The Fundamental Unity of Being

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Sapius wrote: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.
Just because things do not partake of an absolute existence, it does not follow that they do not exist at all. So long as there are sentient beings, there will also be ignorance and fear, and for this reason, there is a need to speak the truth. Tell me this, having saved yourself from a burning building, would you not then attempt to help others escape?
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Mansman,
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
Despite the D's you have suddenly increased your abilities to that of a native speaker. Quite a remarkable feat Mr. Chinaman.
As you know I dont think u r real, Jehu's questions and Jehu's answers.
Well no, that is a surprise. Actually, I have been on this forum some six years. I used to go by the name Bird of Hermes, but after taking a long break, when I came back there had been some sort of site crash, and I couldn't figure out how to get the name back. The computer said it was taken.
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!)
Selectively curious, so that means you think I miss asking obvious questions?
You're the second person to call me a dunce, and I don't doubt it's true. I wonder what Jehu thinks, perhaps he wonders how to be rid of me, but he'd never tell so there's no point in asking. On the other hand, when your Chinaman persona attempted to participate here, I did not find your questions all that high level...plus many silly comments idolizing the forum owners...
It's not a wonder I am so persistent, but more a wonder I manage to keep my sanity in the world, when no one wants to talk about anything that matters, or notices the general strangeness of our human situation, except my weird husband who, when I mention these things says, "Oh, I passed through that when I was a young child and you are only now noticing?"and the streets are clogged when there is a game in town. Now, if they were all perfectly enlightened perhaps it would make ense to attend these games...
I am not so generally unconvinced. We are in agreement on much of the premises. But I think stuff is real and maybe me too.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

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

Of course!
Yes, but do you see why I made the point? I always get the sense that you go back and forth between acknowledging the profundity of the relative world, and dismissing it. When you say that the nature of things is "... the nature of Being of course; cognizant awareness (the existential aspect) and knowledge (the essential aspect)", this seems satisfying.

The problem lies in people thinking only the world of things is real, without knowing the cognizant and unchanging and superior existential aspect which underlies it. And this also goes for religious people, who, while they do believe in a divine cause, have so anthropomorphized it and so separated the creation (and themselves) from it, that there is really little difference between them and an atheist.

It is perhaps not so much the world of things that is my stumbling block, but the separation of my own fragment of awareness from the whole.
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.
Well, this is true, and I agree that it is the sort of thing that one does not naturally notice and that it is an important theme to ponder. However, we do not know how all this materia is built, we have an invisible black box that we have not entered, and this does cause me trouble because it is precisely at this junction that the manifest universe arises, and that is no small question. What we are looking at here is that everything is God, and yet it has the unchanging awareness aspect and the illusory changeable aspect. Furthermore, since being is One, both the existential and the essential, this is a vital junction indeed. We have agreed that the creator and the creation are One, very well then, how is it done? In this gap lies the answer!
That which is changeable, illusory, unreal, ephemeral - is also God!
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.
Yes, I had realized some time ago that of ultimate truth there is nothing that may be said accurately.
Although, I did not consider that truth to be my 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.
Just a small correction, but I would say there is only ink.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Well, yes, I have thought too about this, about the Christian Trinity and how it relates to other systems of thought. I had decided that the Word, or Christ, or the Son of God was a kind of first emanation, and I call it the organizational force, which is what creates language and words and DNA and I am sure the periodic table has a similar linguistic structure to create it. The physical universe requires organization into rules, call them words or letters.
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.
This is why I say that the soul may not be eternal. But it needs to experience and to change.
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.
But it seems to me this is not quite right. For if it were true there would be no entity who reincarnates, or becomes enlightened and then moves on to enjoy the fruits of enlightenment. Just as you have a very temporary and perishable body, there is a soul (I think) which is very long lived, but may not be eternal. Or may be eternal, but not self-eternal.
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.
Yes, this is the difficult point to me, and even when you say the one true existent - I agree but then, I suspect that that which underlies the illusion of changing things, is real. Because what else can it be if all is God and the creator is not other than the creation?
Truth is a pathless land.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

Jehu: Just because things do not partake of an absolute existence, it does not follow that they do not exist at all.
Who says that they do not exist at all??? ONLY that thy are dream like, so what good reason do “I”, (a dream entity of the Absolute; “one” with no intrinsic causes; “one” that is NOT aware), have to act as if it is awake-time and take things seriously? Once I am awake, I don't take dreamtime seriously, so when you awaken me from THIS dream-time, why should I take this (awake time) any more seriously?
So long as there are sentient beings, there will also be ignorance and fear, and for this reason, there is a need to speak the truth.
Humbug! Don’t kid yourself! Who exactly is ignorant or fears? A thing with no intrinsic causes? As if it is “His/Her” doing. Are you serious? Do you really believe in your philosophy or are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Surely “You” are fooled into thinking (well not really fooled since YOU are not aware for obvious logical reasons) that there is a NEED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH; So WAKE UP! Nothing initiates from YOU, and those that lie/murder/cheat, could not be held responsible for “their” “thoughts/actions” either, that is, if your philosophy is to be considered universally true and taken seriously.

