Why I Am So Clever

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just so you know, you do this extremely often. " you need to take into account questions, thinking, philosophy, like I have". It is basically internet trolling to point out a perceived flaw without providing an alternative/explanation. Like being on a mathematics forum and saying someone's calculations are fundamentally flawed, over and over, without a sentence of explanation. Elaborate if you would, rather than mysteriously alluding to this greater knowledge in one sentence metaphors.

Well, forgive me for trying. But one of the challenges is to oppose the notion of it being mathematics or getting caught into some recipe. And just so you know, I'm not trying to change your views or point out your mistakes. My posts are my way of thinking, my basic attitude, my basic "metaphorical expression". If that is trolling then my mind is trolling itself day and night. What you see is just a fragment.

In my view you've not explored this far enough,

See what I mean? Perhaps by pointing it out you will recognize that what you say appears foolish since you almost never elaborate, you just say how it will hurt my brain. I'm not suggesting you can't, just that you never do, and one wonders.

What's the problem, really? I've pointed and explained many times over why I think your views seem half-baked, not ready yet to take out of the oven. You're still talking about the problem of some conformity of a "real world out there". But you haven't managed to do more than the sleight of hand magic show of nihilism: nothing is true, nothing is real. Only you beef it up with some borrowed terms from Buddhism and other philosophies. So here I go again: the only reality is formed of meaning and connection. Whatever "else" should not be assigned reality, it would be just exchanging one dream for another, probably because of the comfort it provides. The more one opposes the meanings and connections present in life, the more life itself becomes opposed while the opposite of life (its mirror image: death) is embraced. But in terms of truth it's not an improvement to desire an opposite.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What's the problem, really? I've pointed and explained many times over why I think your views seem half-baked, not ready yet to take out of the oven. You're still talking about the problem of some conformity of a "real world out there". But you haven't managed to do more than the sleight of hand magic show of nihilism: nothing is true, nothing is real. Only you beef it up with some borrowed terms from Buddhism and other philosophies. So here I go again: the only reality is formed of meaning and connection. Whatever "else" should not be assigned reality, it would be just exchanging one dream for another, probably because of the comfort it provides. The more one opposes the meanings and connections present in life, the more life itself becomes opposed while the opposite of life (its mirror image: death) is embraced. But in terms of truth it's not an improvement to desire an opposite.

I was asking to elaborate on your understanding of ultimate reality, the self, enlightenment or however else you'd like to express truth. So far you express very general thoughts, for example, the only sentence on the topic "enlightenment and ultimate reality" you gave was: "The only reality is formed of meaning and connection".

Is that it? I doubt it, so why not elaborate on whatever views or thoughts you've been mostly keeping in the shadows? That is what is generally required in discussions when one perceives and points out inconsistency or half-bakedness, it's expected you pull out your loaf.

Ah and I just read your comment on the previous page. Next post.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

So where Ashtavakra's contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.

So you deny being responsible for any of your actions? It seems to me a matter of you denying the mountain while you're climbing it all the same

Would you, and Diebert, say that these two points are pointing out the same contradiction?

They are quite similar since for saying "you" are not this, or not that, you're already passing by the truth that any "you" was already there in your actions and context, forever being born and dying. The opposition to the attachment or the inherent existence of a self tends to create a shadow identity "elsewhere". But since it's not there either, we still have left what I called "self-in-action" or perhaps "self-in language". In some way, despite any deeper understanding, not that much has changed for anyone dealing with you, constructing persons out of your context. This includes the moment anyone reflects upon his own behaviour, evaluating. Perhaps you can do it wiser or lighter but not without, just as you keep breathing no matter the awareness of it.

Good, talking about this is a step forward in my view. I'd point out that I'm well aware that this has been brought up various times, though it may not seem like it, and I'm well aware that my responses only re-iterate that which may appear to be a denial of self coming from self, or a denial of person coming from person, a denial of meaning through meaning-expression, or even a denial of the world via the world, or how movingalways described it.

There's no choice really but to do so again, and then hopefully provide clarity after ward.
Before doing that, to try and improve clarity in language, it seems a good idea to describe a word as I use it, rather than to have it misconstrued.

For example, in the following post, using the word "appearances", I'll be refer to light,colour, sound, mental forms, thoughts, darkness, dreams, imaginations, etc. Using the word appearances I refer to any experience whatsoever, whatever is within the awareness or scope of "consciousness/the mind". The full and absolute spectrum of our possible experience. I could just as easily use the word experience, I have no preference and honestly, I don't think it relevant as to the exact definitions of these words, since, at least with the english language, each word is generally not used to its exact definition and there is a kind of necessary freedom to express with fluidity and phrases that, when each word's definition is looked at individually, don't match the obvious meaning of the phrase.

