The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

Perhaps if I had the least clue how a dream is made, I could extrapolate as to whether it is miraculous. But that the mind is able to fool itself into thinking it is experiencing sensations is not all that surprising. I think the brain has many capabilities, and, as we now know, even the waking experience of sensations is once removed from the actual event, and is taking place therefore in a somewhat imaginary realm.

There is an exercise that you can do where you sit or lie quietly in a darkened room, and simply observe yourself as you drift in an out of the dream state. After slipping unaware into a state of unconsciousness, another level of consciousness unfolds with the arising of a subject and its object, then, the subject (fragmented awareness) attaches itself to the object (subjective knowledge) and begins to weave a story around it. From there, the dream unfolds in accordance with one’s own imperfect knowledge, and so all sorts of illogically things are apt to take place, though they do not seem illogical to the dream persona.

Emptiness is not nothingness, as we have agreed that there is no nonexitence. Nothingness is nonexistence. The impossibility of nothingness either existing, or having any power, is the prime reason I disagree with you and with seemingly all other spiritual beliefs which think there is a nonmaterial world. I don't see how. To exist is to be material, to not exist is nothingness.

As I have said repeatedly, the term “nothing” does not signify that which does not exist, but rather, that which exists, but which is “not a thing” (the Absolute); all things having only a relative and contingent existence.

Emptiness is the fact that all things are one thing, there is no variety of things, they morph in and out of their forms but they are not their forms, the forms are an appearance like a mask, everything is everything, all places are the center, there is fullness everywhere and this fullness is like an emptiness because of the uniformity of it - but it is not empty. It is the void of all potential, and that which is manifest is really not manifest but only appears to be so and is nondifferent from the unmanifest. There is neither the manifest nor the unmanifest, but only the relative mind that perceives it so.

Emptiness, as it is employed in the Buddhist tradition means devoid of any inherent self; and by self, they mean that which is real and with underlies the appearance of the thing. As you say, all things are existentially one and the same, but this “oneness” is not a thing (relative entity); rather it is that wherein all things are made manifest, and from which all things derive there identities. As we said earlier, to exist is to be either perceived or imagined, and in either case there must be a cognizant observer; for it is from the awareness of the cognizant observer that all things derive both their existence and their identities.

1.But to this you had also previously stated that it is a realization that pure awareness is our true nature and the true nature of all. This is what I referred to as being 'done' in regard to a path.

You must understand that our subjective knowledge is itself embodied in the structure (neural networks) of our brain, and so it requires time for our realization to transform those erroneous structures. Remember, so long as we remain embodied in the objective world, we are subject to the same inviolable law that governs all apparent things - just as we remain subject to the effects of the things in our dreams, so long as we are still dreaming.

What do you mean that awareness is the true nature of all? All things?

I mean that all things, be they mentation, sensations, objects (actual or imagined), properties or activities, are born of cognizant awareness, and have no existence apart for it.

To agree with the logic as to the emptiness of the five things is not necessarily the same as to experience "I am awareness."

No, the former is merely theoretical (imagined), while the latter is real; for to realize is to “make real”. It is like the difference between thinking about drinking water, and actually drinking water; for only the one quenches the thirst.

So you are saying that we are held to the relative world because we believe it to be real?

Yes, this is precisely what I am saying; and that is why we seek enlightenment: so that we may be liberated from the cycle of becoming.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

As I have said repeatedly, the term “nothing” does not signify that which does not exist, but rather, that which exists, but which is “not a thing” (the Absolute); all things having only a relative and contingent existence.

It is one thing to use the word 'real' in its philosophical sense, and not its everyday sense. I have almost gotten used to it. But the word nothing simply cannot be twisted away from its meaning, and a concept this important should have a word for it that is not already in use and meaning something quite contradictory. Perhaps the word exists in Japanese, or Chinese, the languages of Buddhism. But nothing means what it means, and that is nothingness, nonexistence, no substance, no consciousness, no awareness, no nuthin.

If we use the word nothingness, it should be spelled and prouonounced as no-thing-ness, with the 'o' as a long vowel, not a short vowell. Better to say non-thing-ness. Use of the word nothing or nothingness to translate Buddhist concepts into English is a mistake.

Now you say that non-thing-ness denotes the absolute, but you equated it with emptiness. Are you saying that emptiness refers to the absolute, and not to the world of things?

As we said earlier, to exist is to be either perceived or imagined, and in either case there must be a cognizant observer;

But then how does the cognizant observer exist, since it cannot perceive itself?

for it is from the awareness of the cognizant observer that all things derive both their existence and their identities.

Certainly things didn't cause themselves, and required something far other than itself. That something could be awareness.
It is difficult to imagine how the cognizant awareness could gain the knowledge with which to create, (that is, to imagine into existence) the universe because there seems to be a circle wherein the awareness must imagine, but there can be nothing to imagine about until one has first experienced something of substance, something to perceive.

You must understand that our subjective knowledge is itself embodied in the structure (neural networks) of our brain, and so it requires time for our realization to transform those erroneous structures.

Yes, that explains a lot but what do you make of the many stories of people having immense enlightenment events, and even you had something to that effect a page or two back.

I mean that all things, be they mentation, sensations, objects (actual or imagined), properties or activities, are born of cognizant awareness, and have no existence apart from it.

It sounded like you were saying that all things have awareness.

I have long accepted that all things must arise only from that which you call awareness, and have suspected that all things are continually maintained by it as well, but suspecting and knowing are two very different things.

So you are saying that we are held to the relative world because we believe it to be real?

