Enlightenment Made Easy!

[Orenholt]

Here's a basic understanding of Truth, Reality and Perceptions.

Logic>Empiricism

Contrast=subjective=illusion=empirical=Scientific
Consistency=objective=real=logical=Ultimate

Slavery IS Slavery = true (subjectively)
Freedom IS Freedom = true (subjectively)
Slavery IS Freedom = false (subjectively)
Slavery AND Freedom = false (Objectively)

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

Objective: intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.


Truth that can be verified through consistency of empirical data is called a scientific fact. Truth that can be verified through consistency of logic is called an "ultimate Truth". Empirical data can only be consistent within its own context at best which is why Einstein said that "Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one".

It's kind of like if I write a book with a coherent story. Just because it "makes sense" for a character to do something like cast a fire spell at their enemy it doesn't necessarily have bearing in reality. It could be based on a true story OR it could be a work of total fiction, either way, it is not an actual event.

How do we define what's consistent? By contrast or lack there of.

Take the following picture for example:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GoFM_BtOvkI/U ... lusion.png




By our immediate senses we might think Square A and Square B are different shades because of the context. This is like empirical data. However if we look to the right we see that they, despite appearances within context, are actually the same shade. This is like logical truth.

This is where it may get tricky sounding.
All things (contents of the universe) are defined by their contrast to one another.
Light is brighter than the dark and fire is hotter than ice and so on.
The universe itself is defined by being "all that is".
So if the universe is defined as "all that is" it necessarily must be ALL that is, which means we cannot contrast it to anything.

If you think I am being inconsistent in this please point out where I am doing so.
If you think I am being consistent yet still somehow "incorrect" please explain.


TL;DR? Consistency = True, Contrast = False

[Dennis Mahar]

Neitzsche:

"The 'subject' is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.

The mystery is how can a set of impersonal mental and physical phenomena 'personalise' and generate a mental construct of a self independent environmentally.

Seemed like a good idea at the time I guess.

The switcheroo is deemed a trouble source.
If the left hand knows what the right hand is doing it works out OK.
Bliss.

How about Orenholt the 'nondual psychotherapist' as a possibility.

handwringing, nailbiting, angst etc about whether its meaningful or meaningless serves no purpose.
its actually meaning free.

totally void of any significance whatsoever.
It is what it is and isn't what it isn't.

[Russell Parr]

Just to pick on Einstein -

Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one.

If he knew any better he would have said something like "Things" or "The existence of things" in place of Reality.

Scientists have a habit of believing that things are Reality itself - it's kind of their job to.

Anyway, I've got a better formula:

Enlightenment - thought which is consistent with the non-dual
Delusional thought - thought that persists in duality

[Dennis Mahar]

Enlightenment - thought which is consistent with the non-dual
Delusional thought - thought that persists in duality

Both are truth. 2 truths.
middle way.
avoids the extremes of nihilism and essentialism.
not one, not many.
that is Reality.

one is the conventional mode of perceiving.
one is the ultimate mode of perceiving.
you can't have one without the other.

conventionally, an elephant and an ant are not the same, a valid perception.
ultimately they are not different, a valid perception.

[Orenholt]

Just to pick on Einstein -

Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one.

If he knew any better he would have said something like "Things" or "The existence of things" in place of Reality.

Scientists have a habit of believing that things are Reality itself - it's kind of their job to.

Anyway, I've got a better formula:

Enlightenment - thought which is consistent with the non-dual
Delusional thought - thought that persists in duality

Yes, what Einstein should have said was "the appearance of reality" rather than simply "reality".

[Fox]

I always thought ' Non'Duality' was the voice---the utterance of one speaking. In a world/of numbers...which? Castracise even bigger number(s)-like, Non--Dualism.

Dualism?

I had once had a dual when I was 5 yrs. So, a genius of 5 yrs. old.
I caught' someone trying to describe the infinite...{ What, goes around comes around.} In Hebrew," It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than, for a camel to enter the eye of a needle."-

So, the franks. Dualism. Isn't there a reason? For the 5(th).?
You're taking this way to hard...