Another is "consciousness", or "the mind". I'll be making no distinction between these two(even if there should be) and have no preference. These terms referring to "that which we know", involving colour, sound, forms, thoughts, dreams, imaginations, etc, but of course is no particular experience in itself.

So you deny being responsible for any of your actions? It seems to me a matter of you denying the mountain while you're climbing it all the same

The actions referred to, the person, the body, the mountain, these are various labels to particulars or collections of experiences, (that is, thoughts, mental forms, sounds, sights, etc), is that not what we are referring to when we use the terms? Our own experience, "mountain", "body",etc, otherwise, to what else do we refer? That isn't to say these are non-existent, or that the person and people having discussions are non-existent, just to point out that the commonality here is that all of it, this very discussion, arise as appearances (sights, sounds, thoughts, concepts, imaginations, etc).

Secondly, these "appearances" are not things of free-will, they aren't creations of the individual, they were not invented, they are manifestations of reality. Or I guess as you said, our experiences are only emptiness, so feel free to replace that with "manifestations or forms of emptiness". (And I would agree, these experiences are emptiness, but I would still name them reality as for me that word refers to "All and everything")

Anyway, when I write "you are not the body", I'm referring to "you" as "what you know", your scope, awareness, being, existence, that every day thing.
And 'consciousness' is clearly not the body, and it is not bound up in it.

The third point being that transient forms of emptiness, the appearances of ten thousand things, are just what they are, without a "where do they come from?", they are not reflections of something else or caused by an external world, they are not signals or energy received via the body, interpreted by the brain and brought into awareness. This point may be the border of confusion, and if it is not then we can continue. If it is then you are yet to significantly elaborate.

So far I've made it clear that I see no reason (and have been provided no reason) to assume that this 'emptiness',(reality as I know it) these forms, sights, sounds, thoughts, mental formations, dreams, imaginations, and all the meaning, connection, and world therein, are not the nature of reality. Since they make up the full scope of everything known, seen, imagined, or conceptualized, including every experience of feeling, idea, philosophy, question, locations, etc.

This of course is a super short beginning at conveying these points which hopefully begin to make more clear what I've been describing, only so that if or when you find it half-baked, you can more extensively elaborate(something which I'd say you haven't been doing) and provide that hot loaf.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is that it? I doubt it, so why not elaborate on whatever views or thoughts you've been mostly keeping in the shadows?

Sometimes things might be in front, yet still invisible and unreal to us. In that spirit I wouldn't be too sure about my lack of direct replies or explanations on this forum. The submit button is only pressed when it makes perfect sense to me and adds something to my understanding. But communication generally only happens when there's a shared intent and nomenclature. A certain way of thinking needs to resonate otherwise, well, words quickly can become blind walls. This is something that is understood so I'm not that impressed with any accusations of being generic, dense, obtuse or cryptic (not to mention rhetorical). Of course, if everyone I knew would have such response I'd rethink my efforts but most indicate they appreciate the ability to clear up any subject at hand. But the subject matter at hand here is the most challenging in the known universe of course: the "nature of ultimate reality", I mean: duh!

Another is "consciousness", or "the mind". I'll be making no distinction between these two(even if there should be) and have no preference. These terms referring to "that which we know", involving colour, sound, forms, thoughts, dreams, imaginations, etc, but of course is no particular experience in itself.

But "that which we know" is the object (of knowing). The mind would be the subject, the way of knowing. It could be argued they rise together but it will appear as duality: a knower or knowing, and a knowable.

That isn't to say these are non-existent, or that the person and people having discussions are non-existent, just to point out that the commonality here is that all of it, this very discussion, arise as appearances (sights, sounds, thoughts, concepts, imaginations, etc).

Yes but that's an extremely generic thing to say without much meaning to work with. The following questions still stand: "does a married bachelor exist" or "was that dream last night actually a memory of a real event?". To differentiate between what is seen as "real" or "relevant" is the question we need to answer day by day.

And I would agree, these experiences are emptiness, but I would still name them reality as for me that word refers to "All and everything")

A phrase like "absolute reality" could very well refer to all and everything but at the same time we want to differentiate between wisdom and folly, or higher and lower values. You place less value for example on the reality you are experiencing during your dreams. Or at least your body seems to decide for you already.

And 'consciousness' is clearly not the body, and it is not bound up in it.

