Mad ravings on the implications of cause and effect

[Avolith]

- Forget about trying to stop thoughts and achieve a blank mind. That is a populist delusion. It won’t lead to enlightenment. It will only lead to hell. Allow the mind to form concepts naturally. Your only focus should be to rationally examine them as they arise and discard them when they prove to be mistaken. As time goes by and your understanding deepens, more and more false concepts will fall away of their own accord. The non-conceptual understanding that the sages talk about arises at the very end of this process.

Enlightened understanding is non-conceptual in the sense that it does not rely on any specific concept to prop it up. It is all pervasive. It infuses all of one’s experiences and thoughts. One literally goes beyond all concepts, not into a black mind, but into infinite freedom.

So this post is basically me selfishly dumping my chaotic thoughts on cause and effect, in the hope that David or anyone is willing to bump me closer in the right direction. Here goes:

The infinite comprises everything, and it's a unity.

'My' experience is generated by my brain, which involves illusions such as
Inherent existence, or
The inherent existence of finite objects that have boundaries, eg forms
The inherent existence of a self with a will
Time

There is nothing 'else' to be experienced besides this illusory experience. There's only the task of understanding the true nature of the experience, thereby transforming it. Once understanding is reached, experience including its 'illusions' continues as usual, but now with increased awareness as to their true nature in an experiential sense.

The illusion of a self
In enlightened state: you become directly identified with all experience. You realize/know directly that you are the experience of the object, and the object has no existence outside of that.

In enlightened state: The process of self still operates as usual, but it will now be continuously recognized for the biological instinct that it is

Suffering
In enlightened state: The mechanism that produces suffering ceases its output of suffering. since the 'fuel' generating the suffering was misunderstanding that has now been fully corrected, it no longer has any basis to create the state of suffering.

I'm not pleased with the theory since it's too vague


The illusion of time
I also vaguely know that time is another illusion. I tried a search on causality and time on the boards, but could find no threads. How does Time tie into the illusion of existence and cause and effect?


The hidden void
The hidden void is an ultimately unreal 'placeholder concept' for reasoning about the infinite. It represents all of reality that is outside of our immediate experience, but is not a thing that exists and therefore not subject to cause and effect. It only exists in an unreal sense as a concept in your head hence, it's a placeholder stepping stone for next level understanding

More Weird implications
Experience is generated by the brain and of illusory nature, and yet brain only exists within said experience as an illusion. So we are now at the weird situation where a non-real thing, eg the brain, is generating experience, which creates the illusion of the brain generating the experience. Also, all of the previous logic is also an experience generated by my brain. Trying to make sense of this weird situation from a wider perspective I think:

The hidden void and a specific experience created by it, both together, taking for example the experience in which the concept of a brain is reasoned about, is simply a unity that has an inner consistency SUCH that the principle of cause and effect is 'true' inside of the 'experience' generated by the 'brain', where all this reasoning and these concepts are simply a description of the consistency of the inner structure of the infinite. The logic of a 'brain' generating an 'experience' is simply an arbitrary description that can be created and seen as true as a result of its inner consistency.

Experience, therefore, implies the existence of absolute logic, implies existence, implies possibility. One causes the other and vice versa. It simply cannot be any other way or the chain of consistency would collapse.

Would the infinite be able to generate something 'else' with a different type of inner consistency? the answer has to be no, because the question already implies the consistency of the type that exists in our reality, 'reality' implies the particular structure/logic of our reality

[Eric Schiedler]

Hello Avolith,

A brave attempt to rescue this Forum from the inexorable pull of the black hole of Trump's Twitter account! Better to be mad and rave in an insane world than be sane with the dum-dumbs!

So this post is basically me selfishly dumping my chaotic thoughts on cause and effect, in the hope that David or anyone is willing to bump me closer in the right direction.

If you don't make the Truth your own, and sacrifice your entire being in the pursuit of it, burning away everything you love on an altar devoted to an Unlimited Love, you will never have it. None, no master, can sew it on you with needle and thread. As long as the pursuit of Truth remains an intellectual exercise, it will be a good start, and worthy of much merit, and none could fault you as you attempt it, but it will hardly even be the first step. This is because such systems of thought are like objects to be pursued in a race and can always be kept at a safe distance.

The infinite comprises everything, and it's a unity.

The All is neither a unity nor a non-unity. A unity implies dualistic qualities; yet causality, properly understood, is where the Sage rests in the All. The All is unborn, not infinite in time because that would imply it's opposite is possible, thus giving it a finite quality. The All is without all dualistic qualities and thus contains them all.

'My' experience is generated by my brain, which involves illusions such as
Inherent existence, or
The inherent existence of finite objects that have boundaries, eg forms
The inherent existence of a self with a will
Time

There is nothing 'else' to be experienced besides this illusory experience. There's only the task of understanding the true nature of the experience, thereby transforming it. Once understanding is reached, experience including its 'illusions' continues as usual, but now with increased awareness as to their true nature in an experiential sense.

If everything is an illusion, then nothing is an illusion. Correct perception must be distinct from the perception of an illusion.

Suffering
In enlightened state: The mechanism that produces suffering ceases its output of suffering. since the 'fuel' generating the suffering was misunderstanding that has now been fully corrected, it no longer has any basis to create the state of suffering.

To the beginner, the pursuit of enlightenment is the goal to enter a new place, a heaven sometimes called 'Nibbana', which is the promise of a permanent escape from suffering. But to the Sage, suffering and happiness are part of a cycle and are, in their ultimate nature, the same as 'Nibbana'. One escapes from suffering, the jaws of death, only when all delusions about suffering and happiness are extinguished. What is left? The sage knows there is no difference between Buddhas and sentient beings and gains absolutely nothing, but this is hard to know, and it is why this is called obtaining a great treasure.

