Perception and Reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: The only constant is Reality. Where consciousness exists in reality, perception and the things perceived can be said to exist. As we are conscious beings, the only reality we can perceive is that of things and forms (duality).
Which is our suffering and our insanity. We choose this form over that form over and over again, always remaining in the dark to the totality of choiceless reality.
The exact form of things are precisely what consciousness perceives them to be. But if and when consciousness ceases existence anywhere within reality, forms disappear and reality returns to its formless state (nonduality).
Right on! except for the part where you say "reality returns to its formless state." There is no returning, only a waking up which happens when the delusion that awareness can have its cake and eat it too, that it can choose AND remain constant or truthful is removed. Logic removes this delusion, wisdom knows why.

All the terms being bantered about that are chosen by individuals to address reality doesn't change the truth that because reality is all forms, reality doesn't/can't choose between its forms, What's it going to be is the dangerous question, nonduality/reality or the unquenchable desire to choose?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:
Russell: The only constant is Reality. Where consciousness exists in reality, perception and the things perceived can be said to exist. As we are conscious beings, the only reality we can perceive is that of things and forms (duality).
Which is our suffering and our insanity. We choose this form over that form over and over again, always remaining in the dark to the totality of choiceless reality.
For conscience (note, not 'conscious') beings, there is no choiceless reality. We will always have choices to make, moment to moment, day in and day out. The realization of formless reality is one such choice, for those privy to it of course.
The exact form of things are precisely what consciousness perceives them to be. But if and when consciousness ceases existence anywhere within reality, forms disappear and reality returns to its formless state (nonduality).
Right on! except for the part where you say "reality returns to its formless state." There is no returning, only a waking up which happens when the delusion that awareness can have its cake and eat it too, that it can choose AND remain constant or truthful is removed. Logic removes this delusion, wisdom knows why.

All the terms being bantered about that are chosen by individuals to address reality doesn't change the truth that because reality is all forms, reality doesn't/can't choose between its forms, What's it going to be is the dangerous question, nonduality/reality or the unquenchable desire to choose?
Knowing that we live the reality of choice making is totally compatible with knowledge of the fundamental truth that we are ultimately instruments of causality. It is not delusional. Realization of the latter helps to relinquish clinging to our choices.

edit: I should've said the 'fundamental truth of the ultimately formless nature of reality.' Both fit the rest of my point, though.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: For conscience (note, not 'conscious') beings, there is no choiceless reality. We will always have choices to make, moment to moment, day in and day out. The realization of formless reality is one such choice, for those privy to it of course
.
The inner conscience (not the one that feeds the conscious mind that feeds the surface world of the roving ego) is the conscience that intuits reality beyond the duality of choice-making, the conscience that intuits (for lack of a better world) undivided, unmeasured, formless truth. It is illogical to conclude that one can choose realization of formless reality when form-making is the process of choosing.
Knowing that we live the reality of choice making is totally compatible with knowledge of the fundamental truth that we are ultimately instruments of causality. It is not delusional. Realization of the latter helps to relinquish clinging to our choices.

edit: I should've said the 'fundamental truth of the ultimately formless nature of reality.' Both fit the rest of my point, though.
I am not denying that choices must be made once one realizes the nondual infinite, consciousness by nature is duality-based, however, once nonduality is realized, the choices made are one's that reflect this realization. Duality won't end as long we accept it as "inevitable."
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:The inner conscience (not the one that feeds the conscious mind that feeds the surface world of the roving ego) is the conscience that intuits reality beyond the duality of choice-making, the conscience that intuits (for lack of a better world) undivided, unmeasured, formless truth.
Only one with an accurate knowledge of God can have the conscience to choose ultimate truth. Otherwise, one has a delusional conscience, inner or otherwise.
It is illogical to conclude that one can choose realization of formless reality when form-making is the process of choosing.
Choosing doesn't make forms, it chooses between available forms.
I am not denying that choices must be made once one realizes the nondual infinite, consciousness by nature is duality-based, however, once nonduality is realized, the choices made are one's that reflect this realization.
Agreed.
Duality won't end as long we accept it as "inevitable."
Actually, duality won't end as long as there is consciousness. Is it illusory? Sure. Illusory in the sense that it can fool us in appearing to be absolute. But it is certainly real.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by ardy »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
ardy wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote: It's a never-ending cycle, the same pattern over and over: believers, believers, believers.
In the end SOW you have to believe in something.