Why is that? You just wrote that consciousness and mind are ""that which we know" as subjectivity. Since the body would fall under "that which we know", it remains bound up with it. This is only using your language and reasoning for a moment, to see if there's contradiction (which should be important to address if it was there, do you agree, how else would one ever know something is unmaintainable as expression?)

The third point being that transient forms of emptiness, the appearances of ten thousand things, are just what they are, without a "where do they come from?", they are not reflections of something else or caused by an external world, they are not signals or energy received via the body, interpreted by the brain and brought into awareness. This point may be the border of confusion, and if it is not then we can continue. If it is then you are yet to significantly elaborate.

It's then pointless to say they're not caused by this or that world, or this or that signal. Because you're creating another kind of cause: everything but external worlds, signals or brains. It seems a useless distinction. True causality could very well introduce subjective elements like a body or signal to deal with in practical terms.

This of course is a super short beginning at conveying these points which hopefully begin to make more clear what I've been describing, only so that if or when you find it half-baked, you can more extensively elaborate(something which I'd say you haven't been doing) and provide that hot loaf.

The point for me always is that people bake their own bread. I can only provide my view that it might need a bit longer but that's only because I think I see inconsistency (the consistency not seeming right). But there's not much more to provide and I try not to give the impression I have something to "hand out".

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: The fisherman determining when and where is the best time and place to fish is "the universe" emanating from self, it is not any self-in-action, there is no effort of the self in that experience.

I was not implying that fisherman is a self, I was using a name to indicate an activity. Can you expand upon what you mean by “effort" and why you brought it up?

Seeker: I don't see any denial of "conscious differentiating consciousness" only a discussion of the nature of "conscious differentiating consciousness". There are literally dozens of purposely made language contradictions in the text, which are again only pointers toward self-realization, the obvious one here being "the universe emanating from Self"---"Nothing emanates from me".

Fair enough. Perhaps what is important when one discovers contradictions in a supposed "holy book" or "wise teachings" is to reason the why of contradictions. Hint: a duality (contrast, appearance) is necessary for conceptual consciousness to exist.

Seeker: You do not intentionally create whatever experience or thought arises, you are not picking and choosing meaning/perception as you see fit, and are in no way bound to the world of appearance which arises and fades as if it were nothing more than a vision or dream(pointers to) that nature, "consciousness" or "the mind", which is the essential nature, and is not produced by any means. That experience, erection, childbirth, is not an accomplishment, not an invention of free-will, it is nothing more than emptiness, void, the world is appearance(pointer to that which you know now) and exists only as such. There is no denial of discrimination, people, differentiating, fishing, discussions, etc, there is only the denial of any delusion which imagines these to exist as "more" or to be any kind of self-identity.

Wisdom is not creating, it is revealing, this has always been my position. As for the concept of intention/choosing, that is a tougher one to pin down. Since wisdom can reveal several different causal scenarios to be considered for any one seeking question, there is an aspect of "selecting" one over another present in consciousness.

As for your assertion that you are in no way bound to the appearance that comes and goes, this is simply not true. You can't eat, you can't drink, you can't poop, you can't think, you can’t appear to me in this forum without your attachment or binding to these things. I’ll put it to you quite simply: if you are not aware of something, you are a piece of wood. My question to you is twofold: 1. why do you seek to be divorced from/deny your appearance and 2. why would you want to?

When did I say that "erection" and "childbirth" are accomplishments or productions of free will? What I said or implied was that each experience is a living word, meaning making, subjectivity “in action.” When I am thinking of my experience of giving birth to my two children, I am not abstractly pointing to these experiences as if they are void of meaning, au contraire, they very much are meaning-filled. When meaning is present, pointing is not.

It might be worth exploring why you use nihilistic language when speaking of the appearance of things within consciousness. Rather than saying “it is empty and void of intrinsic meaning or an inherent self” you said: "it is nothing more than emptiness, void, the world is appearance (pointer to that which you know now) and exists only as such.” You really don’t want to be beholding to that pesky old appearance do you?

movingalways wrote:
the non-conceptual, unconscious Self/causality of water and its waves, foams and bubbles, nothing is perceived as different. But for the conceptual, conscious Self/causality, water and its waves, foam and bubbles are perceived as being different.

Seeker: Is this the two-in-one referred to? It appears as if you are implying two selves. The conscious and unconscious.

Not two selves, two aspects of Self. Are you conscious of your colon contracting or your liver processing your waste or your blood moving through your body or the neurons firing in your brain? No. Are you conscious of the hamburger you cook and eat for dinner or the act of passing it later into the toilet? Yes. The two-in-one of you.