The hidden void
The hidden void is an ultimately unreal 'placeholder concept' for reasoning about the infinite. It represents all of reality that is outside of our immediate experience, but is not a thing that exists and therefore not subject to cause and effect. It only exists in an unreal sense as a concept in your head hence, it's a placeholder stepping stone for next level understanding

All dualistic conceptualization is ultimately discarded, not just the concept of the Hidden Void. They are all tools to point to the Truth.

The illusion of time
I also vaguely know that time is another illusion. I tried a search on causality and time on the boards, but could find no threads. How does Time tie into the illusion of existence and cause and effect

In the empirical sciences, Time is the changing state of Energy (both Energy and Matter). This is of limited to no use in regards to understanding the relationship between Time and Causality. Which is perhaps why there are few limited breakthroughs in modern physics, since the metaphysics underlying the experiments is suspect.

Memory is Time, the key by which A=A, the Law of Identity, is inherent in Consciousness. And the Law of Identity, all Logic, is the manner in which the universe can be said to "come into" existence. Causality is Logic appearing in Consciousness.

This is not Time across the empirical world, measured with a tool, but Time as Causality in all things. When "that" appears in consciousness, so does "not that" in equal measure, irrespective of any perceived motion of things.

More Weird implications
Experience is generated by the brain and of illusory nature, and yet brain only exists within said experience as an illusion. So we are now at the weird situation where a non-real thing, eg the brain, is generating experience, which creates the illusion of the brain generating the experience. Also, all of the previous logic is also an experience generated by my brain.

Logical truths are 100% without delusion. The identity of the brain as a thing is not an illusion. If all things like a brain were non-real, then they would also be real. The primariy delusion is that things, of which a brain is part of, have inherent existence.

Would the infinite be able to generate something 'else' with a different type of inner consistency? the answer has to be no, because the question already implies the consistency of the type that exists in our reality, 'reality' implies the particular structure/logic of our reality

It is because the Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of Identity operate in the All that they are one and the same. It does not make any sense to ask if there can be anything outside of the All, such as a different operating manisfestation of reality within some other All - that is to say, you cannot conclude that their is "our" reality, since that implies there can be other realities.

Eric Schiedler

[Santiago Odo]

Masterful exposition!

Dump David and follow Eric!

But ...

To the beginner, the pursuit of enlightenment is the goal to enter a new place, a heaven sometimes called 'Nibbana', which is the promise of a permanent escape from suffering. But to the Sage, suffering and happiness are part of a cycle and are, in their ultimate nature, the same as 'Nibbana'. One escapes from suffering, the jaws of death, only when all delusions about suffering and happiness are extinguished. What is left? The sage knows there is no difference between Buddhas and sentient beings and gains absolutely nothing, but this is hard to know, and it is why this is called obtaining a great treasure.

Amazingly empty when you examine it intellectually. If this is the goal of the Sage, the Sage is on a fool's journey. Because there is so little to this yet it is represented as a 'treasure'.

One of the things I have always noticed is that the best Sage's Exposition depends on tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings which, on the surface, are elegant and seem meaningful. But they are actually games of speech.

He who puts together the more convincing rap, wins the day.

Yet ...

If you don't make the Truth your own, and sacrifice your entire being in the pursuit of it, burning away everything you love on an altar devoted to an Unlimited Love, you will never have it.

That's it! Burn everything you love. Burn your life. All of it! Onto the bonfire! Your very self. Real / unreal / real.

The Treasure beckons ...

Because once you read some attractive, mathematical prose ...

Nothing else to do here in this strange and magnificent realm?

[Avolith]

Thanks for your reply. I will send a PM

[Avolith]

Hello Avolith,

A brave attempt to rescue this Forum from the inexorable pull of the black hole of Trump's Twitter account! Better to be mad and rave in an insane world than be sane with the dum-dumbs!

So this post is basically me selfishly dumping my chaotic thoughts on cause and effect, in the hope that David or anyone is willing to bump me closer in the right direction.

If you don't make the Truth your own, and sacrifice your entire being in the pursuit of it, burning away everything you love on an altar devoted to an Unlimited Love, you will never have it. None, no master, can sew it on you with needle and thread. As long as the pursuit of Truth remains an intellectual exercise, it will be a good start, and worthy of much merit, and none could fault you as you attempt it, but it will hardly even be the first step. This is because such systems of thought are like objects to be pursued in a race and can always be kept at a safe distance.

Yet David Quinn argued in one of his recent posts that heavily and continuously contemplating these concepts would eventually bring about real understanding. Do you disagree there?

The infinite comprises everything, and it's a unity.

The All is neither a unity nor a non-unity. A unity implies dualistic qualities; yet causality, properly understood, is where the Sage rests in the All. The All is unborn, not infinite in time because that would imply it's opposite is possible, thus giving it a finite quality. The All is without all dualistic qualities and thus contains them all.

How does a unity imply dualistic qualities?

'My' experience is generated by my brain, which involves illusions such as
Inherent existence, or
The inherent existence of finite objects that have boundaries, eg forms
The inherent existence of a self with a will
Time

There is nothing 'else' to be experienced besides this illusory experience. There's only the task of understanding the true nature of the experience, thereby transforming it. Once understanding is reached, experience including its 'illusions' continues as usual, but now with increased awareness as to their true nature in an experiential sense.

If everything is an illusion, then nothing is an illusion. Correct perception must be distinct from the perception of an illusion.

So would you say, without correct perception, there is illusion, and with correct perception, there is no illusion?

