The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

If I'm not mistaken, substance and essence are the same. It is one thing to say that substance partakes of a relative existence and is not real. But to call it illusory seems a bit different. And yet I agree that it is illusory in a sense - in the sense that nothing really is as it appears to be but is an agglomeration, and a temporary one at that. On the other hand, the substance is long lasting, consistent, and follows discoverable laws.
I am not sure why you say essences are the realm of illusion. I am reminded of the saying that first it is a mountain, then it is no longer a mountain, and then it becomes a mountain again.

Yes, illusion does lie in that which is real, and as it abides inherently therein, they are indeed its properties. Have I not said all along that all characteristics (colour, taste, smell, …) are posited to the thing by the sentient observer.

But not without cause. It is consistent.

The actual (objective world) is merely the imaginings of that which is real (The Absolute), and includes we sentient being.

It might be so. I don't know. I don't know how reality is constructed. Or what it means for the absolute to imagine things.

It does not need substance to give it force, it is itself force.

But I have no idea what that means. Perhaps no one does, or can.

[Jehu]

I can’t really go by ‘cannot rightfully be named’ where I do name them however, but I do understand the dilemma of communicating such concepts; same goes for the word “Tao”: either I name it, or I don’t.

But what if we don’t speak of them? Would they loose their essential aspect or their sensually experienced existential aspect? Take a tree and a bicycle for example; if I don’t speak of them, will they amalgamate? Will they existentially not remain separate unless we define them? Is a sense of separation not required between the I and the rest?

In reality, all things are existentially one and the same entity, though they differ in their essence or appearance. It is ignorance on the part of the sentient being that gives rise to the notion of a separate or independently existing thing. The awakened ones are fully cognizant of all things that they encounter in the world, but they do not imagine those things to be possessed of an nature (self) that is other than their own nature.

Fine, I have no real argument there, I agree that the map is not the territory, but when I have already (thought/reasoned) deduced that utterly all is necessarily “imaginary”, but actual, I personally find no reason to describe existence/being any further as Absolute or otherwise, not even as ‘not two’.

It is only necessary to embody reality in language as a means of transmitting the truth to those who still hold to erroneous views.

In my opinion, it may be hard to imagine (reason), that there could be merely but two aspects (say forces), and on the tip of their inter-actionary-point/s is where lies all sense of existence/being, which is “imaginary” too, including the two forces, but are actual nonetheless, hence, absolutely nothing can be actually said, or even thought about existence/being.

Only the operative cause (awareness) may be consider to be active (have force), for the constitutive cause must necessarily be passive – in accordance with the nature of complementary aspects. Further, when I say that we cannot predicate anything to the absolute, I mean only that it cannot be reduced to other subordinate things, not that we cannot attribute to it any quality or relation; thus we may rightfully describe it only in terms such as, “absolute”, “independent”, “immutable”, “active”, etc., none of which signifies a “thing”.

I consider my “imaginings” to be true, as far as I can poorly reason that is, but I must say that you are doing quite a good job of explaining yourself, and as you may agree, there is a tiny bit of faith required from the very get go, so ultimately any realization utterly depends on the thought processes and acceptance of an individual self.

Yes, one must have faith in one’s own innate ability to reason, but as to the acceptance of an individual self, this is not helpful at all.

[Jehu]

If I'm not mistaken, substance and essence are the same. It is one thing to say that substance partakes of a relative existence and is not real. But to call it illusory seems a bit different. And yet I agree that it is illusory in a sense - in the sense that nothing really is as it appears to be but is an agglomeration, and a temporary one at that. On the other hand, the substance is long lasting, consistent, and follows discoverable laws.

I am not sure why you say essences are the realm of illusion. I am reminded of the saying that first it is a mountain, then it is no longer a mountain, and then it becomes a mountain again.

When I say that essence is mere illusion, I mean only that it is not really out there, where it appears, but inheres within that very entity which perceives it. Their persistence, as well as the consistency with which things change, are both the direct result of the one inviolable law which is their operative cause.

It might be so. I don't know. I don't know how reality is constructed. Or what it means for the absolute to imagine things.

Reality is not constructed, it simply is. Why is there existence and not none-existence? Because it is possible for the former to be, while it is not possible for the latter to be. [Parmenides]

But I have no idea what that means. Perhaps no one does, or can.