I am my own pritcher~

I live in a world of assumption.

There, is no meaning-only-logic has meaningfulness. I am a {man}. Which sets me apart...

[Fox]

A Dual Is A Dual-
Frank~

[ardy]

Just to pick on Einstein -

Reality is merely an illusion albeit a very persistent one.

If he knew any better he would have said something like "Things" or "The existence of things" in place of Reality.

Scientists have a habit of believing that things are Reality itself - it's kind of their job to.

Anyway, I've got a better formula:

Enlightenment - thought which is consistent with the non-dual
Delusional thought - thought that persists in duality

Russell - you bring up a thought. Is enlightenment just a side step from the duality of identification?

I have pondered this and although there are enough writings and sayings that point to this and the ridiculous simplicity of it, yet it is hard to imagine that something that simple is so difficult to grasp....

[Russell Parr]

Is enlightenment just a side step from the duality of identification?

That's not a bad way to put it.

Reminds me of something David wrote in his last blog, "Slip sideways out of existence, as it were, and enter the void of the All which is not really a void."

I have pondered this and although there are enough writings and sayings that point to this and the ridiculous simplicity of it, yet it is hard to imagine that something that simple is so difficult to grasp....

It is too simple for grasping. Grasping means that one has yet to take the "leap of faith". Grasping is the ego hanging on for dear life while observing the truth about reality which is always right in front of us.

[Dennis Mahar]

What is 'boundless' a predicate of?

'leap of faith' means speculative abstraction,
therefore 'boundless' is a possibility TO BE.

Marx hijacked Hegel's dialectic and turned it to dialectical materialism out of which he formed a social order of priests (party leaders), roles .practices. (binding)
That can only happen if the background is essentially formless in nature.
Out of which is the derring-do forming.

[Fox]

I don't mean,
To starve the Forum....

there...is just an = sign on the back of that ledge.

If, we describe the Totality as a *finch*. Reckon, my Jambora-dream last night left me *fiddling* with numbers/questions. Now, if you read the " Book of Numbers " which is an overstatement-

You've caused the Reality of God(s) to exist...If, in-erpt, that is "all' false. You, don't understand Causality...Dennis.

For,
" In the beginning...." Is an overture statement, placed, by the one and only true god. If, god is the raptured part of the universe, basically, running-away from God-can cause---little, bit, of extra-pollut-ent struggle....Marx, said it best,
"
If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people."

[Fox]

- You can hear a King screaming, but you cannot hear her Queen weeping_

[Fox]

Devine-Focus

Called me a " genius." I will prove my point.

[Dennis Mahar]

What is God a predicate of?

Sorry chief but God is predicated upon an always/already.
formed out of

geddit?

[ardy]

Is enlightenment just a side step from the duality of identification?

That's not a bad way to put it.

Reminds me of something David wrote in his last blog, "Slip sideways out of existence, as it were, and enter the void of the All which is not really a void."

I have pondered this and although there are enough writings and sayings that point to this and the ridiculous simplicity of it, yet it is hard to imagine that something that simple is so difficult to grasp....

It is too simple for grasping. Grasping means that one has yet to take the "leap of faith". Grasping is the ego hanging on for dear life while observing the truth about reality which is always right in front of us.

Have you taken that leap of faith Russell and when did you make that leap? If yes what differences do you notice?

[Russell Parr]

Have you taken that leap of faith Russell and when did you make that leap?

I have for the most part, although only recently, even though I've been studying this stuff off and on for 5-7 years. That's just the thing, "off and on" doesn't cut it.

The past 3 months have been a "period of leaping" so to speak. I know what enlightenment is, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it yet. At times I still try to grasp. I go off on an 'egotistical tangent' every now and then.

I'm not quite to the other side of the road, but I'm close.

I think :)

If yes what differences do you notice?

Indifference and contentment come to mind. It's getting easier to reason my way out of ego states and stay out of them. I can still clearly see all the problems in the world as it relates to human existence, but I know that Nature is perfect. There's the analogy that the ego becomes more like a piece of loose garment one can casually wear and easily remove, instead of the tightly secured mask it is for most people.

