Talking to the wall is not Genius

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Mind and appearance changes, mind and appearance is temporal and finite. Truth does not change, truth is eternal. I assume you consider that your view of "mind and appearance is all" is absolute truth, which implies does it not that its truth exists regardless if mind and appearance acknowledges its existence? Therefore, I have shown to you that truth (the absolute) is different in nature than is mind and appearance (relativism).

I wouldn't say truth was a different nature. Distinguishing between the truth of mind and appearance, and mind and appearance, then using that to propose a different nature altogether, seems far fetched to me.

In response, if you actually try to explain it to me, then you necessarily acknowledge that a>> there are some things *I* don't know & b>> there are things outside of *your* consciousness (my consciousness) and about which *you* do not fully know (why I disagree with you, how to convince me otherwise).

Why does it matter if there are things of consciousness I don't know or you don't know? They are still things of consciousness, nowhere does that imply a realm different in nature.

how do you know that?

Good question, the answer is because your language is yet to be explained. For example, if you had instead proposed the existence of a bearded man on a sled carried by flying reindeer, this is at least something which has been described, and I would consider it possible. Yet the only proposition you've given so far is meaningless gibberish. Let me explain by example: when someone proposes "the end" of existence itself, such a person cannot describe what "the end" or non-existence is actually like, or what it is, so they haven't really said anything. If instead they do attempt to explain it, they will only be able to refer to some aspect of consciousness, such as the conceptualization of a darkness or void. So it is either not explained or properly defined (as you have failed to do so in regard to that which is different in nature from consciousness), or it is explained only by referring to sensations, concepts, feelings, and so on, all of which are aspects of what we refer to as consciousness.

You'll notice that you are yet to describe to me what it is that you are proposing exists which is apparently not consciousness, but instead differs in nature entirely. Give it a try, you'll only be able to describe it by referring to aspects of consciousness, or by simply asserting it is "unknown" or "hidden" as moving has done, though she did attempt again with her reference to absolute truth.

As I see it, the fundamentally flawed worldview of materialism is passed on and accepted unconditionally despite its illogic. There are many reasons this might occur, one of which may be the attempt to explain the consistency of sense-objects which apparently continues despite their appearance/observation.

I would say that you simply haven't had the insights which are necessary for you to understand this truth. Though they would probably occur in a matter of hours if you were to contemplate upon it. Perhaps due to prejudice and predisposition, like most others, you may have never spent time in honest truth-seeking contemplation of the 'core questions' of metaphysics. Again I should make clear that very few people engage in honest truth-seeking contemplation without the blinding dust of clinging in regards to prejudice, predisposition, hearsay, conjecture, popular opinion, and what they've been taught. So I am not saying that you have failed in your logical investigation into the nature of reality, but just that you have probably never attempted it, that you have, like all those with the mindset of a teenager, written LAWL in reply to anything which goes against what you've heard and clung too. Honesty is something very hard won.

My advice: sit alone in silence without any books or screens. I'm not sure if you're the 'type' to ridicule such activity, but if so it would only be because you don't yet understand that you personally have the greatest possible capability for insight into the nature of reality. No one that has ever existed has had a closer tie to reality, or a better "viewing-seat", so to speak. I say that explanation is less efficient than personal exploration of provided advice and methods, sometimes explanation is entirely futile, but I believe you could 'solve' this discussion in a short time.

Seeker, you are not following your own rules of efficient communication.

I agree, and I proposed the possibility to gauge the situation, but as far as I can reasonably assume, if I were to communicate in such a way, it may lead to me being banned, which is the least effective method of communication. So I'd like to hear Diebert elaborate on this. What are the 'rules' of posting? Can one stick to short comments, as long as they are varied? (Rather than endlessly repeated as we've seen in the past)

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: I wouldn't say truth was a different nature. Distinguishing between the truth of mind and appearance, and mind and appearance, then using that to propose a different nature altogether, seems far fetched to me.

In hindsight, by 'nature' I was referring to one's psychological nature, which ultimately is all that really matters. I dare say that having the truth of the eternal nature of causes and conditions (right view of how reality works) produces/causes the psychological nature of logical clarity resulting in peace of mind and happiness while not having the truth of the eternal nature of causes and conditions produces/causes the psychological nature of emotional confusion resulting in chronic anxiety and unhappiness.

[jupiviv]

In response, if you actually try to explain it to me, then you necessarily acknowledge that a>> there are some things *I* don't know & b>> there are things outside of *your* consciousness (my consciousness) and about which *you* do not fully know (why I disagree with you, how to convince me otherwise).

