The fundamental question

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:So,
Consciousness is the Context. and contents.
You haven't got a 'why'.
Consciousness as something actual necessitates its infinity. The infinite consciousness exists due to its nature, i.e., because it is what it is. That is the why. If you are looking for a why in the way of human dramaturgy, in order to and for the sake of, there is none.

Then again, since the will and existence of the infinite consciousness is one and the same, you may say that it exists because it wills it, and it wills it because it exists. It is in infinite self-expression, i.e., infinite bliss.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:There is a concept of consciousness in consciousness. This is what self-definition is. The significance being that consciousness is infinite, i.e., without any actual limitation, since it exists by its own nature.
How can you conceive of consciousness other than by the concept of it? All we can know of that which lies beyond consciousness is that it is capable of causing consciousness. We cannot say anything else about it, as it is necessarily the void that is beyond our conscious reach.

The trap you're falling into is due to a premature conclusion in reflection of causality. As conscious beings, it is true that a thing cannot have existence without our conceiving of it. It seems natural to conclude that there must be nothing but consciousness, as a result. But this fails to recognize that, in declaring that which lies beyond consciousness is more consciousness, or infinite consciousness, we are indeed stepping out of our boundaries to do so.
Consciousness is only conceived through consciousness, known through and in itself. That is because it is the only thing in existence, i.e., self-defined.

The fact that consciousness is a positive, i.e., actual, as demonstrated by this discussion or any phenomena at all, comes with the necessary implication of its infinity. For a negative cannot be turned positive, nor a positive negative. That which is positive is positive in infinity. Indeed, the demonstration of void beyond consciousness rests on the attempt to demonstrate consciousness as a negative, which is disproved by the very attempt whether or not this is recognized.

But many intelligent and talented people regard the world as concrete, being caught up in the face value of their perceptions. It is not a question of talent, but of attention and the lapse in it. For the truth is not found by stepping outside the boundaries of consciousness or reasoning about any outer things, but on the contrary to look into the nature of consciousness — and nothing is more readily available to you than that, since it is what you actually are.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:
Cahoot wrote:I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness. Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Should man or bird transcend the filters of incarnation then the conduit is clear. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters. In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
Since there is no actual separation there is no actual hierarchy, nor is there something created or a creator, other than conceptually.
But there are distinctions and the nature of distinctions is hierarchical. After all, a man may have a bird but that does not make him a bird. There are distinctions between bird and man, and these distinctions can be utilized in a dualistic way as a lantern, to light what one has seen of the yellow brick road. May as well, since the medium is language, the nature of which is conceptual, the nature of which is dualistic, and so on.

The light is either on, or off.
If you seek advice from a wise person, it is not because of a hierarchy, but because the person is wise — and a wise person does not give advice because of a hierarchy, but because you asked for it. Nowhere in this is a hierarchy relevant.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

Don’t be ridiculous. The identification of "wisdom" confers a hierarchy.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:Don’t be ridiculous. The identification of "wisdom" confers a hierarchy.
Since the hierarchy consists in nothing but the universal appeal of enlightenment, a term such as hierarchy is only misleading.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

Talk about missing the point ...
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:Consciousness is only conceived through consciousness, known through and in itself. That is because it is the only thing in existence, i.e., self-defined.
Does thought exist? Or are thoughts only somehow thought into existence? This pattern would have to continue infinitely, which makes it a wonder how any other phenomena is possible, under your scenario. You're creating a big rift in the creation of things in assuming that conscious experience must originate from consciousness itself. It leaves no room for the rest of phenomena, i.e., all of the things that we consciously experience.
The fact that consciousness is a positive, i.e., actual, as demonstrated by this discussion or any phenomena at all, comes with the necessary implication of its infinity. For a negative cannot be turned positive, nor a positive negative. That which is positive is positive in infinity. Indeed, the demonstration of void beyond consciousness rests on the attempt to demonstrate consciousness as a negative, which is disproved by the very attempt whether or not this is recognized.
Reality is ultimately non-dual. Duality is an illusory phenomena created by conscious experience in demarcating and defining fragments of its environment. Without this act of consciousness, Reality is a formless, causal stream.