It means that what is real is akin to thought, and that thinking and being are the same.

[Sapius]

Jehu: In reality, all things are existentially one and the same entity, though they differ in their essence or appearance. It is ignorance on the part of the sentient being that gives rise to the notion of a separate or independently existing thing. The awakened ones are fully cognizant of all things that they encounter in the world, but they do not imagine those things to be possessed of an nature (self) that is other than their own nature.

Well, my mistake; I was thinking more along the lines of ‘actuality’ rather than ‘reality’, and that in ‘actuality’ things are never one and the same, irrelevant of an sentient being “imagining” (think/reason deductively), not to imagine those things to be possessed of an nature (self) that is other than their own nature (self).

Do you consider yourself to be one of those awakened ones?

Sapius: and as you may agree, there is a tiny bit of faith required from the very get go, so ultimately any realization utterly depends on the thought processes and acceptance of (by) an individual self.

Jehu: Yes, one must have faith in one’s own innate ability to reason, but as to the acceptance of an individual self, this is not helpful at all.

I think I was not clear on that too, please re-read it as; accepted ‘by’ an individual (but not utterly independent) self, such as yourself or me, and all those sentient beings that are not you or not me, in actuality of course. For example, you may be an awakened one, whereas I am not. Which tells me, you have personally accepted the conclusions through deductive imaginings, whereas other sentient beings may have not, although all things are possessed of the same nature (self).

[Jehu]

Do you consider yourself to be one of those awakened ones?

Of what possible value is a question such as this? If I say that I am not an awakened being, then there are those who will completely disregard whatever I have said here, and if I say that I am such a being, there will be others who will mindlessly accept whatever I say. In either case, there is nothing good can come of it, and so I shall leave it to you to judge the extent of my awareness for yourself.

I think I was not clear on that too, please re-read it as; accepted ‘by’ an individual (but not utterly independent) self, such as yourself or me, and all those sentient beings that are not you or not me, in actuality of course. For example, you may be an awakened one, whereas I am not. Which tells me, you have personally accepted the conclusions through deductive imaginings, whereas other sentient beings may have not, although all things are possessed of the same nature (self).

Yes, I understand now, you were speaking from the relative point of view, while I was speaking from the view of the absolute.

[Sapius]

J: The awakened ones are fully….

S: Do you consider yourself to be one of those awakened ones?

J: Of what possible value is a question such as this? If I say that I am not an awakened being, then there are those who will completely disregard whatever I have said here, and if I say that I am such a being, there will be others who will mindlessly accept whatever I say. In either case, there is nothing good can come of it, and so I shall leave it to you to judge the extent of my awareness for yourself.

O! I consider you a highly aware individual and I couldn’t have expected any other answer. I’m quite sure you are highly compassionate towards absolutely all that there is, real or illusory. So, you do agree that there could be different "degrees" of awareness, hence that too could be relative. Or do you mean the extent of realization?

However, it was also to simply demonstrate that the 'realization' remains in and off awareness and knowledge however, including the knowledge of awarenesss itself! Hence it stands to reason that realizing is an individually, sentient-being based understanding, and necessarily requires an individual to hold up such realization, in (complementarily) against those that have not realized, as well.

IOW, I can also reasonably say that since there are, the are’s and the are not’s, then the realization is because of the are’s and are not’s, and not necessarily only because they both ARE (being), which we "unreasonably" justify as “IS”, by assuming them as one and the same thing, in and off their is-ness (be-ing), sensed by us sentient beings as existence (“be-ing”) and justified as such, including its absolute-ness.

J: Yes, I understand now, you were speaking from the relative point of view, while I was speaking from the view of the absolute.

Well, there is no other point of view other than that of awareness and knowledge, but sure, we can also speak from any impossible point of view, that is one of the specialities of being a sentient being, but personally, I think it is quite reasonable to say that it will always remain through an imaginary, personally relative point of view, being a sentient being that I am. The absolute cannot be aware of “I am”, neither of anything that follows. Call existence an unaware blind will if you like. In other words, existence (being, or the absolute) cannot be aware of its self, for “it” can’t have one, but I can be aware of existence, simply because I am.