You can try to deny the herd but you are still part of it - SOW! G.O.Y.A. and start experimenting with life and stop this nihilism nonsense.
It's not nihilism, that's the extreme which denies a full world with many truths, I don't deny anything worldly. The point is to accept all truths, with the correct balance, since there is truth to be found in almost anything. What you shouldn't do is claim these are permanent/absolute. That's the difference. Far as I'm concerned this self is getting up in the morning for a bowl of cereal in a beautiful world. Nothing untrue about a story, unless you claim it's more than that.

Another example of a belieber:
Russell wrote: To clarify what is meant by Kevin's passage - Consciousness is like a light being shined in a dark room. What was once a amorphous realm becomes a room filled with shapes and colors according to the design of the consciousness. Consciousness can be changed to perceive different colors and forms, such as in the case with scientific instruments. Reality is an infinite realm in which finite forms appear according to the finite design of coconsciousness
Being of1 I wasn't referring to you when I listed those beliefs. Though just to be clear, you're a real nutter. What's it like?

You're delusional because one simple question destroys your meta-mind episode and your physics BS:

Was it a transient experience made up of wavering thoughts and sensations?

Yes, cool, then it wasn't a meta mind, just another experience. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have experienced conversations with gods and aliens and bright lights and so on. I'm well aware that I can go into meditation at any time and make lucid experiences appear clear as day light. As if I were god hisself. Yet, after my initial discovery of these aspects of the mind, and the understanding that there may be no limit to such capabilities, I didn't pursue them in any way. Why?

Because it's more of the same shit different day. Nothing exists. i.e, they're dream-like wavering experiences, they don't mean anything. There's no meta mind.

Focus on your liberation from clinging to ideas and experiences (no matter how seemingly powerful or how strong the emotions involved). You're still filled with egotism and you're probably going to continue lying to yourself for a while.
Whilst you decry so called believers, you in turn rabbit on about truth. As if you know anything about it or that anyone can tell you what the truth is.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by ardy »

Russell wrote:In my view, sensory input must come from something other than the observer. Fundamentally, as far as consciousness goes, there are always two actors at play: the observer and the observed.
True, one is active (the observer/reality) and the other is passive from the senses ie what we see, hear, smell and touch.
What would you call the above about the nens, if not an explanation? A guess?
Yes it is an explanation but not about reality.
Forgive me, but I don't see much consistency between what you say and what you actually write. You yourself seem to be quite certain of at least a few things about reality, then go on to claim that nothing can be known for sure.
What I am talking about is the creation of thoughts that comes from the observer and not what the observer is. Even you can perceive the development of ideas within your mind and the steps the mind goes through. This has nothing to do with reality but lots to do with introspection and understanding.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote: Quotation marks around truth? Remove them immediately and refuse to use them ever again if you want the guts to find out who the truth you are to come.
Hi Pam: Sorry you might have had a keyboard misfire what are you saying "find out who the 'truth' you are to come"

Sorry couldn't resist the single quotes - I would like to say it is in my nature but who knows what that is really like?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote:Yes it is an explanation but not about reality.
I see.

Well, what you refer to as "reality," I call empirical reality. Empirical reality is indeed not absolute; always uncertain to a degree. To me, all of the truly enlightened sages of old were of a perfect understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, which is not empirical understanding, but rather a purely logical, philosophical one. I also think that it isn't as unreachable as you seem to suggest. The only thing holding us back is worldly attachments.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by ardy »

Russell wrote:
ardy wrote:Yes it is an explanation but not about reality.
I see.