Furthermore, "existence" is a dualistic, conceptual phenomena that can only occur within consciousness. It is dual because the idea, or attribution of existence can only occur along with, and in contrast to, the idea of non-existence. This can be clearly seen in the observation that we can't know what exists beyond conscious observation.
But many intelligent and talented people regard the world as concrete, being caught up in the face value of their perceptions. It is not a question of talent, but of attention and the lapse in it.
Agreed.
For the truth is not found by stepping outside the boundaries of consciousness or reasoning about any outer things, but on the contrary to look into the nature of consciousness — and nothing is more readily available to you than that, since it is what you actually are.
Yes, and everything about our experience of consciousness tells us that it is a finite thing, as it is bounded by its properties (memory, the 5 senses, etc.), experiences, and by the fact that it is less than the Totality. To call consciousness "infinite", in the most literal sense of the word, is oxymoronic.

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The dramaturgy of in order to and for the sake of
on one hand you provide 'there is none'.

Next you pitch a curve ball.

'Then again'

and provide an in order to and for the sake of.
delicious.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The dramaturgy of in order to and for the sake of
on one hand you provide 'there is none'.

Next you pitch a curve ball.

'Then again'

and provide an in order to and for the sake of.
delicious.
i.e., a wanker.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:Consciousness is only conceived through consciousness, known through and in itself. That is because it is the only thing in existence, i.e., self-defined.
Does thought exist? Or are thoughts only somehow thought into existence? This pattern would have to continue infinitely, which makes it a wonder how any other phenomena is possible, under your scenario. You're creating a big rift in the creation of things in assuming that conscious experience must originate from consciousness itself. It leaves no room for the rest of phenomena, i.e., all of the things that we consciously experience.
If the cause of an effect were to be erased, the effect would likewise become invalid. Concepts appear because they are defined in infinite interrelatedness, and a concept is not made invalid, i.e., destroyed, merely because we turn to other concepts. The phenomena of limited minds are made possible due to this necessity of infinite concepts. For any singular concept, in being defined in relation, necessitates that there are infinite concepts defined in relation to it and each other.
The fact that consciousness is a positive, i.e., actual, as demonstrated by this discussion or any phenomena at all, comes with the necessary implication of its infinity. For a negative cannot be turned positive, nor a positive negative. That which is positive is positive in infinity. Indeed, the demonstration of void beyond consciousness rests on the attempt to demonstrate consciousness as a negative, which is disproved by the very attempt whether or not this is recognized.
Reality is ultimately non-dual. Duality is an illusory phenomena created by conscious experience in demarcating and defining fragments of its environment. Without this act of consciousness, Reality is a formless, causal stream.
Reality is not without concepts in an infinite consciousness, on the contrary.
Furthermore, "existence" is a dualistic, conceptual phenomena that can only occur within consciousness. It is dual because the idea, or attribution of existence can only occur along with, and in contrast to, the idea of non-existence. This can be clearly seen in the observation that we can't know what exists beyond conscious observation.
The idea of non-existence indeed, for it is but a concept in consciousness.
For the truth is not found by stepping outside the boundaries of consciousness or reasoning about any outer things, but on the contrary to look into the nature of consciousness — and nothing is more readily available to you than that, since it is what you actually are.
Yes, and everything about our experience of consciousness tells us that it is a finite thing, as it is bounded by its properties (memory, the 5 senses, etc.), experiences, and by the fact that it is less than the Totality. To call consciousness "infinite", in the most literal sense of the word, is oxymoronic.
Your experience of being a limited mind is not enough to conclude that consciousness is a finite thing — since there are concepts of limited minds, which are not separate from consciousness.
Last edited by TheImmanent on Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The dramaturgy of in order to and for the sake of
on one hand you provide 'there is none'.

