The question of death

[TheImmanent]

'Peter' is generated.
In order to,
for the sake of?

Yes. Peter is a construct made possible by the limited mind's unawareness of its own nature. Due to this unawareness, thought rejoices when Peter's nature is fulfilled, and suffers when Peter's nature is lacking something.

The Immanent: Peter was conditioned to being a good boy who obeyed his parents, of being a good student who did well in school, of being attractive to girls, of being good at sports and manly, of getting a good job, a house and a nice car.

The infinite mind, on the other hand, contains all information and is necessarily infinitely blissful — for it is in perfect affirmation of its infinite nature. It contains Peter as an idea, and an enlightened mind as its own conscious thoughts understood in a limited mind.

Both scenarios of Peter arise because of the necessity of contrast, in this case, the necessity of the contrast of ignorance (conditioning to personhood) to the contrast of wisdom (realization of personhood as a deluded idea). This is the big picture of consciousness as being an eternal unfolding 'machine' of "I" revelation, the light of the new (what is) being commanded to shine out of the darkness of the old (what was).

Speaking strictly, nothing at all exists in contrast. Peter has not existed, does not exist, and will not exist. It is not in his definition to exist. Peter is conceptual, and cannot be understood correctly as a thing. Peter is dependent on contrast and is consigned to duration. The limits of the limited mind are dependent on contrast and are consigned to duration.

But that which conceptualizes (or posits contrast) does not depend on contrast, and is not consigned to duration. It is absolute. Peter does not exist, but that which understands him does — it cannot be said to exist in contrast to itself or to the non-existing.

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent: Speaking strictly, nothing at all exists in contrast. Peter has not existed, does not exist, and will not exist. It is not in his definition to exist. Peter is conceptual, and cannot be understood correctly as a thing. Peter is dependent on contrast and is consigned to duration. The limits of the limited mind are dependent on contrast and are consigned to duration.

Indeed. No contrast, no life of things.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Understanding is the conception of truth, or thinking fully. When the mind rests in itself, and conceives only truth, these truths are impersonal and timeless (i.e., they are not the ego-identity). This, that which is true in you, is immortal.

Yeah, that's the essence you spoke of, the nature of which remains or is 'immortal', but that is not the understanding of those truths.

Just because these truths are always true does not mean there will always be recognition/awareness/understanding of them.

But you do not suffer because you rest in yourself, but because you chase and cling to things. This situation is not unusual, in fact most of humanity suffers greatly — since they do not know what they must find, but that they must find it, and that others around them are chasing it too. Yet one should not interpret the prevalence of suffering as evidence that life is suffering.

Suffering does not arise from the conception of our nature, but from a misconception of our nature. For it is only by misconceiving our nature that we can actually lack something. Because we are always what we are, not more, not less. When we conceive of our nature as it is, we realize that we are already fulfilled. For strictly speaking we can possess nothing but ourselves, but we can fool ourselves in many ways to believe it.

Moreover, since people are generally deluded and suffers, they will seek to control each other, and ridicule each other, and fight each other. Suffering brings about these behaviors, and these behaviors easily bring about suffering. So it is not at all strange that almost none finds the true source of happiness and discovers that he is blessed by nature.

Again one of the biggest issues I see in thinking "Because I am aware of the truth now I will be aware forever". Or "Because I am in bliss now it will be bliss forever."

What makes you think you have passed beyond the possibility of delusion or misconception?

Mental formations arise. Suffering arises.
As you have stated but are yet to comprehend, you are talking about the unending infinity of existence, will you be free from suffering and in awareness of that 'realization' forever?

This is not to say that there is no final escape from suffering, just that logic shows with the arising of mental formations (which are uncontrolled and not under the power of any individuals will), there is also the arising of suffering.

You spoke about clinging/craving, would you consider the possibility that the constant arising of form is due to craving(which is not so different from habit) for the experience of form?

[Dennis Mahar]

This is not to say that there is no final escape from suffering, just that logic shows with the arising of mental formations (which are uncontrolled and not under the power of any individuals will), there is also the arising of suffering.

You've just written up an uncontrolled mental formation and expect us to believe you have some control with it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You're telling me you have control over the conditions that bring about suffering, but provide no reason as to how.

There being a possible end to suffering doesn't mean it is a choice of free will. You suggest it is a choice. "Suffering is an option" -Dennis

Of course along with that you suggest you have free will and deny reality because it sounds better like that to you.
There being no free will/individual choice of a being, doesn't mean that there can't be writing or truth.

expect us to believe

Still writing and implying personhood/personal choice. Is it wrong to say these comments are appearances/formations?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There's been no free will the whole time, yet there have been conversations and philosophy, you act like somethings changed because I've stated it.