Well, what you refer to as "reality," I call empirical reality. Empirical reality is indeed not absolute; always uncertain to a degree. To me, all of the truly enlightened sages of old were of a perfect understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, which is not empirical understanding, but rather a purely logical, philosophical one. I also think that it isn't as unreachable as you seem to suggest. The only thing holding us back is worldly attachments.
Russell: I think you have it a bit arse about face. My understanding and reading about the enlightened sages is that their enlightenment was based on the observer using what is refereed to in Japan as the 1st nen. In other words there is no duality arising clouding their understanding (as opposed to their thinking). I understand that even a full enlightenment does not offer a answer to what reality is.

Worldly attachments is a part of the problem ie you could give away everything: money, sex, position, power, hubris and avarice and still you are not guaranteed an entry into enlightenment. Sometimes the traditional paths also do not lead there ie Layman Pang being outside traditional monastery life. Many have fallen by the wayside after years of internal work and some have just fallen into it ie John Wren-Lewis. Krishna was supposedly an incredibly wealthy man.

If enlightenment was that simple we would all be OMMING our life away.......
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote:Russell: I think you have it a bit arse about face. My understanding and reading about the enlightened sages is that their enlightenment was based on the observer using what is refereed to in Japan as the 1st nen. In other words there is no duality arising clouding their understanding (as opposed to their thinking). I understand that even a full enlightenment does not offer a answer to what reality is.
The first nen, from what you describe, sounds to me like an immediacy of consciousness that one becomes intimately aware of. In this mode of thought, one isn't drawn in by the complications that follow in making connections with various sensations and thoughts. The first nen becomes all important, where nonduality is realized, while the rest become superfluous, seen for the illusions that they are.
Worldly attachments is a part of the problem ie you could give away everything: money, sex, position, power, hubris and avarice and still you are not guaranteed an entry into enlightenment. Sometimes the traditional paths also do not lead there ie Layman Pang being outside traditional monastery life. Many have fallen by the wayside after years of internal work and some have just fallen into it ie John Wren-Lewis. Krishna was supposedly an incredibly wealthy man.
I don't believe that following a traditional path is necessary, just a great deal of determination and devotion to truth. Relinquishing worldly attachments is only part of it, yes. Without a true understanding, enlightenment is impossible.
If enlightenment was that simple we would all be OMMING our life away.......
What is OMMING?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Beingof1 »

Seeker:
It's not nihilism, that's the extreme which denies a full world with many truths, I don't deny anything worldly. The point is to accept all truths, with the correct balance, since there is truth to be found in almost anything. What you shouldn't do is claim these are permanent/absolute. That's the difference. Far as I'm concerned this self is getting up in the morning for a bowl of cereal in a beautiful world. Nothing untrue about a story, unless you claim it's more than that.
There is no such thing as 'truths' plural.

You may hold and consider a stream of conceptual ideas about 'truths' but the answer is in knowing what is observing all of these 'truths'.

Ardy is right when he says what that is - is incomprehensible. It is infinite and that means by default is beyond conceptualization. You cannot ever understand the consciousness that you are but knowing it contains all answers is understanding. What you can do is surrender to its stream of experiential reality and a door opens. *Bang* opens the door and every finite thing, question and conundrum is child`s play. When you trust your consciousness with absolute abandon, you literally transcend human status.
Being of1 I wasn't referring to you when I listed those beliefs. Though just to be clear, you're a real nutter. What's it like?
You and I both know you were referring to me.

What is it like to have understanding of what cannot be comprehended? Its like talking to monkeys who all say "monkey say - monkey do."
You're delusional because one simple question destroys your meta-mind episode and your physics BS:

Was it a transient experience made up of wavering thoughts and sensations?

