GENIUS FORUMS

The purpose of this post is to address the idea of ethics in relation to the philosophical logic that brings one to the realization of one's infinite causal nature. How does the realization of one's infinite causal nature effect the philosophy of ethics? Simply put, it overrides or transcends it. Why does the realization of one's infinite causal nature override or transcend the philosophy of ethics? Because when one realizes the logical truth of their infinite (nondual) causal nature, dual ideas such as good and bad simply cannot co-exist with this realization.

Does this mean that the one who has transcended the duality of good and evil by way of philosophical logic becomes some sort of vacant automaton or selfish madman? No, because at the heart of logical inquiry is the (caused) question 'what is true' and its (caused) answer 'this is true.' Logically then, what is true is always of a higher understanding than what is good or what is evil.

An important causal truth relevant to the subject matter of this post: the pursuit of ethics (duality, contradiction) leads one to the pursuit of truth (nonduality, non contradiction); it can never be the reverse.

Ethics after Enlightenment is handled the same as with all instances of empiricism; to the best of one's abilities with the information available, with logic. As Enlightenment is the will to wisdom, and sentient beings are the vehicle for this will, the purpose of ethics is to determine the best way to promote, protect, and facilitate wisdom through self and others.

Since the enlightened are ever focused on the All or the infinite rather than the finite, empirical logical ethics of good and evil and right and wrong do not apply. If they do, then the mind remains divided in understanding the totality of Self identity. Instead of the ethics of empirical attachment, what is being analyzed of the conscience of the enlightened is the question of ignorance and wisdom: is this 'person' entering my consciousness ignorant/unconscious of their infinite nature or is 'he or she' awakened to/conscious of their infinite nature? And from this understanding, the enlightened proceed to either engage the person in conversations about wisdom of the infinite or they do not. If it is to be a conventional conversation rather than a conversation about wisdom, concepts of good and evil and right and wrong are not brought up. To do so would only serve to deepen that person's ignorance of attachment to the finite.

Complete enlightenment demands that one leave ethics behind. The world won't, because it can't, understand this leaving of what it deems to be of ultimate value and instead, interpret such actions in the only way it knows how, negatively (versus positively). Recent conversations on this board give evidence of world response to the apparent (to them) amoral or even immoral actions of the wise of Infinite Self.

movingalways wrote:Since the enlightened are ever focused on the All or the infinite rather than the finite, empirical logical ethics of good and evil and right and wrong do not apply. If they do, then the mind remains divided in understanding the totality of Self identity. Instead of the ethics of empirical attachment, what is being analyzed of the conscience of the enlightened is the question of ignorance and wisdom: is this 'person' entering my consciousness ignorant/unconscious of their infinite nature or is 'he or she' awakened to/conscious of their infinite nature? And from this understanding, the enlightened proceed to either engage the person in conversations about wisdom of the infinite or they do not. If it is to be a conventional conversation rather than a conversation about wisdom, concepts of good and evil and right and wrong are not brought up. To do so would only serve to deepen that person's ignorance of attachment to the finite.

The Enlightened aren't constantly focused on anything in particular. Focusing on the All is for those that seek to overcome delusional thoughts and habits.

Using concepts like good/evil, right/wrong isn't necessarily a delusional act. It is not delusional to tell someone they are going about spirituality in a wrong or evil manner. Language itself is inherently immersed in contrasts and dualities. The goal of the path is to gain the ability to effortlessly see through and beyond duality, despite its necessity in usage and experience.

Complete enlightenment demands that one leave ethics behind. The world won't, because it can't, understand this leaving of what it deems to be of ultimate value and instead, interpret such actions in the only way it knows how, negatively (versus positively).

The only thing left behind is attachment. Again, ethics are a tool, and is used when it is called for, and set aside and forgotten when it's use isn't needed.

movingalways wrote:
Since the enlightened are ever focused on the All or the infinite rather than the finite, empirical logical ethics of good and evil and right and wrong do not apply. If they do, then the mind remains divided in understanding the totality of Self identity. Instead of the ethics of empirical attachment, what is being analyzed of the conscience of the enlightened is the question of ignorance and wisdom: is this 'person' entering my consciousness ignorant/unconscious of their infinite nature or is 'he or she' awakened to/conscious of their infinite nature? And from this understanding, the enlightened proceed to either engage the person in conversations about wisdom of the infinite or they do not. If it is to be a conventional conversation rather than a conversation about wisdom, concepts of good and evil and right and wrong are not brought up. To do so would only serve to deepen that person's ignorance of attachment to the finite.