You might illusorily feel the need to speak the truth, and me to lie… so what exactly is the difference if it is all the while the Absolute at work? Why should I respect any differentiations, or say any law of nature/thought when I am (illusorily) AWARE that I am NOT AWARE?
Tell me this, having saved yourself from a burning building, would you not then attempt to help others escape?
Hummm... Should I? Must I? Well, I would help others escape, and I hope, so would you, but logically speaking, according to your philosophy, I/you should not; your stance perpetually seems to play a different tune as per convenience. You tell me… why shouldn’t I ignore the burning victims since the situation is no different than a mind-based dreamtime in any case, especially if I KNOW that that is a logical fact!

A fool or as ignorant that I may be, simply because the mind is involved in both the activities I do not ignore the first law of nature and respect the difference between the dreamtime and awake time. Now if I claim that waking time is similar to dream time, then I have to ignore the first law of nature, identity, from the very get go, and actually should have no logical reason to take “waking” time any more seriously than dreamtime. Should I?

Iolaus seems to have the same objection…
Yes, but do you see why I made the point? I always get the sense that you go back and forth between acknowledging the profundity of the relative world, and dismissing it.
It seems... the law of... "it can’t be both"... can be conveniently ignored as per convenience of making a particular point.

Even if it is viewed from two different points of view or perspectives, it still remains merely the ink (form, view), irrelevant of what that particular form is, be it the truth or falsehood. Then why do “YOU” (Jehu) value truth over falsehood?

PS: It is not "ME" (Sapius) asking any questions. Actually, it is always the Absolute that is aware in absolutely any which case, so "we" don't really have a say. I wonder why bother to take anything any more seriously then!?

(Please don’t consider the above as a disrespectful joke, but a serious objection)
---------
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Ioluas wrote:Yes, but do you see why I made the point? I always get the sense that you go back and forth between acknowledging the profundity of the relative world, and dismissing it. When you say that the nature of things is "... the nature of Being of course; cognizant awareness (the existential aspect) and knowledge (the essential aspect)", this seems satisfying.
While I fully acknowledge the existence of the relative world, and marvel at the wonder of it all, I do not make of it more than it really is – an illusion. However, even though I assert that all that may be perceived by the senses is but an illusion, I also assert that that which perceives these illusions is real. Just as in a dream, when the dream persona encounters something stressful, though the dream persona is but an illusion, that which experiences the stress is not an illusion. If this were not so, then Sapius would be absolutely right, and there would be no point in awakening anyone.
The problem lies in people thinking only the world of things is real, without knowing the cognizant and unchanging and superior existential aspect which underlies it. And this also goes for religious people, who, while they do believe in a divine cause, have so anthropomorphized it and so separated the creation (and themselves) from it, that there is really little difference between them and an atheist.

It is perhaps not so much the world of things that is my stumbling block, but the separation of my own fragment of awareness from the whole.
Yes, this is the most difficult part of all; for this fragment has been clinging to the relative world (and its sensations) for so long that it no longer remembers what it was like to be at one with the Absolute.
What we are looking at here is that everything is God, and yet it has the unchanging awareness aspect and the illusory changeable aspect. Furthermore, since being is One, both the existential and the essential, this is a vital junction indeed. We have agreed that the creator and the creation are One, very well then, how is it done? In this gap lies the answer!

That which is changeable, illusory, unreal, ephemeral - is also God!
When speaking of a relative entity it is permissible to speak in terms of its essence, for it is in the coming together of its essential characteristics that a relative entity arises, and is not to be found apart from them. Therefore, it is correct to say that a bicycle, for example, comprises two wheels, a frame, handle bars, etc.; for these are its essence, and in their absence there would be no bicycle.