Why does it matter if there are things of consciousness I don't know or you don't know? They are still things of consciousness, nowhere does that imply a realm different in nature.

You are contradicting your own premise, which is that there is no Reality apart from what you *know*. If all things are *fundamentally* of the nature of consciousness, then what is the *factor* of our disagreement? Shouldn't we be in complete agreement? Shouldn't the essential (at least) contents of my thoughts be lucid to you? And if you say that I am ignorant, or misguided, then you should be so as well, given that we both share the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Indeed, why have you even created this thread, which is supposedly about problems of communicating wisdom? If all things are of the same nature, and that nature is consciousness (thoughts, sensations etc.), then ipso facto everything's fine! G'day mate!

You'll notice that you are yet to describe to me what it is that you are proposing exists which is not consciousness, but differs in nature entirely.

Nothing differs in nature "entirely", which I've already made clear above and in previous posts.

Give it a try, you'll only be able to describe it by referring to aspects of consciousness, or by mentioning some "unknown/hidden reality" as moving has done, though she did attempt again with her reference to absolute truth. This is the dilemma of consciousness, and as I see it, the fundamentally flawed worldview of materialism was simply passed on despite its illogic. There are probably many reasons this occurs, one of which may be the attempt to explain the consistency in reality which apparently continues despite observation.

I've addressed these arguments already, and without rebuttals from you. Nevertheless, I'll give a short explanation - things that are not conscious (like a pebble) are not identifiable as conscious things, because they are not. Attempting to prove otherwise is a Sisyphean hell of sophistry, because the only way to prove it is to arbitrarily, and dishonestly, alter definitions. A description is a function of consciousness, but it does not follow from this fact that the thing *described* is also such. If you try to prove that it does, then you need to change the definition of a description, which will nullify your proof. Likewise with sensations - they require *sensed* objects, so you need to alter the definition arbitrarily in order to prove otherwise.

It's basically a form of petitio principii - statements within the premiss itself are suitable paraphrases of each other. Parts of the premiss prove each other, and therefore the premiss itself.

P is true
Q is true where P is true
R is true where Q or P are true
P is true where R is true

[SeekerOfWisdom]

things that are not conscious (like a pebble) are not identifiable as conscious things, because they are not.

Of course a pebble isn't conscious, what are you on about? Something has to be conscious itself for it to be a thing of consciousness? What about a dream or a thought? No one ever implied the pebble was conscious and that has nothing to do with the discussion. I said it was a thing of consciousness, 'lawl'.

Shouldn't we be in complete agreement?

A perfect example of your endless time wasting failures of logic. What does everything being of the nature of consciousness have to do with what you know or what I know? All I've said is that an external realm which is different in nature from consciousness does not exist, that you only imagine it to exist. That doesn't change reality or make us telepathic, nor does logic imply so, you dolt.

(like a pebble)

You continuously fail to realize that when you write the word "pebble" you are only referring to your sensations. You then go on to say that "pebble" (an object of sensation) is not of consciousness.

"My advice: sit alone in silence without any books or screens. I'm not sure if you're the 'type' to ridicule such activity, but if so it would only be because you don't yet understand that you personally have the greatest possible capability for insight into the nature of reality. No one that has ever existed has had a closer tie to reality, or a better "viewing-seat", so to speak. I say that explanation is less efficient than personal exploration of provided advice and methods, sometimes explanation is entirely futile, but I believe you could 'solve' this discussion in a short time."

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv wrote:
(like a pebble)

Seeker: You continuously fail to realize that when you write the word "pebble" you are only referring to your sensations. You then go on to say that "pebble" (an object of sensation) is not of consciousness.

Jupiviv's concept of "pebble" is of the nature of consciousness, however, the physical pebble he holds in his hand is not of the nature of consciousness (is external to consciousness).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Jupiviv's concept of "pebble" is of the nature of consciousness, however, the physical pebble he holds in his hand is not of the nature of consciousness (is external to consciousness).

The 'physical pebble', and 'the hand', are all references to sensations. It's all you're capable of referring to. You simply imagine that the senses and the sense-object are some reflection of a hidden realm different from consciousness.

[Pam Seeback]

Jupiviv's concept of "pebble" is of the nature of consciousness, however, the physical pebble he holds in his hand is not of the nature of consciousness (is external to consciousness).