Yes, this is precisely what I am saying; and that is why we seek enlightenment: so that we may be liberated from the cycle of becoming.

How does knowing things aren't real liberate us from the cycle of becoming?

[Dan Rowden]

Why do I feel like a pervert when I check the progress this thread?

[Jehu]

It is one thing to use the word 'real' in its philosophical sense, and not its everyday sense. I have almost gotten used to it. But the word nothing simply cannot be twisted away from its meaning, and a concept this important should have a word for it that is not already in use and meaning something quite contradictory. Perhaps the word exists in Japanese, or Chinese, the languages of Buddhism. But nothing means what it means, and that is nothingness, nonexistence, no substance, no consciousness, no awareness, no nuthin.

When we say, for example, that there is “nothing” in a box, we do not mean the interior of the box is non-existent, we mean only that the interior of the box is devoid of any sort of thing – thus it is not incorrect to say that nothingness is the absence of any thing. Now, the Absolute is that existent which remains when all things (relative existents) have been intellectually abstracted, and so it is rightfully called nothingness.

Now you say that non-thing-ness denotes the absolute, but you equated it with emptiness. Are you saying that emptiness refers to the absolute, and not to the world of things?

The term “emptiness” is generally used to denote the nature of the relative entity, for such an entity is devoid of any intrinsic causes (properties).

But then how does the cognizant observer exist, since it cannot perceive itself?

The cognizant subject partakes of an absolute, independent and immutable existence, while its objects partake of only a relative existence, and so are subject to continuous change. Now, the absolute is dependent upon the relative, but the relative is an inherent property of the Absolute, and so the Absolute is dependent upon itself for its existence.

Certainly things didn't cause themselves, and required something far other than itself. That something could be awareness.

It is difficult to imagine how the cognizant awareness could gain the knowledge with which to create, (that is, to imagine into existence) the universe because there seems to be a circle wherein the awareness must imagine, but there can be nothing to imagine about until one has first experienced something of substance, something to perceive.

Yes, this is correct, but you must remember that the Absolute, given that it is its own cause, did not ever arise, but has always been, and will continue so for eternity. This, I know, is a particularly hard concept to grasp, for we sentient beings dwell within the field of time, and so cannot conceive of that which transcends time. Now, although knowledge (relative entities) has always existed, it has never remained unchanged for even one nanosecond, but dwells in a state of perpetual flux.

Yes, that explains a lot but what do you make of the many stories of people having immense enlightenment events, and even you had something to that effect a page or two back.

For some, the initial realization of the illusory nature of things comes in a dramatic way, but such realizations are often short lived, and the individual will often slip back into the dream. True realization is a gradual process, and must be approached with great resolve.

It sounded like you were saying that all things have awareness.

No thing “has” (possesses) awareness, just as no computer generated entity actual has the properties that it appears to exhibits. The cursor, for example, does not actually possess the ability to highlight a menu item, though it certainly appears that way to the operator. In truth, the abilities of the cursor are inherent, nor in the cursor, which is only a virtual entity, but in the computer program which controls that appearance of the cursor.

I have long accepted that all things must arise only from that which you call awareness, and have suspected that all things are continually maintained by it as well, but suspecting and knowing are two very different things.

Yes, I know, and this is why we must trust in our innate ability to reason, for reason is the operative force of awareness.

How does knowing things aren't real liberate us from the cycle of becoming?

It brings about a state of mental equanimity, wherein the door to wisdom is opened to us, and this precipitates a letting go of our attachment to things. When we are no longer attached to any thing, we are no longer bound to be reborn into the objective world, but are free.

[marcothay]

IOLAUS WROTE: But then how does the cognizant observer exist, since it cannot perceive itself?

What?? Are you not perceiving that you are aware to be aware of...the external environment?

Who you think who made a decision to write what you have already written?
And you think that your decision to keep going to read my comment till the end of it
has been determinate by something else than YOU?

Are you telling me that as a cognizant observer you can't perceive your own thoughts?
Please, wake up.

With your comments you are creating an effect in this universe, right?
That is a definition of CAUSE. Isn't?

[Iolaus]

Dan,

Why do I feel like a pervert ..?

Perhaps you are one.

Marcothay,

None of your points address the question I asked. Or at least, I am not sure the word perception applies. At any rate, it is a truism of Buddhist philosophy (perhaps others) that the perceiver cannot perceive itself.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

When we say, for example, that there is “nothing” in a box, we do not mean the interior of the box is non-existent, we mean only that the interior of the box is devoid of any sort of thing – thus it is not incorrect to say that nothingness is the absence of any thing. Now, the Absolute is that existent which remains when all things (relative existents) have been intellectually abstracted, and so it is rightfully called nothingness.

Not the same thing. When we speak of an empty box, we are not delving into whether or not their are gases, whether or not there is true empty space. The word nothingness means nonexistence of things, yes, but our understanding is that this nonexistence of things means that there isn't anything there - nonexistence. As in "what if there was just nothingness?"

The interior of the box is indeed nonexistent. It is the walls of the box which define a particular area, but there's nothing in it. When we speak of the existence of an Absolute awareness, we are not considering it to be on a par with the emptiness between the walls of an empty box.

There's no use twisting various explanations around. If you were teaching a class of westerners, I would sternly advise you to find an appropriate word for this concept, or you will be swimming uphill.

Perhaps its a sad reflection of the bankruptcy of western religion, that we struggle so much with this and lack a word for it.

