The alpha and the omega

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

The alpha and the omega

Post by Pam Seeback »

Reposted from "Christians and me, part II" thread (it is not about Christianity), the expanded version tying in the relationship of logic to the alpha and the omega:

One of the benefits of being driven/called to end duality (as insane as it appears to be on the surface) is that one eventually receives the vision of the alpha and omega of duality. Which when viewed from the perspective of abiding in this vision brings about the wisdom of why there is evil and ugliness in the world. Simply put those who project what is bad and ugly outwards are unconscious (ignorant) of the realized vision of the alpha and omega (of distinction-making). Instead they are caught in the complexity of the distinction-making appearance itself, more specifically, in its drive for self-preservation (the delusion of the ego).

What those unconscious of the wisdom of the alpha and omega of the appearance cannot see is the more layered is their appearance, the more distinctions they cling to, the further away they are from the vision of the alpha and omega. Metaphorically, biblically (for those who relate) this is the vision of the Father of the appearance of the Lord God, the vision of "it was good and only good." It is also the wisdom and compassion/divine love of the Christ or the bodisattva.

------------------------------------

The logic of the alpha and the omega of all distinctions is the logic that gives one the way to renunciate the separation/self preservation projections of the ego. Projections of separation/self preservation that are now known to be the ignorant illogical, the ignorant illogical that is the cause of all hatred, greed, lust and anger in the world.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The alpha and the omega

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote: Projections of separation/self preservation that are now known to be the ignorant illogical, the ignorant illogical that is the cause of all hatred, greed, lust and anger in the world.
You seem to be arguing against life itself as how could it ever have prospered if it were not for the forces of self preservation of any body, group or belief? And are you now turning philosophy into yet another moral system where you preach love over hate, mortification over greed, prudence over lust? Here I propose that we need to reason at a deeper level where one does not speak of hate, greed, lust and anger as problems to solve or avoid. Would that not be more like discussing the foam on the surf during a stormy night at the coast of life?

Many philosophers instead speak of desire, the love of "money" or value representations, the social passions or emotion, the exchange system of self, as being the main problem of ignorance. But perhaps we should speak about the underlying theme, which is way more fundamental and would address the nature of this "world" you name as some stage where hatred, greed, lust and anger play all their little roles. Just casting it in this light shows perhaps a projection of self, making shadows on a world stage which would have causes, which have to be solved to see any "good".

About the biblical vision of "it was good and only good" -- the best translation for good in my view would be here "appropriate, becoming", which can be experienced at the moment one looks back on something and say it was "good", because, like reason itself, a certain appropriating and ratio appears in what's ultimately a sense of proportion or even justification in the broadest sense. If you're interested you can look into the history of the golden mean or sacred geometry in general, where you can find this sense of divine appropriateness, the idea of a higher architecture where the smaller elements all make sense, when seeing it as one aesthetic or engineering marvel. Some degree of awe might be involved as well.

There's a proliferation of images and a worship of the images as idols, meaning that the image is turned into a thing, being it human, pet, emotion or idea to possess, handle, trade, collect, bow for, slave for and even die for. Realizing the process of this killing of god, slicing him, eating him and fractioning like him, is in itself a very worthy direction to explore.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The alpha and the omega

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: You seem to be arguing against life itself as how could it ever have prospered if it were not for the forces of self preservation of any body, group or belief? And are you now turning philosophy into yet another moral system where you preach love over hate, mortification over greed, prudence over lust? Here I propose that we need to reason at a deeper level where one does not speak of hate, greed, lust and anger as problems to solve or avoid. Would that not be more like discussing the foam on the surf during a stormy night at the coast of life?
The desire that is at the root of self-preservation is the food of the tension I mentioned in my post in the "Confronting chaos, surrender and subversion" thread: where you desire the tension/view it as the "food for life", I do not (I do not equate consciousness with the totality of life or existence). So I am not speaking of morals, or problems to avoid, but of principles of Wisdom.
Many philosophers instead speak of desire, the love of "money" or value represenations, the social passions or emotion, the exchange system of self, as being the main problem of ignorance.
I am not one of them. The main problem of ignorance to me is the keeping "going" of tension-dependent consciousness. And when it comes down to it, as I stated in my other post, I can't find any other conclusion except that of giving wisdom her due regarding both views of consciousness: wisdom of surface = it is good, wisdom of ending surface = it is good. What I want to make clear is that just as the keeping alive of the tension/self preservation of consciousness has an order/pattern of "becoming", so does the ending of consciousness follow an order/pattern of "becoming" (or perhaps better said, "unbecoming" :-)
About the biblical vision of "it was good and only good" -- the best translation for good in my view would be here "appropriate, becoming", which can be experienced at the moment one looks back on something and say it was "good", because, like reason itself, a certain appropriating and ratio appears in what's ultimately a sense of proportion or even justification in the broadest sense. If you're interested you can look into the history of the golden mean or sacred geometry in general, where you can find this sense of divine appropriateness, the idea of a higher architecture where the smaller elements all make sense, when seeing it as one aesthetic or engineering marvel. Some degree of awe might be involved as well.
I don't deny this "looking back" and saying "it was good", i.e., the appearance of consciousness is a part of the "higher architecture." Not good, not evil even though a part of its overall pattern includes looking at life through this dual moral lens.
There's a proliferation of images and a worship of the images as idols, meaning that the image is turned into a thing, being it human, pet, emotion or idea to possess, handle, trade, collect, bow for, slave for and even die for. Realizing the process of this killing of god, slicing him, eating him and fractioning like him, is in itself a very worthy direction to explore.
Again, it seems as if you are putting forth the life of surface consciousness as being "the ideal." This thread is the counter to that view.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The alpha and the omega

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:The desire that is at the root of self-preservation is the food of the tension I mentioned in my post in the "Confronting chaos, surrender and subversion" thread: where you desire the tension/view it as the "food for life", I do not (I do not equate consciousness with the totality of life or existence). So I am not speaking of morals, or problems to avoid, but of principles of Wisdom.
Well, I'm not just desiring terms to mean this or that. They're following from reasoning carefully and referring gently. Ideally it would flow gracefully from one thing into another but that's just my ideal, I suppose.