Nor can a self (or say awareness, it is the same for me) be aware of its self unless there is something other than the self, that it may be AWARE of its self (or awareness). Again, given existence (being) has nothing other than itself, so it can’t be aware, or cognizant in and off itself in other words. (Even in "dreaming", awareness and knowledge are never one and the same thing, so it is unreasonable [illogical] to question, who or which "mind" is dreaming; it is always awareness and knowledge in action)

Sapius: Well, ok then. Firstly, it is quite simple to understand that there are not two “beings”, two “existences” that is, but one existence, since non-existence is naught, so what actually is, is the two complementary aspects of ‘existence’, namely real/absolute/existential as against illusory/relative/essential, (and I don't mean opposing), and one could reasonably say that that’s what makes ‘existence’ possible, since I don’t see it possible that existence could do without, or even be what “it is”, without either of the complementary “aspect” in place. Could it?

Jehu: Undoubtedly not.

Hence, the divide (separation, boundary) between awareness and knowledge, however illusory that it may be, is as fundamental to existence (being) as is the unity, if not more. I find no logical reason to deify either the unity or the separation by describing either as being the “fundamental” nature of Being (existence). Even that description does not apply in my opinion.

Which ever world that one may imagine it to be, either the dream-world, or the waking-world, or an absolute world, or no world at all (which would be a contradiction), would necessarily require awareness and knowledge to uphold that assumption or logical (even absolute) point of view, and that necessarily requires awareness AND knowledge, otherwise existence (being) can’t possibly be existence to begin with. I think, in the back of the mind we are simply accepting existence (being) to be a “thing” although we claim to know otherwise, since we assume “it” to be something (entity) other than the simple interactivity (which stands before the mind) between awareness and knowledge, which is to somehow satisfy our egotistical need to “claim”, humbly and vaguely though, that I have the ultimate answer…. Answer to what exactly is what I ultimately think? Reality?

Ultimately, what we are left with is, merely point of views. So, what is really there? or what is reality… is an illogical question to begin with, in my opinion of course, for there is nothing real nor illusory about existence that one may speak of. That which is, in any given moment, in and off existence, IS, that’s all; end of story.

In imagining existence to be absolute, one is actually limiting its boundlessness to that aspect, if nothing else.

[Jehu]

So, you do agree that there could be different "degrees" of awareness, hence that too could be relative.

That aspect of a thing which is real (awareness) does not vary from one thing to another in either its quality or its quantity, for either a thing is or it is not - there being no intermediate alternative. However, just as the clarity of a mirror is diminished by the layer of dust which has accumulated upon its surface, so is awareness obscured by the accumulation of erroneous knowledge; but because knowledge partakes of only a relative existence, then it is possible to correct the situation.

In other words, existence (being, or the absolute) cannot be aware of its self, for “it” can’t have one, but I can be aware of existence, simply because I am.

It is the absolute that is aware in all cases, for there is no awareness apart from the absolute.

Nor can a self (or say awareness, it is the same for me) be aware of its self unless there is something other than the self, that it may be AWARE of its self (or awareness). Again, given existence (being) has nothing other than itself, so it can’t be aware, or cognizant in and off itself in other words. (Even in "dreaming", awareness and knowledge are never one and the same thing, so it is unreasonable [illogical] to question, who or which "mind" is dreaming; it is always awareness and knowledge in action)

Awareness must necessarily be aware of itself (i.e., self-aware), for knowledge abides inherently within awareness, as it constitutive cause, and given that the absolute (awareness) is unbounded, there can be no other.

Hence, the divide (separation, boundary) between awareness and knowledge, however illusory that it may be, is as fundamental to existence (being) as is the unity, if not more. I find no logical reason to deify either the unity or the separation by describing either as being the “fundamental” nature of Being (existence). Even that description does not apply in my opinion.

If we did not draw such distinctions, then there would be nothing upon which we might form a description of Being, and so we would be rendered mute in the face of ignorance, while erroneous views would proliferate and flourish completely unhindered.

In imagining existence to be absolute, one is actually limiting its boundlessness to that aspect, if nothing else.

Our imaginings have no impact at all upon that which is real, however, they do have an impact upon ourselves, for we are not real. What’s more, we have an impact upon the objective world, and so the actions born of ignorance ripple through the entire universe, and thus affect all sentient beings.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

When I say that essence is mere illusion, I mean only that it is not really out there, where it appears, but inheres within that very entity which perceives it.

