Talking to the wall is not Genius

[Russell Parr]

Ego is the first and last of seeking wisdom.

Your confirmation of this does little more than perpetuate your own ego.

Anything else - emptiness, nirvana, you name it - is just window dressing.

Window dressing for the one that believes in inherent form, which is necessary for those that cling to that last bit of self.

But since you say you want me to read the works of others, let me assure you that my knowledge of both QRSian and Buddhist philosophy is considerable. The actual content of these teachings, and indeed all wise teachings, are unimportant and actually misleading to a student who hasn't understood them already. They are meant to be pats on the back and meaningful nods penetrating the barriers of time and space to motivate potential sages.

This basically means you threw away everything you learned in order to go back to the way things were before, likely because it was too uncomfortable. You know that the vast majority of those that read the truth misinterpret it. Unfortunately, you have as well. The stages of the path seem contradictory until the path is completed. There is a reason why you continue to point out contradictions. You are the ouroboros that is reluctant to bite its tail because you are afraid of what it leads to: the truth of no-self.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Jup promotes scientific materialism simply because he hasn't 'seen' the truth of the dream-like nature of the world. It's not something that can just be explained, he needs to see the illusory nature of things so he can stop being caught up in the wording.

"Oh but if everything's illusory then that definition is meaningless!"

We are talking to a guy who thinks the world he believes in, exists 'out there', independent of perception, (thats the illusion) yet we know with certainty that this belief is delusional. No amount of word play is going to grant him that insight, it's up to him.

Explanation has to follow the insight, he hasn't had the insight, simple as that. Thoughts Russle and Diebert?

[Russell Parr]

Seeker, what you've said is true enough but what I'm wondering is if you are still of the nihilistic view that misplaces and annihilates the true role of causality. The view that affirms that perceptions do occur but yet somehow without causes, yes, even though causation is illusory in the sense that it does not exist without perception.

What's interesting here is that wisdom brings both aspects together, whereas Jup is missing what you can see, and you aren't seeing the other half of the truth that Jup has determined to be the only truth. Great truth is a lot like a coin; you can only see one side at a time, but it is nonetheless complete. It can seem and feel contradictory to view reality this way, and takes a great deal of logical skill and practice to master, but is the only way to overcome confusion. What ends up happening is both a confirmation and a denial. Diebert does a great job in expressing this, playing contrarian to just about every viewpoint expressed around here. He does it so well that I personally find him hard to keep up with at times. He's had a lot of experience in this.

Anyway, so what is it? Have you figured out causality yet? Do you see that it is the only way that consistency is possible? That memories, patterns, and the overall flow of nature is utterly dependent on it as a fundamental principle? If not, you ain't got it yet.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Yeah, I used to have no clue what Diebert was on about, since it seemed that he was contradicting everything, until I better understood conceptual 'frameworks' and tearing them down. Though, like you said, sometimes I'm still confused by what he writes, in the sense that I find his contexts unclear, so I wonder where the bridge lies.

To answer your questions: Actually, I'm less and less inclined toward particular language as carrying truth, and more inclined toward truth as personal philosphy/insight. Understanding is simply a broader domain than just word and thought, however much they reflect truth. I think it's more easily arrived at by contradicting assertions and beliefs which are put forth as being the truth, and instead promoting independent contemplation.

For example I've spoken to people who use endless biblical language and terminology yet surprisingly understand more than you'd expect. Yet of course the same people fall into the trap of believing that their explanation is the accurate one. However 'cliche' it sounds in terms of eastern philosophy, "That which can be spoken is not the way."

For me, the truth is the theory of no theory, truth through personal insight, as opposed to declaring the dominance of any explanation. To put it plainly, reality and the truth are the same thing to me. Or, existence and the truth are the same thing. So no, I wouldn't say that causality is the only way that consistency is possible. Reflections of the truth are only valuable if they resonate with, elucidate upon, or enhance your understanding. That changes per person depending on their disposition, and it's often impossible to know if what I conceptualize when talking about something like causality is the same as what you conceptualize. We are sending out messages in a bottle, a message is received or it isn't. A piece of advice I would give is this: keep in the awareness that every sentence, thought, appearance or even understanding, are direct 'manifestations' of reality. The truth is in the existence, not in the specific appearance.

