, my preferences. There is a biblical scripture that addresses this gradual process of becoming detached - precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little.

Pam, appreciate you and admire your sincerity somehow. Thanks.

What you've got there is a possibility for a reward.
A 'something is at stake' gist to it.
A sense of a gamble.
Have you considered bookmaking as a career?

Dennis, you are wallowing in your own trillions of thoughts all wrapped up in yourself when you address me. If this is where you desire to remain, so be it. What you present to me is nothing more than I think-feel gossip, and I will not play that game. You are wasting my time with your human feelings-indulgence, so do yourself a favor and take them where they will be acknowledged and appreciated. That place is not my world.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis, you are wallowing in your own trillions of thoughts all wrapped up in yourself when you address me

Et tu?

What you present to me is nothing more than I think-feel gossip, and I will not play that game.

You just did.

You are wasting my time with your human feelings-indulgence, so do yourself a favor and take them where they will be acknowledged and appreciated. That place is not my world.

You've got nothing but buttons to push.

Several times you've complained to me about me.
What your complaint amounts to is an accusation that I don't supply for you the feedback you need for the expansion of you.
It's not necessary for me to fall at your feet. There's no reason.

[otiosedodge]

otiosedodge: I'll jump right in: it's only recently that I've realized the ultimate nature of reality. This discovery is obviously a shatteringly beautiful experience, and now my mission is to share it with as many people as possible. With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to build a system of ethics with this insight (I call it 'the fundamental insight') as its bedrock. Other very important elements would be emotions, since they're universal, and we all seek happiness (though the vast majority of us don't know what real happiness is).

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

Whose interpretation is a "shatteringly beautiful experience," the mind of you that is thinking of reality from the perspective of belief in dualism or reality itself wherein no dualities exist?

Hi, I'm happy to say that I've moved on from this perspective. Thanks in any case for the help.

[Blair]

pusweavel.

What have you discovered..something, something something??

Do tell.

That you believe yourself to be pusweavel.

It's all arbitrary.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How can that which is divided form that which is divided?

The essence of any division is that it carries the seed of the next partition.

One should ask instead: how could a pure, undivided non-duality be found anywhere and stay pure? How can utter perfection become some evidence of itself and remain perfect?

logic is a product of belief in dualism.

There's logic at work the moment one becomes aware of something, anything at all. It doesn't need any belief.

Does a plant use logic? Does the moon use logic? Does the ocean use logic?

For all we know they have to abide by several logic-infused laws and principles. Beyond that, what do we really know about them? As Jufa likes to write: speculation.

Where will be your logic when you are unborn?

It's a reasonable assumption existence will continue and awareness will find place where it's caused to.

the human intellect declares, which give me license to say and do anything I want. I can rape, I can kill, I can steal, I can take whatever I want, mental or physical and hey, no problem, for I am God. I need to eat, therefore, it is logical that I compete or steal.

When it comes to us humans, anything can serve as justification. Everything can become camouflage - the holiest words. It's what we're good at. But reason and logic employed that way are disconnected facsimiles, not the philosophical living notions.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, everything you have said to me, up and including your response above, is of the human mind. You believe yourself to be only human; I do not. This is the difference between us.

Most here love to talk about overcoming their female/woman mentality, but none really want to do what needs to be done so that this can actually happen, and that is, to stop thinking of oneself as being human, and start thinking of oneself as being an instrument of Life, of The Word Itself. This means to let go of the idea of logic/emotion, ethics/morals [shadow intellectualism] and begin living unconditionally, who and what one is of the moment. To stop the mental masturbation of thinking about, and begin to living the being of. To stop resurrecting the memories of one's 'they say' past and be guided only by one's conscience NOW. To thine own conscience, be true.

'Nuf said.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You believe yourself to be only human; I do not. This is the difference between us. ... to stop thinking of oneself as being human, and start thinking of oneself as being an instrument of Life, of The Word Itself.

But all humans, as thinking feeling creatures, could be said to be "instruments of life", or the "logos". These are really common perspectives, drops in the ocean, doing God's will, and so on. The difference is that you think it's a special insight. To me it's just one of the possible perspectives to get lost in: GOD MADE ME DO IT!

Perhaps you only stopped or diminished thought. And then call that liberation? Such a hostility, such a narcotic violence to life, to humanity.

This means to let go of the idea of logic/emotion, ethics/morals [shadow intellectualism] and begin living unconditionally, who and what one is of the moment.

You cannot stop causality, which is the essence of all conditioning. What remains is being "in the moment" like a cow or a sheep. Indeed you've stopped thinking of yourself as human: you're promoting "cowdom"! And that in the age of holy cows, how contemporary!

Your very first post at this forum was : "I do not know what logic is. I do not know what existence is. I do not know what any human thought is". Perhaps this summarizes best your participation here. The news for you is that it's possible to learn about logic, existence and human thought and being, if there's a will and a fearless attitude.