Missed this from previous post:
As you say, all things are existentially one and the same,

No that's not what I meant although I did agree with that from your opening statements. Rather, I said that they are truly the same, that is, substantically, essentially, the same. If that were not so, then they would have inherent characteristics, but they do not. You might object that a rock is not a tree, but neither is the rock a rock, but it is just temporarily configured to hold that pattern.

It would seem from going back over the past few threads, that emptiness refers to the relative entities, and non-thing-ness refers to the absolute. Is that right?

Now, the absolute is dependent upon the relative, but the relative is an inherent property of the Absolute, and so the Absolute is dependent upon itself for its existence.

But I don't quite see how that addressed my question, which was, in what sense does the absolute exist when you have said that to exist is to be perceivable.


As we said earlier, to exist is to be either perceived or imagined, and in either case there must be a cognizant observer; for it is from the awareness of the cognizant observer that all things derive both their existence and their identities.

It is difficult to imagine how the cognizant awareness could gain the knowledge with which to create, (that is, to imagine into existence) the universe because there seems to be a circle wherein the awareness must imagine, but there can be nothing to imagine about until one has first experienced something of substance, something to perceive. Yes, this is correct, but you must remember that the Absolute, given that it is its own cause, did not ever arise, but has always been, and will continue so for eternity. This, I know, is a particularly hard concept to grasp, for we sentient beings dwell within the field of time, and so cannot conceive of that which transcends time. Now, although knowledge (relative entities) has always existed, it has never remained unchanged for even one nanosecond, but dwells in a state of perpetual flux.

A hopeless loop that I cannot understand. But it seems useless to discuss in what way things come into existence, whether they are built up from smaller structures or whatever, when we cannot even imagine how the necessary building blocks can come to be in the first place.

When we are no longer attached to any thing, we are no longer bound to be reborn into the objective world, but are free.

To experience what and do what?

I seem to be feeling mean tempered today.
But, as my favorite zen quote says, it is no affair of mine.

[Jehu]

Not the same thing. When we speak of an empty box, we are not delving into whether or not their are gases, whether or not there is true empty space. The word nothingness means nonexistence [absence] of things, yes, but our understanding is that this nonexistence [absence] of things means that there isn't anything there - nonexistence. As in "what if there was just nothingness?"

The interior of the box is indeed nonexistent [devoid of any thing]. It is the walls of the box which define a particular area, but there's nothing in it. When we speak of the existence of an Absolute awareness, we are not considering it to be on a par with the emptiness between the walls of an empty box.

I thought that we agreed to dispense with the term “nonexistent”, for it is meaningless? However, if you truly object to the term “nothingness” then I will cease to use is, for it is, after all, only a name; and only things may be rightfully named, for a name require an expression of what it signifies, and the Absolute can only be expressed in terms of what it is not.

Rather, I said that they are truly the same, that is, substantically, essentially, the same. If that were not so, then they would have inherent characteristics, but they do not. You might object that a rock is not a tree, but neither is the rock a rock, but it is just temporarily configured to hold that pattern.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. If all things are existentially the same, as we have agreed that they must be, then the only way that they can differ one from an other is in their essence/substance/appearance. Is this not so?

It would seem from going back over the past few threads, that emptiness refers to the relative entities, and non-thing-ness refers to the absolute. Is that right?

Yes, given that all things are devoid of any inherent reality, they are said to be “empty”; while the Absolute, given that it is not any “thing”, is said to be “nothingness”.

But I don't quite see how that addressed my question, which was, in what sense does the absolute exist when you have said that to exist is to be perceivable.

What I said was that “to exist is to be either perceived or imagined”, and without that there is a perceiver, there can be no perception or imagining, for that which perceives/imagines (subject) and that which is perceived/imagined (objects) stand in an interdependent and complementary relationship.

A hopeless loop that I cannot understand. But it seems useless to discuss in what way things come into existence, whether they are built up from smaller structures or whatever, when we cannot even imagine how the necessary building blocks can come to be in the first place.

I told you that this was a difficult concept, but you must come to grips with the fact that knowledge did not “come to be”, for only relative entities partake of becoming. Knowledge (as a whole), although it is in a perpetual state of change, has always existed. Knowledge is the essence of awareness, its intrinsic constitutive cause, but it cannot be expressed in terms of any “thing”.

To experience what and do what?

That will be entirely up to you!

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

We agreed that there is no such thing as nonexistence, yes, but in the minds of people it exists as a concept. And even when we do know, as I know, that there is no nonexistence, yet if you asked me, "What is in that box?" I might answer "nothing" without thereby referencing that the Absolute is in the box, but just as a common convenience. There are no visible items in the box. So, I don't think we should use that common, and commonly used, simple word for a concept such as the invisible absolute.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. If all things are existentially the same, as we have agreed that they must be, then the only way that they can differ one from an other is in their essence/substance/appearance. Is this not so?

But the essence and substance (I cannot remember exactly what they are) are actual, without being real. They do indeed differ in their essence, but it is not an inherent difference. If the difference were inherent, then those differences would persist forever. But they do not. The things all morph around, one thing becoming another thing. What makes a thing a particular type of molecule or atom, can change. I do realize that they must differ in their essence in order for the interdependent complementarity to be true, since they are equal in their existential being, however, I think that the difference is something of an illusion. Not an illusion in that it is real enough at the time, but an illusion in that it is a temporary configuration and not a fundamental and unchangeable one. An oxygen and a hydrogen atom clump together and now you have water. We could say:

Is the water real? Yes.
But is it really water? No.