What is really significant to me is whether one has adopted the conclusions of the core wisdoms which we both acknowledge. Obviously this doesn't work if we are worlds apart, but that's not the case. I am 'concerned' with your conclusions in regard to living, suffering and so on. That's where the real distinctions between understanding can be easily found, for example with movingalways. I best grasped our difference in understanding when I discovered her 'practical' conclusions.

[jupiviv]

Ego is the first and last of seeking wisdom.

Your confirmation of this does little more than perpetuate your own ego.

First you try to be nice and show me that we're both in agreement, and then when I persist in being critical you "strike back" because I'm not prepared to "play fair". Who is the egotist here?

You are the ouroboros that is reluctant to bite its tail because you are afraid of what it leads to: the truth of no-self.

I don't believe in the truth of no-self because I do have a self, and other people with functioning minds appear to have them as well. You say you believe in this truth. Yet you're the one opposing my arguments with phrases like "inherent form" and "no-self" without explanation or contextualisation, appealing to authority and invoking "the rules". So the understanding of "no-self" - at least as you define it - has nothing to do with truth or wisdom.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Does it logically follow that because something exists you must desire it, or because a desire exists you must indulge it?

It exists through a desire for it to be. A desire which his born out of a fundamental incompleteness and impossibility of ones own existence. Generally this is the only world and being we can conceive of. And end up calling it reality. Which I do understand, what else is left, right? Most not even reach that far to even become aware this is what is being done.

reason says that the object isn't eternal, when desire intervenes and demands that eternity doesn't matter when it comes to desired objects, since reason also says that they exist and can be attained.

The problem is not "wanting things to be eternal". That's not even on the mind of most actual human beings, it's not the issue of any common suffering. It's that "thing itself" which is already an attempt at absoluteness. Permanence is the expression of any type of fixed nature, essence, or self.

whatever I assert about things ends up being some version of a belief in inherent existence.

Because it's so true! But there's also language itself which continuously plays the game of invoking that image. So this conversation remains limited at both ends because of that. This is also understood.

[jupiviv]

Does it logically follow that because something exists you must desire it, or because a desire exists you must indulge it?

It exists through a desire for it to be. A desire which his born out of a fundamental incompleteness and impossibility of ones own existence. Generally this is the only world and being we can conceive of. And end up calling it reality. Which I do understand, what else is left, right? Most not even reach that far to even become aware this is what is being done.

Any existence is complete, including one like ours that includes the capacity for desiring. The question remains - what shall we *do* about it? Your answer might not be as different from that of "most" as you clearly like to think.

reason says that the object isn't eternal, when desire intervenes and demands that eternity doesn't matter when it comes to desired objects, since reason also says that they exist and can be attained.

The problem is not "wanting things to be eternal". That's not even on the mind of most actual human beings, it's not the issue of any common suffering. It's that "thing itself" which is already an attempt at absoluteness. Permanence is the expression of any type of fixed nature, essence, or self.

But what is "essence", and what is the belief or expression of it? That's the irony in your rejection of the reality of "permanence" - you are redefining it to be something it isn't and can never be, then calling *that* unreal (which it is, but this was never challenged to begin with). What about the permanence of a chronic short pain in abdomen, or these words you're reading?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

he needs to see the illusory nature of things so he can stop being caught up in the wording.

It's a scary thing since it's ourselves being caught up in these very things. Generally I don't mind seeing a strong belief in self, identity and things. It's a part of growing up, developing some skills. While I could go around and point at people "missing insight", it's not like I've always understood emptiness. There were times I was king of a whole universe, bigger, wilder and more interesting than most (:) -- one which I gracefully, quietly was able to let overgrow. And then tried not to replace it with a new one.

Yeah, I used to have no clue what Diebert was on about, since it seemed that he was contradicting everything, until I better understood conceptual 'frameworks' and tearing them down. Though, like you said, sometimes I'm still confused by what he writes, in the sense that I find his contexts unclear, so I wonder where the bridge lies.

The confusion is understood as in many conversations I do introduce sneakily elements of linguistics, postmodern thought, psychology, some traditionalism and some other random seeming ideas and concepts I pluck from many different trees. Why doing that at all? It's a kind of restlessness I suppose and I don't believe in one language or terminology, always looking for a bit of different angle. And I do think philosophy opens up many avenues and possibilities. The mind won't become "quiet" unless it's born that way. My mind is restless and loves to play with a few ideas and layers. Nothing overly complex but some of my posts are part of a larger theme or deeper symbolism which I'm experimenting with at times. It might not go anywhere but who knows, perhaps it does. I stopped caring about it although I do curb and restrain a way lot more than you might think, seeking my own balance.