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent: Speaking strictly, nothing at all exists in contrast. Peter has not existed, does not exist, and will not exist. It is not in his definition to exist. Peter is conceptual, and cannot be understood correctly as a thing. Peter is dependent on contrast and is consigned to duration. The limits of the limited mind are dependent on contrast and are consigned to duration.

Indeed. No contrast, no life of things.

Contrary. No contrast; life. Contrast; no things.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've just written up an uncontrolled mental formation and expect us to believe you have control with it.

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent: Speaking strictly, nothing at all exists in contrast. Peter has not existed, does not exist, and will not exist. It is not in his definition to exist. Peter is conceptual, and cannot be understood correctly as a thing. Peter is dependent on contrast and is consigned to duration. The limits of the limited mind are dependent on contrast and are consigned to duration.

Indeed. No contrast, no life of things.

Contrary. No contrast; life. Contrast; no things.

Back to your idea of bliss being the natural state of mind. You're in bliss. You believe you see no contrast anywhere. And yet, there you are, getting up to take a pee or a crap. One moment, you were unaware of the urge to relieve yourself, and then suddenly, nature demanded your attention. Contrast. Life. What you are presenting in your idea of "no contrast; life" is a state of mind that is separated from its default need to see form, whether it is envisioned to be "out there" or "in here." How could you submit a post here at Genius (be the life of your words) if you didn't see contrast between your hands, the keyboard, the monitor and the words themselves?

I suggest if you haven't already that you read the Buddha's wisdom on dependent arising. Or if you are more biblically inclined, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent: Speaking strictly, nothing at all exists in contrast. Peter has not existed, does not exist, and will not exist. It is not in his definition to exist. Peter is conceptual, and cannot be understood correctly as a thing. Peter is dependent on contrast and is consigned to duration. The limits of the limited mind are dependent on contrast and are consigned to duration.

Indeed. No contrast, no life of things.

Contrary. No contrast; life. Contrast; no things.

Back to your idea of bliss being the natural state of mind. You're in bliss. You believe you see no contrast anywhere. And yet, there you are, getting up to take a pee or a crap. One moment, you were unaware of the urge to relieve yourself, and then suddenly, nature demanded your attention. Contrast. Life. What you are presenting in your idea of "no contrast; life" is a state of mind that is separated from its default need to see form, whether it is envisioned to be "out there" or "in here." How could you submit a post here at Genius (be the life of your words) if you didn't see contrast between your hands, the keyboard, the monitor and the words themselves?

I suggest if you haven't already that you read the Buddha's wisdom on dependent arising. Or if you are more biblically inclined, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Contrasts are not a mirage in the sense that contrasts cannot be discerned, contrasts are a mirage in the sense that they are not things.

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent: Contrasts are not a mirage in the sense that contrasts cannot be discerned, contrasts are a mirage in the sense that they are not things.

It may be there, but I find no logic in your words. Can you reformat your thinking so I can better understand your view of not-a-mirage in relation to discernment and mirage in relation to no-thing-ness?

[Dennis Mahar]

You've made contrast an object. Given it physicality in the sense of stumbling block.
contrast is generated.
conceptualising mind.
you did it in order to look clever.
you're contrasting parts.
Immanent is looking at whole wherein imputing mind collapses.

we all open our eyes to 'nothing exists separately'.
How can a part have it's own essence?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I know your senile Dennis, but just to try and remind you, you've written the same thing twice, there was a response after the first. There's been no free will the whole time, nothing has changed in conversation/philosophy because it has been stated.

[Dennis Mahar]

Free will or not free will are properties you are assigning and as such are relational.
The Immanent is talking about something else, out of your league.
He's inducing the experience of Void.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The Immanent is talking about something else, out of your league.

I thought there was nothing to get?

As Diebert points out often, you contradict yourself constantly.

You talk about causes/conditions but then act as if you are the master of these. Mental formations/appearances arise, "you" don't influence that.

[Dennis Mahar]

There"s nothin to get
void
rest in the infinite.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Except of course to get that there's nothing to get, aka dispelling delusions.

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent: Contrasts are not a mirage in the sense that contrasts cannot be discerned, contrasts are a mirage in the sense that they are not things.

It may be there, but I find no logic in your words. Can you reformat your thinking so I can better understand your view of not-a-mirage in relation to discernment and mirage in relation to no-thing-ness?

Contrasts are conceptual and cannot be correctly understood as things. The mirage consists in contrasts being interpreted as things, not in them being discerned. That which is a thing is not defined through discernment, but through itself.

Understanding is self-defined. It is known through itself and in itself, and all contrasts are defined in it. Everything that is, is an infinite understanding. Understanding of what? Itself, formless but knowing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Except of course to get that there's nothing to get, aka dispelling delusions.

And that exception means there's always much to get and much to release. Delusions appear the moment the light's turned on. And dispelled when the light turns off.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

And that exception means there's always much to get and much to release.