The 'physical pebble', and 'the hand', are all references to sensations. It's all you're capable of referring to. You simply imagine that the senses and the sense-object are some reflection of a hidden realm different from consciousness.

No, sensations are not all I am capable of referring to. I can refer to the law of causality responsible for the pebble and the hand for the consciousness that perceives both, a law that can be proven by logical deduction.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No, sensations are not all I am capable of referring to. I can refer to the law of causality responsible for the pebble and the hand for the consciousness that perceives both, a law that can be proven by logical deduction.

I was referring to aspects of consciousness, ideas such as that one count. You are mistaking the role of 'logical deduction' and are using it to imagine that which is not there, similar to a child's imaginings. I wonder how many have 'logically deduced' that which is "hidden" in the past, such as God. Logic, i.e. thought, cannot be used to create or correctly infer a 'hidden reality' different in nature from consciousness itself. It's totally backwards reasoning and not logical at all. Reality determines what is logical, logic does not create or even infer what is real.

What you're essentially saying is that you've recognized the prevalence of relations in regard to your experience (consciousness), this principle you have called 'causality', then you have (erroneously) applied this logic to reduce consciousness itself to merely being a factor or aspect of that very principle? It's contradictory at its very core.

It's remarkable really, you reason as if the concept alone resided as transcendent over consciousness, rather than merely being a manifestation of it. There's more to it, but that's what I'll leave you with for now.

[jupiviv]

things that are not conscious (like a pebble) are not identifiable as conscious things, because they are not.

Of course a pebble isn't conscious, what are you on about? Something has to be conscious itself for it to be a thing of consciousness? What about a dream or a thought? No one ever implied the pebble was conscious and that has nothing to do with the discussion. I said it was a thing of consciousness, 'lawl'.

If X is of Y, then X is usually considered to be an instance of Y. A revolver of polymer, for example, is made up of polymers except for barrel, spring and the rest of the firing mechanism. It is an instance, albeit imperfect, of the type "polymer".

Besides, a pebble isn't even a "thing of consciousness" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. It is a rock smoothened by hydraulic action, and composed mostly of SiO2.

Shouldn't we be in complete agreement?

A perfect example of your endless time wasting failures of logic. What does everything being of the nature of consciousness have to do with what you know or what I know? All I've said is that an external realm which is different in nature from consciousness does not exist, that you only imagine it to exist. That doesn't change reality or make us telepathic, nor does logic imply so, you dolt.

More au contraire BS I see. Your premise does, in fact, imply that if both of us fundamentally share the nature of consciousness, there should be no discrepancies in our reasoning and knowledge of one another's consciousness. Neither ignorance nor conflicting views make sense in a reality made up of "things of consciousness", which only permits the existence of an atrociously demarcated category of mental events.

You continuously fail to realize that when you write the word "pebble" you are only referring to your sensations. You then go on to say that "pebble" (an object of sensation) is not of consciousness.

??? Bub, your mouth is big enough for all the words you're putting into mine. I can distinguish an actual pebble, the sensation of one and the thought of one well enough.

Where have you refuted the fact that sensations require sensed objects? Where is your proof or reasoning for the stupid assertion that identification and sensations are mental acts and therefore so are their objects? You're conflating a claim with a rational justification for that claim.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I can distinguish an actual pebble, the sensation of one and the thought of one well enough.

It's near impossible to explain how nonsensical you are. You do realize that all you've 'got' is consciousness right? That it makes up the entirety of your insight and knowledge? All you have of "the pebble" are the sensations arising of consciousness. You cannot distinguish between seeing the pebble and the sensation of it. At least movingalways acknowledges that the proposition is one of a hidden reality, while you do not. You are claiming that there is some aspect of reality which continues to exist independent of any consciousness or observation, then go on to say you can distinguish this reality? If you could distinguish the "actual pebble" via consciousness from "the sensation of one", then you would immediately be contradicting your own claim that it continues to exist independent of consciousness.

You seem to have no understanding of the differences between materialism and idealism, and don't realize that even from the viewpoint of materialism, your access to the proposed external/different nature of reality is still limited to consciousness.

Where have you refuted the fact that sensations require sensed objects?

That's not how "facts" or refutations work. That consciousness exists is undeniable and undisputed by all of us, don't you agree that there is consciousness? See, we both agree. Here I am saying, "There is consciousness", then you say "yes, there is consciousness, I agree", then you go on to make a second claim: that objects exist independent of or as different from consciousness. I say "I disagree" and you say "You have to refute this fact and provide proof".