To put it plainly, reality and the truth are the same thing to me. Or, existence and the truth are the same thing. So no, I wouldn't say that causality is the only way that consistency is possible. Reflections of the truth are only valuable if they resonate with, elucidate upon, or enhance your understanding. That changes per person depending on their disposition, and it's often impossible to know if what I conceptualize when talking about something like causality is the same as what you conceptualize. We are sending out messages in a bottle, a message is received or it isn't. A piece of advice I would give is this:

keep in the awareness that every sentence, thought, appearance or even understanding, are direct 'manifestations' of reality. The truth is in the existence, not in the specific appearance.

Of course you do realize when using a word like reality or "direct manifestations", a lot comes with that, if you like it or not. If you'd be a digital camera, everything you experience would be a direct capture of a bunch of pixels. And yet does the pixel itself contain anything but the knowledge that there's at least no "zero" here?

For me, "truth" does not even happen yet here. Truth and false come way later, as higher cognitive challenges. Perhaps the same with "real". What is real seems more akin to a function of connection. Any underlying reality goes beyond any qualification. For someone, some appearance can represent a deeper connection, a deeper understanding and a more thorough unbinding. One reason not to dismiss appearances as one garbage heap of illusion. However, as you wrote, it's the realm of personal insight. But when communicating about it, people will bound up talking about different things in the end. The reason for it should be understood to prevent further frustration.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Any existence is complete, including one like ours that includes the capacity for desiring. The question remains - what shall we *do* about it? Your answer might not be as different from that of "most" as you clearly like to think.

It can only be complete as reaction to incompleteness. You cannot raise the spectre of completeness without its counterpart. It would have no meaning. Just calling in "complete" only shows you had incompleteness on your mind.

But what is "essence", and what is the belief or expression of it?

You tell me! Your posts in this thread were making a reasonable case for the belief and expression of it. Or that's the shadow they were casting.

[Russell Parr]

Yeah, I used to have no clue what Diebert was on about, since it seemed that he was contradicting everything, until I better understood conceptual 'frameworks' and tearing them down. Though, like you said, sometimes I'm still confused by what he writes, in the sense that I find his contexts unclear, so I wonder where the bridge lies.

To answer your questions: Actually, I'm less and less inclined toward particular language as carrying truth, and more inclined toward truth as personal philosphy/insight. Understanding is simply a broader domain than just word and thought, however much they reflect truth. I think it's more easily arrived at by contradicting assertions and beliefs which are put forth as being the truth, and instead promoting independent contemplation.

For example I've spoken to people who use endless biblical language and terminology yet surprisingly understand more than you'd expect. Yet of course the same people fall into the trap of believing that their explanation is the accurate one. However 'cliche' it sounds in terms of eastern philosophy, "That which can be spoken is not the way."

For me, the truth is the theory of no theory, truth through personal insight, as opposed to declaring the dominance of any explanation. To put it plainly, reality and the truth are the same thing to me. Or, existence and the truth are the same thing. So no, I wouldn't say that causality is the only way that consistency is possible. Reflections of the truth are only valuable if they resonate with, elucidate upon, or enhance your understanding. That changes per person depending on their disposition, and it's often impossible to know if what I conceptualize when talking about something like causality is the same as what you conceptualize. We are sending out messages in a bottle, a message is received or it isn't. A piece of advice I would give is this: keep in the awareness that every sentence, thought, appearance or even understanding, are direct 'manifestations' of reality. The truth is in the existence, not in the specific appearance.

What is really significant to me is whether one has adopted the conclusions of the core wisdoms which we both acknowledge. Obviously this doesn't work if we are worlds apart, but that's not the case. I am 'concerned' with your conclusions in regard to living, suffering and so on. That's where the real distinctions between understanding can be easily found, for example with movingalways. I best grasped our difference in understanding when I discovered her 'practical' conclusions.

By consistency I was referring not just to one's lines of thought but the structure of the universe and the flow of nature. As for the rest, I agree.

[Russell Parr]

First you try to be nice and show me that we're both in agreement, and then when I persist in being critical you "strike back" because I'm not prepared to "play fair". Who is the egotist here?