Suffering
In enlightened state: The mechanism that produces suffering ceases its output of suffering. since the 'fuel' generating the suffering was misunderstanding that has now been fully corrected, it no longer has any basis to create the state of suffering.

To the beginner, the pursuit of enlightenment is the goal to enter a new place, a heaven sometimes called 'Nibbana', which is the promise of a permanent escape from suffering. But to the Sage, suffering and happiness are part of a cycle and are, in their ultimate nature, the same as 'Nibbana'. One escapes from suffering, the jaws of death, only when all delusions about suffering and happiness are extinguished. What is left? The sage knows there is no difference between Buddhas and sentient beings and gains absolutely nothing, but this is hard to know, and it is why this is called obtaining a great treasure.

The hidden void
The hidden void is an ultimately unreal 'placeholder concept' for reasoning about the infinite. It represents all of reality that is outside of our immediate experience, but is not a thing that exists and therefore not subject to cause and effect. It only exists in an unreal sense as a concept in your head hence, it's a placeholder stepping stone for next level understanding

All dualistic conceptualization is ultimately discarded, not just the concept of the Hidden Void. They are all tools to point to the Truth.

So then intellectualization is a necessity but also blocking understanding at the same time...

The illusion of time
I also vaguely know that time is another illusion. I tried a search on causality and time on the boards, but could find no threads. How does Time tie into the illusion of existence and cause and effect

In the empirical sciences, Time is the changing state of Energy (both Energy and Matter). This is of limited to no use in regards to understanding the relationship between Time and Causality. Which is perhaps why there are few limited breakthroughs in modern physics, since the metaphysics underlying the experiments is suspect.

Memory is Time, the key by which A=A,

How is time/memory the key by which A=A? Does A=A it require the comparison of an object with a memory to recognize a contrast? A bit below here you say that A and not A appear in consciousness in equal measure simultaneously, so according to your logic, this is not the case...

the Law of Identity, is inherent in Consciousness. And the Law of Identity, all Logic, is the manner in which the universe can be said to "come into" existence. Causality is Logic appearing in Consciousness.

This is not Time across the empirical world, measured with a tool, but Time as Causality in all things. When "that" appears in consciousness, so does "not that" in equal measure, irrespective of any perceived motion of things.

How is it that 'not that' appear in consciousness together with 'that'. If this is true, then the entirity of reality would be constantly in my consciousness. Another question. Is my experience, really, the entirity of reality, since nothing has an inherent existence outside of consciousness?

More Weird implications
Experience is generated by the brain and of illusory nature, and yet brain only exists within said experience as an illusion. So we are now at the weird situation where a non-real thing, eg the brain, is generating experience, which creates the illusion of the brain generating the experience. Also, all of the previous logic is also an experience generated by my brain.

Logical truths are 100% without delusion. The identity of the brain as a thing is not an illusion. If all things like a brain were non-real, then they would also be real. The primariy delusion is that things, of which a brain is part of, have inherent existence.

Still a mostly similar mystery remains. The brain owes its (non-inherent but real) existence to itself, in a circular way!

But now I'm ignoring the wider picture. A brain can't bootstrap itself into existence out of nothingness, since it is subject to causality and dependent on 'not brain' causing brain. I could also just as well say that 'not brain plus experience' is causing 'brain plus experience'. So it's actually rather meaningless to say that my brain causes my experience, or, just as meaningful as saying that my experience causes my brain, or that not-experience causes experience, and so on.

Does causality apply to ANY two objects across time? Is it true to say that the big bang caused a grain of sand, just as much as it's true that a grain of sand caused the big bang?

Would the infinite be able to generate something 'else' with a different type of inner consistency? the answer has to be no, because the question already implies the consistency of the type that exists in our reality, 'reality' implies the particular structure/logic of our reality

It is because the Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of Identity operate in the All that they are one and the same. It does not make any sense to ask if there can be anything outside of the All, such as a different operating manisfestation of reality within some other All - that is to say, you cannot conclude that their is "our" reality, since that implies there can be other realities.

Yesss that's what I was thinking.

[Avolith]

Masterful exposition!

Dump David and follow Eric!

But ...

To the beginner, the pursuit of enlightenment is the goal to enter a new place, a heaven sometimes called 'Nibbana', which is the promise of a permanent escape from suffering. But to the Sage, suffering and happiness are part of a cycle and are, in their ultimate nature, the same as 'Nibbana'. One escapes from suffering, the jaws of death, only when all delusions about suffering and happiness are extinguished. What is left? The sage knows there is no difference between Buddhas and sentient beings and gains absolutely nothing, but this is hard to know, and it is why this is called obtaining a great treasure.

Amazingly empty when you examine it intellectually. If this is the goal of the Sage, the Sage is on a fool's journey. Because there is so little to this yet it is represented as a 'treasure'.

One of the things I have always noticed is that the best Sage's Exposition depends on tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings which, on the surface, are elegant and seem meaningful. But they are actually games of speech.

He who puts together the more convincing rap, wins the day.

Yet ...

If you don't make the Truth your own, and sacrifice your entire being in the pursuit of it, burning away everything you love on an altar devoted to an Unlimited Love, you will never have it.

That's it! Burn everything you love. Burn your life. All of it! Onto the bonfire! Your very self. Real / unreal / real.

The Treasure beckons ...

Because once you read some attractive, mathematical prose ...

Good day! I take a bow, welcoming you to this new topic.

I take it you regard the burning of your life to be unwise. I say, why not. It is a bit of a drag isn't it.

this strange and magnificent realm

Oh but now you are just as guilty of luring me with aesthetics as the Buddhists and their speak of treasure, my dear Santiago!