Which is exactly what Dennis is in denial of.

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent: Contrasts are conceptual and cannot be correctly understood as things.

True, but without contrast a thing cannot exist. Which means contrast is the first step on the ladder to a fully conscious life.

The mirage consists in contrasts being interpreted as things, not in them being discerned.

Contrasts may be a mirage, but they are a necessary mirage.

That which is a thing is not defined through discernment, but through itself.

A tree is a thing 'bounded' by its contrasts. How does a tree define a tree?

Understanding is self-defined.

Agreed. And what is the nature of the understanding? Named things.

It is known through itself and in itself, and all contrasts are defined in it.

Agreed.

Everything that is, is an infinite understanding. Understanding of what? Itself, formless but knowing.

Consciousness is formless in the sense that its forms cannot be seen or named, but how it comes to understand itself is by its named forms, invisible and visible. Logic is an example of an invisible named form. Tree is an example of a visible named form. No named forms = no understanding.

Understanding is not infinite in the sense of being everywhere/everything now. Understanding comes when consciousness reasons or loves its named forms (its finite things).

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent: Contrasts are conceptual and cannot be correctly understood as things.

True, but without contrast a thing cannot exist. Which means contrast is the first step on the ladder to a fully conscious life.

This is circular reasoning.

Thingness is correctly attributed to that which has essence, and incorrectly attributed to that which is merely perceived as having essence.

The mirage consists in contrasts being interpreted as things, not in them being discerned.

Contrasts may be a mirage, but they are a necessary mirage.

Nothing is unecessary. But a concept does not need to be misconceived as a thing in order to be understood.

That which is a thing is not defined through discernment, but through itself.

A tree is a thing 'bounded' by its contrasts. How does a tree define a tree?

A tree is a concept which can be misconceived as a thing.

Understanding is self-defined.

Agreed. And what is the nature of the understanding? Named things.

Understanding is self-defined, named things do not exist as things.

Everything that is, is an infinite understanding. Understanding of what? Itself, formless but knowing.

Consciousness is formless in the sense that its forms cannot be seen or named, but how it comes to understand itself is by its named forms, invisible and visible. Logic is an example of an invisible named form. Tree is an example of a visible named form. No named forms = no understanding.

Understanding is not infinite in the sense of being everywhere/everything now. Understanding comes when consciousness reasons or loves its named forms (its finite things).

By your reasoning, the moment a contrast is understood not to be a thing, the form disappears. This is incorrect. The mirage does not consist in contrast, but in contrast being interpreted as things. The infinite mind is conscious of every conceivable contrast (i.e., all definitions that can be made), but it understands them as conceptual and not as things (its formal being is everything that can at all be understood, or all definitions, but since that does not relate to anything it has no form in the way we perceive form with our eyes). Form does not disappear in the infinite mind, but the forms it conceives are conceptual. They are conceptual when we conceive them also, but unlike the infinite mind, the limited mind is capable of misconceiving them as things.

The reason that we as limited minds can be impacted by that which we are unaware of, is because the infinite mind is aware of it, just as it is aware of us as limited minds (i.e., conceptual natures, or itself understood under limitations). The quality of understanding which is in us, is the same quality as in the infinite mind, i.e., we are one and the same, understood under certain limitations that is the definition of the body, and understood in infinity, which is self-definition.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
Quote:
TheImmanent: Contrasts are conceptual and cannot be correctly understood as things.

True, but without contrast a thing cannot exist. Which means contrast is the first step on the ladder to a fully conscious life.

This is circular reasoning.

Only if I remain stuck in its reasoning.

Thingness is correctly attributed to that which has essence, and incorrectly attributed to that which is merely perceived as having essence.

Explain to me how you separate perception from essence.

movingalways wrote:
Quote:
That which is a thing is not defined through discernment, but through itself.

A tree is a thing 'bounded' by its contrasts. How does a tree define a tree?

A tree is a concept which can be misconceived as a thing.

Give me an example of a thing that is not a concept.

It's not forming (thinging) that is ignorance, its the mis-identifying them as belonging to the ego that is ignorance. For example, a surgeon takes pride in his or her knowledge of how to reattach an arm or a leg, falsely believing that he or she, John or Jane, created this knowledge out of 'thin air', when of course, the truth is that knowledge is a discovery of what is already there. Seek and ye shall find, knock, and the door shall be opened. If there were no things beyond that door, there would be no-thing to find.

[ardy]

There are several popular arguments for the human mind’s mortality. Some that I can mention off the top of my head are: (i) the observation that we may be put in an unconscious state, (ii) the way substances and harm to the brain compromises the mind, combined with the fact that the brain is destructible, (iii) there is no recollection of the vast stretches of time prior to consciousness.