I wasn't playing nice. I genuinely thought we were in agreement. I was wrong.

I don't believe in the truth of no-self because I do have a self, and other people with functioning minds appear to have them as well. You say you believe in this truth. Yet you're the one opposing my arguments with phrases like "inherent form" and "no-self" without explanation or contextualisation, appealing to authority and invoking "the rules". So the understanding of "no-self" - at least as you define it - has nothing to do with truth or wisdom.

I and plenty of others have provided plenty of explanation and contextualisation, and on top of everything else you've read, you should know better by now. I appeal to the truth, no matter who says it or in what form. I don't know what "rules" you're talking about.

What's going on here is a hardening of your position in opposing those of us trying to help you. It's only making things worse for you, for if and when you do discover your error, it'll probably shock you to your core. Hope you overcome the trauma! I encourage you to let go and relearn.

[throughthemud]

Depends on his definitions. If he defines self as the world around and inside of him, + the sound of his own thoughts + his sensations he feels, he could have a self. It could be like a rainbow colored soup, constantly flowing random magma, but the soup and magma still exists, there are certain properties that remain consistent in everyday people. For instance, the timber and pitch of the inner voice remains constant, this could be the property that gives self its feeling of constance. The timber and pitch is not heard but felt, it is very ambiguous and cloudy but it is not completely inaudible. Inner music is a bit more well defined than inner voice, but inner voice still exists. My own inner voice no longer retains its form consistently though.
Additionally, the fabric of self is held together by chains of old memories, when old memories lose their "specialness" self begins to disappear into the aether as well.

The question I have, is the forums seem to toss around the word "inherent existence" a lot. Not quite sure what is meant, inherent is kind of an ambiguous term. From what I gather, it seems to allude to the idea that objects cannot have a form without being inversely contrast by things which they are not. Not sure though, Google seems to tell me that it is some kind of Buddhist terminology.

Causality here is the constant because if it was not, the uncaused would appear immediately. We couldn't have that!

Seems that their are two viewpoints on this issue. Yours seems to be saying that without causality, all things would appear at the same time, and thus, reach maximum saturation, and due to all existing at the same time, would have no contrast and could not exist. Is this what you mean?

So, there are two viewpoints. The first, in my above paragraph, is that the brane of human consciousness is a limiter.
The brane prevents time from overly flowing and reaching maximum saturation, it functions as a limiter or dam. Thus, the word "damned" may be correlated with entities experiencing a slow speed of time.

The other view is that the brane is a producer, not limiter. Essentially, it says consciousness or experience or existence cannot exist, that only through the brane is special parameters configured for it to exist.

The variant of view 1. says that without branes there is an experience of All and maximum saturation, but it still exists and is not flatlined max sat and percievable.

I personally lean on an odd mix of the two viewpoints. The mysteries of the universe deepen, but can a star tell us how consciousness came to be? Maybe scientists will stumble upon the answer of why consciousness seems to be able to traverse space no problem, that in all of the vastness of the cosmos it pinpointed and targeted Earth. Either consciousness is generated by branes, or it is the All cosmos and sucked into branes like a vacuum. Or it pinpointed and targeted Earth. Or a fourth option I don't know right now. But an interesting thought train to think about, is a brain popping out of nowhere, and suddenly a consciousness appears inside of it. Dont want to sound egotistical but sometimes I wonder if I am a higher lifeform, almost borderline solipism. How can fish have consciousness if I have consciousness? Will I ever be or was I ever a fish? Is it even possible for my consciousness to inhabit a fishes brane? If all complex organisms in the universe died off, would consciousness be localized to fish?

Another interesting thought train, is to imagine the multiverse theory. Imagine a random brain popping up in the middle of nowhere, and suddenly consciousness traverses through an infinite amount of universes, and space to reach that moment in time, and the moment doesn't even last, it's still always moving. Think about the immense about of power that implies, it means branes literally have dominance of time, space, and consciousness. Literally it could pop up in another universe in the middle of nowhere, and make consciousness sucked into it!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

^ At best you've got beginners mind. Most likely you're just at the level of a clueless teenage hippy's mind.

That's helpful advice, not an attack. Use it and focus on learning.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: That's where the real distinctions between understanding can be easily found, for example with movingalways. I best grasped our difference in understanding when I discovered her 'practical' conclusions.