However, regarding the Absolute entity, we cannot say that its essence is the sum totality of all presently existent relative entities, for then its essence would abide in a state of continuous flux; and if its essence was always changing, so too would the entity itself be continuously altered. But Being cannot change, for there is only Being and there is no other. The true essence of the Absolute is not things, for that which is real cannot be founded upon that which is not real. Rather, awareness is its own cause, or perhaps we should call it “self-awareness”, for there is no other of which it can be aware. You see, Being is an intelligent substance, a thinking substance, an imagining substance, but you will not find that of which it is composed, for it is not composed at all – it simply is.
Just a small correction, but I would say there is only ink.
Since ink itself may be reduced to a pigment and a medium, and has no existence apart from the coming together of these two elements, ink is also merely a word.
This is why I say that the soul may not be eternal. But it needs to experience and to change.
To what end, if it will one day cease to exist?
But it seems to me this is not quite right. For if it were true there would be no entity who reincarnates, or becomes enlightened and then moves on to enjoy the fruits of enlightenment. Just as you have a very temporary and perishable body, there is a soul (I think) which is very long lived, but may not be eternal. Or may be eternal, but not self-eternal.
That which experiences the relative world, and which is continuously reborn is not a thing, but a fragment of awareness, a stream of thought, and so long as this fragment remains ignorant of its true nature, it remains bound to the sensuous world. Awakening does not destroy these streams, it merely frees it from its imprisonment within the relative world - for these thought streams are the dynamic essence of Being.
Ignius
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Ignius »

While I fully acknowledge the existence of the relative world, and marvel at the wonder of it all, I do not make of it more than it really is – an illusion. However, even though I assert that all that may be perceived by the senses is but an illusion, I also assert that that which perceives these illusions is real. Just as in a dream, when the dream persona encounters something stressful, though the dream persona is but an illusion, that which experiences the stress is not an illusion. If this were not so, then Sapius would be absolutely right, and there would be no point in awakening anyone.
Let me get this straight: everything, besides you (the experiencer), is an illusion. Does that really make sense? Why don't you go all the way, and say that the experiencer (you) are an illusion as well. Now, tell me, where are you?
Yes, this is the most difficult part of all; for this fragment has been clinging to the relative world (and its sensations) for so long that it no longer remembers what it was like to be at one with the Absolute.
That's because of experience.
When speaking of a relative entity it is permissible to speak in terms of its essence, for it is in the coming together of its essential characteristics that a relative entity arises, and is not to be found apart from them. Therefore, it is correct to say that a bicycle, for example, comprises two wheels, a frame, handle bars, etc.; for these are its essence, and in their absence there would be no bicycle.

However, regarding the Absolute entity, we cannot say that its essence is the sum totality of all presently existent relative entities, for then its essence would abide in a state of continuous flux; and if its essence was always changing, so too would the entity itself be continuously altered. But Being cannot change, for there is only Being and there is no other. The true essence of the Absolute is not things, for that which is real cannot be founded upon that which is not real. Rather, awareness is its own cause, or perhaps we should call it “self-awareness”, for there is no other of which it can be aware. You see, Being is an intelligent substance, a thinking substance, an imagining substance, but you will not find that of which it is composed, for it is not composed at all – it simply is.
...And it shall continue to be, for all of eternity!
To what end, if it will one day cease to exist?
Cease? Being? Absolute? *shocked*
That which experiences the relative world, and which is continuously reborn is not a thing, but a fragment of awareness, a stream of thought, and so long as this fragment remains ignorant of its true nature, it remains bound to the sensuous world. Awakening does not destroy these streams, it merely frees it from its imprisonment within the relative world - for these thought streams are the dynamic essence of Being.
Or maybe it's the opposite of awakening? Sounds dead to me.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

.
Iolus, I hope you don’t mind me addressing some of the points jehu makes to you, since it does concern my argument as well. I do apologize to Jehu for arguing so un-academically, but actually my English is not that good, so I have to resort to such crude way of pointing out inconsistencies, as I see them.

Jehu,
While I fully acknowledge the existence of the relative world, and marvel at the wonder of it all, I do not make of it more than it really is – an illusion.
(Good, but nor should one make MORE of what one considers as real as well. For neither one can come before the other, nor can one be without the other. And one should try not to go any further than that, and turn poor down to earth existence into an “Absolute entity” placing it on a high pedestal or alter; according to me, none of us, or anything for that matter, is any more or less than what we call existence.)

Having said that, on the other hand… what makes you think that YOU acknowledge? You can’t! It is the Absolute that is AWARE. So if you acknowledge, it is the awareness that is acknowledging, which means the Absolute, and if I say I don’t, then again it is awareness acknowledging that, which again is the Absolute. So you see my friend… it is like some absolutely empty egg shells (you and me, the relative) which are not only relative, but have no capacity to even think on individual basis at all, so any comparative or counter stand does not hold any comparative VALUE at all, because it is the same "entity" playing the game from any and every which end.
However, even though I assert that all that may be perceived by the senses is but an illusion,