What I said was that “to exist is to be either perceived or imagined”, and without that there is a perceiver, there can be no perception or imagining, for that which perceives/imagines (subject) and that which is perceived/imagined (objects) stand in an interdependent and complementary relationship.

Does the Absolute then, or Being, exist because it imagines itself?

I told you that this was a difficult concept, but you must come to grips with the fact that knowledge did not “come to be”, for only relative entities partake of becoming. Knowledge (as a whole), although it is in a perpetual state of change, has always existed. Knowledge is the essence of awareness, its intrinsic constitutive cause, but it cannot be expressed in terms of any “thing”.

It's as good an explanation as any, but I cannot picture it. So that means there is no evolution of the universe, or of Being?

That will be entirely up to you!

But what kind of being will I be, if liberated from the cycle of becoming, and need not be reborn in the objective world? The entire universe is in a state of becoming. There must be planets and solar systems galore, with various processes going on.

[Jehu]

We agreed that there is no such thing as nonexistence, yes, but in the minds of people it exists as a concept. And even when we do know, as I know, that there is no nonexistence, yet if you asked me, "What is in that box?" I might answer "nothing" without thereby referencing that the Absolute is in the box, but just as a common convenience. There are no visible items in the box. So, I don't think we should use that common, and commonly used, simple word for a concept such as the invisible absolute.

Very well, so long as it is clear that the Absolute is the only true existent, and that it is always present – even in the absence of any kind of thing.

But the essence and substance (I cannot remember exactly what they are) are actual, without being real. They do indeed differ in their essence, but it is not an inherent difference. If the difference were inherent, then those differences would persist forever. But they do not. The things all morph around, one thing becoming another thing. What makes a thing a particular type of molecule or atom, can change. I do realize that they must differ in their essence in order for the interdependent complementarity to be true, since they are equal in their existential being, however, I think that the difference is something of an illusion. Not an illusion in that it is real enough at the time, but an illusion in that it is a temporary configuration and not a fundamental and unchangeable one. An oxygen and a hydrogen atom clump together and now you have water. We could say:

Is the water real? Yes.
But is it really water? No.

Water is “actual”, it is not real, and so we cannot say that it is “really” water. What we can say is that the appearance of water is really an illusion. Further, given that things have only an apparent existence, they are not the true causes of other things – but only their apparent causes. For example, our hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not the true causes of the resulting water molecule, for they are not themselves real (true existents), and so they cannot be the cause of anything. What’s more, the atoms that appear before the amalgamation process wherein the water molecule arises, are not the same (identical) atoms that abide now within the structure we call a water molecule, but entirely different atoms. And the same is true of those atoms that will appear when the bonds that hold that water molecule together are broken, and the water molecule is no more. In truth, each and ever manifestation within the entire Universe is but an appearance, and not a single one of them persists for even the smallest conceivable unit of time.

The point that I am trying to make here is that although it is correct to say that “…things all morph around, one thing becoming another thing”, from a relative (apparent) perspective, it is not correct from an absolute (real) perspective. In reality, there is nothing which becomes something else, for the very notion violates the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that a thing must either be or not be. The Zen master Dogen once argued that, “firewood is firewood, and ashes are ashes, and that firewood does not become ashes.” So you see either there are free atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, or there is a molecule of water, but the one does not become the other, for becoming is merely an illusion.

Does the Absolute then, or Being, exist because it imagines itself?

Yes, you could say that. Parmenides said that Being and Thinking were the same; and thinking is just another word for Imagining, is it not?

It's as good an explanation as any, but I cannot picture it. So that means there is no evolution of the universe, or of Being?

The Universe, given that it exists in a perpetual state of transformation, may be said to evolve, for all transformations progress in an logical fashion – in accordance with the inviolable Law of Identity. However, given that Being is complete and perfect in-and-of- itself, and so incapable of any real change, we cannot say that Being evolves.

But what kind of being will I be, if liberated from the cycle of becoming, and need not be reborn in the objective world? The entire universe is in a state of becoming. There must be planets and solar systems galore, with various processes going on.

This, I cannot say, for the possibilities are boundless.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Very well, so long as it is clear that the Absolute is the only true existent, and that it is always present – even in the absence of any kind of thing.

Yes, we agree, although as I recall, you seem to say that the absolute is in empty space, whereas I think it makes no difference.

Water is “actual”, it is not real, and so we cannot say that it is “really” water.

I think I meant that. That the water is actual water, but the substance itself, what is it really? We don't know, but it's water configuration is a delusion. However, it is only a delusion in the sense that it is not inherently water. I do not consider it a delusion that it exists, nor even consider that its current configuration is incorrect, that is, it is not a delusion to call it water. That is what I meant by saying it is real water, but that it is not really water.

Now, we agreed that all things exist, so why do you say they have an apparent existence?

For example, our hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not the true causes of the resulting water molecule, for they are not themselves real (true existents), and so they cannot be the cause of anything. What’s more, the atoms that appear before the amalgamation process wherein the water molecule arises, are not the same (identical) atoms that abide now within the structure we call a water molecule, but entirely different atoms. And the same is true of those atoms that will appear when the bonds that hold that water molecule together are broken, and the water molecule is no more. In truth, each and ever manifestation within the entire Universe is but an appearance, and not a single one of them persists for even the smallest conceivable unit of time.

How do you arrive at this?

The point that I am trying to make here is that although it is correct to say that “…things all morph around, one thing becoming another thing”, from a relative (apparent) perspective, it is not correct from an absolute (real) perspective. In reality, there is nothing which becomes something else, for the very notion violates the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that a thing must either be or not be.