Russell: The Enlightened aren't constantly focused on anything in particular. Focusing on the All is for those that seek to overcome delusional thoughts and habits.

As it was told, even the Buddha and Jesus fought such thoughts up until their passing from this earth.

Russell: Using concepts like good/evil, right/wrong isn't necessarily a delusional act. It is not delusional to tell someone they are going about spirituality in a wrong or evil manner. Language itself is inherently immersed in contrasts and dualities.

While it is true that language is inherently immersed in contrasts and dualities, there are contrasts and dualities that are purer in function as tools of transcendence then others. The duality-bound concepts 'evil' and 'wrong' are more likely to arouse emotional reactions (deeper attachments) than are those of ignorance-wisdom, do you agree?

Russell: The goal of the path is to gain the ability to effortlessly see through and beyond duality, despite its necessity in usage and experience.

Which promotes effortless of seeing more, the concept 'evil' or the concept 'ignorance?'

movingalways: Complete enlightenment demands that one leave ethics behind. The world won't, because it can't, understand this leaving of what it deems to be of ultimate value and instead, interpret such actions in the only way it knows how, negatively (versus positively).

Russell: The only thing left behind is attachment. Again, ethics are a tool, and is used when it is called for, and set aside and forgotten when it's use isn't needed.

By your definition above, ethics are an attachment (a tool is an attachment).

Truth (the totality) is beyond language's ability to grasp, language is the eternal rebirth of the finite. Ethics are a finite language. Ergo, if the cessation of rebirth of the finite is the goal of enlightenment, ethics must be left behind. Perhaps cessation of birthing the finite is not your goal. Which means right off the bat we are speaking disparate languages. :-)

It seems as if you're all coming from overly complex and thus delusional contexts. (If you're serious about what you've been writing recently)

From start to finish these various contexts similarly seem to imply egotistical/ignorant views. In my view it's classic baby-like intellect, meaning that from start to finish it's gibberish.

So now tell me, what to do and why? (I'm not a dad, don't much care for caring for egotistical babies)

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:It seems as if you're all coming from overly complex and thus delusional contexts. (If you're serious about what you've been writing recently)

From start to finish these various contexts similarly seem to imply egotistical/ignorant views. In my view it's classic baby-like intellect, meaning that from start to finish it's gibberish.

So now tell me, what to do and why? (I'm not a dad, don't much care for caring for egotistical babies)

What to do? Stop implying 'your view' without revealing 'your view.' Why? 1. It's dishonest. 2. The outcome is that you give us nothing but your baby-like intellect meaning that from start to finish it's gibberish.

You're not understanding.

I'm asking a valid question: why spend a day teaching what is essentially a nothing/nobody to me? I also mean this as a general question, ask yourself first maybe to better understand.

You cannot ask such a question without supplying your own take on why you log on to write down the words and ask these questions on why to others.

Or explain how something could be "overly complex" and yet baby like. meaning you'd have developed further into, what, simplicity? Or how you can be sure something is delusional and ignorant while it's to you as well "gibberish" and as such incomprehensible? I mean, how would you discern a meaning? It would be more reasonable to say it all remains closed to you. Why talk to a wall once you're sure it's a wall?

if you see errors, please do explain. If you think it's pointless, just don't point. If you think another direction is required, just lead. But right now you seem to prefer putting effort in stating repeatedly what you think others are, where others are and so on. If you don't want to discuss, just don't discuss, don't join, don't show up. It's the hardest thing, I suppose. There's this temptation to raise ones existence through the very words describing undoing

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You cannot ask such a question without supplying your own take on why you log on to write down the words and ask these questions on why to others.

All I know is it'd take probably a whole day to help a baby understand what's what. A conversation I've heard before too.
All the while the thing would be whining.

So you get to direct my why if you want, I'm easily persuadeable, but I don't deal with kids who have nothing to offer.
*que gangster music*
*walks off into the playground*

The point is you don't. And I mean you don't try to help a baby to "understand", especially in one day. You play peekaboo or something.

In case you are interested in a little explanation of the unavoidable ambiguity of language: what I'm addressing here is the issue of purpose which is a core element of identity, the sense of self. The forum, in a sense, has obtained purpose, supplied by the ones ("purposes") starting it, somewhat maintained by those visiting, like a little factory. And that's the purpose of "setting fire to ignorance" when ignorance is being raised. To counter unreason with reason, to counter emotional roundabouts with exposition, which one could reflect upon. Or if it becomes repeated verbiage of attachments, to take away the all too tempting play thing itself.

Since the forum represents purpose, posting here becomes part of that purpose and as such provides some identity. Which needs to be undone before attachments can form and illusions arise any further. Would you agree with such a purpose and the challenge such purpose amounts to?