[Santiago Odo]

“Truth beauty and goodness have their being together,
by truth we are put in touch with reality which we find is good for us
and beautiful to behold. In our knowing, loving and delighting the gift
of reality appears to us as something infinitely and in-exhaustively
valuable and fascinating.”

"The transcendentals (Latin: transcendentalia) are the properties of being that correspond
to three aspects of the human field of interest and are their ideals; science (truth), the arts (beauty)
and religion (goodness)."
______________________________________

Good day! I take a bow, welcoming you to this new topic.

Thank you kindly.

I take it you regard the burning of your life to be unwise. I say, why not. It is a bit of a drag isn't it.

If I were you -- and strictly based on this odd statement -- I would devote myself to some introspection about *motive*. I have to make guesses here, as anyone reading you must, yet I would suggest that there are definite nihilistic notes in what you are saying.

If you cannot define what is *wise* or what *wisdom* is, how could you be qualified to judge the wisdom of a recommendation to *burn* your life?

Are you aware of the consequences of stupid choices made at critical times? It would be wise to make careful discernments.

Also, why is no one else calling you out to make intelligent choices? Hmmmm? Is it because these local idiots have their heads up their asses and couldn't give good advise to an old shoe?

Oh but now you are just as guilty of luring me with aesthetics as the Buddhists and their speak of treasure, my dear Santiago!

First, I am not doing any such thing. I am definitely not luring you.

Let us suppose that there is a philosophy that takes an aesthetic form. Or, ideas that are expressed through aesthetic means. Or rhetoric that embellishes solid ideas and worthy ideas.

[Avolith]

“Truth beauty and goodness have their being together,
by truth we are put in touch with reality which we find is good for us
and beautiful to behold. In our knowing, loving and delighting the gift
of reality appears to us as something infinitely and in-exhaustively
valuable and fascinating.”

"The transcendentals (Latin: transcendentalia) are the properties of being that correspond
to three aspects of the human field of interest and are their ideals; science (truth), the arts (beauty)
and religion (goodness)."
______________________________________

Good day! I take a bow, welcoming you to this new topic.

Thank you kindly.

I take it you regard the burning of your life to be unwise. I say, why not. It is a bit of a drag isn't it.

If I were you -- and strictly based on this odd statement -- I would devote myself to some introspection about *motive*. I have to make guesses here, as anyone reading you must, yet I would suggest that there are definite nihilistic notes in what you are saying.

On the contrary

If you cannot define what is *wise* or what *wisdom* is, how could you be qualified to judge the wisdom of a recommendation to *burn* your life?

Are you aware of the consequences of stupid choices made at critical times? It would be wise to make careful discernments.

Also, why is no one else calling you out to make intelligent choices? Hmmmm? Is it because these local idiots have their heads up their asses and couldn't give advise to an old shoe?

I believe I never saw you in such a serious mood before! I assure you it wasn't meant in a literal fashion

Oh but now you are just as guilty of luring me with aesthetics as the Buddhists and their speak of treasure, my dear Santiago!

First, I am not doing any such thing. I am definitely not luring you.

Let us suppose that there is a philosophy that takes an aesthetic form. Or, ideas that are expressed through aesthetic means. Or rhetoric that embellishes solid ideas and worthy ideas.

Ah. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me

[David Quinn]

- Forget about trying to stop thoughts and achieve a blank mind. That is a populist delusion. It won’t lead to enlightenment. It will only lead to hell. Allow the mind to form concepts naturally. Your only focus should be to rationally examine them as they arise and discard them when they prove to be mistaken. As time goes by and your understanding deepens, more and more false concepts will fall away of their own accord. The non-conceptual understanding that the sages talk about arises at the very end of this process.

Enlightened understanding is non-conceptual in the sense that it does not rely on any specific concept to prop it up. It is all pervasive. It infuses all of one’s experiences and thoughts. One literally goes beyond all concepts, not into a black mind, but into infinite freedom.

So this post is basically me selfishly dumping my chaotic thoughts on cause and effect, in the hope that David or anyone is willing to bump me closer in the right direction. Here goes:

The infinite comprises everything, and it's a unity.

'My' experience is generated by my brain, which involves illusions such as
Inherent existence, or
The inherent existence of finite objects that have boundaries, eg forms
The inherent existence of a self with a will

Not sure what you mean by 'my', but everyone’s experience is a construct of their own brains, for Buddhas and non-Buddhas alike. Buddhas, however, no longer experience the illusion of inherent existence.

There is nothing 'else' to be experienced besides this illusory experience. There's only the task of understanding the true nature of the experience, thereby transforming it. Once understanding is reached, experience including its 'illusions' continues as usual, but now with increased awareness as to their true nature in an experiential sense.

No, the illusions are completely gone, which is what differentiates it from ordinary consciousness.

The illusion of a self
In enlightened state: you become directly identified with all experience. You realize/know directly that you are the experience of the object, and the object has no existence outside of that.

In enlightened state: The process of self still operates as usual, but it will now be continuously recognized for the biological instinct that it is

Or more pointedly, for the conceptual construction that it is. Conflating this as a “biological instinct” would imply that the self-illusion cannot be eliminated.

Suffering
In enlightened state: The mechanism that produces suffering ceases its output of suffering. since the 'fuel' generating the suffering was misunderstanding that has now been fully corrected, it no longer has any basis to create the state of suffering.

I'm not pleased with the theory since it's too vague

Well, let’s try and clarify the issue together. What is suffering?