I disagree. At what point is anything in a static state of being "what it is?" Suppose a baby is growing, blood brings nutrients, food is eaten and gets digested - you are denying these processes because they violate the law of the excluded middle? Either a baby is or it isn't? I'd say that each thing is what it is at every moment, and no two moments are alike, but there is certainly a trend toward building or demolishing particular entities which are recognizable to us.

How do you propose that things become what they become, and why do you consider this the realm of becoming?
Molecules and atoms may make their changes in instantaneous leaps, I don't know.

[Jehu]

Yes, we agree, although as I recall, you seem to say that the absolute is in empty space, whereas I think it makes no difference.

What I said was that to the sentient being, the Absolute has the appearance of empty space.

I think I meant that. That the water is actual water, but the substance itself, what is it really? We don't know, but it's water configuration is a delusion. However, it is only a delusion in the sense that it is not inherently water. I do not consider it a delusion that it exists, nor even consider that its current configuration is incorrect, that is, it is not a delusion to call it water. That is what I meant by saying it is real water, but that it is not really water.

I agree, it is not a delusion to call water “water”, it is only a delusion to think that water exists independent of the awareness that perceives or imagine it into being.

Now, we agreed that all things exist, so why do you say they have an apparent existence?

Because their existence is not a necessary one, but one that is contingent upon the coming together of extrinsic causes and conditions; not the least of which is awareness.

How do you arrive at this?

If hydrogen and oxygen atoms are themselves only relative (apparent) entities, and are not possessed of intrinsic causes, then it follows that they cannot possibly be the real cause of anything else – but only an apparent cause. For example, we can dream that there is a bull loose in a china shop, and we can dream that the bull is doing all sort of damage there; but as the bull is only a dream entity, it cannot possibly be the true cause of the damage; though it clearly appears so to the dreamer.

I disagree. At what point is anything in a static state of being "what it is?" Suppose a baby is growing, blood brings nutrients, food is eaten and gets digested - you are denying these processes because they violate the law of the excluded middle? Either a baby is or it isn't? I'd say that each thing is what it is at every moment, and no two moments are alike, but there is certainly a trend toward building or demolishing particular entities which are recognizable to us.

I do not deny that there exist such entities as babies, or that such entities do not evolve in logical fashion over time, I merely deny that such entities are real (absolute, independent and immutable).

How do you propose that things become what they become, and why do you consider this the realm of becoming?

Appearances evolve under the force of that cognizant awareness which is their true origin and cause. The Universe is traditionally called the “realm of becoming” because it contains nothing that partakes of true (real) being – which denotes a stability, but are subject to perpetual change (instability); that is to say, they (things) are always in the act of becoming something else.

[Iolaus]

Well, OK, although I reserve that I do not really know of what stuff is made or how, nor am I convinced that there is anything unreal, since I suspect that everything is made of God, which takes on these appearances and forms.

Things appear to be contingent and dependent upon the coming together of various causes, and thus not independent in their existence, but are actually real and immutable because their nonreality is a delusion in which the immutable pretends to be matter.

[Jehu]

Well, OK, although I reserve that I do not really know of what stuff is made or how, nor am I convinced that there is anything unreal, since I suspect that everything is made of God, which takes on these appearances and forms.

Things appear to be contingent and dependent upon the coming together of various causes, and thus not independent in their existence, but are actually real and immutable because their nonreality is a delusion in which the immutable pretends to be matter.

I cannot accept your use of the term “actually real”, either things are real (absolute) or they are not real (relative)[Law of Excluded Middle], and only if they are not real, then they may be either actual or imagined.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that because things (beings) are contained within the one true entity (Being), that they must then partake of the same mode of existence, but this is not so. A mind, for example, may give rise to all manner of ideas, and although these ideas are not separate (different) from the mind which thinks them, they are not the same (identical) either, else they too would be able to give rise to ideas of their own, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I cannot accept your use of the term “actually real”, either things are real (absolute) or they are not real (relative)[Law of Excluded Middle], and only if they are not real, then they may be either actual or imagined.

Well, first of all, aren't you claiming that the actual is also imagined, but by the absolute? I really don't have a good handle on what you mean by actual.

Perhaps it does not violate the law of the excluded middle, because the things only appear to be changeable. That is their appearance. A form they assume.

Whereas there is nothing but God. Perhaps that is nondifferent than saying God imagines the world. I just don't happen to like it. I have tremendous respect for this universe.

And as for this argument:

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that because things (beings) are contained within the one true entity (Being), that they must then partake of the same mode of existence, but this is not so. A mind, for example, may give rise to all manner of ideas, and although these ideas are not separate (different) from the mind which thinks them, they are not the same (identical) either, else they too would be able to give rise to ideas of their own, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I can't help but note that I gave a variety of it myself when I said that the difference between me and the absolute is that the absolute can imagine a universe into being, and I certainly can't do that. Am I not like one of the ideas in your above?

[Jehu]

Well, first of all, aren't you claiming that the actual is also imagined, but by the absolute? I really don't have a good handle on what you mean by actual.

The actual world (objective knowledge) is brought about as a result of a process that is akin to imagination, but because this process involves the sum totality of knowledge, it is accessible to all cognizant agents (sentient beings) – although the extent of each agent’s access is limited by the range of its perception. Imaginary things, on the other hand, are accessible only to that particular agent within the structure of who’s brain the thing is conceived – except in such cases as the agent somehow renders the thing perceptible – by embodying it in the objective world.

