GENIUS FORUMS

The "purpose" (I don't like these anthropomorphic words in this context, but it's just easier) of consciousness is to create distinctions in reality. In other words, it somehow takes the infinite nature of reality and, focusing on a finite piece of it, takes in information about that little piece. So, consciousness is stuck in the realm of finite things. How then is it possible for consciousness to become aware of the Infinite? It doesn't seem like it's "designed" for that at all. Where is the loophole? How do you find it?

Logical deduction.

There is no infinite apart from finite things. There cannot be an awareness of the infinite that is not identical with any instance of awareness, or non-awareness for that matter.

Hi Matt,

Logically and as such dualistic and taoist: any infinite you are becoming aware of is not the eternal infinite.

Ultimately and as such non-dualistic and absolute: everything you are becoming aware of is nothing but the infinite.

jupiviv wrote:There is no infinite apart from finite things. There cannot be an awareness of the infinite that is not identical with any instance of awareness, or non-awareness for that matter.

But that would mean enlightenment is the same as ignorance.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hi Matt,

Hey Diebert!

Logically and as such dualistic and taoist: any infinite you are becoming aware of is not the eternal infinite.

Why? Are you saying this because the concept of becoming is at odds with anything that's eternal (eternal things can't become or unbecome)?

Ultimately and as such non-dualistic and absolute: everything you are becoming aware of is nothing but the infinite.

I reckon the loophole is the abstraction we call causality; change and transformation. That is what allows us to understand what we perceive as an exterior, objective world as infinite potential rather than as if we were watching reality as something outside an unchanging self.

Leyla Shen wrote:I reckon the loophole is the abstraction we call causality; change and transformation. That is what allows us to understand what we perceive as an exterior, objective world as infinite potential rather than as if we were watching reality as something outside an unchanging self.

Yeah, it does seems as if I'm an unchanging self that's observing everything outside. Maybe I should start there since that's what I know. But I'm not even sure what this self is as even my thoughts seem outside of it and I'm just observing them. And if I'm not thoughts then what else is there? The whole idea is incoherent, but I still believe in it for some reason.

Infinite potential...? That doesn't mean anything to me apart from how it would apply to an exterior world.

Matt Gregory wrote:Why? Are you saying this because the concept of becoming is at odds with anything that's eternal (eternal things can't become or unbecome)?

Yeah, it's another word for "constant", which is just the concept opposite of any notion of becoming. The great duh underlying the much abused start of the Tao Te Ching poetry.

Matt Gregory wrote:Yeah, it does seems as if I'm an unchanging self that's observing everything outside.

As consciousness can only be a part of the infinite, it must be this way.

Maybe I should start there since that's what I know. But I'm not even sure what this self is as even my thoughts seem outside of it and I'm just observing them.

That's where logical deduction comes in. You fill in what is impossible to observe by way of abstract conceptions. Just as the way actual numbers don't really exist in the physical world (without things to count), the 'Infinite' is too a concept which reflects what can be deduced from empirical observation.

Matt Gregory wrote:Yeah, it does seems as if I'm an unchanging self that's observing everything outside. Maybe I should start there since that's what I know. But I'm not even sure what this self is as even my thoughts seem outside of it and I'm just observing them. And if I'm not thoughts then what else is there? The whole idea is incoherent, but I still believe in it for some reason.

Well, if I think about the skandhas and in the context of buddhist philosophy, it seems to me that means you are pretty much human, and perhaps "clinging" to it (by which I don't mean, of course, a human can forego thought and become enlightened).

It seems reasonable, and useful therefore, to me that the aggregates comprise the five that they do, with consciousness (discernment/conceptual thought) proceeding from the other four, which is to say that though thought may appear to be its own independent object, it cannot arise other than as a composite involving also the preceding four preconditions: form, sensation, perception and mental formations.

Matt Gregory wrote:Infinite potential...? That doesn't mean anything to me apart from how it would apply to an exterior world.

You can't not apply it to an exterior world, which is why I used the world potential. It isn't, as Russell has already suggested, an object observable in its entirety outside of the faculty of human reasoning. "The Infinite" is an abstraction on the same order of magnitude as causality, etc.

What this tells me is that the objects we perceive, right down to our thoughts, our perception and consciousness/discernment—everything we know as finite—and, in turn, our very thoughts about them are finite precisely because they are subject to change and transform all the time.

