Re: The fundamental question
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:34 pm
what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence.
no contrast ultimately.
no contrast ultimately.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.Dennis Mahar wrote:What exists is functionally dependent.
If it hasn't got a name it doesn't exist.
This conceptualising mind generates environment, bodies, activities, sorrows, pleasures.
And that?The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.
Consciousness is actual, infinite, assigned conceptually, finitely.Dennis Mahar wrote:And that?The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.
the essence of the universe is mind.
There is a continuum of conceptual reference points (concepts) in the infinite consciousness, expressed as the experience of being a limited mind from the viewpoint of the reference, and the true idea of the concept in the infinite consciousness.Dennis Mahar wrote:a continuum of experiencing things
identifies, discriminates, reacts, generates.
the loneliness of the long distance runner.
and the term 'infinite consciousness' itself becomes a reference point.In the enlightened expression the viewpoint of the reference and the true idea of the concept are aligned, i.e., the awareness of being infinite consciousness, conceptually assigned.
If this is so, how does "ultimate" cause contrast?Dennis Mahar wrote:what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence.
no contrast ultimately.
How do you know empty without knowing its contrast of inherent? How do you know meaningless without the contrast of meaning maker? What has inherent existence got to do with contrast?Dennis Mahar wrote:what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence
its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless
now you know it.
The infinite consciousness knows everything because everything is its ideas (concepts). They do not exist in another way.Dennis Mahar wrote:and the term 'infinite consciousness' itself becomes a reference point.In the enlightened expression the viewpoint of the reference and the true idea of the concept are aligned, i.e., the awareness of being infinite consciousness, conceptually assigned.
names and forms.
its about generating the being of infinite consciousness which is easily forgotten.
infinite consciousness knows all the names and forms alluded to in all the languages there are and has no meaning category to rest upon.
compassion and detachment appear to be opposed,
compassion seems to 'get involved' and detachment 'walk away'.
call these guys up for 'acting in unison' when required is a perfect response.
can go to a house of sombre mood where causality has not found favour
can go next door to ebullient household where causality has blessed
not the same, not different
The behavior of the enlightened expression is that of unconditional love in its assigned context, not because it seeks to promote the conceptual self, but because there is no actual separation between itself and others, i.e., its own self-love (egocentricity in the grasping mind) is all-encompassing. For the love of the ego is nothing but a convoluted idea of the actual, unassigned self (infinite consciousness).
Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness. Past and future to our current perception, timelessly. To say that you or I generate its being is merely a privation of knowledge, whereby the idea is held that concepts are created and destroyed. But even that idea is known timelessly.Dennis Mahar wrote:The behavior of the enlightened expression is that of unconditional love in its assigned context, not because it seeks to promote the conceptual self, but because there is no actual separation between itself and others, i.e., its own self-love (egocentricity in the grasping mind) is all-encompassing. For the love of the ego is nothing but a convoluted idea of the actual, unassigned self (infinite consciousness).
Well, yeah, that's getting around back of the conceptualising self and its marching to a tune. (any port in a storm).
Its act.
Do you understand me when I say:
in your conversation lad, the being of infinite consciousness is generated.
its possibility called up.
remembering.
re-cogniting.
re-orientation
re-contextualising.
the always/already prepositions,
towards, from, out of etc..
lotus opens from mud
towards that, out of speaking/writing
beholden to
beholding suchness
as it Is and Isn't.
healed.
bliss.
a nightingale sings,
hear it?
the hearing and the heard; causes/conditions.
From what does this "infinite consciousness" arise? Are you proposing that the Infinite is made of or from consciousness?TheImmanent wrote:Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness.
I disagree. Everything is dependent on consciousness for existence, but this isn't to say that everything is consciousness.Cahoot wrote:I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness.
Consciousness isn't filtered through anything to take form.. it's simply there or it's not. Nature doesn't start with consciousness, then bind it up into packages for the purpose of harnessing it. This would be like saying that the images produced by a television inherently exists, and that the TV is simply is caused to harness the image.Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters.
How can anything possibly be above or beyond the Infinite? All things are a manifestation of the Infinite, including consciousness.In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.Russell wrote:From what does this "infinite consciousness" arise? Are you proposing that the Infinite is made of or from consciousness?TheImmanent wrote:Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness.
Since there is no actual separation there is no actual hierarchy, nor is there something created or a creator, other than conceptually.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?
Consciousness is merely a concept. There is only the Infinite. It is all and nothing.TheImmanent wrote:A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.
Consciousness is filtered through its concepts, and among them is nature. As to the metaphor, the concept of the image on the television is defined in relation to the condition of the television, and both are timeless in their present moment.Consciousness isn't filtered through anything to take form.. it's simply there or it's not. Nature doesn't start with consciousness, then bind it up into packages for the purpose of harnessing it. This would be like saying that the images produced by a television inherently exists, and that the TV is simply is caused to harness the image.Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters.
What makes you imagine that limited concepts would exist more readily for you than for an infinite consciousness? Consciousness is already a matter of fact, as are concepts, as is the fact that a limitation is merely one of these concepts.How can anything possibly be above or beyond the Infinite? All things are a manifestation of the Infinite, including consciousness.In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
But how is this not incredibly confusing? There's simply no experience of consciousness that isn't finite, or else there'd be no way to explain or refer to it.
There is nothing at all but consciousness. Attempting to disprove it with concepts is fruitless. And, indeed, it is the ambition of the ego in an attempt to immortalize itself, since the ego is nothing but a concept in the infinite consciousness, i.e., just an idea.This is where the importance of logical deduction comes in. Consciousness must have boundaries, as it clearly isn't the Totality. Therefore, the idea that consciousness is the boundless substance of the Totality can only be sustained by the ego, in an attempt to immortalize itself.
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.Russell wrote:Consciousness is merely a concept. There is only the Infinite. It is all and nothing.TheImmanent wrote:A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.
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.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.
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.TheImmanent wrote:Since there is no actual separation there is no actual hierarchy, nor is there something created or a creator, other than conceptually.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?