More Weird implications
Experience is generated by the brain and of illusory nature, and yet brain only exists within said experience as an illusion. So we are now at the weird situation where a non-real thing, eg the brain, is generating experience, which creates the illusion of the brain generating the experience. Also, all of the previous logic is also an experience generated by my brain.

You need to think of this line of reasoning as a step-by-step process, one that starts from the ordinary view that the world objectively exists and ends with a higher viewpoint that is beyond all convention:

1. Unchallenged premise: The world objectively exists.

2. Basic science tells us that the world we experience is actually a construct in our brains.

3. Logical reasoning tells us that everything we know about the brain, and every experience that we have of the brain, is also part of the construct.

4. Logical reasoning tells us that this not only applies to the brain, but to anything that we might care to put forward as being the root source of the construct. Whatever we care to posit - a brain, a god, a computer, a dreamer, aliens, etc - can never be anything other than part of the construct. All finite solutions, all forms, are merely appearances within the construct.

5. Thus, the root cause of the construct is the infinite, the totality of all there is, which is beyond all form. What we experience in each moment is a construct of the infinite.

The hidden void
The hidden void is an ultimately unreal 'placeholder concept' for reasoning about the infinite. It represents all of reality that is outside of our immediate experience, but is not a thing that exists and therefore not subject to cause and effect. It only exists in an unreal sense as a concept in your head hence, it's a placeholder stepping stone for next level understanding

The “hidden void” slots into point number 4 above.

[visheshdewan050193]

Here's a dialogue that deals with the nature of time (as one of the themes). I've posted it before as a separate topic in this forum as well. I think it is based along the lines of reasoning expressed on this forum, feel free to dissect it.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vishesh- ... 966806202/

[Avolith]

- Forget about trying to stop thoughts and achieve a blank mind. That is a populist delusion. It won’t lead to enlightenment. It will only lead to hell. Allow the mind to form concepts naturally. Your only focus should be to rationally examine them as they arise and discard them when they prove to be mistaken. As time goes by and your understanding deepens, more and more false concepts will fall away of their own accord. The non-conceptual understanding that the sages talk about arises at the very end of this process.

Enlightened understanding is non-conceptual in the sense that it does not rely on any specific concept to prop it up. It is all pervasive. It infuses all of one’s experiences and thoughts. One literally goes beyond all concepts, not into a black mind, but into infinite freedom.

So this post is basically me selfishly dumping my chaotic thoughts on cause and effect, in the hope that David or anyone is willing to bump me closer in the right direction. Here goes:

The infinite comprises everything, and it's a unity.

'My' experience is generated by my brain, which involves illusions such as
Inherent existence, or
The inherent existence of finite objects that have boundaries, eg forms
The inherent existence of a self with a will

Not sure what you mean by 'my', but everyone’s experience is a construct of their own brains, for Buddhas and non-Buddhas alike. Buddhas, however, no longer experience the illusion of inherent existence.

There is nothing 'else' to be experienced besides this illusory experience. There's only the task of understanding the true nature of the experience, thereby transforming it. Once understanding is reached, experience including its 'illusions' continues as usual, but now with increased awareness as to their true nature in an experiential sense.

No, the illusions are completely gone, which is what differentiates it from ordinary consciousness.

The illusion of a self
In enlightened state: you become directly identified with all experience. You realize/know directly that you are the experience of the object, and the object has no existence outside of that.

In enlightened state: The process of self still operates as usual, but it will now be continuously recognized for the biological instinct that it is

Or more pointedly, for the conceptual construction that it is. Conflating this as a “biological instinct” would imply that the self-illusion cannot be eliminated.

Suffering
In enlightened state: The mechanism that produces suffering ceases its output of suffering. since the 'fuel' generating the suffering was misunderstanding that has now been fully corrected, it no longer has any basis to create the state of suffering.

I'm not pleased with the theory since it's too vague

Well, let’s try and clarify the issue together. What is suffering?

My attempt to define it: the experience of, a realization of, an inconsistency between a desired conceptualized experience and actual experience. I'm wondering if 'actual experience' is really also a conceptualized experience of a different kind. This definition would imply that the desire not to suffer would create a positive feedback loop of more suffering, and the lack of desire to avoid suffering would ironically cease suffering.

More Weird implications
Experience is generated by the brain and of illusory nature, and yet brain only exists within said experience as an illusion. So we are now at the weird situation where a non-real thing, eg the brain, is generating experience, which creates the illusion of the brain generating the experience. Also, all of the previous logic is also an experience generated by my brain.

You need to think of this line of reasoning as a step-by-step process, one that starts from the ordinary view that the world objectively exists and ends with a higher viewpoint that is beyond all convention:

1. Unchallenged premise: The world objectively exists.

2. Basic science tells us that the world we experience is actually a construct in our brains.

3. Logical reasoning tells us that everything we know about the brain, and every experience that we have of the brain, is also part of the construct.

4. Logical reasoning tells us that this not only applies to the brain, but to anything that we might care to put forward as being the root source of the construct. Whatever we care to posit - a brain, a god, a computer, a dreamer, aliens, etc - can never be anything other than part of the construct. All finite solutions, all forms, are merely appearances within the construct.

5. Thus, the root cause of the construct is the infinite, the totality of all there is, which is beyond all form. What we experience in each moment is a construct of the infinite.

Well it looks so straight forward this way! It makes sense.

The hidden void
The hidden void is an ultimately unreal 'placeholder concept' for reasoning about the infinite. It represents all of reality that is outside of our immediate experience, but is not a thing that exists and therefore not subject to cause and effect. It only exists in an unreal sense as a concept in your head hence, it's a placeholder stepping stone for next level understanding

The “hidden void” slots into point number 4 above.