In that case it is location which is the illusion, or perhaps the mistake is in thinking of oneself, one's awareness, as residing in a particular place, namely inside one's skin. But is this a mistake? I think not.

Reality is not constructed, it simply is

I hope you will forgive me for saying that is no explanation, and I am fairly satisfied from our conversation thus far that it is an unanswerable question. But you have said that physical reality is actual, and also that it is imaginary. This I cannot understand. If you say that the physical world has the thought of the absolute as its foundation, I would agree this is probably so, but that is not the same thing as calling it imaginary.

I am sad to be argumentative when that is not my desire.

[Sapius]

Jehu: It is the absolute that is aware in all cases, for there is no awareness apart from the absolute.

I get it. It is the absolute that is aware, and not us, since we are the relative with no intrinsic causes and are not the absolute, hence in reality it is only the absolute that is aware.

Thanks :) It has been a very helpful enquiry, and all the best to you.

PS: Won’t be around for a while.

[Jehu]

In that case it is location which is the illusion, or perhaps the mistake is in thinking of oneself, one's awareness, as residing in a particular place, namely inside one's skin. But is this a mistake? I think not.

This is precisely the mistake, for just as in our dreams our cognizance does not really dwell within our dream persona – though it may merely appear that way, neither does our waking cognizance truly abide with our bodies.

I hope you will forgive me for saying that is no explanation, and I am fairly satisfied from our conversation thus far that it is an unanswerable question.

There is no need to apologize, for it is good that you have doubt, and it is incumbent upon me to help you come to realize the truth – and not to merely accept my word for it.

Perhaps we did not spend enough time on the development of the concepts of “absolute” and “relative”. If that which partakes of only a relative existence arises out of the coming together of other subordinate things, that is to say, is “constructed”, then it follows that its complement (the absolute) is necessarily not constructed. You see, if an entity is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, then such an entity must either be or not be; and if it is, then it must have always been and can never cease to be; but if it is not, then it can never have been nor can it ever come to be in the future. For this reason, the absolute is said to be indivisible, and thus we cannot rightfully ask what it is made of, or where it came from.

But you have said that physical reality is actual, and also that it is imaginary. This I cannot understand. If you say that the physical world has the thought of the absolute as its foundation, I would agree this is probably so, but that is not the same thing as calling it imaginary.

I am sorry that the term offends you so, but I simply cannot think of a better one. The Absolute, you see, is akin to that which in the sentient being is called the faculty of imagination, for it possesses the power to create. What’s more, aside from the fact that the “actual” (objective knowledge) is a direct product of the absolute, while the “imaginary” (subjective knowledge) is only an indirect product of the absolute, which has temporarily embodied itself within the relative world, there is no fundamental difference in the way the two are constituted. The difference, as I explained earlier, is only a matter of accessibility; the objective being accessible to all sentient beings, while the subjective is accessible only to the particular sentient being wherein the fragment of awareness is embodied.

The Buddha once described ignorance as believing that which is not real [the material] to be real, and that which is real [the immaterial] to be not real.

[Jehu]

It has been a very helpful enquiry, and all the best to you.

PS: Won’t be around for a while

It saddens me deeply to lose your contributions, but I understand if you must go. Perhaps we will have the good fortune to converse again in the future, for there is so much more that remains to be revealed.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

This is precisely the mistake, for just as in our dreams our cognizance does not really dwell within our dream persona – though it may merely appear that way, neither does our waking cognizance truly abide with our bodies.

I rather had thought that it varied according to the development of the person. Some are locked in to their bodies, some are able to expand out. How do you explain that it appears that way but isn't? In what way am I not confined to my subjectivity?
As to your original remark which preceded this, you said that things are not outside of the perceiver, but within. If the perceiver is the absolute awareness, this is of course true, for everything is within it. But the relative entity is an object among objects. And although its awareness is in some way united with all awareness which is One, yet you refer to it as a fragment. As Sapius mentioned, one entity may be enlightened, another ignorant.

If that which partakes of only a relative existence arises out of the coming together of other subordinate things, that is to say, is “constructed”, then it follows that its complement (the absolute) is necessarily not constructed. You see, if an entity is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, then such an entity must either be or not be; and if it is, then it must have always been and can never cease to be; but if it is not, then it can never have been nor can it ever come to be in the future. For this reason, the absolute is said to be indivisible, and thus we cannot rightfully ask what it is made of, or where it came from.