Perhaps indeed the source of one of the greatest frustrations for some thinkers (or of certain thoughts) is that everything else changes but them, which would not be very wise?

Consciousness struggles not only to make distinctions, but to find a secure relation. The problem of the infinite is the problem of security. Even if you manage to relate yourself to the infinite with high faith in reason, life remains challenging because within that relation to the infinite you can still engage in issues related to justice. To be securely related to the infinite and then to proceed in negotiations with other humans is not so different than being an alien from another planet and trying to open up a functional relation with human beings. It's challenging to develop relationships with people who are often clinging tightly to their guns, their families, their nationalism, their alcohol and most importantly, their wives and mothers.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Why? Are you saying this because the concept of becoming is at odds with anything that's eternal (eternal things can't become or unbecome)?

Yeah, it's another word for "constant", which is just the concept opposite of any notion of becoming. The great duh underlying the much abused start of the Tao Te Ching poetry.

Well, awareness of the infinite is finite because enlightenment exists in a finite timespan. Nobody is born enlightened. Awareness of the infinite and the infinite itself are not the same thing as far as I can tell.

Matt Gregory wrote:Awareness of the infinite and the infinite itself are not the same thing as far as I can tell.

That's exactly how far you could ever "tell" any thing at all. But wait a minute, wouldn't such fundamental at this level imply some constant again?

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, awareness of the infinite is finite because enlightenment exists in a finite timespan. Nobody is born enlightened. Awareness of the infinite and the infinite itself are not the same thing as far as I can tell.

How could they be the same?

What is the enlightened mind—the mind free of delusion and attachment to form, yet clearly still composed of all five aggregates—if not the mind that no longer seeks to find the infinite in absolute form, such as the abstract form “constant”, "feeling"; or even “the infinite”?

Cory Duchesne wrote:who are often clinging tightly to their guns, their families, their nationalism, their alcohol and most importantly, their wives and mothers.

Or clinging to the idea that being with wives or mothers is clinging.

Matt Gregory wrote:The "purpose" (I don't like these anthropomorphic words in this context, but it's just easier) of consciousness is to create distinctions in reality. In other words, it somehow takes the infinite nature of reality and, focusing on a finite piece of it, takes in information about that little piece. So, consciousness is stuck in the realm of finite things. How then is it possible for consciousness to become aware of the Infinite? It doesn't seem like it's "designed" for that at all. Where is the loophole? How do you find it?

If the Infinite is Infinite.....then the Finite is also the Infinite.
Where did Finite come from ?
All there is, is the Infinite.

Conciousness is Awareness
When you are Aware, [Concious] You are The Infinite.
When you are unaware[unconcious] you think you are finite. But you are still Infinite.

Concious/unconscious
Infinite/finite

Dualities are mispeceptions of the Non-dual.

Loopy enough ?

Dualities are mispeceptions of the Non-dual.

No, they're not.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Dualities are mispeceptions of the Non-dual.

No, they're not.

Depends on what your definition of non-dual is .
Also, if something is non-dual, that, in itself implies it's nature is non-dual, so any perception of duality would be a misperception.
Also, if emptiness means that nothing inherently exists [everything is dependent on other causes for it's existence], form and emptiness are non-dual.
Form is Emptiness
Emptiness is Form

Geez Kunga,
taking these guys from 'what to think' to 'how to think' is a big ask.
Good luck.

Matt Gregory wrote:

jupiviv wrote:There is no infinite apart from finite things. There cannot be an awareness of the infinite that is not identical with any instance of awareness, or non-awareness for that matter.

But that would mean enlightenment is the same as ignorance.

They are identical in relation to the infinite, but not in relation to each other.

Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, `Move away,' and it will move away."

The loophole may be in the fact that while consciousness creates distinctions in reality, reality, too, creates distinctions in consciousness.

Oh, look! It's an eagle!

consciousness chooses reality.

it's assumed that an electron always existed independent of the mind conceiving it.

the theory you are running will only reveal what the theory is capable of revealing.

you provide the meaning

Dennis Mahar wrote: it's assumed that an electron always existed independent of the mind conceiving it.

You can say these things are dependent upon the mind conceiving, but it is more clear to say there is no difference between the conception and the thing. Or as it was said:

'The perception of a phenomenon IS the perception of the Universal Nature, since phenomena and Mind are one and the same.' Huang Po