The 'burden of proof' falls to you, whether you're right or wrong.

Now, so long as that is clear, (actually, it is a fact), I'll go on to say that this has gone on for long enough, I really only consider you as having a very mediocre intelligence, with very little insight. Your reasoning resembles that of a teenager making claims by quoting that which they know absolutely nothing about. You belong in the youtube comments section, not here, and I have proof below!

"If X is of Y, then X is usually considered to be an instance of Y"

Classic teenage youtube comment material, seriously, you would shine.

Your mind is clearly only working out of the grounding of 'the programmer', you refer to second-hand scientific knowledge, talking about things you did not personally test and don't understand:

smoothened by hydraulic action, and composed mostly of SiO2.

Then you try to use mathematical reasoning in a discussion about metaphysics and philosophy. You're a 'science-kid' materialist on a forum about "enlightenment", specifically, the Buddha's enlightenment is referenced on this forum. A word which in this case refers to an idealist (Buddha was an idealist), and is historically used by many other gurus and yogis who were also idealists. Shouldn't you be on another forum arguing about quantum physics under the guise of a pretense of understanding?

"There is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself" -Buddha (Attributed as such, and this is only one of many)

Anyway, if you had demonstrated a genuine attempt rather than a boyish 'lawl' attitude, then maybe I could overlook your repeated fallacies. That's not the case, the only option seems to be to hide your posts and brush you off as just another cahoot or ardy, so that's what I will do. Not because of your view, but because this is the definition of "talking to the wall", the topic of the thread which you ignored despite its obvious relevance.

[jupiviv]

I can distinguish an actual pebble, the sensation of one and the thought of one well enough.

It's near impossible to explain how nonsensical you are. You do realize that all you've 'got' is consciousness right? That it makes up the entirety of your insight and knowledge? All you have of "the pebble" are the sensations arising of consciousness. You cannot distinguish between seeing the pebble and the sensation of it. At least movingalways acknowledges that the proposition is one of a hidden reality, while you do not. You are claiming that there is some aspect of reality which continues to exist independent of any consciousness or observation, then go on to say you can distinguish this reality? If you could distinguish the "actual pebble" via consciousness from "the sensation of one", then you would immediately be contradicting your own claim that it continues to exist independent of consciousness.

Whatever appears to consciousness is real. In the case of sensations, the reason we know they require sensed objects is because that is *how* they appear. Sensations can be shown to be caused by physical things. The same physical things can be shown to affect both sensations and other parts of the body. Try smoking 15 cigarettes back to back and see if you don't get a sore throat, headache and temporary loss of olfaction.

And that's not even the point here. The very definition of a sensation *requires* a sensed object, so even in terms of mere logic your point is nipped in the bud. If you negate the existence of the *object* of sensations, you negate the definition of a sensation. That's fine by itself, but you can't use the new definition to refute the old one.

Also, why do you persist in putting words in my mouth? In this case, that things exist independently of consciousness.

You seem to have no understanding of the differences between materialism and idealism, and don't realize that even from the viewpoint of materialism, your access to the proposed external/different nature of reality is still limited to consciousness.

Look, I'll be honest: you're a bit out of depth here. Let's just stick to the arguments themselves.

That's not how "facts" or refutations work. That consciousness exists is undeniable and undisputed by all of us, don't you agree that there is consciousness? See, we both agree. Here I am saying, "There is consciousness", then you say "yes, there is consciousness, I agree", then you go on to make a second claim: that objects exist independent of or as different from consciousness. I say "I disagree" and you say "You have to refute this fact and provide proof".

The 'burden of proof' falls to you, whether you're right or wrong.

No, that *is* how it works. Give reasons why non-conscious things cannot exist, why the vast majority of people conflate them with conscious things, and why it is even possible to conceive of non-conscious things in a consciousness-exclusive universe. These are all positive claims. Any reasons or proofs you have provided for them so far are *invalid*, as I have explained before here and in other threads. If you think otherwise, then please rationally disqualify my refutations of them. You haven't done so yet.

Anyway, if you had demonstrated a genuine attempt rather than a boyish 'lawl' attitude, then maybe I could overlook your repeated fallacies. That's not the case, the only option seems to be to hide your posts and brush you off as just another cahoot or ardy, so that's what I will do. Not because of your view, but because this is the definition of "talking to the wall", the topic of the thread which you ignored despite its obvious relevance.