Perhaps it does not violate the law of the excluded middle, because the things only appear to be changeable. That is their appearance. A form they assume.

Yes, it is true that things merely appear to undergo changes, for the things themselves are only appearances, and so are not capable of undergoing any real change.

Whereas there is nothing but God. Perhaps that is nondifferent than saying God imagines the world. I just don't happen to like it. I have tremendous respect for this universe.

I too have great reverence for all things, but this does not hinder me from seeing their true nature. As you say, all things are manifestations of the one true Being (God), and as such, are not apart from that Being; nevertheless, it must be understood that things have no continuity (being), but are both born and destroyed in each successive instant (becoming), and that it is the cognizant awareness of the sentient observer that continues unaltered.

I can't help but note that I gave a variety of it myself when I said that the difference between me and the absolute is that the absolute can imagine a universe into being, and I certainly can't do that. Am I not like one of the ideas in your above?

If by “I” you mean “Iolaus”, then yes, you are nothing more that an idea that has been made manifest within the virtual experiential continuum that is the physical universe. However, if by “I”, you mean the cognizant awareness that underlies Iolaus’s ability to perceive and imagine, then you are not the least bit different from the Absolute – apart from the fact that you do not recognize things to be the play of your own intrinsic nature.

[Iolaus]

One way that I am different from the Absolute is that I am a separate being. I do consider my 'self' to be the underlying awareness that allows me to perceive, and yet, this awareness is captured in a net, and lacks power. Nor do I dispute that I am not really a separate being and that all things and all beings are One, but yet there is a dual nature, part separate and part unity. Multiplicity within unity, I guess.

And if I am not one bit different than the absolute, then why do I lack power, and memory, and understanding?

Now, why do you have reverence for things?

The problem with Buddhism is that it lacks soul. By this I mean that it intrigues me that some spiritual persuasions say that a person has, not only body and soul, but in fact body, soul and spirit. The spirit is the universal, and the body just a temporary vehicle, but the soul is the individual, and that is what inherits character and wisdom through incarnatons, and can eventually become enlightened. The soul can be egoic and dark, or it can be light and pure. Buddhism, it seems to me, sort of bypasses the soul, by ignoring its existence and this leaves some holes in the theory. The advaned Buddhistic being of course purifies their soul just like a sufi would. And it is so, (I think) that the spiritual process of soul purification ultimately leads to, if you will, a thinner and thinner soul, with less and less personality, and which is filled with the universal spirit, the spirit of consciousness and love force which is everywhere present and fills all things, or as you say, contains all things.

[Jehu]

One way that I am different from the Absolute is that I am a separate being. I do consider my 'self' to be the underlying awareness that allows me to perceive, and yet, this awareness is captured in a net, and lacks power. Nor do I dispute that I am not really a separate being and that all things and all beings are One, but yet there is a dual nature, part separate and part unity. Multiplicity within unity, I guess.

While the nature of reality is “two-fold”, it is not “dualistic”, for dualism hold that there are two “independent” principles underlying the appearance of things, while cognitive awareness and knowledge are “interdependent and complementary” principles.

And if I am not one bit different than the absolute, then why do I lack power, and memory, and understanding?

Because you have not fully realized that the awareness that underlies your seemingly independent being, is one and the same with the Awareness that underlies the being of all things.

Now, why do you have reverence for things?

Because I realize that all things share one and the same nature, and so no thing is of greater (or lesser) merit than another. For this reason, I treat all things with reverence, and take only from the world what I need.

The problem with Buddhism is that it lacks soul. By this I mean that it intrigues me that some spiritual persuasions say that a person has, not only body and soul, but in fact body, soul and spirit. The spirit is the universal, and the body just a temporary vehicle, but the soul is the individual, and that is what inherits character and wisdom through incarnatons, and can eventually become enlightened. The soul can be egoic and dark, or it can be light and pure. Buddhism, it seems to me, sort of bypasses the soul, by ignoring its existence and this leaves some holes in the theory. The advaned Buddhistic being of course purifies their soul just like a sufi would. And it is so, (I think) that the spiritual process of soul purification ultimately leads to, if you will, a thinner and thinner soul, with less and less personality, and which is filled with the universal spirit, the spirit of consciousness and love force which is everywhere present and fills all things, or as you say, contains all things.

It is really quite clear: that which is real (the absolute) is indivisible, and that which is divisible (the relative) is not real. Now, whatever it is that you mean by the term “soul”, if it is real, then it is not separate in any real way from the Absolute (God), and if it is not real, then it does not really exist, but is only an illusion. And while Buddhism may not recognize the real existence of anything that might be called a soul, it leads one to live a life founded on loving kindness and compassion for all things, which is more than can be said of many who hold that they are possessed of a soul.

[mansman]

Why do I feel like a pervert when I check the progress this thread?

Have you figured it out, Dan?
Perhaps there is something in the content, i wouldnt know as i havent been paying attention, just seems too contrived to me, as if Mr Secrets is simply answering his own questions, playing with himself of sorts.
Ioass cannot possibly be for-real.

[Iolaus]

Goodness me, it seems that mansman has dropped the silly pretense of being a foreigner.

You know, mansman, when I was a little girl, I thought adults were fools, because it appeared that they laughed at things that weren't funny and made no sense.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

While the nature of reality is “two-fold”, it is not “dualistic”, for dualism hold that there are two “independent” principles underlying the appearance of things, while cognitive awareness and knowledge are “interdependent and complementary” principles.