These are all fairly intelligent and reasonable points, which I also once shared. Since I no longer do share them I would like to write down a fairly succinct post of the nonesoteric reasons to my contrary conviction. But first it may be in its place to say that my convictions come from purely intellectual conclusions rather than from any wish to control things. All faults should therefore be blamed on my intellect rather than my courage. Certainly, the notion that death is the ultimate end of consciousness is beautiful in its own way.

Now, when it comes to argument (i), it is easily countered since this situation is in fact necessary and fully deducible through the limited mind’s sheer existence and the way finite definitions interact with each other, and since time, which is here the index used to measure “unconciousness” is in fact nothing but a limited mind’s ability to register more or fewer things concurrently. In short, we are unconscious of things that we are too slow to register, and the states of “unconsciousness” as we have observed, are nothing but this same mechanism taken to a more apparent extent, i.e., longer intervals between perceptions. It is in other words a non-argument regarding mortality, or an argument made due to a lapse in attention.

Argument (ii) is similar in nature but less abstract. Since the mind and the brain are indeed synchronized, or the same thing understood under different aspects, it is true that what affects the one also affects the other. Therefore, the necessity which we noted against the previous argument, that the mind can become more limited in its ability to register perceptions, equally pertains to the necessity that the brain can become more limited in it’s structural integrity. But regarding this argument, the counter-argument does not abolish it.

For argument (ii) not only notes that the brain can be impacted, or limited, but also destroyed, and since we understand that the brain and the mind are the same thing we are thus led to the conclusion that the mind is equally destroyed. This is a logical and respectable conclusion.

However, it is not the final conclusion of logic. For much more is deducible when we examine the nature of the mind. The proper counter-argument to argument (ii) lies not in investigating the similarities (the synchronicity) of the brain and the mind, but rather the differences. For there are differences, or we would have no reason of having two different words. This is of course because “mind” refers to the consciousness itself, while “brain” refers to the physical organ associated with it.

This is a very significant difference. For the key here is to demonstrate how the mind cannot be understood solely through the brain and vice versa. That is, the definition (what they are) of the brain and the definition of consciousness do not overlap, but they are essentially different even though we observe that they are interconnected in the world.

When we have established this separate essence of the mind (thought), the next logical step lies in knowing what makes a thing a thing. Now, what we normally experience as “things” are simply what we discern to be something concrete, i.e., what we perceive as a unit. However, we are also able to distinguish parts of the things we see in our everyday lives, and so anything we see can be reduced to further separate things — but what we are doing now is merely to shift our attention, that we experience something other as a unit than we did before. For this is exactly what a thing is; it is a concrete unit that is something in itself (which our perceptions often appear to be).

Now, since the things we commonly discern are in fact not things in the full sense (since they consist of parts, or relations) what is a thing is that which stands by itself when perspective is widened to encompass the all (this is beyond our scope in ways of perception of course, but the logic is available to us). That is, the all is a concrete thing, and also timeless since time is simply constituted by the interaction of relative things.

Two things may be mentioned. One is this; for there to be relative things at all to interact with each other, there must be something they are discerned in, i.e., their existence makes it apparent to us that this Thing exists, or else there would be no relative things to constitute time and our world. (Buddhist teachings make the case that all that exists are relations, but this is simply an incomplete thought since the relations are nothing but discernments, or discriminations, of something). The second thing to mention is this; that which the one Thing consists in is that which has essence, i.e., is known through itself rather than through comparisons.

And of course, there is only one such thing, namely consciousness. Or, perhaps more precisely, understanding; which is the only thing that is known through itself and in itself, and can be described in no other way than through understanding. This means that we have demonstrated that the one concrete Thing is an infinite and timeless consciousness, or understanding.

Since this is the Thing in which other, relative things (us) are discerned, we also know that the discernment of these things (us) is conceptual rather than concrete — by which we also understand that the quality of consciousness which we possess is not concretely divisible from the Thing, meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh). This implies that the “I” which we all experience, is the same “I”, only separated by our current states and that it is in reality an all-encompassing “I”, i.e., that beyond our limitations, which are finite, we exist as infinite, including the very conception of ourselves (ourself) as limited (which counters argument (iii)).

If someone has objections towards my reasoning, however, I would be glad to hear them.

I have an objection to the idea that that an all encompassing "I" is infinite. This is absolutely twisting the monkeys neck to get him to squeal 'I will not die'. Now I and everyone else in the world has no idea what happens when you die. My guess is mind and brain go at the same moment, but I don't know. If mind is real why does the impact of OTD[old timers disease and many other impacts] change your mindfulness, In fact what consciousness,mind or essence of you is not divisible from the Thing?

This is another religious [fear of death] statement done up in fancy language.

[Leyla Shen]

Another bloody god argument! "Immanent": the Uncaused Cause.