I agree entirely, but my disagreement was not about the absolute. Although it is true that it bothers me nonetheless, not understanding what the absolute is, not understanding how anything can be self-caused, or lack any need. Over and over I ask myself, "What is it? What is it?"

No, but what I objected to when you said reality is not constructed, I meant the actual. I think that we don't have the knowledge of how it is constructed. But this is the other question which pesters me.

The Absolute, you see, is akin to that which in the sentient being is called the faculty of imagination, for it possesses the power to create.

Shouldn't it bother me that men have more imagination and more power to create? What am I to make of this?

What’s more, aside from the fact that the “actual” (objective knowledge) is a direct product of the absolute, while the “imaginary” (subjective knowledge) is only an indirect product of the absolute, which has temporarily embodied itself within the relative world, there is no fundamental difference in the way the two are constituted.

But that's a pretty damned big difference.

[Jehu]

I rather had thought that it varied according to the development of the person. Some are locked in to their bodies, some are able to expand out. How do you explain that it appears that way but isn't? In what way am I not confined to my subjectivity?

Some are trapped within the dream, for they do not know that it is a dream, while others have seen through the dream, and so are free. Nevertheless, awareness does not abide within any thing, but rather, it is the things which abide within the field of awareness – as appearances.

As to your original remark which preceded this, you said that things are not outside of the perceiver, but within. If the perceiver is the absolute awareness, this is of course true, for everything is within it. But the relative entity is an object among objects. And although its awareness is in some way united with all awareness which is One, yet you refer to it as a fragment. As Sapius mentioned, one entity may be enlightened, another ignorant.

It is ignorance alone that divides one sentient being from another; a subject from its object.

I agree entirely, but my disagreement was not about the absolute. Although it is true that it bothers me nonetheless, not understanding what the absolute is, not understanding how anything can be self-caused, or lack any need. Over and over I ask myself, "What is it? What is it?"

Indeed, there is “no-thing” that is self caused, and this is the problem, for all that can be known (knowledge) has merely a relative existence, and so can be defined in terms of its essential characteristics (essence).

No, but what I objected to when you said reality is not constructed, I meant the actual. I think that we don't have the knowledge of how it is constructed. But this is the other question which pesters me.

Consider the case of our bicycle: when we disassemble a bicycle we are left with only a set of components, but the functional capacity of the bicycle is no longer there. Thus the term “bicycle” is nothing more than a name which we associate with a certain form: a unique pattern of distribution which exists within that particular set of components (essence). The same may be said of the bicycle’s wheels, or its gear train, or any other component; so these too are but names (forms). The same may be said of the molecules of steel that its components are fashion from, or the atoms which comprise the steel, or the electron, protons and neutrons that comprise the atoms, etc., down to the very limits of our ability perceive or imagine additional components. In the end, however, there is nothing but names (forms); and that is why a sage once said “naming is the mother of all things”.

Shouldn't it bother me that men have more imagination and more power to create? What am I to make of this?

Absolute nonsense!

But that's a pretty damned big difference.

Only to those who do not yet recognize their true nature (self).

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Some are trapped within the dream, for they do not know that it is a dream, while others have seen through the dream, and so are free. Nevertheless, awareness does not abide within any thing, but rather, it is the things which abide within the field of awareness – as appearances.

I'm not sure this addresses the problem that my awareness, my self who perceives, looks out from behind my eyes, and from nowhere else. Although it is interesting that when I look back upon my memories, I see the image as if I were slightly outside of and above my body.

I am fairly sure it is a dream, and am quite often struck with a sense of the strangeness of it all, but it chanages my perspective not one iota. You had said that our cognizance does not really dwell within our bodies. This may be so - somehow - but how?

The same may be said of the molecules of steel that its components are fashion from, or the atoms which comprise the steel, or the electron, protons and neutrons that comprise the atoms, etc., down to the very limits of our ability perceive or imagine additional components. In the end, however, there is nothing but names (forms); and that is why a sage once said “naming is the mother of all things”.

Yes, that is true but there is a hole at the bottom. We don't know what's down there.

As to naming being the mother of things, I suppose that is true for humans. There are things in the world of an animal entity, they don't have names for them, but apparently perceive them and react appropriately nonetheless.

Absolute nonsense!

I wish it were.