It is only recently that I made a breakthrough that will end my 'practical' conclusions which for me were rational conclusions. More about that later. It is also my personal insight that existence is truth, an insight that came from going 'deeper' into the insight of no self to the experience of no self and developing this experience to the point where there was the realization that when self is gone, all that is 'left' are things - thoughts.

The insight that comes along with (selfless) awareness as the key to being true of thought is that all theories of reality must be dropped, especially the theory that reality is rational (or irrational). Why? Because rationality is a conceptually dependent language and language is not true. Sure, logic is needed to break down the idea of self but logic cannot provide the experience of no self, the dissolution of the subject/object distinction, a critical step, if not THE critical step to being enlightened as to the true nature of reality. Holding to any one way of how reality works is THE blind spot to being real/being true.

I'm in the early stages of selfless awareness of distinctions. Exciting times!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The word selfless is only relevant because of the popular beliefs surrounding 'self'. Forget the distorting belief and then selfless also becomes obsolete in terms of understanding, but yeah, that all sounded good to me :)

[jupiviv]

First you try to be nice and show me that we're both in agreement, and then when I persist in being critical you "strike back" because I'm not prepared to "play fair". Who is the egotist here?

I wasn't playing nice. I genuinely thought we were in agreement. I was wrong.

Well, we do agree to a certain extent, i.e., that consciousness causes things that are not it. And I never denied that we do (it was you who claimed that I "want" you to be wrong if I remember correctly). However, since you are on record arguing for consciousness being a sort of first cause, and for non-duality contra duality, I'd say that our agreement is very superficial. You are able to think for yourself, but your mental blocks are restraining your logic when it comes to these issues.

[jupiviv]

Depends on his definitions. If he defines self as the world around and inside of him, + the sound of his own thoughts + his sensations he feels, he could have a self. It could be like a rainbow colored soup, constantly flowing random magma, but the soup and magma still exists, there are certain properties that remain consistent in everyday people.

Precisely. Welcome to the forum, by the way. The "self" is unavoidable. Consciousness is a specific thing, that requires specific things to survive in the world - ergo, the self. There are two valid dilemmas I can think of that might be objected against such an assertion, at least within the context of *this* forum.

The first is the compatibility of this view - specific things requiring specific causes - with the view that causality is categorically true. Why are specific things required to cause other specific things if *all* things cause each other in the exact same way (causality being unconditionally true for all things)?

The second is about the self being the cause of delusion. When you believe in a self that must be protected at all costs, elevated over other selves and preserved for eternity, your will ignore certain aspects of reality and thus be deluded in thought and action.

The second dilemma is easier to dismantle than the first, since it makes more unnecessary assumptions. Anyway, that's something for you to think about (if you haven't already).

The question I have, is the forums seem to toss around the word "inherent existence" a lot. Not quite sure what is meant, inherent is kind of an ambiguous term. From what I gather, it seems to allude to the idea that objects cannot have a form without being inversely contrast by things which they are not. Not sure though, Google seems to tell me that it is some kind of Buddhist terminology.

I'd prefer it if you didn't start using it as well, because at the moment everyone else here tossing it around as you say (and hoping it sticks!). Yes, it is Buddhist terminology, and it has many interpretations. To me it just refers to incomplete thinking, which almost always results from our attachment to things or people we love, desire, need etc. Interestingly, the term itself ("swabhaav" in Sanksrit) does not appear in the earliest texts (presumably the words of the Buddha himself). It does, however, appear in the texts of some of the Vedanta schools (Avdhoot Geeta for example).

So it's "the nature of being" or teleology as its called in Western philosophy, and obviously different Oriental philosophers (like their Western counterparts) have had different views about it. I don't really care either way. However, my definition of the term is probably closest to that of the Madhyamik school (specifically Nagarjuna). You can find his material quite easily on the internet. Then there's the Shurangam sutra, also easily found online.

[throughthemud]

^ At best you've got beginners mind. Most likely you're just at the level of a clueless teenage hippy's mind.

That's helpful advice, not an attack. Use it and focus on learning.

It's not helpful advice, it seems like boosting your own ego and being insulting. I've been around clueless hippies and I am not like them and they are not real friends.

Helpful would entail some actual advice, which it does not. In my last thread, you exhibited similar behavior, bragging about how I don't know about life death and rebirth, and then when I asked you to tell me what you know about it, you didn't even respond.