Wrong; according your reasoned belief, “perceived by the senses” is but an illusion to begin with, and, “I assert” is an illusion too. Remember that “you” are a dream-persona, who does not have the capability to be aware. So what right do you have to use the word "I"? That is if there is really no other than that One "I", the absolute. Are "you" (Jehu) that Absolute? Then who or what exactly is that which listens, harkens, and awakes?
I also assert that that which perceives these illusions is real.
I Assert? In your dream perhaps; You can assert this, and I can assert that, and in either case it is the Absolute! And that is my point! It applies even to differently worded concepts (QRS and the likes) who on the one hand talk about Causality/Infinity/God in the same frame of capacity, as in, God does it all, (and plays ball from any which side/end, so what exactly is the point? And who or what gets enlightened? The Absolute/Infinity? Which was “ignorant” and now is “enlightened”?), and they too actually fail to acknowledge (or conveniently bypass it when making/stressing some other point of view), that WE are but a product of causal processes and partake of existence being an effect as much as being a CAUSE, and since each and every dust particle is as much a cause as an effect, each in as much holds “awareness” as “knowledge”, (I place them “A&K” in inverted commas to indicate that there are many who will not accept the fact that there is not a thing that does not partake of those two interdependent and complimentary aspects; Aspects NOT of some “reality” out there, but WITHIN each and every conceivable thing), which makes the interaction of any two things possible. If one thing is not “aware” of another, how the hell will motion take place? On what, and how will that which we acknowledge as Causality work? It is quiet easy to dismiss causality by asserting that “ultimately” it does not exist, nor does infinity, (but God does I suppose), but enlightened or not, there is not a single person worth his salt who can say he literally experiences any difference in raw perceptions, ONLY that there will necessarily be a shift or change in his/her personal conceptual perspective, making that one mentally react indifferently to situations that otherwise would have been emotionally devastating.
Just as in a dream, when the dream persona encounters something stressful, though the dream persona is but an illusion, that which experiences the stress is not an illusion.
Maybe it is not an illusion, but that which actually experiences the stress is the Absolute, correct?; and not those millions of souls who faced death-camps, war atrocities, hunger, disease, etc. Isn’t it? So next time I see a victim being burnt to death, do I think HE/SHE is in stress/distress or the Absolute, Jehu? Can I calmly and from a safe distance talk to the victim about who/what actually is feeling the stress and fear? Given these 28 odd pages of logical discourse of say absolute truth, can you give me one good logical reason why I should attempt to save that person?

If this were not so, then Sapius would be absolutely right, and there would be no point in awakening anyone.
I’m not sure what you mean by “IF this was not so”? According to your “it IS so”, do you realize that what you are also actually saying is that the Absolute needs awakening? Is it the dream-persona that is really ignorant? Awakes? Feels? Thinks? Reasons? No… it is always only the Absolute that is aware. So what exactly awakens? The Absolute that was ignorant? God forbid!

According to what you say, not only is there no point, but also there isn’t any individual really aware to begin with. And that which is aware, do you think needs awakening?

Again, no disrespect was intended, and Jehu, you ARE an awake soul as far as I’m concerned, operating through a fairly changed perspective of existence in off-net life I take it, logically for the better of all of course. And, please accept my apology for using crude or ironic statements.




PS; And you know what, one day I’m going to snatch that cycle of yours and ride away into the sunset, and leave you wondering over what exactly did he take? The wheels? The spokes? The steel? The atoms and molecules? Or reality? But it will always remain the cycle, which just like a tree, one need not define/name to experience its raw perception; you see, one can conceptually divide up a cycle, or conceptually add up all that there is, and call it reality, infinity, the absolute, God, Tao, etc., but yet, the raw experience of a “cycle” and say a “tree”, or absolutely whatever one expereinces, remains exactly the same in any given causally created moment, in and of existence; even a mirage or a dream is exactly just that for that matter, and existence is absolutely nothing beyond... just... that... alive... fraction of a moment, IMHO of course. Relaizing this, is always but a matter of changed individual mental perspective, that's all, and tranquility sets in. Well, at least for me, and all who yearn for it have their own paths to follow, so all the best to all :)
---------
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Sapius wrote:Good, but nor should one make MORE of what one considers as real as well. For neither one can come before the other, nor can one be without the other. And one should try not to go any further than that, and turn poor down to earth existence into an “Absolute entity” placing it on a high pedestal or alter; according to me, none of us, or anything for that matter, is any more or less than what we call existence.

