The fundamental question

[TheImmanent]

Nothing points to an answer to the questions 'who are you' or 'what is your form' or to split your original question 'why do we exist'. All words fail completely as does misconception.

The gateless gate points to this and the final answer is??????

If what you are cannot be captured in any form, neither can language pin you down.

[Pam Seeback]

Nothing points to an answer to the questions 'who are you' or 'what is your form' or to split your original question 'why do we exist'. All words fail completely as does misconception.

The gateless gate points to this and the final answer is??????

If what you are cannot be captured in any form, neither can language pin you down.

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Words are forms just as images are forms. Where the confusion comes in is in trying to apply the reality (absoluteness) of one's subjective-objective world of forms as an absolute or universal truth for every being. Classic religionist boo boo. In other words, the absolute Word of God is an individual or singular absolute Word of God, it is not because it never can be, THE collective Word of God.

Try going to the store without imaging the store or thinking about the store. Impossible. Welcome to your reality of being moved of your named forms.

[TheImmanent]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

[ardy]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

Nowhere. There is no distinction maker, that is the problem.

[Pam Seeback]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

You (consciousness) is conscious of hunger, the urge to urinate, lust, love, joy, etc. Distinctions. Simple.

But not simple when you are looking for something that is not there, the distinction maker.

[Pam Seeback]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

Nowhere. There is no distinction maker, that is the problem.

Why is the absence of a distinction maker a problem?

[ardy]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

Nowhere. There is no distinction maker, that is the problem.

Why is the absence of a distinction maker a problem?

It is only a problem if you are trying to find out who you are. If you don't care it is not a problem.

To explain a bit further what I think:

The distinction maker is what makes us discriminate and therefore, if you believe as I do, that discrimination is the basis of our being unenlightened. To think that it exists or doesn't exist is not right, you are fighting shadows. At a fundamental level we exist in emptiness and discrimination does not exist either.

[TheImmanent]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

Nowhere. There is no distinction maker, that is the problem.

Who's problem?

[TheImmanent]

Man is a conscious being of thought. Which means Man is revealed to himself of himself by his thoughts, by his words. Revealed to = reality of.

Man is an image, like the shadow of man. Nothing is revealed to either.

But where is the distinction maker, that distinguishes man and his shadow?

You (consciousness) is conscious of hunger, the urge to urinate, lust, love, joy, etc. Distinctions. Simple.

But not simple when you are looking for something that is not there, the distinction maker.

What is the distinction between consciousness and the distinction maker?

[Pam Seeback]

ardy: It is only a problem if you are trying to find out who you are. If you don't care it is not a problem.

To explain a bit further what I think:

The distinction maker is what makes us discriminate and therefore, if you believe as I do, that discrimination is the basis of our being unenlightened. To think that it exists or doesn't exist is not right, you are fighting shadows. At a fundamental level we exist in emptiness and discrimination does not exist either.

It is true that concepts of distinctions and what they mean are only a problem if you are trying to find out who you are.

I used to think that who I was at the fundamental level was without distinctions, but no more. I came to realize that without contrast of form, movement of spirit or will is impossible. It is true that spirit is empty of a self or a mind, this is true, but this does not mean spirit is void of contrast.

If no contrast existed, God couldn't appear to God. Light and Darkness, Day and Night, Genesis 1, note the capitals to indicate the eternal nature of the metaphysical principle of contrast. I italicized the word principle to emphasize the truth that consciousness is not a person (self) but is instead "made of" impersonal laws, principles and patterns of causality.

The eternal nature of contrast was the point I was trying to make in a previous discussion we had about "life after death" where you described a friend's experience of dying wherein he experienced nothing. My understanding of that event was that he was premature in coming to the "nothing" conclusion because he returned to the contrast of his body consciousness, he returned to something. Had he not done so, who knows what contrast (distinction, something) would have appeared to his consciousness?

Too often there is the misunderstanding that the Buddhist concept of emptiness = nothingness. Not so. From wiki:

A Buddha or an arahant is defined as someone who "knows and sees reality as-it-is" (yathā bhūta ñāna dassana). Gata "gone" is the past passive participle of the verbal root gam "go, travel". Āgata "come" is the past passive participle of the verb meaning "come, arrive".

Thus in this interpretation Tathāgata means literally either “the one who has gone to suchness” or "the one who has arrived at suchness".

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent": What is the distinction between consciousness and the distinction maker?

The concepts of consciousness and distinction denote their impersonal principled free-flowing nature. When the concept of "maker" is inserted (as if there is a doer present) this natural flow of thinking is unnecessarily hindered.

Add a doer to thinking (distinction making) and the open drain of consciousness immediately becomes clogged.

[jufa]

The fundamental question, who determines form. The 1st question demand a 2nd second fundamental question: and by what means?