Yes, cool, then it wasn't a meta mind, just another experience I'm sure there are plenty of people who have experienced conversations with gods and aliens and bright lights and so on. I'm well aware that I can go into meditation at any time and make lucid experiences appear clear as day light. As if I were god hisself. Yet, after my initial discovery of these aspects of the mind, and the understanding that there may be no limit to such capabilities, I didn't pursue them in any way. Why?

Because it's more of the same shit different day. Nothing exists. i.e, they're dream-like wavering experiences, they don't mean anything. There's no meta mind.

Focus on your liberation from clinging to ideas and experiences (no matter how seemingly powerful or how strong the emotions involved). You're still filled with egotism and you're probably going to continue lying to yourself for a while.
It was witnessed by others you arrogant young one. Others heard an audible voice that was coming from a wall that spoke of things only the persons could know. I guess, just like so many pride filled monkeys, all of us collectively that experienced this were deluded in order for you to maintain your belief system - ie. clinging belief. Living life, according to your line of reasoning; the very fact you have experiences at all means you are delusional. This may be another point that wizzes over your head.

Let me give you an example of a meta mind - and do try to understand.
There are trillions of cells in your body and all of them have individual states of consciousness, environmental interaction and sentience. They live a life. All, lets say 4 trillion cells independently make up the one, undivided and single you. You are the meta mind of your very own body for trillions of cells. So stop acting like a dip shit and get a grip Mr. Meta Mind your cells are waiting to experience your wisdom.

Its possible though that the trillions of cells in your body do not want to cling to the belief that Seekerofwisdom is real but merely a transient experience. The cells that are aware of you, such as a brain cell, are all mocked as being delusional.

Two things are required for illumination - honesty and humility.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Beingof1 »

This cannot happen because of clinging beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLkzg8bFgA
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Bobo »

Beingof1, while particle physics and physics in general are interpreted the psychological interpretation seems far from it as it cannot be tested like particles may be, I also think that you are mixing semi-mathematical models with physics, for example what is the unit of measurement for consciousness?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Bobo »

Russell, it seems that you and Seeker think that the objects of consciousness are impermanent so they come to an end, and you are proposing material causes to things and maybe something permanent which is not conscious, while Seeker is saying that consciousness is the cause of things and it is permanent. Or to put it in questions, is there something causeless? Is it the cause of things?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Hi Russell,
Only one with an accurate knowledge of God can have the conscience to choose ultimate truth. Otherwise, one has a delusional conscience, inner or otherwise.
I assume by "accurate knowledge of God" you are referring to causality and by choosing ultimate truth in you are referring either to choosing causality/and or logic which in the case of conscience (if you perceive conscience as being ego-free) would mean an "ego-free choosing agent of logic within the causality?" See my comments immediately below for why this is not logically sound.
Quote:
movingalways: It is illogical to conclude that one can choose realization of formless reality when form-making is the process of choosing.
Choosing doesn't make forms, it chooses between available forms.
Do you hear what you are saying here? By making choosing an "it" that chooses between, you have broken one of the first rules of causality which is that there is no independent agent causing the causes. Either there is an external self that "sees" all forms and is able to choose which form it likes and in doing so, reject all other forms or there is no such entity. If this is your viewpoint, then how is it any different than beingof1's of being an omnipresent, omniscient Causal Self or self?
Quote:
movingalways: I am not denying that choices must be made once one realizes the nondual infinite, consciousness by nature is duality-based, however, once nonduality is realized, the choices made are one's that reflect this realization.
Agreed.
I don't think we are agreeing on the same thing, which could be a problem with the context of my content. I am not suggesting (which I believe you believe I am suggesting) that there is a independent agent making nondual choices upon realization of the nondual infinite, I am suggesting that the choices made are still dualistic, however, they reflect a duality that projects as little dualism into the world as possible. Do you believe that nondual choices are possible? If so, could you provide me with an example?
Quote:
Duality won't end as long we accept it as "inevitable."
Actually, duality won't end as long as there is consciousness. Is it illusory? Sure. Illusory in the sense that it can fool us in appearing to be absolute. But it is certainly real.
True, duality won't end as long as there is consciousness, so for duality to end consciousness has to end. People talk about death of the ego or death of the self as if that is possible without death of consciousness. The bottom line is that consciousness (or conscience) chooses one form over another and what is the effect of this choosing? The projection of "I desire this form" into the world: ego, self, me, my, I.