Seeker: Your similar points basically being that a line such as "you are not the body, you are not a person" (which has been typed via the body/person) is a contradiction, aka, "denying the mountain while climbing it" or "denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny it". Just summing up the repeated point so it can be addressed as I assume it appears it is being overlooked.

Yes, that contradiction, the same one you have fallen into with your denial of being bound to the things you say and do ("they're only pointers") while obviously being bound to the things you say and do (you came here to say something, to suggest somethings, to mean something).

Meaning (attachment) cannot be avoided. Even the most dedicated logician cannot deny his or her love of, passion for (attachment to) logic. In the movie "The Matrix" it was the bug in The Architect's otherwise "perfect" program.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Sometimes things might be in front, yet still invisible and unreal to us. In that spirit I wouldn't be to sure about my lack of direct replies or explanations on this forum. The submit button is only pressed when it makes perfect sense to me and adds something to my understanding. But communication generally only happens when there's a shared intent and nomenclature. A certain way of thinking needs to resonate otherwise, well, words quickly can become blind walls. This is something that is understood so I'm not that impressed with any accusations of being generic, dense, obtuse or cryptic (not to mention rhetorical). Of course, if everyone I knew would have such response I'd rethink my efforts but most indicate they appreciate the ability to clear up any subject at hand. But the subject matter at hand here is the most challenging in the known universe of course: the "nature of ultimate reality", I mean: duh!

Agreed, which is why it takes time to communicate more subtle distinctions, such as what you mention below. The distinction I'm trying to communicate is that pointing out things such as "inherently meaningless", along with the other previously mentioned apparent denials, does not actually deny meaning, connection, the body, the world, friends, the brain, intention, choice, effort, invention, etc. For example below:

But "that which we know" is the object (of knowing). The mind would be the subject, the way of knowing. It could be argued they rise together but it will appear as duality: a knower or knowing, and a knowable.

What you wrote here immediately brings to mind:

2.15
"In Reality,
knowledge, the knower, and the knowable
do not exist."

At first this easily seems like a denial of these distinctions, but again it is rather a discussion on the nature of such "conscious differentiating consciousness". The point being that these exist as appearance, emptiness, the distinctions are not denied as being living things, full of meaning if you like. They are only denied inherent existence, denied inherent meaning, which in one sense makes them similar to a puppet show or play of the mind, which is all well and good, except for if the puppet becomes your Wilson from castaway, and you almost drown.

Again, what is brought to mind, is the subtle distinction:

"It is because the ignorant cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling there is a reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death.

Because of folly they do not understand that all things are like maya, like the reflection of the moon in water, that there is no self-substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings, and that all their definitive ideas rise from their false discriminations of what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself."
The Lankavatara Sutra: Chapter I. Discrimination. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb08.htm

Looking at the specific sentence here "imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination". You'll notice that in this paragraph the writer appears to

contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.

But it is not a denial or divorce from the existence of these, only an elaboration on their nature and how "imprisonment" in that cocoon easily leads to delusion and the suffering of being "unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death" which in itself is only pointing out the consequences of a lack of understanding "that there is no self-substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings".

So with the sentences "you are not the body, you are not a person" perhaps they would be clearer if I started with "you are not a foot", "you are not a door". Continuing below:

And 'consciousness' is clearly not the body, and it is not bound up in it.

Why is that? You just wrote that consciousness and mind are ""that which we know" as subjectivity. Since the body would fall under "that which we know", it remains bound up with it. This is only using your language and reasoning for a moment, to see if there's contradiction (which should be important to address if it was there, do you agree, how else would one ever know something is unmaintainable as expression?)

"Since the body would fall under "that which we know", it remains bound up with it."

One could say the body remains bound up with consciousness, but not the other way around, since consciousness is not dependent upon that appearance. In that sense "you are not a foot, a door, or the body" isn't denying the appearance of these things, or that they are part of "that which we know", or that which makes up what you are(at any given point, since consciousness is fluid). It is just that the body is usually distinguished as being "the centre of being", if you will. (This similarly occurs with particular aspects of thoughts, writings, actions, etc, and become thought of as indicators of one's "personality", they are attributed to [this distinction of what is considered] one's self-substance) The body, and these pick-and-choose appearances, are considered entirely distinct from the rest of appearance as being self-entity or self-substance, by virtue of which we are conscious. Of course leading to the belief "my end comes with the dissolution of the body", followed by some imagination of perhaps a "darkness" or "nothingness" of being dead.

Yet if the door is destroyed, no worries. One is hence "imprisoned" in these distinctions, which appear as solid foundations to cling to- which in reality, do not inherently exist and are not inherently meaningful (they will not change what will actually occur at the dissolution of the body).