Next you pitch a curve ball.

'Then again'

and provide an in order to and for the sake of.
delicious.
Delicious? Smugness is a disappointment. You've been philosophical thus far.

Since the will and existence of the infinite consciousness is one and the same, the in order to and for the sake of when you speak of them separately is just a manner of speaking. You make a point of semantics.
Last edited by TheImmanent on Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:Talk about missing the point ...
You should divulge it instead.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

The hierarchy indicates you lack the capacity, but since there is no hierarchy, there is probably no capacity, or no lack, or no meaning, or no conceptual, then no worries, no mind ... as if that's some philosophical point. Next step ... drool.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Delicious as in delicious irony.

sorry chief,
Gotta love the curve balls.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In a philosophical context,
Is consciousness caused,
4 possibilities,
Is
isn't
neither
both
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

Dennis Mahar wrote:In a philosophical context,
Is consciousness caused,
4 possibilities,
Is
isn't
neither
both
Now there’s some honest dualistic hierarchies.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:The hierarchy indicates you lack the capacity, but since there is no hierarchy, there is probably no capacity, or no lack, or no meaning, or no conceptual, then no worries, no mind ... as if that's some philosophical point. Next step ... drool.
You demonstrate intellectual vanity and derision. I think you have successfully established what hierarchy there is, only its not what you had in mind.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:In a philosophical context,
Is consciousness caused,
4 possibilities,
Is
isn't
neither
both
Consciousness is caused in relation to particular concepts.

Consciousness isn't caused in relation to itself.

Consciousness is ultimately neither caused nor uncaused since cause and effect are its concepts.

Consciousness is both caused and uncaused since it has the concepts of being caused and uncaused.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The sticking point appears to be the phrase 'infinite consciousness'.

could it be that 'the infinite' ranges into the view of consciousness by way of investigation?

thus transforming consciousness.

immersion in such now constitutes 'infinite consciousness'.

the thing is infinite is showing up as an adjective in the phrase.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

TheImmanent wrote:
Cahoot wrote:The hierarchy indicates you lack the capacity, but since there is no hierarchy, there is probably no capacity, or no lack, or no meaning, or no conceptual, then no worries, no mind ... as if that's some philosophical point. Next step ... drool.
You demonstrate intellectual vanity and derision. I think you have successfully established what hierarchy there is, only its not what you had in mind.
Suddenly you do find meaning in the human "dramaturgy, in order to and for the sake of," where there was none.

You demonstrate intellectual deceit.
Consciousness is ultimately ...
Hierarchy on display, only when convenient.

Either deceitful or just plain oblivious.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Consciousness is caused in relation to particular concepts.
That works for me as;
production and disintegration have no true existence except conceptually.
empty is empty.
Consciousness isn't caused in relation to itself.
that works for me as;
a single mind that has two parts,
experiencing great bliss and directly experiencing emptiness of phenomena.
a mood and an understanding.

given that, the only possible response to someone who harms me is kindness.

the ox is slow (my ego) and the infinite is patient.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

All kinds of meaning and discrimination and hierarchies lining up in order to, for the sake of the ego self-protection racket, though they be bound by linear habit of causality, perhaps indicating the signaling of a pause in the continuity stream of bullshit.

Let’s see … no us, no see, no ego, no self, no protection, nothing bound, linear is illusion, no habits, nothing caused, everything caused by everything, no continuity, no signals, no pauses, excepting of course when any of these spontaneously emerge in the stream which is not. Same shit, different day … only … no same, no different, no day, no night, no differentiation, no hierarchy … no shit.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

There must be a whole else we couldn't talk about parts.
What is it?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

What is what.
It is it.
That that is is.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Nothing ever seems
Tricks of light -- eye frequency
Being waves or beams?
Locked