I believe you found Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite" a helpful guide (perhaps you're still using it) which leads me to believe you respect his understanding of enlightenment. Have you read his GeniusRealms blog, specifically the first entry? What David has to say about choosing one form over another: "Belief is the arbitrary raising of a particular form over and above all other forms. It is also the essence of insanity." So, according to Quinn, not only is choosing one form over another the essence of insanity, it also has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with belief.

I agree with Quinn here, however, how does he end his blog entry on being a genius follower of the infinite? "In the end, the whole spiritual path to enlightenment boils down to belief. Not in the sense of blindly accepting articles of faith, but in the sense of having utter conviction in the truth. You really have to believe, with the whole of your being, in what you know to be true. Intellectually, you know that everything is nirvana. So believe it. And keep believing it, over and over, all the time, no matter what the situation. If you can apply this belief in a sustained manner, you will find yourself on the other side of the road in no time. Indeed, you will find that there has never been any road in the first place." Utter conviction in the truth? So in other words, truth is not truth of its own merit, one must convince oneself of truth, one must raise the form "truth" above all other forms? Which means, according to Quinn of his own words, in order to become enlightened one do the very thing they have already concluded is the essence of insanity.

I have much respect for David Quinn, but ultimately, he is finds himself in the same messy position as does every conscious being coming face to face with the problem of duality - how to manage it (which is his wisdom recipe) or how to end it (my wisdom recipe). Either way, duality remains while consciousness remains.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy wrote:
movingalways wrote: Quotation marks around truth? Remove them immediately and refuse to use them ever again if you want the guts to find out who the truth you are to come.
Hi Pam: Sorry you might have had a keyboard misfire what are you saying "find out who the 'truth' you are to come"

Sorry couldn't resist the single quotes - I would like to say it is in my nature but who knows what that is really like?
It wasn't a keyboard misfire, rather, a pointed way of saying that if you want self-knowledge to come (which you seem to want) then it best not to be wish-washy about it.

You bring up a good point, who knows what truth is really like? The short answer is that if one defines truth as having no form or that truth is all forms (same thing) then no form "of truth" or truthful form can be asserted if one is living of the truth of formlessness or infinite form(ing). See the problem?