As for your assertion that you are in no way bound to the appearance that comes and goes, this is simply not true. You can't eat, you can't drink, you can't poop, you can't think, you can’t appear to me in this forum without your attachment or binding to these things. I’ll put it to you quite simply: if you are not aware of something, you are a piece of wood. My question to you is twofold: 1. why do you seek to be divorced from/deny your appearance and 2. why would you want to?

Yes, that contradiction, the same one you have fallen into with your denial of being bound to the things you say and do ("they're only pointers") while obviously being bound to the things you say and do (you came here to say something, to suggest somethings, to mean something).

The above writing, which hopefully elaborates on these subtle distinctions, was also a response to these apparent denials and/or contradictions. [By way of conscious differentiating consciousness ;) ]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The distinction I'm trying to communicate is that pointing out things such as "inherently meaningless", along with the other previously mentioned apparent denials, does not actually deny meaning, connection, the body, the world, friends, the brain, intention, choice, effort, invention, etc .... They are only denied inherent existence, denied inherent meaning, which in one sense makes them similar to a puppet show or play of the mind, which is all well and good, except for if the puppet becomes your Wilson from castaway, and you almost drown.

So while there's no "inherent" mountain and "inherent" rivers, to cross the mountain and sail the river, you'll act all the same, using your knowledge about the properties and predictions on their behavior, treating them like existing and lasting entities. What you need to explain is the difference with anyone who would think these things are objectively, externally, inherently "there". I mean it's not like such person is chained to this mountain and river. Or worse in navigating them. If anything, he might take their dangers more seriously, become more invested in mastering the obstacle because of his beliefs. Or at least, I could reason like that.

One could say the body remains bound up with consciousness, but not the other way around, since consciousness is not dependent upon that appearance.

Consciousness has to be part of causality too. Otherwise you're just invoking eternal angels, demons and magical potions with other, more fancy names. It's important to understand that consciousness, whatever its exact nature would be (in scientific or spiritual sense) is wholly caused. Possibly as effect of one or other movement. The ego also keeps getting born in this particular womb (matrix) of forms and often places itself in the seat of consciousness, claiming eternity with it.

[jupiviv]

Assuming that by 'the truth' you mean 'the All' - it is made up of finite things. So when one finds the former, the latter is also necessarily found.

Nobody will ever find a finite thing but there's the realization they're not finite to begin with because of causation. When truth is found, ignorance is understood.

The realisation "they're not finite to begin with because of causation" with is a finite thing, so whoever has that realisation would have found one.

So things are 'as themselves' because there is no other way for the All to cause them.

There's no way of knowing all the ways the totality can cause an appearance or a perspective to occur. The only thing you can be sure of here is that there's causation. Only the mind conceives of things "as themselves" otherwise it could not think reasonably about anything at all.

We may not know what all the causes of something are, but we can know that all those causes make it what it is.

You say it might be "the other way around" but it seems to me you're illustrating what I meant to say.

I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The realisation "they're not finite to begin with because of causation" with is a finite thing, so whoever has that realization would have found one.

Nice one! But I'm not sure if that realization could be said to be finite, representing causality and the infinite in every possible way. Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite. The moment it becomes that, we have another delusion coming. This is why even the realization, as thing, will have to be discarded, at some point.

We may not know what all the causes of something are, but we can know that all those causes make it what it is.

Causes will make it seem. And other causes make "what it is" as reflection. They are not the same.

I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

The underlying element is meaning or relation (to "something other"). Whatever one is engaged in fully, conceives things under, that will ferment reality. However, as Spinoza already concluded: the mind is eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity. The goal then is to be eternal, at last! What else?

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: One could say the body remains bound up with consciousness, but not the other way around, since consciousness is not dependent upon that appearance. In that sense "you are not a foot, a door, or the body" isn't denying the appearance of these things, or that they are part of "that which we know", or that which makes up what you are (at any given point, since consciousness is fluid).

This is where the use of terms can muddy the waters. What if instead of using the broad and fuzzy term "consciousness" we used a term that describes how consciousness acts or behaves in the knowing of Itself (see my response to jupiviv below).