For the rest of you, I've got to go, got an appointment. I will respond later

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Why do you need more advice or for me to answer your questions? You can learn from a thousand different sources, there's plenty to read on this forum for a start, you don't need my help. I provided my advice already.

[throughthemud]

Why do you need more advice or for me to answer your questions? You can learn from a thousand different sources, there's plenty to read on this forum for a start, you don't need my help. I provided my advice already.

I've been reading through forum posts, they are enjoyable romps and I pretty much loosely agree and can relate to many of the views.

If I could take a trip to your mind, what would I see? What is a day in your mind like? Anything peculiar about it? What do you know that I don't?

Read your post about extroverted judgement vs. introverted judging and I almost busted a gut. "Most people cannot judge themselves but they judge others." The sheer irony. I know you got a thousand more posts than I do but I am kind of tired of the human male vetting trope. Whenever a newcomer enters a group of human males, they get judged, insulted and vetted by the males with higher seniority. Look, I get it, you're just doing your thing, same thing you've been doing since a thousand years ago, but this Hollywood play's gotten a bit stale, it's time for some new flavor. Now, I know you've probably watched some of the menoftheinfinite vids, and the one about "Spiritual Friends" and how one must destroy a friends ego at any and all costs. I appreciate your gesture of friendship, but you are going about it all wrong. You can't post a negative review of something, without bothering to go into details, it comes off as incredibly lazy and unhelpful. And besides, my egos already been dead, you're just smashing what little pride I have left into little brick pieces. Maybe it's time to introspect - are you really being helpful, and are you really following the right protocols? The answer is probably no, the answer is you are acting like a female woman - being incredibly facetious and irritating. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, maybe I do have a Beginner's mind, but Truth is I don't even know what you are saying. Calling someone Beginner's mind is actually a compliment in Japan, but then you called me "a clueless hippie" which is most certainly not a compliment. Of course, you won't actually elaborate anything, just post snippy comments without any explanation, which is why I give you the title of "female woman". Not sure if you have a track record to back up that you aren't, I saw a whole thread with a whole chain of your deleted posts, your posts must have been incredibly bad if you felt the need to delete them from existence. I would like to derive some insights from you, but your whole attitude smells like a fraud guru, or a peckish troll, kind of like the old man who sets up a maze saying "all ye who are worthy" kind of deal. I can't even with this level of lethargy and disrespectfulness. Traditionally one is expected to cite one's sources. So I ask again - if I took a trip inside your mind, what would I find?

As far as your "insights" about me, probably they were derived because I have a lot of hypothesis about metaphysics and I display an interest in existential philosophy, and display a connection to my human body and talk about some social things, therefore you come to the erroneous conclusion about me that I am some kind of hippie. Couldn't be further from the case, I don't get along with hippies in real life and something about them I feel that I am much further evolved. But it's whatever, you can make erroneous connections if you wish. My ex-girlfriend was the same way, she was a philosopher type but she could never quite read or "get" me, she was more of a parrot than anything else and conflated her by-the-book attitude with philosophical brilliance, which of course it wasn't really brilliant but dry. Not saying you are the same as her. Don't really know much about you, so I ask again - If I took a trip inside your mind, what would I find? Second question I will ask is, you claim I don't understand death,rebirth, consciousness and life? So I ask again? What do you understand about it that I don't? Answer, lest ye come of as a facetious fraud.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

[quote="throughthemud"]
As far as your "insights" about me, probably they were derived because I have a lot of hypothesis about metaphysics [\quote]

Bingo.

The mass of 'hypothesis' about metaphysics you've provided - which I would call clear and undeniable signs that you are still deluded about the nature of reality - is exactly why I know you're not enlightened and at best have beginners mind, and because what you wrote sounds so similar to a stoned teenagers contemplations of metaphysics, that's the worst case. I pointed it out because earlier on you stated that you thought you were enlightened. I'm a strong believer that letting someone know of their ignorance is a kindness.

I already said there are thousands of sources. You neither need my help or any more of my advice. All you need to know is that you still have a lot to learn, and be willing. If you want to know more specifics, be honest and ask yourself. You know better than I do what bullshit you're pretending to know, and in more detail.

One step at a time, there's no rush.