The "lawl" attitude...right. As opposed to your adolescent affectations over intellectual dissent? This isn't personal. If you don't understand why you're wrong, some other reader might. But since there don't seem to be many of them around, I don't particularly care if you "hide" (lawl) my posts. Make my day you maladroit wiener.

[Pam Seeback]

No, sensations are not all I am capable of referring to. I can refer to the law of causality responsible for the pebble and the hand for the consciousness that perceives both, a law that can be proven by logical deduction.

I was referring to aspects of consciousness, ideas such as that one count. You are mistaking the role of 'logical deduction' and are using it to imagine that which is not there, similar to a child's imaginings. I wonder how many have 'logically deduced' that which is "hidden" in the past, such as God. Logic, i.e. thought, cannot be used to create or correctly infer a 'hidden reality' different in nature from consciousness itself. It's totally backwards reasoning and not logical at all. Reality determines what is logical, logic does not create or even infer what is real.

What you're essentially saying is that you've recognized the prevalence of relations in regard to your experience (consciousness), this principle you have called 'causality', then you have (erroneously) applied this logic to reduce consciousness itself to merely being a factor or aspect of that very principle? It's contradictory at its very core.

It's remarkable really, you reason as if the concept alone resided as transcendent over consciousness, rather than merely being a manifestation of it. There's more to it, but that's what I'll leave you with for now.

Your practice of telling me what I am thinking rather than sticking to reasoning ideas and doctrines is for me, a formidable barrier to communication. It is my experience that when the "you" projection is not used, clarity shines through. I am happy to continue our metaphysical discussion if there is mutual agreement to use our "I" and only our "I", be it stated or implied.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whatever appears to consciousness is real.

It's not very helpful then for distinguishing dream from wake, illusion from actuality or truth from falsehood. Some meaningless application of "real" if I ever heard one!

Sensations can be shown to be caused by physical things.

The physicality of a thing is only meaningful as idea if it involves the senses directly. OF course one can extent the word "thing" to mean causality itself, all possible processes and events connected to the rising of a sensation -- but I suspect you're thinking of something else here.

If you negate the existence of the *object* of sensations, you negate the definition of a sensation.

Sensations are just a way broader category here. One can derive or imply a physicality of a process of some kind. But technically one is experiencing the sensation, not the "thing" as that could be experienced in too many ways to be distinguishable just by sensation. The identity lies in our sensation, how it appears to our mind as feel-sense or thought-sense, no matter.

It's important to have this kind of stuff defined properly before discussing anything metaphysically. no wonder so much frustration surfaces with these discussions. Getting to a shared concept of "real", "thing", "meaning" and "truth" would really help.

But it's probably not going to happen. These definitions are normally wrapped up in what we think we are, how we move and operate in life and so on. It's not something one can easily adjust for the sake of a discussion. Although sometimes it's also as simple of using fundamentally different frameworks. At the exterior the commonalities live and exchanges are easy peasy but at the interior a private universe somehow came to live, somehow functions, which can only be shared with the greatest efforts and the smallest glimpses.

The aim of spirituality is in my view the collapse of that universe while the surface remains intact (it's "empty" as it ever was). In most cases however we'd not survive that. That's why we generally don't. And yet the possibility, the hearsay attracts us, tempts us to unwrap a bit further. A lot is stake here, ultimately, existentially spoken, not in terms of the games we must play.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I simply don't deem causality as being some description of the absolute fundamental nature of reality, but rather as being closer to a 'worldly' explanation for relations and relationship.

Indeed, as far one views the nature of reality (or its meaningful aspect) as being relational, that's when causality as idea makes the most sense. In effect, this is the case whenever one tries to describe a fundamental nature of reality, as it's addressing as well the world, the essential, relational nature of it. Reflecting upon relations are the skeleton and life blood of what we call "meaning". Talking about meaningless things is, well, meaningless. But not beyond experiencing in some fashion of course. However, that will never "make sense" beyond some deep elemental ambiguity here.

Whether it's God, the infinite amorphous realm of causality, the invisible source of awareness beyond all form, or the "mind-independent" physical realm of the materialist, it often seems to be an attempt to reduce. Reduce the existence you know...

Existence is indeed a reduction since it's still a carving up. Existence is also hollow like things are found to be empty. It's possible to arrive by applying reason at the insight that nothing actually exists unless one calls it "god" or "causality".

Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.