Which leads me to assert that consciousness is indeed dependent on its appearance, not in the sense of being "the thing called a door" or "the thing called a foot" but in the sense of functionality or necessity. In other words, when a foot or door is needed, a foot or a door is formed (caused to appear). Therefore, I am not challenging your wisdom of knowing that you are not this or that thing, I am challenging your wrong view of non dependency on your things.

jupiviv: I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

What I have discerned to be the underlying Reality is the "divine" duality or eternal interdependence of Analysis and Appearance. This is the absolute truth that is the same truth in all possible worlds and circumstances. Knowledge of absolute truth is knowledge of eternal life (loss of fear of annihilation). In referencing Seeker's foot and door, the appearance of foot and door may not always be a necessity for Analysis, as may the appearance of good and evil not always be a necessity for Analysis. But what is always a necessity for Analysis is Appearance and vice versa.

[jupiviv]

Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite.

Why? Just because we realise that something is true in all possible worlds doesn't mean we *become* all possible worlds.

The moment it becomes that, we have another delusion coming. This is why even the realization, as thing, will have to be discarded, at some point.

If you discard the realisation you'll just become ignorant.

We may not know what all the causes of something are, but we can know that all those causes make it what it is.

Causes will make it seem. And other causes make "what it is" as reflection. They are not the same.

So the thing was caused to seem like something, and then caused to seem like something else. In both instances, the way it seemed was exactly the way it was caused to seem, and therefore *was*. The mind to which things appear is another cause of those things.

I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

The underlying element is meaning or relation (to "something other"). Whatever one is engaged in fully, conceives things under, that will ferment reality. However, as Spinoza already concluded: the mind is eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity. The goal then is to be eternal, at last! What else?

The mind, like any other finite thing, is eternal only in relation to the eternal. In relation to other finite things, it is as finite as they are.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

What I have discerned to be the underlying Reality is the "divine" duality or eternal interdependence of Analysis and Appearance. This is the absolute truth that is the same truth in all possible worlds and circumstances. Knowledge of absolute truth is knowledge of eternal life (loss of fear of annihilation). In referencing Seeker's foot and door, the appearance of foot and door may not always be a necessity for Analysis, as may the appearance of good and evil not always be a necessity for Analysis. But what is always a necessity for Analysis is Appearance and vice versa.

There isn't any specific kind of duality underlying Reality. The duality of Infanticide and Genocide is as divine as that of Analysis and Appearance, since they are also of the body of God.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: I meant the perception/idea of illusory vs real things. One might start from the latter and move on to the former, with intermediate stages in between. The goal is to be equally rational in the midst of both illusoriness and reality by discerning the underlying Reality.

What I have discerned to be the underlying Reality is the "divine" duality or eternal interdependence of Analysis and Appearance. This is the absolute truth that is the same truth in all possible worlds and circumstances. Knowledge of absolute truth is knowledge of eternal life (loss of fear of annihilation). In referencing Seeker's foot and door, the appearance of foot and door may not always be a necessity for Analysis, as may the appearance of good and evil not always be a necessity for Analysis. But what is always a necessity for Analysis is Appearance and vice versa.

There isn't any specific kind of duality underlying Reality. The duality of Infanticide and Genocide is as divine as that of Analysis and Appearance, since they are also of the body of God.

I'm not sure if we are in accordance or not. I'll try again. Infanticide and Genocide are two distinct appearances of the Analysis of evil (hatred of Self). The Analysis of evil is of the body of God just as is the Analysis of good (love of Self). In other words, all things are of the body of God (Analysis and Appearance) or A = A :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite.

Why? Just because we realise that something is true in all possible worlds doesn't mean we *become* all possible worlds.

So what is it that you're realizing? In the end it will include the realization that this very realization itself is infinite for the reasons that there's no boundary to where it applies to. And that its manifestation as a finite thing or thought therefore has been also a misconception.

The moment it becomes that, we have another delusion coming. This is why even the realization, as thing, will have to be discarded, at some point.

If you discard the realisation you'll just become ignorant.

Of course not, first of all, discarding it as consequence of knowing is not equal to never have known it. And please note I wrote the realization as thing, which means as relative, subjective, personal train of thought or grasping. It certainly can be abandoned when its limits are recognized. If needed you can always pick it up again, don't worry.

So the thing was caused to seem like something, and then caused to seem like something else. In both instances, the way it seemed was exactly the way it was caused to seem, and therefore *was*. The mind to which things appear is another cause of those things.

Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way.

The mind, like any other finite thing, is eternal only in relation to the eternal. In relation to other finite things, it is as finite as they are.

And it's only real in relation to the eternal and illusionary in relation to finite things.

[Leyla Shen]

Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way.

Only if you assert that "being themselves in any way" implies self-causation/inherent existence. That might be so in your world, but it certainly isn't necessarily so. Quite the contrary, actually.