Here's a dialogue that deals with the nature of time (as one of the themes). I've posted it before as a separate topic in this forum as well. I think it is based along the lines of reasoning expressed on this forum, feel free to dissect it.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vishesh- ... 966806202/

Hi Vishesh, that's a great read! Very nice.

Whatever we care to posit - a brain, a god, a computer, a dreamer, aliens, etc - can never be anything other than part of the construct. All finite solutions, all forms, are merely appearances within the construct. Thus, the root cause of the construct is the infinite, the totality of all there is, which is beyond all form. What we experience in each moment is a construct of the infinite.

We perceive the conscious and unconscious mind existing as separate things because ego generates genuine boundaries. If we were to somehow drop the ego, we could see that these two aspects of Nature as a whole, are illusory because of co-dependency. So if you want to know what it beyond them, you find a way to drop ego.

This is still puzzling me.

You say the infinite is the 'root cause', but it must be outside of causality, right? (Which if true would also still be puzzling to me.) Did you use the word 'cause' on purpose or loosely? If it's subject to causality, then something must have also caused the infinite and so on.

Going on a different train of thought about my experience: If I call the forms that constitute my experience F. Then, !F (not F) is equal to the hidden void, is equal to the unconscious mind as I think Vishesh called it, which by definition cannot be experienced. Therefore, it is also not possible to experience the boundary of my experience, since it would require the experience of the un-experienceable to experience the contrast between the two. Still I tried to look for the boundary of my experience as an experiment. But my experience is always just a bunch of form (F)!

When looking at a cloud as a thing, it seems obvious how to empirically verify that it has no inherent existence, eg by going close and observing the absence of a definite boundary of the cloud. Also, it is ONLY possible to observe the cloud as a cloud, because I CAN observe NOT cloud. It is this CONTRAST that makes me able to experience the cloud. If there were no clear sky as backdrop for the cloud, there could be no cloud!
YET, going back to experience, I DO experience my experience, WITHOUT experiencing its backdrop, the hidden void. How is it possible that I experience my experience given all this.

Maybe my mistake is in considering my experience to be another 'thing'. Does causality not apply to my experience as a whole? Does it only apply to forms within my experience?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You say the infinite is the 'root cause', but it must be outside of causality, right? (Which if true would also still be puzzling to me.) Did you use the word 'cause' on purpose or loosely? If it's subject to causality, then something must have also caused the infinite and so on....

Maybe my mistake is in considering my experience to be another 'thing'. Does causality not apply to my experience as a whole? Does it only apply to forms within my experience?

There can't be a root cause as it would introduce another manifestation of the world turtle creation problem. It's therefore necessary to see causality as the way the infinite actually manifests from our perspectives but since we cannot start turning the infinite into some object with properties of "sides", for all ends and purposes, causality is infinite, is the infinite. Therefore: causality exists in the absolute sense, that is, it can never cease, there's no conceivable way to do so, unless nothing would.

Experiences are not standing outside causality, not even the silent witness, not even constant awareness, these only appear constant in contrast with something particular changing in relation to it. But existence, as whole, as causality, as including and going beyond time itself, is not outside anything but you know it as causality.

This is surely contending for the St. Jacob award for tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings, right?

[Avolith]

You say the infinite is the 'root cause', but it must be outside of causality, right? (Which if true would also still be puzzling to me.) Did you use the word 'cause' on purpose or loosely? If it's subject to causality, then something must have also caused the infinite and so on....

Maybe my mistake is in considering my experience to be another 'thing'. Does causality not apply to my experience as a whole? Does it only apply to forms within my experience?

There can't be a root cause as it would introduce another manifestation of the world turtle creation problem. It's therefore necessary to see causality as the way the infinite actually manifests from our perspectives but since we cannot start turning the infinite into some object with properties of "sides", for all ends and purposes, causality is infinite, is the infinite. Therefore: causality exists in the absolute sense, that is, it can never cease, there's no conceivable way to do so, unless nothing would.

Experiences are not standing outside causality, not even the silent witness, not even constant awareness, these only appear constant in contrast with something particular changing in relation to it. But existence, as whole, as causality, as including and going beyond time itself, is not outside anything but you know it as causality.

This is surely contending for the St. Jacob award for tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings, right?

If awareness is not outside of causality, then there must also be non-awareness as a contrast for it to exist. How can I discern awareness without being aware of non-awareness? What are we really? Causality itself?
edit:
Is awareness is just another conceptual experience, or the illusion of the self? I guess this is what you were saying...

Haha. This is starting to feel like one big joke

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If awareness is not outside of causality, then there must also be non-awareness as a contrast for it to exist. How can I discern awareness without being aware of non-awareness? What are we really? Causality itself?

Wouldn't it be more like being aware of this because you remain unaware of that? Like seeing a shadow because the light is blocked by something you don't see or even if you'd try to image the supposed object, it would have to be removed as to have the light fall on it. But clearly this will create other objects, more shadows, in that configuration. Only staring at light is called blindness.

[Avolith]

If awareness is not outside of causality, then there must also be non-awareness as a contrast for it to exist. How can I discern awareness without being aware of non-awareness? What are we really? Causality itself?

Wouldn't it be more like being aware of this because you remain unaware of that? Like seeing a shadow because the light is blocked by something you don't see or even if you'd try to image the supposed object, it would have to be removed as to have the light fall on it. But clearly this will create other objects, more shadows, in that configuration. Only staring at light is called blindness.

Should I take this to mean that, if I am experiencing a cloud, I then would (causally) not be experiencing its backdrop?

PS:

edit. No images I have been told

[Santiago Odo]

This is surely contending for the St. Jacob award for tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings, right?