Only to those who do not yet recognize their true nature (self).

Well, you'll have to elaborate. How is it not an important difference, that only I perceive my own imagination, but the absolute can imagine a galaxy and all beings see it and feel it?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Some are trapped within the dream, for they do not know that it is a dream, while others have seen through the dream, and so are free. Nevertheless, awareness does not abide within any thing, but rather, it is the things which abide within the field of awareness – as appearances.

I'm not sure this addresses the problem that my awareness, my self who perceives, looks out from behind my eyes, and from nowhere else. Although it is interesting that when I look back upon my memories, I see the image as if I were slightly outside of and above my body.

I am fairly sure it is a dream, and am quite often struck with a sense of the strangeness of it all, but it chanages my perspective not one iota. You had said that our cognizance does not really dwell within our bodies. This may be so - somehow - but how?

The same may be said of the molecules of steel that its components are fashion from, or the atoms which comprise the steel, or the electron, protons and neutrons that comprise the atoms, etc., down to the very limits of our ability perceive or imagine additional components. In the end, however, there is nothing but names (forms); and that is why a sage once said “naming is the mother of all things”.

Yes, that is true but there is a hole at the bottom. We don't know what's down there.

As to naming being the mother of things, I suppose that is true for humans. There are things in the world of an animal entity, they don't have names for them, but apparently perceive them and react appropriately nonetheless.

Absolute nonsense!

I wish it were.

Only to those who do not yet recognize their true nature (self).

Well, you'll have to elaborate. How is it not an important difference, that only I perceive my own imagination, but the absolute can imagine a galaxy and all beings see it and feel it?

[Jehu]

I am fairly sure it is a dream, and am quite often struck with a sense of the strangeness of it all, but it changes my perspective not one iota. You had said that our cognizance does not really dwell within our bodies. This may be so - somehow - but how?

As I said before, the process is much the same as that wherein the awareness of the sentient being, having been liberated from its sense organs by sleep, sets about to create its own world, and embody a fragment of itself within that world. First, it imagines itself to be both subject and object, and then, with the arising of a sensual continuum, imagines these sensual impressions to be the effect of one or more external entities. Then, as the fragment of awareness explores its new world, the remaining awareness acts as the ring master, creating whatever aspects of its virtual world as are required by the fragment. For example, if the fragment encounters a closed door, and decides to open it, the remaining awareness immediately creates whatever is to be found behind the door. However, this virtual world does really not exist outside of the fragment, but within the fragment itself.

Yes, that is true but there is a hole at the bottom. We don't know what's down there.

But we do know, for reason tells us that there is nothing real to be found in any sort of thing.

As to naming being the mother of things, I suppose that is true for humans. There are things in the world of an animal entity, they don't have names for them, but apparently perceive them and react appropriately nonetheless.

All sentient beings are possessed of the ability to imagine, and although there are none (that we yet know of) which have developed such a sophisticated manner of communicating as we humans, they are all nevertheless, prone to conceptualization. If you think that a dog does not name things, you need only call it by name, or ask it if it would like a treat.

I wish it were.

Believe me, merely being a female is no barrier to awakening, nor has it ever been so in the past; it is only cultural restrictions that have stood in the way. The fact that there are fewer female poets, painters, philosophers or spiritual leaders in the past is more a indication of the past ignorance of males, than a deficiency in the capacity of females. We are all human beings, and as such, we all have the capacity to function in accordance with our purpose.

Well, you'll have to elaborate. How is it not an important difference, that only I perceive my own imagination, but the absolute can imagine a galaxy and all beings see it and feel it?

From the view of the awakened ones, there is no I (Jehu or Iolaus) and other (the absolute), there is only the eternal play of our own cognizant nature.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Well!! I disagree with everything you've written, except that animals do have some imaginary capability.

Now what?

[Jehu]

Iolaus,

It would seem that the time has come for us to bring our enquiry to a close, for I am completely at a loss as to how to continue. In any event, I have already revealed to you all that I can regarding the wisdom traditions and the doctrine that underlies them, and it is now up to you what you chose do with this knowledge. I have very much benefited by our discussion these past months, and hope that they have been of some benefit to you as well; and to the others who have been following our discourse. I sincerely believe that you will one day achieve the tranquility of mind that will open the door to your own innate wisdom.