To argue that: since causality is infinite, and all things are caused/causality, all things are infinite and no finite thing "can be found" is to nullify causality itself (nihilism), which gives rise not only to the appearance of finite things, but also their disappearance (together, transformation/state of flux).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way.

Only if you assert that "being themselves in any way" implies self-causation/inherent existence. That might be so in your world, but it certainly isn't necessarily so. Quite the contrary, actually.

But any assertion of things "being themselves" does strongly imply inherent existence (the self they're supposed to be!). It's a common problem: inherent existence goes out of the front door but is wheeled just as quickly in again through the back. It's often because there has been no fundamental change in perception at all, just an intellectual or religious play until this point. Things are stripped of essence, meanings questioned but like with nihilism, such world still revolves around the shadow of some god, some inherent projected self.

To argue that: since causality is infinite, and all things are caused/causality, all things are infinite and no finite thing "can be found" is to nullify causality itself (nihilism), which gives rise not only to the appearance of finite things, but also their disappearance (together, transformation/state of flux).

It would be a serious contradiction to say "all things are infinite". And for that reason alone I can guarantee that I've never said it. What I did say is that it leads to understanding only causality is -- not caused, not uncaused and not both together either.

[Pam Seeback]

I find the terms infinite and finite to be problematic because they lead to thoughts of two things. I find that a more intuitive-friendly way of expressing the absolute nature of reality is "everything is being caused." Why I prefer this phrase over most others is that it a) expresses the timeless spirit nature of causality and b) it implies that while there is no actual boundary between things, their appearance (contrast) provides the mind with the necessary illusion of boundary.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, I'm not going to argue about what you said when I can just quote it:

j: We may not know what all the causes of something are, but we can know that all those causes make it what it is.

D: Causes will make it seem. And other causes make "what it is" as reflection. They are not the same.

j: So the thing was caused to seem like something, and then caused to seem like something else. In both instances, the way it seemed was exactly the way it was caused to seem, and therefore *was*. The mind to which things appear is another cause of those things.

D: Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way.

And then:

It would be a serious contradiction to say "all things are infinite". And for that reason alone I can guarantee that I've never said it. What I did say is that it leads to understanding only causality is -- not caused, not uncaused and not both together either.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Quoting doesn't replace the logic, reason and argumentation on how your thought process might have went, Leyla. It's unclear how you arrive at "all things are causality" as something to conclude from my words about causality not being a thing, collection of things, thought or sense.

One can talk about "what is" or perhaps just that. But to describe it with "what it is" or "as it is" turns that being back upon itself which would be self-inheritance in a nut shell. To talk about causality or any existential truth, a particular problem arises: that we have a mental construct here that conducts the opposite of the truth or existence that it's trying to capture. Same with A=A. But in the right context it still could have (or become) quality, just like everything else.

• The one without a second is emptiness, the other one makes it true.
  -- Fireflies by Rabindranath Tagore

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I find the terms infinite and finite to be problematic because they lead to thoughts of two things. I find that a more intuitive-friendly way of expressing the absolute nature of reality is "everything is being caused." Why I prefer this phrase over most others is that it a) expresses the timeless spirit nature of causality and b) it implies that while there is no actual boundary between things, their appearance (contrast) provides the mind with the necessary illusion of boundary.

That's understood. Same with your introduction here of "timeless spirit nature of causality" which might be just as problematic as any "infinite nature of causality". And illusion introduces the idea of the real and if every boundary is illusion and "real boundaries" do not exist, what's the use of calling boundaries even illusionary? Since they only come in that one flavor I suppose. A distinction with "real" would be another boundary. This is why these terms I find also increasingly problematic, as if they have an expiration date: they have to be disgarded at the right time.

And of course you'll have people who will still think of two things even with causality: the idea of an uncaused entity or perhaps some universal mechanics of things happening, causing things to exist "as themselves" like some cosmic dominoes. So while I agree the term is superior, it might also be the most difficult to penetrate.

[jupiviv]

I'm not sure if we are in accordance or not. I'll try again. Infanticide and Genocide are two distinct appearances of the Analysis of evil (hatred of Self). The Analysis of evil is of the body of God just as is the Analysis of good (love of Self). In other words, all things are of the body of God (Analysis and Appearance) or A = A :-)

We're definitely not in accordance. You are proposing a Manichean universe, where a specific duality (Analysis and Experience, or Good and Evil) underpins all other kinds of duality. That is certainly not the way I think of the All. The All is dualistic and non-dualistic at the same time. The infinite dualities are themselves the non-dual substance of the All.

[jupiviv]

Why? Just because we realise that something is true in all possible worlds doesn't mean we *become* all possible worlds.