Having said that, on the other hand… what makes you think that YOU acknowledge? You can’t! It is the Absolute that is AWARE. So if you acknowledge, it is the awareness that is acknowledging, which means the Absolute, and if I say I don’t, then again it is awareness acknowledging that, which again is the Absolute. So you see my friend… it is like some absolutely empty egg shells (you and me, the relative) which are not only relative, but have no capacity to even think on individual basis at all, so any comparative or counter stand does not hold any comparative VALUE at all, because it is the same "entity" playing the game from any and every which end.
From an absolute perspective you would be quite right, however, we are not communicating on the absolute level, else there would be no need of language at all. Neither am I writing for the benefit of those who are already awake, for what need is there for that?
Wrong; according your reasoned belief, “perceived by the senses” is but an illusion to begin with, and, “I assert” is an illusion too. Remember that “you” are a dream-persona, who does not have the capability to be aware. So what right do you have to use the word "I"? That is if there is really no other than that One "I", the absolute.
I use the term “I” for the very reason I stated above, for when in Rome, one must do as the Romans do.
Are "you" (Jehu) that Absolute? Then who or what exactly is that which listens, harkens, and awakes?
Jehu is not the Absolute, for the Absolute is not a thing, and neither is it the sum total of all things; nevertheless, it is the origin and cause of all things (i.e., all things are at one with the Absolute).
I Assert? In your dream perhaps; You can assert this, and I can assert that, and in either case it is the Absolute!
While an awakened one and one that is still in a state of delusion may be of the same nature, it is only through the awakened one that the Absolute is able to intervene directly in the relative world, for the actions of the deluded being are forever bound to the web of cause and effect.
And that is my point! It applies even to differently worded concepts (QRS and the likes) who on the one hand talk about Causality/Infinity/God in the same frame of capacity, as in, God does it all, (and plays ball from any which side/end, so what exactly is the point? And who or what gets enlightened? The Absolute/Infinity? Which was “ignorant” and now is “enlightened”?), and they too fail to acknowledge that WE are but a product of causal processes and partake of existence being an effect as much as being a CAUSE, and since each and every dust particle is as much a cause as an effect, each in as much holds “awareness” as “knowledge”, (I place them “A&K” in inverted commas to indicate that there are many who will not accept the fact that there is not a thing that does not partake of those two interdependent and complimentary aspects; Aspects NOT of some “reality” out there, but WITHIN each and every conceivable thing), which makes the interaction of any two things possible. If one thing is not “aware” of another, how the hell will motion take place? On what, and how will that which we acknowledge as Causality work? It is quiet easy to dismiss causality by asserting that “ultimately” is does not exist, nor does infinity, (but God does I suppose), but enlightened or not, there is not a single person worth his salt who can say he literally experiences any difference in raw perceptions, ONLY that there will necessarily be a shift or change in his/her personal conceptual perspective, making that one mentally react indifferently to situations that otherwise would have been emotionally devastating.
I must disagree with you on this point, for once one has experienced the Absolute directly, one’s previous sensory experiences will seem as murky in comparison, as when a man with cataracts suddenly has them removed.
Maybe it is not an illusion, but that which actually experiences the stress is the Absolute, correct?; and not those millions of souls who faced death-camps, war atrocities, hunger, disease, etc. Isn’t it? So next time I see a victim being burnt to death, do I think HE/SHE is in stress/distress or the Absolute, Jehu? Can I calmly and from a safe distance talk to the victim about who/what actually is feeling the stress and fear? Given these 28 odd pages of logical discourse of say absolute truth, can you give me one good logical reason why I should attempt to save that person?
No, but a truly awaken person would not require a reason, for loving kindness and compassion are in the very function of the human being.
I’m not sure what you mean by “IF this was not so”? According to your “it IS so”, do you realize that what you are also actually saying is that the Absolute needs awakening? Is it the dream-persona that is really ignorant? Awakes? Feels? Thinks? Reasons? No… it is always only the Absolute that is aware. So what exactly awakens? The Absolute that was ignorant? God forbid!
Though I think that I have covered all this before, let me reiterate: if the existential aspect of the one true Being is characterized as “awareness”, then it follows that its complementary aspect (knowledge) is “unawareness” (ignorance); and while wisdom and ignorance are not entirely different things, neither are the one and the same.
Ignius
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Ignius »

From an absolute perspective you would be quite right, however, we are not communicating on the absolute level, else there would be no need of language at all. Neither am I writing for the benefit of those who are already awake, for what need is there for that?
Oh, I see... You're the Mother Theresa of GS!

Define someone that's awake, and someone that's the opposite of that (not awake). Now, how do you know that both exist on these forums?

For instance, I would think that someone [awake] reading my posts would think that I'm not awake (even though nothing can be farther from the truth... Or can it?), but that assumption in itself is delusional and evident of an unawakened mind.
I use the term “I” for the very reason I stated above, for when in Rome, one must do as the Romans do.
Conformity over all else!
Jehu is not the Absolute, for the Absolute is not a thing, and neither is it the sum total of all things; nevertheless, it is the origin and cause of all things (i.e., all things are at one with the Absolute).
Duh. The thingy behind Jehu is the absolute, but cannot be defined and that is why we have no idea what we are saying. We, there is no we unless we define the we for what thee we is, so... what is the we, oh Jehu? I dunno.
While an awakened one and one that is still in a state of delusion may be of the same nature, it is only through the awakened one that the Absolute is able to intervene directly in the relative world, for the actions of the deluded being are forever bound to the web of cause and effect.
Either way, it's cause and effect.
I must disagree with you on this point, for once one has experienced the Absolute directly, one’s previous sensory experiences will seem as murky in comparison, as when a man with cataracts suddenly has them removed.
What about the experiences of your childhood? Is it really clearer than that?
Though I think that I have covered all this before, let me reiterate: if the existential aspect of the one true Being is characterized as “awareness”, then it follows that its complementary aspect (knowledge) is “unawareness” (ignorance); and while wisdom and ignorance are not entirely different things, neither are the one and the same.
Yes, in our own minds. But can you really judge another to be "awake" or "unawake" through such a mind.