It's better to start with one reality which determines nothing in particular. Logic is just as well a thriving vein of reality, of Tao. But this piece of dirt as well. So we're still left with preferring one over the other. And it's already happening. It doesn't need to "get done". Examining ones own actions, choices, preferences and movements -- it's not like you don't care. The mind is shaped to care, to create beyond itself in terms of ideal, of perfections. One is already doing it, conscious or not, projecting it on this or that, anything can serve as a screen for it. Wisdom then becomes understanding of what is already happening, in higher definition. But this exposition, this making it all explicit has consequences too. One of it is wisdom becoming its reverse, yet again: ignorance.

It happened many times before. Once you see it happening before and behind your eyes, it's understood. Is it a problem though?

[Pam Seeback]

I simply don't deem causality as being some description of the absolute fundamental nature of reality, but rather as being closer to a 'worldly' explanation for relations and relationship.

Indeed, as far one views the nature of reality (or its meaningful aspect) as being relational, that's when causality as idea makes the most sense. In effect, this is the case whenever one tries to describe a fundamental nature of reality, as it's addressing as well the world, the essential, relational nature of it. Reflecting upon relations are the skeleton and life blood of what we call "meaning". Talking about meaningless things is, well, meaningless. But not beyond experiencing in some fashion of course. However, that will never "make sense" beyond some deep elemental ambiguity here.

Whether it's God, the infinite amorphous realm of causality, the invisible source of awareness beyond all form, or the "mind-independent" physical realm of the materialist, it often seems to be an attempt to reduce. Reduce the existence you know...

Existence is indeed a reduction since it's still a carving up. Existence is also hollow like things are found to be empty. It's possible to arrive by applying reason at the insight that nothing actually exists unless one calls it "god" or "causality".

Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.

It's better to start with one reality which determines nothing in particular. Logic is just as well a thriving vein of reality, of Tao. But this piece of dirt as well. So we're still left with preferring one over the other. And it's already happening. It doesn't need to "get done". Examining ones own actions, choices, preferences and movements -- it's not like you don't care. The mind is shaped to care, to create beyond itself in terms of ideal, of perfections. One is already doing it, conscious or not, projecting it on this or that, anything can serve as a screen for it. Wisdom then becomes understanding of what is already happening, in higher definition. But this exposition, this making it all explicit has consequences too. One of it is wisdom becoming its reverse, yet again: ignorance.

It happened many times before. Once you see it happening before and behind your eyes, it's understood. Is it a problem though?

The truth that consciousness is relational and has no absolute or objective status but must function as if it has is only a problem when this truth is unrealized.

One would think that once one realizes that consciousness is relational that one would no longer care about "doing the right (absolute/perfect) thing" but as it turns out, the survival of consciousness depends on this very caring. Who hasn't dreamed of surrendering to relational, distinction-blurring bliss, even participated via drug taking or meditation at some point in their life? But it doesn't take long to realize that to do so means to fall into unconsciousness.

The awake person then accepts this unique/peculiar nature of the "I" of consciousness.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I am happy to continue our metaphysical discussion if there is mutual agreement to use our "I" and only our "I", be it stated or implied

Ok, one way of describing it in language:

I am absolutely certain that the nature of reality is the same as the nature of experience or being which is referred to as consciousness. Without any opposing view, I would simply call it "reality" rather than consciousness.

Thought is nothing more than impermanent appearance of consciousness, like all else. It cannot be used to reason the existence of that which is not consciousness. Thought does not transcend its own nature. Thought arises and is oft described as a sort of narration. A narration of differentiation creating a story of the world and a seeming of stability, which one may cling on to and believe in. Beings naturally seek a platform or grounding.

Strike this one kind of appearance from your attention for but a moment, and poof, the existence of that which is "hidden", and the possibility of such, disappears.

All that's left is the reality of what is referred to as 'mind and appearance'.

To understand, one requires a full realization of the prevalence of clinging to "imagination". So powerful is this clinging and seeking for a platform that one can even believe in deities, or in this case, entire hidden realms which do not exist except in thought.

Does this in any way reduce the usefulness or truth finding capability of thinking? No, it simply points out its worldly, transient, or "appearance" nature. Without clinging to or 'absolutizing' thought, the truth of consciousness and the truth of the impermanence of appearances are self-evident at all times, they do not require language or idea.

Lengthy meditation/solitary contemplation may be necessary to 'see'/understand this.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: Thought is nothing more than impermanent appearance of consciousness, like all else. It cannot be used to reason the existence of that which is not consciousness. Thought does not transcend its own nature. Thought arises and is oft described as a sort of narration. A narration of differentiation creating a story of the world and a seeming of stability, which one may cling on to and believe in. Beings naturally seek a platform or grounding.