[Russell Parr]

However, since you are on record arguing for consciousness being a sort of first cause, and for non-duality contra duality,

Since causality is infinite (as in boundless or simply nonfinite; not a numerical value), there is no first cause. Consciousness is merely a required aspect for any specific thing's existence, because causality is.. well, infinite. More on this below. Consciousness cannot perceive or conceive of the Infinite other than as a concept, or a symbol if you will. The Infinite is realized through logical reasoning.

As for non-duality contra duality, I don't oppose duality in the slightest. For example, when you say:

The "self" is unavoidable. Consciousness is a specific thing, that requires specific things to survive in the world - ergo, the self.

I find this completely true and utterly obvious. It is the function of consciousness to contrast a "self" with the rest of reality. With a bit of further reasoning, however, I understand that all things get their "thing-ness" by the same contrasting property of consciousness. Finites appear when conscious awareness "picks out" finites in an otherwise infinite reality. At bottom, there is only infinite causality. Where conscious awareness is caused, so are the appearances of things, or contrasts, or finites.

Does that make any more sense? What about to you, mud?

It seems that Seeker has a decent hunch about these things but I suspect that he has trouble consolidating insight with the experience of ego, for the ego hates the prospect of non-existence. When enlightenment is near, and a relapse occurs, the ego retaliates violently. I think his youth has something to do with this, as the ego is a bit more active and "louder" in younger folks, which is why he sort of lashes out a bit and is quick to point out the blindness (or what appears to be) in others. I know this was (and often still is) the case for me.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There was no egotistical action or intention of retaliation in me. Perhaps you added that to what you read based on your perception, it wasn't inherent in the writing or in me, nor do I hate anything. Pointing out any percieved blindness in others, whether it is there or not, is not an indication of egotism. It's a fair and logical thing to do, which you have done to me in this case. I don't disregard the possibility that I have perceived wrongly in Mud's case, he will know the answer to that, now or later.

As for me, I'm certain of my completion of realization, which culminates in coming to live and act in a completely open, aware and loving place. A place free of the darkness of lust, greed, hate, resentment, jealousy, worry, bad intentions, and perhaps most significantly, fear.

[jupiviv]

Consciousness cannot perceive or conceive of the Infinite other than as a concept, or a symbol if you will. The Infinite is realized through logical reasoning.

The Infinite is not a concept and can't be realised through any kind of reasoning. That's not the purpose of reason or concepts.

As for non-duality contra duality, I don't oppose duality in the slightest. For example, when you say:

The "self" is unavoidable. Consciousness is a specific thing, that requires specific things to survive in the world - ergo, the self.

I find this completely true and utterly obvious. It is the function of consciousness to contrast a "self" with the rest of reality. With a bit of further reasoning, however, I understand that all things get their "thing-ness" by the same contrasting property of consciousness. Finites appear when conscious awareness "picks out" finites in an otherwise infinite reality. At bottom, there is only infinite causality. Where conscious awareness is caused, so are the appearances of things, or contrasts, or finites.

Here you are bestowing upon consciousness the power to *create* contrasts rather than just causing *other* contrasts in the same way that they cause it, hence "first cause". You would be correct if you had just said that the since consciousness causes things by being aware of them and distinguishing them because that is what consciousness is. Similarly a rock causes other things by being a rock - since it is, after all, a rock.

It seems that Seeker has a decent hunch about these things but I suspect that he has trouble consolidating insight with the experience of ego, for the ego hates the prospect of non-existence. When enlightenment is near, and a relapse occurs, the ego retaliates violently. I think his youth has something to do with this, as the ego is a bit more active and "louder" in younger folks, which is why he sort of lashes out a bit and is quick to point out the blindness (or what appears to be) in others. I know this was (and often still is) the case for me.

Youth is not an issue because I am coetaneous (24+). A violent reaction to criticism is also not an issue if it's accompanied by *inward* acknowledgement and change. I've engaged him before, and he's the same obnoxious prat he was in the past. His views haven't changed at all. Rather, he hasn't even developed any views. His output consists of a helpful posture (that becomes indignant and obtuse when pinned down) and a permutation of material he has read that justifies his desire to turn the universe into a dream where he gets to choose what is "real".

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I've engaged him before, and he's the same obnoxious prat he was in the past. His views haven't changed at all. Rather, he hasn't even developed any views. His output consists of a helpful posture (that becomes indignant and obtuse when pinned down) and a permutation of material he has read that justifies his desire to turn the universe into a dream where he gets to choose what is "real".

I disagree.

Just thought I'd throw that out there :)