Yes, and the interesting thing is that it is done; that it felt needful to do it; that is offers a satisfaction or serves (what I can only see) as an imagined function in an imaginary game.

It is a vain activity, isn't it? Even or especially when it is an activity undertaken and executed strictly within a Taoist Culture (Buddhist, neo-Buddhist or what-have-you).

The cut-up works just as well. Perhaps even better. Here!

Experiences are not standing outside causality, not even the silent witness, not even constant awareness, these only appear constant in contrast with something particular changing in relation to it. But existence, as whole, as causality, as including and going beyond time itself, is not outside anything but you know it as causality.

Anything but you outside causality
are not relation standing
not including even going outside
witness
not even constant awareness
these only appear constant in contrast with changing
into it
but silent existence
as experiences beyond time
something particular
whole
as causality, as itself
is not
know it as causality.

God, that is awesome. Cathartic!

[Avolith]

This is surely contending for the St. Jacob award for tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings, right?

Yes, and the interesting thing is that it is done; that it felt needful to do it; that is offers a satisfaction or serves (what I can only see) as an imagined function in an imaginary game.

It is a vain activity, isn't it? Even or especially when it is an activity undertaken and executed strictly within a Taoist Culture (Buddhist, nep-Buddhist or what-have-you).

The cut-up works just as well. Perhaps even better. Here!

Anything but you outside causality
are not relation standing
not including even going outside
witness
not even constant awareness
these only appear constant in contrast with changing
into it
but silent existence
as experiences beyond time
something particular
whole
as causality, as itself
is not
know it as causality.

God, that is awesome. Cathartic!

I say you and Diebert team up to write the tao te ching V2

[Eric Schiedler]

Avolith,

Yet David Quinn argued in one of his recent posts that heavily and continuously contemplating these concepts would eventually bring about real understanding. Do you disagree there?

David offers many written points about undertaking the spiritial path. I do not want to contradict any at this time, per se, except to emphasize one point that is often overlooked.

In no way is the path to enlightenment and Truth an exercise in academic philosophy or mere intellectual inquiry. In principle these are fundamentally different although they utilize similar forms.

How does a unity imply dualistic qualities?

It is not entirely incorrect to speak of the All as comprising the non-dual in order to emphasize that no finite thing, by definition, contains everything. Yet a unity (as a substitution for the term "non-dual") is still a characteristic of a finite thing. For example, the unity of the United States of America is an explanation that the governments of the individual states are not sovereign. But contained within this idea - for the idea of unity to make sense - is the implication that the states within this legal unity could, in theory, be sovereign and separate from each other. It will not do at all to apply this line of reasoning to the All, for no "part" of the all could be separate and still remain the All. The All can not be a unity because in no way could it in "whole" or "part" ever have an observer identify it as a non-unity.

How is time/memory the key by which A=A? Does A=A it require the comparison of an object with a memory to recognize a contrast? A bit below here you say that A and not A appear in consciousness in equal measure simultaneously, so according to your logic, this is not the case...

If you were without memory, you would have no conception of time nor be able to invent the idea of time. As an example, your parents would appear before you, and not only would you not be able to conceive that they were your parents, not to mention the inability to remember their names, you would not conceive of them aging "before your eyes." You would not remember them if they left or died. In other respects, you would merey have an instinct to welcome their presence or want to run away.

For further study I refer you to the following:

Otto Weininger
Sex and Character
1906 Translation from the Sixth German Edition
Chapter VI: Memory, Logic & Ethics

...A being whose memory is never sufficiently good as to make it psychologically possible to perceive identity through the lapse of time, so as to enable [the absolute Woman], for instance, to pursue a quantity through a long mathematical reckoning; such a creature in the extreme case would be unable to control her memory for even the moment of time required to say that A will still be A in the next moment, to pronounce judgment on the identity A = A, or on the opposite proposition that A is not equal to A, for that proposition also requires a continuous memory of A to make the comparison possible.

I have been making no mere joke, no facetious sophism or paradoxical proposition. I assert that the judgment of identity depends on conceptions, never on mere perceptions and complexes of perceptions, and the conceptions, as logical conceptions, are independent of time, retaining their constancy, whether I, as a psychological entity, think them constant or not. But man never has a conception in the purely logical form, for he is a psychological being, affected by the condition of sensations; he is able only to form a general idea (a typical, connotative, representative conception) out of his individual experiences by a reciprocal effacing of the differences and strengthening of the similarities, thus, however, very closely approximating to an abstract conception, and in a most wonderful fashion using it as such. He must also be able to preserve this idea which he thinks clear, although in reality it is confused, and it is memory alone that brings about the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of thinking logically, for this possibility is incarnated, so to speak, only in a psychological medium.

Memory, then, is a necessary part of the logical faculty. The propositions of logic are not conditioned by the existence of memory, but only the power to use them. The proposition A = A must have a psychological relation to time, otherwise it would be At1 = At2 . Of course this is not the case in pure logic, but man has no special faculty of pure logic, and must act as a psychological being. I have already shown that the continuous memory is the vanquisher of time, and, indeed, is necessary even for the idea of time to be formed. And so the continuous memory is the psychological expression of the logical proposition of identity. The absolute woman, in whom memory is absent, cannot take the proposition of identity, or its contradictory, or the exclusion of the alternative, as axiomatic.

How is it that 'not that' appear in consciousness together with 'that'. If this is true, then the entirity of reality would be constantly in my consciousness. Another question. Is my experience, really, the entirity of reality, since nothing has an inherent existence outside of consciousness?