What's a truth lover to do? The question of all questions.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:I assume by "accurate knowledge of God" you are referring to causality and by choosing ultimate truth in you are referring either to choosing causality/and or logic which in the case of conscience (if you perceive conscience as being ego-free) would mean an "ego-free choosing agent of logic within the causality?" See my comments immediately below for why this is not logically sound.
Knowledge of God includes not only causality, but truth about the illusory nature of things, and the ultimately formless nature of the All. Enlightenment is not one-faceted as you seem to be suggesting in promoting emptiness alone, which is dangerously close to nihilism.
Do you hear what you are saying here? By making choosing an "it" that chooses between, you have broken one of the first rules of causality which is that there is no independent agent causing the causes. Either there is an external self that "sees" all forms and is able to choose which form it likes and in doing so, reject all other forms or there is no such entity. If this is your viewpoint, then how is it any different than beingof1's of being an omnipresent, omniscient Causal Self or self?
I was simply describing what "choice" is, which is a category of causality perceived by, and related to being, sentient beings. Are you denying the appearance of sentient beings?
I don't think we are agreeing on the same thing, which could be a problem with the context of my content. I am not suggesting (which I believe you believe I am suggesting) that there is a independent agent making nondual choices upon realization of the nondual infinite, I am suggesting that the choices made are still dualistic, however, they reflect a duality that projects as little dualism into the world as possible. Do you believe that nondual choices are possible? If so, could you provide me with an example?
I am not suggesting any independence to an agent except for the appearance of so. There is no such thing as "as little dualism", there is duality or there isn't. Ultimately, there isn't, appearance wise, there is. Choices are appearances, and are obviously dualistic.
True, duality won't end as long as there is consciousness, so for duality to end consciousness has to end. People talk about death of the ego or death of the self as if that is possible without death of consciousness. The bottom line is that consciousness (or conscience) chooses one form over another and what is the effect of this choosing? The projection of "I desire this form" into the world: ego, self, me, my, I.
Making choices does not necessitate egotism. When a calculator is processing which numbers to display, is it desiring to do so? How about a robot when it is deciding which foot to move in order to walk? No, it merely does what it is caused. Similarly, sentient beings can make choices without interference of egotistical preferences, in full recognition of the infinite causal nature underpinning all movement in reality.
I believe you found Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite" a helpful guide (perhaps you're still using it) which leads me to believe you respect his understanding of enlightenment. Have you read his GeniusRealms blog, specifically the first entry? What David has to say about choosing one form over another: "Belief is the arbitrary raising of a particular form over and above all other forms. It is also the essence of insanity." So, according to Quinn, not only is choosing one form over another the essence of insanity, it also has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with belief.
David was alluding to the clinging involved in beliefs. Choosing doesn't necessitate clinging or attachment to our choices. One makes a choice, keeping in mind the temperal nature of it all, and moves on.