By that second question you reveal a bias. Without answering the first question, you assume the second question is inferred by whatever the answer is. If the answer is the same to both, you have already overlooked it.

The requirement for my having to answer myself before I placed another question before the forum, is void from your assumption that the answer cannot be of and within the continuum of its life. You bear witness to this truth. With you interjected life of assumption, you found kinship, 'of kind', and plumlined the questions my words balanced within you unknowingly. Your entrance into the questions is more than a proposition you gave your life of formed thinking to....afore answer.....by what means?......your moving spirit of thought, and ego you displayed knowingly, of your own projected images, and your thought interpretation projected upon the screen of life for all to see the form your earthen words took shape to be you.

Tell me, do you see who I am and what images I present to be of jufa? Can You See Me Now?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent": What is the distinction between consciousness and the distinction maker?

The concepts of consciousness and distinction denote their impersonal principled free-flowing nature. When the concept of "maker" is inserted (as if there is a doer present) this natural flow of thinking is unnecessarily hindered.

Add a doer to thinking (distinction making) and the open drain of consciousness immediately becomes clogged.

You yourself introduced the term "distinction maker" to this thread. Let us leave it, if you now think it is insufficient.

Who is conscious?

[TheImmanent]

The fundamental question, who determines form. The 1st question demand a 2nd second fundamental question: and by what means?

By that second question you reveal a bias. Without answering the first question, you assume the second question is inferred by whatever the answer is. If the answer is the same to both, you have already overlooked it.

The requirement for my having to answer myself before I placed another question before the forum, is void from your assumption that the answer cannot be of and within the continuum of its life. You bear witness to this truth. With you interjected life of assumption, you found kinship, 'of kind', and plumlined the questions my words balanced within you unknowingly. Your entrance into the questions is more than a proposition you gave your life of formed thinking to....afore answer.....by what means?......your moving spirit of thought, and ego you displayed knowingly, of your own projected images, and your thought interpretation projected upon the screen of life for all to see the form your earthen words took shape to be you.

Tell me, do you see who I am and what images I present to be of jufa? Can You See Me Now?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

I merely pointed out that the use of the word "demand" implies a preconception. Other than that nothing was postulated.

[Pam Seeback]

TheImmanent": What is the distinction between consciousness and the distinction maker?

The concepts of consciousness and distinction denote their impersonal principled free-flowing nature. When the concept of "maker" is inserted (as if there is a doer present) this natural flow of thinking is unnecessarily hindered.

Add a doer to thinking (distinction making) and the open drain of consciousness immediately becomes clogged.

You yourself introduced the term "distinction maker" to this thread. Let us leave it, if you now think it is insufficient.

Who is conscious?

I did indeed introduce the term "distinction maker", but no more.

I am conscious, I being the interpreter of form.

[TheImmanent]

TheImmanent": What is the distinction between consciousness and the distinction maker?

The concepts of consciousness and distinction denote their impersonal principled free-flowing nature. When the concept of "maker" is inserted (as if there is a doer present) this natural flow of thinking is unnecessarily hindered.

Add a doer to thinking (distinction making) and the open drain of consciousness immediately becomes clogged.

You yourself introduced the term "distinction maker" to this thread. Let us leave it, if you now think it is insufficient.

Who is conscious?

I did indeed introduce the term "distinction maker", but no more.

I am conscious, I being the interpreter of form.

You are conscious, the interpreter of form. What is your form, interpreter?

[Dennis Mahar]

What is postulating 'my true form' as formless?

there has to be an always/already in order to do so.

what you're looking for is a definition (a finite)
an end
a terminating point

an author.
from which
out of which
a generator

[TheImmanent]

What is postulating 'my true form' as formless?

A contradiction

there has to be an always/already in order to do so.

There already has to be an ego looking for itself. The pursuit is the postulation of an incorrect idea.

what you're looking for is a definition (a finite)
an end
a terminating point

an author.
from which
out of which
a generator

No one is looking. But there is the concept of someone who does.

[Dennis Mahar]

Your question is:

In what form do you exist?

Your answer is:

formless.

'no particular form' was another scenario you provided that works better.

[TheImmanent]

Your question is:

In what form do you exist?

Your answer is:

formless.

'no particular form' was another scenario you provided that works better.

I never asked a question or provided an answer. You never felt a pang of frustration.

[Dennis Mahar]

You never felt a pang of frustration.

Are you suggesting I did?

[TheImmanent]

You never felt a pang of frustration.

Are you suggesting I did?

No.

[Dennis Mahar]

Who said No.
There has to be a condition in which a No can operate.

[TheImmanent]

Who said No.

No one. There is the concept of someone who did.

[Dennis Mahar]

There is the concept of someone who did.

A condition OK?