Are we absolutely there yet?
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
While I fully acknowledge the existence of the relative world, and marvel at the wonder of it all, I do not make of it more than it really is – an illusion.
The more I think about it, the less I can accept it. Perhaps it is just jargon, and we are quibbling over words. That all is not as it appears is so, but that is about as far as I can go. Existence is a mystery. Things are a woven fabric, ephemeral. But to use a word like real or not real. I suspect they are real in a different way. Again, I do not understand my objections. I can imagine, and even logically supopse, that every atom of this manifest universe will one day evaporate into the underlying void, and awareness will not. So this is the only point we can agree on, and perhaps it is sufficient.
Yes, this is the most difficult part of all; for this fragment has been clinging to the relative world (and its sensations) for so long that it no longer remembers what it was like to be at one with the Absolute.
And the answer is to stop clinging?
However, regarding the Absolute entity, we cannot say that its essence is the sum totality of all presently existent relative entities, for then its essence would abide in a state of continuous flux; and if its essence was always changing, so too would the entity itself be continuously altered. But Being cannot change, for there is only Being and there is no other. The true essence of the Absolute is not things, for that which is real cannot be founded upon that which is not real. Rather, awareness is its own cause, or perhaps we should call it “self-awareness”, for there is no other of which it can be aware. You see, Being is an intelligent substance, a thinking substance, an imagining substance, but you will not find that of which it is composed, for it is not composed at all – it simply is.
All of that is good, but it does not quite address what I had said. My interest is in how the relative is manifest and of what it is made, since Being is one, both the existential and essential.
To what end, if it will one day cease to exist?

I don't really know the answer. I don't know what a soul is, or what it's ultimate fate may be. But the purpose of the experiences and the changing is to become a wise entity. There are two choices, either the soul is eternal, or semi eternal. If it returns completely to the One, then I suppose the One must enrich itself thereby.
Truth is a pathless land.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

.
Jehu, the biggest gaping hole that I see in this inquiry is that none are aware, so it is like the absolute holding all the strings to all the puppets who essentially have no individually based conscious responses at all, so there can never ever be any meaningful comparison or essential value although one (say you and I) may seem to react or think in either one way or another. There remains not only no meaningful point, but no pencil to begin with, at all; same goes for the philosophically poetic idea that God does it all.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I have any thing more to contribute here, so until your next, a little lesser universe of discourse perhaps :)
---------
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by bert »

However, regarding the Absolute entity, we cannot say that its essence is the sum totality of all presently existent relative entities, for then its essence would abide in a state of continuous flux; and if its essence was always changing, so too would the entity itself be continuously altered. But Being cannot change, for there is only Being and there is no other. The true essence of the Absolute is not things, for that which is real cannot be founded upon that which is not real. Rather, awareness is its own cause, or perhaps we should call it “self-awareness”, for there is no other of which it can be aware. You see, Being is an intelligent substance, a thinking substance, an imagining substance, but you will not find that of which it is composed, for it is not composed at all – it simply is.
I've had the vision of all things coalescing all the time, as i've stated earlier

by bert on Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:23 pm

ever-present like the Ether, thought may be looked upon as dynamic; inescapably we are in and of it. it always changes our shape and degree of consciousness, a work neither incomplete nor completing. man is a vehicle of thought, and thought governs the world. brain, nerves , body etc. are the media of thought, when thought is dynamic in brain, nerves,etc. we say it is 'the mind', which may have a peculiar relationship with The Mind behind it all: here Scientists mistake the 'means' for the cause. if the mind has any seat it is rather in the whole body than in any particular part; because thought is a sequent impression of feeling and all things mingle all the time - identity by identifying, and the price suffering(and even more thought). So, Identity is an obsession, a complex of wholed parts of personalities, all working in towards each other.. a puzzlated ego: a resurging catacomb where the ghost-like reawakened seek in us their reality.