However it's unclear how you're not speaking of morality when you're using morally loaded terms like hatred, greed, lust and anger as the "bad" to undo in your life or life in general. Every religion always has tried to convert wisdom into some moral system to live by and rule the masses with laws to follow. But it cannot be part of a "principle of Wisdom" since morals flow outward from a given circumstance and context, meaning that it's impossible to see the difference between someone's anger and judgement or drive. Like during a game of sports, a lot of strong emotion is connected to the motion, to the play itself. And yet you don't want to eradicate all play, I suppose.
The main problem of ignorance to me is the keeping "going" of tension-dependent consciousness.
It's only a problem (stress and dissatisfaction) as long the truth of the nature of self and consciousness remains obscured.
I don't deny this "looking back" and saying "it was good", i.e., the appearance of consciousness is a part of the "higher architecture." Not good, not evil even though a part of its overall pattern includes looking at life through this dual moral lens.
It's difficult to acknowledge wholeness while being fully aware of the suffering giving rise to everything, including the specific suffering of trying to eradicate one (suffering) without the other (construct, life, being).
Again, it seems as if you are putting forth the life of surface consciousness as being "the ideal." This thread is the counter to that view.
The ideal is to understand yourself and the nature of your existence and world creation. There's no other wisdom.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The alpha and the omega

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways: The desire that is at the root of self-preservation is the food of the tension I mentioned in my post in the "Confronting chaos, surrender and subversion" thread: where you desire the tension/view it as the "food for life", I do not (I do not equate consciousness with the totality of life or existence). So I am not speaking of morals, or problems to avoid, but of principles of Wisdom.
Well, I'm not just desiring terms to mean this or that. They're following from reasoning carefully and referring gently. Ideally it would flow gracefully from one thing into another but that's just my ideal, I suppose.
How does reasoning flow gently and gracefully from restlessness, stress and dissatisfaction? I find no logic in this understanding of reasoning.
Quote:
The main problem of ignorance to me is the keeping "going" of tension-dependent consciousness.
It's only a problem (stress and dissatisfaction) as long the truth of the nature of self and consciousness remains obscured.
I suggest we have not come to the same conclusion about the truth of the nature of self and consciousness. For me, it is the idea of self as the cause of things that produces consciousness/stress dissatisfaction/the body.The only cure being that one stops seeking for causes in the subjective appearance, the natural effect being a surrender to existence as being the actual/truthful causal agent of all things (including the deluded belief in a causal self).
It's difficult to acknowledge wholeness while being fully aware of the suffering giving rise to everything, including the specific suffering of trying to eradicate one (suffering) without the other (construct, life, being).
Where you view the end of the construct as suffering, I view the end of the construct as release from suffering. I believe my view to be the more logical view. My sense is that you believe yours to be the more logical view.
The ideal is to understand yourself and the nature of your existence and world creation. There's no other wisdom.
Exactly. Obviously our understandings are different. So what to make of this? Are you right and I am wrong or vice versa? Or is each of us experiencing the effects of our understandings and are satisfied that they are right view?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The alpha and the omega

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:How does reasoning flow gently and gracefully from restlessness, stress and dissatisfaction? I find no logic in this understanding of reasoning.
Life is suffering. But I was talking about meanings as response on you saying that I would desire this or that "tension/view". What reasoning can do is to show how meaning is formed and forming. Like one can show you this tree is growing and how that plant is dying. As far as that it's gentle or graceful, well, at least it's natural. It's possible to idealize a certain grace when speaking of life. In the same way it's with reason. It's not unnatural -- unless everything is.
For me, it is the idea of self as the cause of things that produces consciousness/stress dissatisfaction/the body.The only cure being that one stops seeking for causes in the subjective appearance, the natural effect being a surrender to existence as being the actual/truthful causal agent of all things (including the deluded belief in a causal self).
We've reached similar conclusions. But it's unclear what you're trying to cure, which mirror you're so eagerly trying to wipe. There's no actual difference between what you call "surrender to existence as causal agent" and the well known faith in the Christian creator god. But religion is not liberation, it's just a temptation one is free to fall for. Life is all about temptation and the fall, after all
Where you view the end of the construct as suffering, I view the end of the construct as release from suffering.
All constructs have beginnings and endings. The end of all construction is just an artefact of seeing "all construction" as another construct. While it's possible to do that, other, hidden, constructs are still needed to maintain that view.
Are you right and I am wrong or vice versa? Or is each of us experiencing the effects of our understandings and are satisfied that they are right view?
Those questions are not meaningful to me as I don't think in these terms. But generally one can speak only from his own being.
Locked