Another form of dualism is to think that the creation is not the creator.

Because I realize that all things share one and the same nature, and so no thing is of greater (or lesser) merit than another. For this reason, I treat all things with reverence, and take only from the world what I need.

And what nature is that?

It is really quite clear: that which is real (the absolute) is indivisible, and that which is divisible (the relative) is not real. Now, whatever it is that you mean by the term “soul”, if it is real, then it is not separate in any real way from the Absolute (God), and if it is not real, then it does not really exist, but is only an illusion.

Perhaps these concepts are difficult because there is no language for them. You say that things exist but are not real, whereas that is actually a contradiction of terms. If we say something is an illusion, it either does not exist at all, or it is an existent thing which gives us the impression that it is something else, such as a mirage of water on the road.

Perhaps I simply cannot understand what you mean by calling things a delusion. After all, it is already clear to me that all things are quite other than they appear, that our perceptions are just small, arbitrary points of reference in a huge arena of possibility, and that most probably, the entire physical universe is an oscillation, which will eventually recede back into the void from which it came, before starting utterly anew. But awareness will not change.

How can anything be separate from the Absolute? All things must arise out of the Absolute, and even if we were to call them just imagination, all the more that they are not separate from the absolute.

And yet I find myself wondering why I am arguing with you, considering the many, many fine points you have made over the course of this discussion, and how I can see that were things any other way, none of this wonderful experience would be possible, nor would freedom be possible.

Can I see the difference between my consciousness, indivisible and unchanging, and the universe of manifested, evolving things? Sure. What is it I object to then?

Perhaps I am unwilling to commit myself to that which my mind cannot apprehend. I consider this the one wisdom of woman, by the way. They know when they do not know, which goes against the grain of the male ego.

The one thing that I seek insight into, is how matter is constructed. This is the key. Or at least I think it is. If we are not to be dualists, then all things must fold into one. This unity is a great mystery, because of the utter fundamental need for duality. And, I think that a key to this underlying unity is the way that one aspect of the interdependent complementarity is superior to the other.

What do I mean by soul? Very likely, it too will one day disappear, but only at the cessation of the entire universe. The soul is the individual, without which, what would be the point? Isn't this creation a dance of the individual within the unity? Isn't the individual the source of meaningful experience? Not to mention the vehicle for mutual love and gratitude. The soul is the traveler, the wanderer, and it is an evolving thing. It is the close proximity of the experiencer and the awareness. Every soul also has the universal spirit (awareness), ever pure, and this is why every soul is safe and all will be enlightened, coming to the truth. Awareness without the individual soul is like the absolute without knowledge.

If we did not have a soul, there would be no reincarnation, and we would not be beings who could desire to incarnate again. The soul is the individual.

But it is truly a mystery. A great favorire poem of mine by Rumi says,

What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.

If we say that the soul is that which can change and the awareness is that which can not, and even if the soul is dependent upon awareness, nonetheless, it seems disparaging to call it an illuion.

And while Buddhism may not recognize the real existence of anything that might be called a soul, it leads one to live a life founded on loving kindness and compassion for all things, which is more than can be said of many who hold that they are possessed of a soul.

Certainly compassion is integral to Buddhism, but the human condition is such here on this planet that despite what a religion teaches, the masses seem impervious. Christianity is supposed to teach universal and impartial love for all. Sadly for me, the most horrifying examples of routine, deliberate cruelty to animals have come from the Asian countries, despite that Christianity is rather disparaging of animals and states they have no souls, whereas much of Buddhims considers them as fitting objects of compassion and perhaps that their souls are no different than ours.

[mansman]

Goodness me, it seems that mansman has dropped the silly pretense of being a foreigner.

I must object, for as a little boy i actually conversed fluently well before entering school and learning the basics of this here language. Those many early D's in English grammar combined with my hushed disposition probably left no doubt as to what label fit me best. But you can call me whatever you want.

You know, mansman, when I was a little girl, I thought adults were fools, because it appeared that they laughed at things that weren't funny and made no sense.

Is that right.
As you know I dont think u r real, Jehu's questions and Jehu's answers.
For one, ur far too selectively curious, two anyone that inquisitive cannot be so dense, and three so persistent yet remaining generally unconvinced.
(and thats without paying attention!)

Foreigner

[Sapius]

Jehu: Perhaps we will have the good fortune to converse again in the future, for there is so much more that remains to be revealed.

Good fortune? Hahaha… sure… perhaps… and I’m quite sure you have much more to reveal… but that would be a delusional undertaking I’m afraid, for exactly who would reveal what, and to or for the benefit of who exactly? We now know that it is the Absolute that is aware, and not us, so we better get over it already, and drop the deluded act of participating in a mutually beneficial conversation.

BTW, I too realize that all things share one and the same nature, and so no thing is of greater (or lesser) merit than another, so accordingly, I treat all things with equal reverence, be it this topic or some other... so perhaps we will have the good fortune to converse over some other topic... some other time.

[soham]

Down the ages, eastern teaching has been to seek all answers within and not without. Objective universe is manifestation of subjective Reality. You perceive what you project. Sages say, ' Know thyself '.

[Jehu]

Another form of dualism is to think that the creation is not the creator.

Of course!

And what nature is that?

Why the nature of Being of course; cognizant awareness (the existential aspect) and knowledge (the essential aspect).

Perhaps these concepts are difficult because there is no language for them. You say that things exist but are not real, whereas that is actually a contradiction of terms. If we say something is an illusion, it either does not exist at all, or it is an existent thing which gives us the impression that it is something else, such as a mirage of water on the road.