As I see it, "the impermanent appearance of consciousness" is suggesting the same 'thing' as "consciousness being caused (to appear)". "Being caused" is not an acknowledgment of a hidden realm of deities or a grounding, nor is it a thought trying to transcend a thought, nor is it a declaration of something existing. It is simply a way of explaining/reasoning the fluidity of the "ocean" of relativity that is reality and the appearance of "its" wave we call consciousness.

Having said this, I acknowledge that clinging to the concept of an absolute realm (a platform or grounding of perfect understanding) was once a part of my metaphysical narration.

[jupiviv]

Whatever appears to consciousness is real.

It's not very helpful then for distinguishing dream from wake, illusion from actuality or truth from falsehood. Some meaningless application of "real" if I ever heard one!

It isn't "meaningless" to distinguish between what can appear and what cannot. Even falsehood appears as a mental process or a deception evincing ignorance or denial of truth, which is itself real. The only thing that doesn't appear, yet is real, is the source of the real. It has to be believed in; a belief in anything else is necessarily a lie - conscious or otherwise.

Sensations can be shown to be caused by physical things.

The physicality of a thing is only meaningful as idea if it involves the senses directly. OF course one can extent the word "thing" to mean causality itself, all possible processes and events connected to the rising of a sensation -- but I suspect you're thinking of something else here.

Are you saying the senses pervade physicality? Why then are the senses limited even for palpable things? You can't see me.

Causality is with you always, so extending the meaning of things to mean it is supererogatory. But my point was simple enough - sensed objects are among the physical things that cause sensations, ergo sensations are not sensed objects.

If you negate the existence of the *object* of sensations, you negate the definition of a sensation.

one is experiencing the sensation, not the "thing" as that could be experienced in too many ways to be distinguishable just by sensation. The identity lies in our sensation, how it appears to our mind as feel-sense or thought-sense, no matter.

It's *because* the sensed object is experienced in many ways that it is distinguishable through sensation. All the experiences of it include the sensation of it. To invalidate that definition one needs to experience it without any sensation.

It's important to have this kind of stuff defined properly before discussing anything metaphysically. no wonder so much frustration surfaces with these discussions. Getting to a shared concept of "real", "thing", "meaning" and "truth" would really help.

I've defined those things quite clearly, and shown why SeekerOfWisdom's definitions of them are either misguided or wrong. But one cannot reason *for* others, which is the "wrapping" you talk about. However, those with any potential for wisdom will always stop to question their *anger* over a viewpoint or criticism concerning wisdom, even if it happens to be wrong.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The truth that consciousness is relational and has no absolute or objective status but must function as if it has is only a problem when this truth is unrealized.

You again with your "problem". It's indeed truth that is always relational: "truth as subjectivity". That's why there's the absolute but not the absolute truth -- because where would it relate to but itself?.

Of course we can also speak of consciousness being relational in terms of the object and subject. The difference is that consciousness generally relates to an individual experience of what's true or false. The idea of truth however implies something beyond this without invoking the complexities of shared conscious processes. Truth as a particular kind of idea, clearly not bound by one individual or medium and yet not constant in form and manifestation either. Like wisdom itself.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It is simply a way of explaining/reasoning the fluidity of the "ocean" of relativity that is reality and the appearance of "its" wave we call consciousness.

The ocean of relativity or reality that you say consciousness is a wave of- and therefore you imply reality must have different aspects which are not of the nature 'consciousness'- doesn't exist. The nature of consciousness is the same nature as any ocean of relativity you perceive or reason. Consciousness, or 'mind and appearance', including any specific appearance, ultimately have no causes, whether specific, infinite or unknown. (Again, the word consciousness then becomes meaningless and can be replaced with existence or reality.) Appearances are spoken of as being relational to each other, as they arise following and preceding each other, and what we notice about those relations we call causality. But that's all they are, appearances. The spark and the fuel do not cause the flame.

[Pam Seeback]

Now that you believe you know the nature of consciousness, so what, or more specifically, now what? I believe this to be the critical post-enlightenment question, the true 'act of genius', aka finding one's (impermanent) reason to remain conscious.

[Pam Seeback]

The truth that consciousness is relational and has no absolute or objective status but must function as if it has is only a problem when this truth is unrealized.

You again with your "problem". It's indeed truth that is always relational: "truth as subjectivity". That's why there's the absolute but not the absolute truth -- because where would it relate to but itself?.