[TheImmanent]

Is enlightenment just a side step from the duality of identification?

That's not a bad way to put it.

Reminds me of something David wrote in his last blog, "Slip sideways out of existence, as it were, and enter the void of the All which is not really a void."

I have pondered this and although there are enough writings and sayings that point to this and the ridiculous simplicity of it, yet it is hard to imagine that something that simple is so difficult to grasp....

It is too simple for grasping. Grasping means that one has yet to take the "leap of faith". Grasping is the ego hanging on for dear life while observing the truth about reality which is always right in front of us.

Formless knowing. It is not conceived of in the way of relative things, instead it is realized when another self is not conceived. The modus operandi of the ego is to conceive of form, therefore the truth is counter-intuitive to it and very subtle. But it is found when nothing is sought.

[ardy]

Is enlightenment just a side step from the duality of identification?

That's not a bad way to put it.

Reminds me of something David wrote in his last blog, "Slip sideways out of existence, as it were, and enter the void of the All which is not really a void."

I have pondered this and although there are enough writings and sayings that point to this and the ridiculous simplicity of it, yet it is hard to imagine that something that simple is so difficult to grasp....

It is too simple for grasping. Grasping means that one has yet to take the "leap of faith". Grasping is the ego hanging on for dear life while observing the truth about reality which is always right in front of us.

Formless knowing. It is not conceived of in the way of relative things, instead it is realized when another self is not conceived. The modus operandi of the ego is to conceive of form, therefore the truth is counter-intuitive to it and very subtle. But it is found when nothing is sought.

Immanent (and Russell to some extent) - Your last statement reminds me of that old Zen paradox from the gateless gate I think.

'If you look for it, its not there. If you don't look for it, how will you find it?'

[Dennis Mahar]

Formless knowing. It is not conceived of in the way of relative things, instead it is realized when another self is not conceived. The modus operandi of the ego is to conceive of form, therefore the truth is counter-intuitive to it and very subtle. But it is found when nothing is sought.

There you go disclosing the necessity of contingency.

How is one availed of Absolute knowing?

'The rose is without a why'.
(:

devoid of reasons.

[Dennis Mahar]

I love rock and roll.

Sentience or sentence?

Can sentience not be in a sentence.

listening for sentience in a sentence.

well, at least a possibility for sentience to be shows up in a sentence.
identities are language-belonging.
enlightenment is spoken in to existence as a possibility to be.

what is the identity of identity and non-identity.

[TheImmanent]

Immanent (and Russell to some extent) - Your last statement reminds me of that old Zen paradox from the gateless gate I think.

'If you look for it, its not there. If you don't look for it, how will you find it?'

You may look for sight without finding it, and if you dont look for it, you will still see.

Without the conception of another self what remains is the true self, which is formless. Since it is what you essentially are, it is expressed whether or not.

[Dennis Mahar]

'leap of faith' isn't correct because the experience occurs in an instant of time like a husband and wife occurs in an instant of time.... at the ceremony....upon the vow.
the process is speculative abstraction much the same as husband/wife.

before... it's speculative and from... abstraction.
out of that.

I, Sensorium,
what's available?
what's on the menu?

A tasty dish.

A Be,Do and Have.

crap like 'leap of faith' makes a dedicated endeavour look mystical.

[Russell Parr]

Maybe I understand "leap of faith" differently than others, but for me it means to give oneself over to one's reason, into Truth, in order to overcome the contradictions of dualistic existence.

[Dennis Mahar]

What is your reason.
in order to is the motive and opportunity.

in order to overcome the contradictions of dualistic existence.

that is the for the sake of or desirable outcome.

the contradictions of dualistic existence

that looks like an undesirable condition.

a desirable condition is jamming up against an undesirable condition.
looks like a game.

[TheImmanent]

The sufferer does not exist. It is nothing but a conceptual self. If we are to speak of a leap of faith, the leap is to discover that no one leapt.