The Law of Contradiction will not permit us to say that there is anything that does not exist, and so all things must partake of some manner or mode of existence. Then, given that there are only two possible modes of existence (absolute and relative), all existents must belong to one mode or the other. Now, you want to know why I insist on calling things illusory, and I will try to explain.

When we subject a given thing to analysis, we find that it breaks down into two or more components, such as is the case with our bicycle, and all that we are left with is a name. The same can be said if we subject the bicycle wheel to analysis, and of the components of the wheel as well. Even the metal that is used in the components may be broken down into more fundamental elements, atoms into sub-atomic particles, photons, quarks, etc. Consequently, in the final analysis, all that remains of the original thing is a sequence of names; for there is nothing substantive to be found anywhere within a thing. For this reason, I say that the thing does not really exist, but partakes of only the appearance of existence, and as an appearance, it is inferior to that existent within which its appearance is made manifest – cognizant awareness.

How can anything be separate from the Absolute? All things must arise out of the Absolute, and even if we were to call them just imagination, all the more that they are not separate from the absolute.

Indeed!

And yet I find myself wondering why I am arguing with you, considering the many, many fine points you have made over the course of this discussion, and how I can see that were things any other way, none of this wonderful experience would be possible, nor would freedom be possible.

Can I see the difference between my consciousness, indivisible and unchanging, and the universe of manifested, evolving things? Sure. What is it I object to then?

Perhaps I am unwilling to commit myself to that which my mind cannot apprehend. I consider this the one wisdom of woman, by the way.

This is the greatest wisdom of all! However, if you wish to apprehend the essence of your own mind, you cannot do so by looking at any sort of thing (object of mind), you must turn your attention on that which is not a thing, that of which there is no-thing that may be predicated.

The one thing that I seek insight into, is how matter is constructed. This is the key. Or at least I think it is. If we are not to be dualists, then all things must fold into one. This unity is a great mystery, because of the utter fundamental need for duality. And, I think that a key to this underlying unity is the way that one aspect of the interdependent complementarity is superior to the other.

Let us return to the matter of how a language is constructed, for language is the very embodiment of reality; and for the sake of ease, let us consider the written form only.

First, there must be two things that the sense organ can differentiate between, and so the two must have dissimilar essential characteristics, for example, black ink and white paper. Next, the ink, being the constitutive cause (essence) of the written language, must be fluid-like (water element) so that it can be redistributed into a finite number of fundamental elements (letters), from which more complex linguistic elements can be constructed. The letters are identifiable because each has its own unique “form” (mode of distribution within the ink), and although it is the ink that renders the letter perceptible to the mind, it is the form that the mind recognizes, and then associates with a particular element of human speech. For this reason, it is said that the letter is not possessed of its own identity, but an identity is posited upon it by the perceiving mind.

The letters then become the building material (substance) of words, each with its own distinctive “form” (mode of distribution within the letters), and which the mind associates with a particular mental construct or concept. For this reason, it is said that words are not possessed of any inherent meaning, but that a meaning is posited to the word by the perceiving mind.

I will not continue through the sentences, paragraphs, etc., for I think you will have gotten the point by now. All thing evolve in just this way, and that includes material things, but in the final analysis, there is only words.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

What do I mean by soul? Very likely, it too will one day disappear, but only at the cessation of the entire universe. The soul is the individual, without which, what would be the point? Isn't this creation a dance of the individual within the unity? Isn't the individual the source of meaningful experience? Not to mention the vehicle for mutual love and gratitude. The soul is the traveler, the wanderer, and it is an evolving thing. It is the close proximity of the experiencer and the awareness. Every soul also has the universal spirit (awareness), ever pure, and this is why every soul is safe and all will be enlightened, coming to the truth. Awareness without the individual soul is like the absolute without knowledge.

If we did not have a soul, there would be no reincarnation, and we would not be beings who could desire to incarnate again. The soul is the individual.

Being is because it necessarily is, suffering and pain arise as a result of ignorance. If there were an individual soul, and this soul partook of an absolute existence, then such an entity would be incapable of change, and what then would be the point of becoming? Being alone truly exists, but given its cognitive nature, it is never alone. You see, Being is neither one thing nor many, neither both nor neither. All such designations as these belong to the realm of the relative, and have no authority over the absolute.

But it is truly a mystery. A great favorire poem of mine by Rumi says,

What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.

If we say that the soul is that which can change and the awareness is that which can not, and even if the soul is dependent upon awareness, nonetheless, it seems disparaging to call it an illuion.

I think that when most people refer to their “soul” it is really their “self” that they are speaking of, and the wisdom traditions do not deny the existence of a real self, they merely deny that the real existence of a separate or independent self. What’s more, I do not mean to disparage things by calling them illusory, I mean only to differentiate between their modes of being, and that of the one true existent.

Certainly compassion is integral to Buddhism, but the human condition is such here on this planet that despite what a religion teaches, the masses seem impervious. Christianity is supposed to teach universal and impartial love for all. Sadly for me, the most horrifying examples of routine, deliberate cruelty to animals have come from the Asian countries, despite that Christianity is rather disparaging of animals and states they have no souls, whereas much of Buddhims considers them as fitting objects of compassion and perhaps that their souls are no different than ours.

I cannot deny that what you say is true, but we cannot let what others do concern us unduly; for it is what we do that is of the utmost importance. As Epictitus always taught, know what is the sphere of one’s own influence, and confine one’s action there.