Of course we can also speak of consciousness being relational in terms of the object and subject. The difference is that consciousness generally relates to an individual experience of what's true or false. The idea of truth however implies something beyond this without invoking the complexities of shared conscious processes. Truth as a particular kind of idea, clearly not bound by one individual or medium and yet not constant in form and manifestation either. Like wisdom itself.

Wisdom is independent of shared conscious processes of good and evil, right and wrong, true and false, etc., for example the primary truth idea of no-self (eliminating the concept of subject and object). However, having wisdom of no-self does not stop consciousness from operating as if it is still ignorant, as if there is a self. After all, its very reason d'etre is "idea of self."

This idea of "problem" for which you give me a hard time :-) seems to be inherent in consciousness in the sense that it's "idea of self" drives it to find contrast for no reason except to find contrast. The idea of "problem" also implies the idea of a "solution."

Problem: Idea-of-self acts like a hunter (lover) with a bow and arrow searching for a target (beloved) who knows the bow, the arrow and the target are ultimately (actually) himself - the Divine Comedy indeed!

Solution: Reasoning that upon death of the body (consciousness) that the wise can put down their bow and arrow never to pick it up again (back to the idea of truth - wisdom - being independent of consciousness). This reasoning relates to the Buddhist idea of stopping the turning of the wheel of birth and death.

Note that I am not saying (any more) that reasoning the putting down of the bow and arrow of consciousness is absolute truth. However, to me, it makes damn fine sense!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Lots of people wishing for immortality, and here moving is going for an never ending Rest In Peace.

Existence is endless, the wisdom of eternal life allows one to be liberated from many things, such as the belief in duty and the fear of death/loss, as does recognition of the ephemeral nature of the worldly. The "now what" is to allow the wisdom of causality to continue to guide one away from suffering and toward *insert your stuff here*, so long as you understand that 'the mind at rest', or a 'being finished with consciousness of form' will only ever be temporary. This is not a negative thing, you can still get plenty of rest, but it's true, your 'problem' is a meaning-making, it's no matter either way.

the bow, the arrow and the target are ultimately (actually) himself - the Divine Comedy indeed!

Picture Jupiviv programming on monday morning. The great comedy is the belief in duty, or the hysteria of the woman experiencing loss. I wonder about the extreme prevalence of ignorance in the world, it reminds me of the bible and the devil, it is as if ignorance is a constant force, like gravity. Oh well, the supposedly wrongly attributed internet Buddha quote: "There has to be evil, so that good can prove its purity above it." - Buddha

[jupiviv]

having wisdom of no-self does not stop consciousness from operating as if it is still ignorant, as if there is a self. After all, its very reason d'etre is "idea of self."

Doesn't this mean that wisdom can't be attained?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It isn't "meaningless" to distinguish between what can appear and what cannot. Even falsehood appears as a mental process or a deception evincing ignorance or denial of truth, which is itself real. The only thing that doesn't appear, yet is real, is the source of the real. It has to be believed in; a belief in anything else is necessarily a lie - conscious or otherwise.

How do you determine "what cannot appear"? Couldn't it appear to do so anyway, as falsehood?

As for the "source of the real", it's really undefined isn't it? A whole universe of causes which "cannot appear" but are real to you. Since you cannot distinguish between real appearing effects and real non-appearing causes, such distinction would become meaningless. It would me more consistent to say that cause and effect is real: appearance here being effect, the source being cause.

Are you saying the senses pervade physicality? Why then are the senses limited even for palpable things?

The physicality you're invoking here is an abstract, like a physical model of some kind. It's something we can only relate as long we can link it to a memory of a sense experience: something we saw, touched or lifted. Like "the Earth has an area of about 200 million square miles". That's 127877236000 football pitches or 17000 Belgiums. You need to relate to something in your memory to "make sense" of the numbers. You need to make sense or attribute meaning first. That's sensibility!

sensed objects are among the physical things that cause sensations, ergo sensations are not sensed objects.

The object does not equal the sensed object, you mean? That's true but that's because the object "in itself" does not even exist that way. It exists as appearance, which is captured by the sense (eg "mentation"). But even that appearance we cannot really capture as so much is already happening through interpretation and memory processing that it doesn't stand still anywhere; it keeps adding or losing attributes or definition. Only by the mighty power of abstraction we can arrive at a faith in some "original object" out there being part of the causal processes. All we've done here is modelling, making meaning and procedure to go through our "things". It determines our "functioning". But should we then attribute "existence" to something beyond the sense making?