as Salvador Dali his expression of the sabbatical Witch stated:
"repugnance is the sentry standing right near the door to those things we desire the most"


and also:
by bert on Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:56 pm

as materialists state:" mind is the accidental product of matter", which is equivalent of saying that a remote controller - or any other human-made object - accidentally produced man and the mind, and the reasoning that reified it. materialists have to swallow their own statements. they use their intelligence(such as it applies) to deny mind's existence! oour evidence of seperate existence lies in our rreaction to things ; my feeling is my apperception, .. Ego; for waht I feel is 'consciouness as I', which may not be felt by anyone else.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Again, I do not understand my objections. I can imagine, and even logically suppose, that every atom of this manifest universe will one day evaporate into the underlying void, and awareness will not. So this is the only point we can agree on, and perhaps it is sufficient.
Yes, this will suffice, for as I told you earlier, the purging of erroneous subjective knowledge entails a restructuring of the neural networks in the brain; for every apparent effect must have an apparent cause. I expect that with time (and continued contemplation) all traces of the erroneous view will disappear, and you will find it just as difficult to see why you ever held the old view, as you now find it difficult to accept the new view. However, I should warn you that this mental reformation may cause you some physical discomfort, especially if it happens too quickly.
And the answer is to stop clinging?
Indeed, but this is much easier said than done.
All of that is good, but it does not quite address what I had said. My interest is in how the relative is manifest and of what it is made, …
I cannot help you here, for as I have repeatedly said, relative entities are not made of anything but other relative entities; and you will not find any substance at all. The true substance of reality is cognizant awareness, and there is no other.
I don't really know the answer. I don't know what a soul is, or what it's ultimate fate may be. But the purpose of the experiences and the changing is to become a wise entity. There are two choices, either the soul is eternal, or semi eternal. If it returns completely to the One, then I suppose the One must enrich itself thereby.
The Absolute can neither be enriched nor degraded, for those fragments that imagine themselves to be sentient beings, are separated from the one Awareness only by their own confusion. The Absolute knows both their true nature and their function, and is aware of all that they experience in their deluded state, but is incapable of awakening them, for they have cut themselves off from their intuitive connection, and attached themselves to the relative word. For this reason, it is only when these beings become disenchanted with the dream, and start to ask the appropriate questions, that it is possible for the intuitive connection to be restored, and for the being to awaken.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Sapius wrote:Jehu, the biggest gaping hole that I see in this inquiry is that none are aware, so it is like the absolute holding all the strings to all the puppets who essentially have no individually based conscious responses at all, so there can never ever be any meaningful comparison or essential value although one (say you and I) may seem to react or think in either one way or another.
Then you have not understood the finer points of the doctrine, for the Absolute does not fully control the responses of the sentient being, but only the unfolding of the relative world in which they have embodied themselves. Those fragments of awareness which have imagined themselves to be sentient beings also have a measure of control, a “free will” if you like, though there is little freedom in being buffeted about in an imaginary world, which one erroneously holds to be real.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

bert wrote:I've had the vision of all things coalescing all the time, as i've stated earlier
Yes, thank you for bring that to our attention. I can find no fault in what you have said here, with the exception of the statement “if the mind has any seat it is rather in the whole body than in any particular part …”; for we have already shown that relative entities (i.e., bodies) are devoid of any intrinsic characteristic – including mind.
Ignius
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Ignius »

Dammit, my questions are never answered!
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
I expect that with time (and continued contemplation) all traces of the erroneous view will disappear, and you will find it just as difficult to see why you ever held the old view, as you now find it difficult to accept the new view.
I have some experience of that, where I now see things quite differently than before, and wonder why it was so difficult for me to understand, nor how others can fail to see it my way.
However, I should warn you that this mental reformation may cause you some physical discomfort, especially if it happens too quickly.
Could it be something like a kundalini awakening?
those fragments that imagine themselves to be sentient beings, are separated from the one Awareness only by their own confusion. The Absolute knows both their true nature and their function, and is aware of all that they experience in their deluded state, but is incapable of awakening them, for they have cut themselves off from their intuitive connection, and attached themselves to the relative word.
But then it would seem that to awaken is to no longer be an individual entity.

And how did the absolute allow them to be formed at all?
Truth is a pathless land.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by bert »

Jehu wrote:
bert wrote:I've had the vision of all things coalescing all the time, as i've stated earlier
Yes, thank you for bring that to our attention. I can find no fault in what you have said here, with the exception of the statement “if the mind has any seat it is rather in the whole body than in any particular part …”; for we have already shown that relative entities (i.e., bodies) are devoid of any intrinsic characteristic – including mind.
see you again at page 60

by our blind ethics we overlook the greater logic of the life-force
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