A guide is no longer needed once it's understood. It's a fantastic guide, but only in as far as its contents are extracted and implemented. It can be thrown away, or handed down beyond that.
I agree with Quinn here, however, how does he end his blog entry on being a genius follower of the infinite? "In the end, the whole spiritual path to enlightenment boils down to belief. Not in the sense of blindly accepting articles of faith, but in the sense of having utter conviction in the truth. You really have to believe, with the whole of your being, in what you know to be true. Intellectually, you know that everything is nirvana. So believe it. And keep believing it, over and over, all the time, no matter what the situation. If you can apply this belief in a sustained manner, you will find yourself on the other side of the road in no time. Indeed, you will find that there has never been any road in the first place." Utter conviction in the truth? So in other words, truth is not truth of its own merit, one must convince oneself of truth, one must raise the form "truth" above all other forms? Which means, according to Quinn of his own words, in order to become enlightened one do the very thing they have already concluded is the essence of insanity.
Clinging and attachment to Truth is useful inasmuch as it helps to reform and gets rid of the habits of clinging and attachment. This is what the path is all about. Once these habits are overcome, clinging to Truth is no longer needed, and the end of the path is reached. One is then simply at one with Truth.
I have much respect for David Quinn, but ultimately, he is finds himself in the same messy position as does every conscious being coming face to face with the problem of duality - how to manage it (which is his wisdom recipe) or how to end it (my wisdom recipe). Either way, duality remains while consciousness remains.
A recipe missing a few key ingredients makes for a bland stew.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Beingof1 wrote:Moving:
Been there, done that, with the only difference between us being that I woke up and realized that all that was happening was that I was thinking I was causing things.
Did you write this post?
I did.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell:
Knowledge of God includes not only causality, but truth about the illusory nature of things, and the ultimately formless nature of the All. Enlightenment is not one-faceted as you seem to be suggesting in promoting emptiness alone, which is dangerously close to nihilism.
No point in discussing emptiness, it is clear your understanding of it is intellectual, not experiential. I'll borrow a scripture from the NT with a few words italicized to infer the experience of emptiness: "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Definition of nihilism: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." Not at all what I am suggesting! There is great meaning in being unclothed of finite consciousness and instead, being clothed of life.
Russell: Making choices does not necessitate egotism. When a calculator is processing which numbers to display, is it desiring to do so? How about a robot when it is deciding which foot to move in order to walk? No, it merely does what it is caused. Similarly, sentient beings can make choices without interference of egotistical preferences, in full recognition of the infinite causal nature underpinning all movement in reality.
So an enlightened thinking man is a robot, totally free of all preferences, all attachments, moral or otherwise? I say poppycock. This is what Langan was putting forward with his delusion of "being in touch with the purely logical Mind of God" (metaphor intended) and you see how long it took him before his own moral prejudices took over. It's all well and good when one is sitting at their computer speaking as an ego-free choice-making machine, but when the actual messiness of duality in confronted, the machine man goes out the window. Unless, of course, one is under the influence of weed 24/7. Are you honestly claiming that you are 100% free of the duality of prejudices, opinion, values, etc.? That you think non-dually?
I believe you found Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite" a helpful guide (perhaps you're still using it) which leads me to believe you respect his understanding of enlightenment. Have you read his GeniusRealms blog, specifically the first entry? What David has to say about choosing one form over another: "Belief is the arbitrary raising of a particular form over and above all other forms. It is also the essence of insanity." So, according to Quinn, not only is choosing one form over another the essence of insanity, it also has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with belief.
David was alluding to the clinging involved in beliefs. Choosing doesn't necessitate clinging or attachment to our choices. One makes a choice, keeping in mind the temperal nature of it all, and moves on.
Even if this was indeed what David was alluding to and one was able to make a choice and move on, I maintain that it is not possible to make a choice that is free of ego unless its the choice between water and water.
I agree with Quinn here, however, how does he end his blog entry on being a genius follower of the infinite? "In the end, the whole spiritual path to enlightenment boils down to belief. Not in the sense of blindly accepting articles of faith, but in the sense of having utter conviction in the truth. You really have to believe, with the whole of your being, in what you know to be true. Intellectually, you know that everything is nirvana. So believe it. And keep believing it, over and over, all the time, no matter what the situation. If you can apply this belief in a sustained manner, you will find yourself on the other side of the road in no time. Indeed, you will find that there has never been any road in the first place." Utter conviction in the truth? So in other words, truth is not truth of its own merit, one must convince oneself of truth, one must raise the form "truth" above all other forms? Which means, according to Quinn of his own words, in order to become enlightened one do the very thing they have already concluded is the essence of insanity.
Clinging and attachment to Truth is useful inasmuch as it helps to reform and gets rid of the habits of clinging and attachment. This is what the path is all about. Once these habits are overcome, clinging to Truth is no longer needed, and the end of the path is reached. One is then simply at one with Truth.
And we're back to the question of how one becomes one with ego-free Truth without engaging the ego of preference.
I have much respect for David Quinn, but ultimately, he is finds himself in the same messy position as does every conscious being coming face to face with the problem of duality - how to manage it (which is his wisdom recipe) or how to end it (my wisdom recipe). Either way, duality remains while consciousness remains.
A recipe missing a few key ingredients makes for a bland stew.
God forbid one should be perceived as bland.

I'll leave you with this thought: should your body be filled with the silence of no-thought, would life end?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:So an enlightened thinking man is a robot, totally free of all preferences, all attachments, moral or otherwise? I say poppycock. This is what Langan was putting forward with his delusion of "being in touch with the purely logical Mind of God" (metaphor intended) and you see how long it took him before his own moral prejudices took over. It's all well and good when one is sitting at their computer speaking as an ego-free choice-making machine, but when the actual messiness of duality in confronted, the machine man goes out the window. Unless, of course, one is under the influence of weed 24/7. Are you honestly claiming that you are 100% free of the duality of prejudices, opinion, values, etc.? That you think non-dually?
I already mention that Langan isn't a role model.

As sentient beings we will always have to deal with of dualistic appearances, it cannot be avoided. Thinking can't possibly be non-dualistic. Non-duality and emptiness are both realizations, and the realization is what is experienced, not non-duality/emptiness itself. Experience necessitates duality. Please, pay attention to the implications of your words.

Nice try with the weed jab, lol.. honestly, weed usually muddles things up, giving way to the desires and whatnot, with an occasional enhanced insight here and there.