When an identity appears in consciousness, it's appearance can not be denied. Why is this so? Because it is a Logical truth that relies on A=A. For example, if you were to look up at the moon, the moon is a "that" - A=A. By extension, the rest of the universe that is not the moon is a "not-that" - not-A=not-A. These are inseparable outcomes of the conceptualizing process as in, they are never absent in an identity. Even the light that comes off of the moon in order that you can perceive it is part of the "not-that" because the moon is defined as the moon and not the moon and the light coming off the moon. If this were not the case, you would not be able to indentify the moon going through phases. These are not empirical observations. They are the conceptualizing process used to talk about seeing the moon. Because "that" implies "not that", the moon and what is not the moon are not inherently existent, as their dualistic quality depends upon each other.

My attempt to define [suffering]: the experience of, a realization of, an inconsistency between a desired conceptualized experience and actual experience.

If you expect a terrible outcome and fear it and it does not come to pass, you might not suffer very much.

I'm wondering if 'actual experience' is really also a conceptualized experience of a different kind. This definition would imply that the desire not to suffer would create a positive feedback loop of more suffering, and the lack of desire to avoid suffering would ironically cease suffering.

In that case, physical death can also bring about the lack of desire to avoid suffering. But this outcome is not the cessation of suffering arising while alive.

Eric Schiedler

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is surely contending for the St. Jacob award for tidy, tight prose presentations containing pithy reduced phrasings, right?

Yes, and the interesting thing is that it is done; that it felt needful to do it; that is offers a satisfaction or serves (what I can only see) as an imagined function in an imaginary game.

It simply helps shaping the mind, the thought constellation, which is connected to the universe of perception, feeling and manifestation. Of course reading them but actually trying to write the questions or the answers, making sure everything clicks on all levels, can be hugely beneficial to all involved. But then again, you are not really involved in this. The eternal commentator.

God, that is awesome. Cathartic!

[Santiago Odo]

There will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth!

[O κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων]

Yes, and the interesting thing is that it is done; that it felt needful to do it; that is offers a satisfaction or serves (what I can only see) as an imagined function in an imaginary game.

It is a vain activity, isn't it? Even or especially when it is an activity undertaken and executed strictly within a Taoist Culture (Buddhist, neo-Buddhist or what-have-you).

What I suggest as a possibility here is an examination of the *total situation* that we experience and which we cannot resolve. The processes of empirical science, so called, have effectively cut us off from that to which we were *connected* previously. We are left adrift. It is a form of being 'cut-off' in the sublunary world.

If we really were to succumb and submit to the *meaning* of this situation, we would know, believe and understand that we have no agency, except insofar as we surrender to the developing machine that produces, as it were, our physical life.

Since all possible meaning has only arisen out of metaphysics, and yet metaphysics is now pure and indeed absolute illusion, absolute deception, absolute avoidance of fact, we must surrender all meanings and any holding to them.

We must resolve to live as units in a mechanistic system and to accept that our Overlords, the machines, may cull us if we do not surrender in perfection.

Within this situation 'the angelical over-world' has gone silent, the glorious luminous forms fade. Telepathy has gone silent in the wires.

We will move just one more step closer to blank nescience.

Within this dying world -- if nihilism does not mean that, what does it mean? -- perhaps we can cling to language games? and rehearse them as the shadows fall in perpetual dusk?

Anything but you outside causality
are not relation-standing
not including even going outside
witness
not even constant awareness
these only appear constant
in contrast with changing
into it
but silent existence
as experiences beyond time
something particular
whole
as causality, as itself
is not:
know it as causality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Should I take this to mean that, if I am experiencing a cloud, I then would (causally) not be experiencing its backdrop?

Can you experience "the backdrop" though? In this metaphor, it's the atmosphere hiding the full light of the sun in various shifting, deceptive ways. The whole experience of human existence is made possible. In any case, subject and object arise together.

[Santiago Odo]

It simply helps shaping the mind, the thought constellation, which is connected to the universe of perception, feeling and manifestation. Of course reading them but actually trying to write the questions or the answers, making sure everything clicks on all levels, can be hugely beneficial to all involved. But then again, you are not really involved in this. The eternal commentator.

I have heard your declarations about this activity which is so important to you. I certainly critique it (comment on it).

Define 'huge benefit'. You just made a Grand Statement. But you will not be able to back it up!

But please, try. Define 'huge benefit'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But please, try. Define 'huge benefit'

Having good effects on discussing the nature of reality and creating some potential guidance on the path to enlightenment.

Yes, I took that from the forum title, as the question might follow: why discussing it and what's the point of such a path?

Perhaps the better question is: what else would be better to do? Define, prove or praise the huge benefits and rewards.

[Avolith]

Should I take this to mean that, if I am experiencing a cloud, I then would (causally) not be experiencing its backdrop?

Can you experience "the backdrop" though? In this metaphor, it's the atmosphere hiding the full light of the sun in various shifting, deceptive ways. The whole experience of human existence is made possible. In any case, subject and object arise together.

Ok! I can indeed not directly experience the backdrop in the case of a cloud either!

When it comes to 'subject and object', could I think of those as, really one subject-object 'thing' which the brain conceptualized as such, eg, the conceptualized cloud includes baked into it a sense of 'other' ness?

[Santiago Odo]

Having good effects on discussing the nature of reality and creating some potential guidance on the path to enlightenment.

But that is my point: it does no such thing. Once we are *cut off* as I say, we are in fact cut off from meaning and its potential for us and in us.

Enlightenment is a meaningless term. It has been stripped of meaning.

That is our 'nihilistic situation'.

Seen in that light, the 'enlightenment endeavor' looks a bit vain. However, if there really were no other options for us I suppose that substitute would have to do.