Jehu wrote:
Sapius wrote:Jehu, the biggest gaping hole that I see in this inquiry is that none are aware, so it is like the absolute holding all the strings to all the puppets who essentially have no individually based conscious responses at all, so there can never ever be any meaningful comparison or essential value although one (say you and I) may seem to react or think in either one way or another.
Then you have not understood the finer points of the doctrine, for the Absolute does not fully control the responses of the sentient being, but only the unfolding of the relative world in which they have embodied themselves. Those fragments of awareness which have imagined themselves to be sentient beings also have a measure of control, a “free will” if you like, though there is little freedom in being buffeted about in an imaginary world, which one erroneously holds to be real.
Well, I'm not perfect and do admit that I could be a little dumb at times, but I still think that the relative world would include the sentient being, and all else that ONLY the Absolute is aware of, or is the CAUSE of.
Those fragments of awareness which have imagined themselves to be sentient beings...
I beg your pardon??? How is that possible? Do you see that you are contradicting yourself?? FRAGMENTS of awareness is not possible according to your doctrine my friend.
(sentient beings) ...also have a measure of control, a “free will” if you like,
O! I like “free will”! But puppets that are not even straw-filled but absolutely devoid of any thing "inrtinsic", having a measure of (even illusory) control is not logically possible if your doctrine is to be considered logical! Sentient beings cannot have absolutely any measure of control… no intrinsic causes you see.
though there is little freedom in being buffeted about in an imaginary world, which one erroneously holds to be real.
So there IS a LITTLE freedom, which “one” erroneously HOLDS…? Forgetting about that being real or unreal… how exactly can things that have no intrinsic causes hence no effects at all have the capacity to hold anything at all? What we may assume to be an individual personality, or say individual thought process, is actually impossible according to your doctrine, unless ultimately we throw rationally along with the three laws of nature out the window.

In my opinion, most of such doctrines that point to enlightenment, ultimately tell me that after all that life long effort of battling the ghosts of existence, the ones that can eventually digest contradictions without batting an eyelid, wishfully imagine that they have made it. There is no doubt that they end up being quite selfless, thereby benefiting rest of the humanity through their unbiased advise, but I have seen quite a few relatively selfless persons in my lifetime, who have no inkling or interest in being enlightened, and serve the same purpose just as well.

BTW, again I might be away for a while very shortly, so I prefer not going into a much more detailed discussion.

And please don’t get me wrong; I do respect you, Jehu, irrelevant of me, Sapius, not agreeing with certain aspects of the doctrine; I hope you don't hold that against me.
---------
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Could it be something like a kundalini awakening?
As the mind goes, so the body follows. For this reason, the quiescent mind gives rise to a wide range of physiological changes, wherein the elements of the body come into harmonic balance, and all stress related disease is eliminated.
But then it would seem that to awaken is to no longer be an individual entity.
Indeed, although one remains embodied within the relative world, at least until the moment of death; for awakening is not the primary function of the human being, though it is certainly within our nature to awaken.
And how did the absolute allow them to be formed at all?
The Absolute does not allow the fragments to laps into ignorance, they do this of their own accord, for they are of the same stuff as is the Absolute, and so are capable of imagining whatever they like.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Blair »

You are so full of shit it's beyond the stupidest joke imaginable.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
As the mind goes, so the body follows. For this reason, the quiescent mind gives rise to a wide range of physiological changes, wherein the elements of the body come into harmonic balance, and all stress related disease is eliminated.
That sounds plausible. I was asking though, about your comment that if it happens too quickly it could be uncomfortable.
But then it would seem that to awaken is to no longer be an individual entity.

Indeed, although one remains embodied within the relative world, at least until the moment of death; for awakening is not the primary function of the human being, though it is certainly within our nature to awaken.
I can't understand then, in what way or why did anyone ever become an individual entity or fragment of awareness.
The Absolute does not allow the fragments to laps into ignorance, they do this of their own accord, for they are of the same stuff as is the Absolute, and so are capable of imagining whatever they like.
Same question. Why are they separate entities at all.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
baulz owt
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:42 am
Location: Melbourne Beach

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by baulz owt »

I wish I was deeper than you guys.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Tomas »

baulz owt wrote:I wish I was deeper than you guys.
They're not guys, they're girls.

Jehu and Iolaus are women .. only women can go on about this, that etc :-/

Deeper than?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:That sounds plausible. I was asking though, about your comment that if it happens too quickly it could be uncomfortable.
The brain, like any other organ, can suffer exhaustion if it is forced to restructure too quickly. Just as we must build new muscle slowly so as to avoid undo discomfort, so too must we restructure the neural networks of our brains slowly. In fact, this is why many turn away from the path of reason, for the “mental gymnastic” that are required to follow it simply exhausts their mental capacity.
I can't understand then, in what way or why did anyone ever become an individual entity or fragment of awareness.
Ignorance comes about in much the same way as when we sentient beings laps into a dream state, and in doing so, forget all the details of our waking lives. Our sentient awareness, having become cut off from the normal mode of accessing the faculty of memory, simply gets confused, and then imagines an entirely new identity within the context of their dream world.
Locked