And no, I don't claim to be perfect, or anyone else for that matter. Only God is perfect.
Even if this was indeed what David was alluding to and one was able to make a choice and move on, I maintain that it is not possible to make a choice that is free of ego unless its the choice between water and water.
The choice is in whether or not one realizes the illusory, temporal nature of all things at in every moment. Of course, this isn't as simple as a mere choice, since many habits are subtle and deep rooted, hence the path.
And we're back to the question of how one becomes one with ego-free Truth without engaging the ego of preference.
Preferences can be made due to logic alone. One can choose food based on nutritional value instead of the pleasure of taste, or clothing based on size and purpose rather than appearance and style.
I'll leave you with this thought: should your body be filled with the silence of no-thought, would life end?
One can have thought without clinging to the idea of life.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:
You bring up a good point, who knows what truth is really like? The short answer is that if one defines truth as having no form or that truth is all forms (same thing) then no form "of truth" or truthful form can be asserted if one is living of the truth of formlessness or infinite form(ing). See the problem?

What's a truth lover to do? The question of all questions.
A truthful lover, now that is something I would like to have met in my life. Most of my lovers told almost as many lies as I did!
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edited Out, See new thread.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Russell Parr »

Hmm, an answer to these hasn't appeared..
Are you the only consciousness there is? If not, how and why are there others?

Why do appearances always change?
An "I don't know" would be honest.

Look, if you're happy with your simple philosophy, congrats. There's no point in trying to convince me of it. What causes you to care?

Oops, I did it again!
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edited Out, See new thread.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Perception and Reality

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: I already mention that Langan isn't a role model.

As sentient beings we will always have to deal with of dualistic appearances, it cannot be avoided. Thinking can't possibly be non-dualistic. Non-duality and emptiness are both realizations, and the realization is what is experienced, not non-duality/emptiness itself. Experience necessitates duality. Please, pay attention to the implications of your words.
Why not post your role model of logic instead of someone who isn't?

I agree, nonduality and emptiness are realizations and that is what is experienced. I am paying attention to the implication of my words. Listen to yours. "As sentient beings we will always have to deal with dualistic appearances." Always have to deal with? Sounds like eternal suffering to me. It is you who asserts that consciousness dies with the brain, are you afraid of dying? It is also you that asserts that consciousness is caused and that the causality is infinite, is it not logical that you are a part of these infinite causes beyond the causation of consciousness?
And no, I don't claim to be perfect, or anyone else for that matter. Only God is perfect.
Now you've hit the truth nail on the head. Only God is perfect. Is God not within you right here and right now? Why do you leave God time and time again to travel into imperfection?
The choice is in whether or not one realizes the illusory, temporal nature of all things at in every moment. Of course, this isn't as simple as a mere choice, since many habits are subtle and deep rooted, hence the path.
Realizing the illusory, temporal nature of all things is to receive wisdom of the nature of consciousness. See above regarding the causality that causes consciousness of which you are a part.
Preferences can be made due to logic alone. One can choose food based on nutritional value instead of the pleasure of taste, or clothing based on size and purpose rather than appearance and style.
Animals do this already except that we call it instinct instead of logic. What you're speaking of here is the natural process of cutting away the dualities that prevent one from realizing their perfection in God. This is where logic is king, but once it gets to the silence of all dualities, the realization of the non-choosing, nondual perfection of God, it must drop its crown and bow to the silence. This is when things really get tough, when the logic that keeps dualities alive is muted and one realizes that in order to realize their perfection in God they must rely 100% on the perfection of God. It is no wonder it is a gradual process, one duality at a time.
movingalways: I'll leave you with this thought: should your body be filled with the silence of no-thought, would life end?
Russell: One can have thought without clinging to the idea of life.
Since you used the term God, I'll rephrase my question: Should your body be filled with the silence of dualities, would the perfection of I and the Father are One disappear?
Locked