A good question would be actually: why would ignorance invoke purpose? To counter or to be countered?

This is the truth of ignorance: since it's fundamentally based on contradiction, it represents a "purpose" to undo itself. As to invoke its opposite and undoing. Perhaps one could even say that there's no purpose in wisdom but actions still have consequences. Every contradiction raised provides the seeds for its own destruction. The longer it runs on, a known consequence of attachment formed, the more it will invoke those very seeds. Every step on the way becomes a challenge or a danger to what's now "obtained". This is how wisdom gets its purpose, by countering ignorance. It becomes a counter-movement with no purpose or identity on its own. That's how it could be seen that wisdom comes up empty.

Sorry, that's all too much for me.

Baby mouth only fits baby spoon? Your mind seems so full of whatever it is that fills it up that everything becomes "too much" to digest.

You're just deriving something from your simple rejection of everything being said. Try to figure out what.

Apparently you don't even know who or what you are.

What am I supposed to do about it? Show you line by line the "why"?

You don't know what or who I am, either, so what can you show me? Your own self?

With the word "supposed" you mean your "purpose", the reason you show up as conversation end.

I know exactly what and who you are, you don't seem to.

As to your second line: I don't hold to (or pretend to hold to) any enduring intention.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I know exactly what and who you are, you don't seem to.

You can have your illusions. It's all you got.

As to your second line: I don't hold to (or pretend to hold to) any enduring intention.

Nothing is for ever.

But you show up nevertheless claiming to know identity, purpose (who, what) that way bringing purpose (what) and identity (you).

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You're not understanding.

I'm asking a valid question: why spend a day teaching what is essentially a nothing/nobody to me? I also mean this as a general question, ask yourself first maybe to better understand.

What happened to this guy?

Seeker, December, 2015: I no longer believe there can be a point to philosophy without the context of a real and ongoing action based on purpose. Whether the meaning in whatever purpose that is chosen is temporary or not, to me it is a necessity, any philosophy or discussion without that context seems to me to be the ramblings of boredom or a mad man trapped in a box with only a wall to talk to.

The above is essentially a criticism toward people on this forum, since even if you disagree with that assessment, I'd say that any other view was just a lazy sort of ignorance. If a person admits to being without some ambition or another, then he is to be ignored, since he does not even intend to offer something of worth.

So does this apply to you? Or is there a hidden action/purpose/ambition in your life you don't reveal? It could be something as simple as traveling, or even disciplining ones mind to eradicate most suffering, whatever it is doesn't matter for now, but for me that this context exists and is clear should be the basis of all discussion.

Diebert to Seeker: You can have your illusions. It's all you got.

All we have (for now) is the illusion of thought-as-identity: "For the creature was made subject to vanity [translated as 'futility' in modern versions], not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." Each of us remains attached to this subjective sense to our last breath (our hope for final release) for it is our breath that brings our subjective sense to life. So here we are, not actually being thought-subjects-to-one-another but appearing-as-thought-subjects-to-one-another, the ignorant being unconscious of this truth, the wise being conscious of this truth.

To Seeker: If it is your choice to keep this truth of no existing subject to yourself and live out your remaining days in your illusion of subjectivity (your playground) then hey, no problem. But if you come here, a board of wisdom, purposed to dispel the ignorance of attachment to self, then is it not wise to bring wisdom? As an aside, off board, playing in the wisdom of the illusion of subjectivity is the delight or joy or unconditional love 'of God.' Most mystical poems address this, God's playground of The Illusion of Self. An illusion to be sure but very real in the sense that, as are all things, it was caused to be so.

We're speaking two completely different languages with two completely different expectations regarding conversation. I regard your way as "not great" to say the least, and I can't compromise as I no longer would (want to) speak it for good reason. (I referred to it as baby-like)

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:We're speaking two completely different languages with two completely different expectations regarding conversation. I regard your way as "not great" to say the least, and I can't compromise as I no longer would (want to) speak it for good reason.

So what is a great language to you? Are you speaking it to me now?

What is your good reason?

An ent-like language.

Remember the ents from lord of the rings? Imagine what their conversations would be like. :)

Consider me an Elf. :-)

Wikia: Ents were envisioned as Shepherds of the Huorns, to protect the forests from orcs and other perils. The elves have tales of teaching the trees and the ents to talk: although the ents were sentient beings at the time, they did not know how to speak until the elves taught them. Treebeard spoke of the elves "curing the Ents of their dumbness", that it was a great gift that could not be forgotten ("always wanted to talk to everything, the old Elves did").