Jehu

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Well this seems a bit anticlimactic.
I can't seem to pin down what the actualized world is, and why you think it consists of nothing, and although it is not real in the same way as awareness is real, I find it far too intelligently wrought and amazing to dismiss as consisting of nothing, or as being of no more import than my dreams.

I've several times hinted that I think it might not matter to my liberation to agree with you that at bottom, things are made of nothing versus something. Or to agree that we can know this, when it seems contradictory to say that the universe is made so consistent by the application of perfect knowledge. I think we should agree to disagree and move on.

Yet you did not want to speak of the path unless I agreed to the above.

[marcothay]

Iolaus said:"Although it is interesting that when I look back upon my memories, I see the image as if I were slightly outside of and above my body."

In that sentence is where the great "secret" stays.

[Jehu]

Well this seems a bit anticlimactic.
I can't seem to pin down what the actualized world is, and why you think it consists of nothing, and although it is not real in the same way as awareness is real, I find it far too intelligently wrought and amazing to dismiss as consisting of nothing, or as being of no more import than my dreams.

Yes, I understand your dilemma, but just as the objects of our dreams are not comprised of anything but the mind wherein they arise, persist and eventually dissolve, so too are the objects of the wakening world, nothing other than the cognizant awareness wherein they manifest. This is why the greatest of all the Buddhist sutras (the Heart Sutra) tells us “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form …”, and the same is true for the other four aggregates (elements).

I've several times hinted that I think it might not matter to my liberation to agree with you that at bottom, things are made of nothing versus something. Or to agree that we can know this, when it seems contradictory to say that the universe is made so consistent by the application of perfect knowledge. I think we should agree to disagree and move on.

Yet you did not want to speak of the path unless I agreed to the above.

It is not because you will not agree that I hesitate to continue, but because you have not yet realized the truth of what I have said for yourself. You see, the path is not an intellectual endeavour, it is not a theory which one examines and then either accept or rejects, it is a way of living one’s life, and is not to be set out upon frivolously. The path is a transformational process wherein the ego personality dissolves in the naked light of our own innate awareness, but this cannot come about without that we first realize that this pure awareness is not only our own true nature, but the ultimate nature of all.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

My dreams and the dreams of the absolute may in some fashion be of the same pattern, I don't deny it and have always thought that reality is made up of repeating layers of the same patterns, but nonetheless it doesn't seem useful to say that there isn't a difference between the absolute who can dream up a universe of galaxies of tremendous longevity and stability in which all beings agree upon the sense perceptions therein, and my own petty dreams.

Then too, perhaps my own dreams are rather miraculous.

None of it makes any sense.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form

I agree with this.

but this cannot come about without that we first realize that this pure awareness is not only our own true nature, but the ultimate nature of all.

It would seem that if I realized this, I would be done. What need of a path?

[David Quinn]

I can't seem to pin down what the actualized world is, and why you think it consists of nothing, and although it is not real in the same way as awareness is real, I find it far too intelligently wrought and amazing to dismiss as consisting of nothing, or as being of no more import than my dreams.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form

I agree with this.

Your agreement is meaningless. It's clear that you do not understand it.

-

[Jehu]

My dreams and the dreams of the absolute may in some fashion be of the same pattern, I don't deny it and have always thought that reality is made up of repeating layers of the same patterns, but nonetheless it doesn't seem useful to say that there isn't a difference between the absolute who can dream up a universe of galaxies of tremendous longevity and stability in which all beings agree upon the sense perceptions therein, and my own petty dreams.

Then too, perhaps my own dreams are rather miraculous.

Indeed!

I agree with this.

What then is emptiness, if not “nothingness”?

It would seem that if I realized this, I would be done. What need of a path?

It is an all to common misconception. A realization of the emptiness of the five kinds of things is but the beginning of the transformation process, for only then are we able to purge our minds of the erroneous knowledge that holds us captive to the relative world.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Indeed!

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.

What then is emptiness, if not “nothingness”?

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.

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.

It is an all to common misconception. A realization of the emptiness of the five kinds of things is but the beginning of the transformation process, for only then are we able to purge our minds of the erroneous knowledge that holds us captive to the relative world.

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.

2.What do you mean that awareness is the true nature of all? All things?
3.To agree with the logic as to the emptiness of the five things is not necessarily the same as to experience "I am awareness."

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