So what is it that you're realizing?

The true nature of any thing, and thus of all things. This doesn't make my realisation all things, any more than realising 1+1=2 makes me two people instead of one.

In the end it will include the realization that this very realization itself is infinite for the reasons that there's no boundary to where it applies to. And that its manifestation as a finite thing or thought therefore has been also a misconception.

There is no boundary because it applies to any thing that appears, regardless of the specific nature of the thing. This doesn't make it infinite in any way, since it can easily give way to ignorance through delusions and death.

If you discard the realisation you'll just become ignorant.

Of course not, first of all, discarding it as consequence of knowing is not equal to never have known it.

"Consequence of knowing" what?

It certainly can be abandoned when its limits are recognized.

...which would be just another realisation.

So the thing was caused to seem like something, and then caused to seem like something else. In both instances, the way it seemed was exactly the way it was caused to seem, and therefore *was*. The mind to which things appear is another cause of those things.

Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way.

If all things seem to be something not exactly similar to what they actually are, then that is what they actually are.

The mind, like any other finite thing, is eternal only in relation to the eternal. In relation to other finite things, it is as finite as they are.

And it's only real in relation to the eternal and illusionary in relation to finite things.

And the other finite things are "illusionary" in relation to the mind. So you have no way of distinguishing the quality of being "illusionary" from that of being "real". You might as well call things whatever you want to. The same with "finite" and "eternal". The quality of finitude cannot be contrasted with the quality of eternity, so we might as well look at things in the way that suits us best. They're eternal in one sense and finite in another.

The important thing is to make sure that we don't enjoy our church singing too much and forget what its meant for.

[Pam Seeback]

I'm not sure if we are in accordance or not. I'll try again. Infanticide and Genocide are two distinct appearances of the Analysis of evil (hatred of Self). The Analysis of evil is of the body of God just as is the Analysis of good (love of Self). In other words, all things are of the body of God (Analysis and Appearance) or A = A :-)

We're definitely not in accordance. You are proposing a Manichean universe, where a specific duality (Analysis and Experience, or Good and Evil) underpins all other kinds of duality. That is certainly not the way I think of the All. The All is dualistic and non-dualistic at the same time. The infinite dualities are themselves the non-dual substance of the All.

No, I am not proposing that good and evil underpin all other dualities, I am proposing that Analysis, which is neither good or evil, (the nondual) is the underpinning of all dualities and that its appearance is its dual aspect. The duality of good and evil only appears as the conscious intellect appears, the aspect of Analysis that either accepts (this is good - right for me) or rejects (this is evil - wrong for me). At its heart, reasoning operates by the principle of good and evil, aka, the principle of argument/understanding. The serpent, the light bringer: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Jesus, the light bringer: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

If I were to switch "emptiness" for Analysis in Dieberts' quote from Tagore's "Fireflies", the one without the second would be Analysis, the other one (what is analyzed to be good or evil) makes it true. True in the sense of meaning.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: That's understood. Same with your introduction here of "timeless spirit nature of causality" which might be just as problematic as any "infinite nature of causality". And illusion introduces the idea of the real and if every boundary is illusion and "real boundaries" do not exist, what's the use of calling boundaries even illusionary? Since they only come in that one flavor I suppose. A distinction with "real" would be another boundary. This is why these terms I find also increasingly problematic, as if they have an expiration date: they have to be disgarded at the right time.

All terms that speak of the nature of reality have to be discarded at the right time but must be once again picked up when one "descends from the mountaintop" for the sake of those who are yet climbing. The challenge is finding the best term and the best syntax for the right moment.

And of course you'll have people who will still think of two things even with causality: the idea of an uncaused entity or perhaps some universal mechanics of things happening, causing things to exist "as themselves" like some cosmic dominoes. So while I agree the term is superior, it might also be the most difficult to penetrate.

The challenge of which I spoke above. Where faith comes in is in the faith of the reasoning process itself. That eventually, as reasoning completes it work of burning, the veil of belief in an actual boundary between things or worlds or minds will be incinerated never to appear again.

[jupiviv]

No, I am not proposing that good and evil underpin all other dualities, I am proposing that Analysis, which is neither good or evil, (the nondual) is the underpinning of all dualities and that its appearance is its dual aspect.

The dual "aspect" of the non-dual is the non-dual itself, so it's not really an aspect as such. Duality and non-duality are not two parts of a larger whole. They are both the exact same reality, i.e, Nature or the All.

At its heart, reasoning operates by the principle of good and evil, aka, the principle of argument/understanding.

Yes, all reasoning is judgment.