David: It was Jesus who said:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
Without explaining why you used this quote in reference to my thoughts, it means nothing to me.
It should be noted that you're using logic all through out this paragraph, but not very well.
My intention was to use the spirit of logic. I have never denied that the spirit of logic is the way for the sentient mind to become enlightened to the truth of the [singular] I AM. But once the discovery of I AM is made, the spirit of logic, having served its purpose, is cast aside.
For example, there is the faulty premise that sentience automatically equals suffering/self-righteousness/ignorance. If that were the case, then it would be impossible for any sentient being to become enlightened while remaining sentient. Buddhas would be an impossibility. So at the very least, a distinction needs to be made between deluded sentience and enlightened sentience.
I have always said that one becomes enlightened while being sentient. What I argue is that sentience enlightens sentience; to me, this is a faulty premise. What is not a faulty premise then, is that there is a transcendent Witness that is the cause of being awakened to Its existence.
As for logic working out the cause of suffering, this is exactly what the Buddha and other wise people in the past were able to accomplish without any problems. Suffering is essentially the experience of lack, of desiring to be somewhere else.
I agree that suffering is the desiring to be somewhere else, with the remedy being that one live of their unconditional I AM, whether they see an image of I AM or they do not see an image of I AM.
Logic thus dictates that suffering ends either when you are so fulfilled by the moment that you no longer experience any lack (i.e. a fleeting emotional attainment that is experienced very rarely), or when you put an end to desire altogether.
True, but once one begins to live unconditionally of their I AM, of what use is the fire of logic? Has it not served its purpose, time to expand beyond its purging ways? And in doing so, experience his integrity of "know thyself?"
What is the difference between sentience and consciousness?
Sentient consciousness produces sound, image, taste, smell and touch. The transcendent Witness does not.
Here is a Zen story:
Flowers rained down on Subhuti. The gods whispered to him "We are praising you for your discourse on emptiness".
"But I have not spoken of emptiness" said Subhuti.
"You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not heard emptiness", responded the gods. "This is true emptiness".
Blossoms showered upon Subhuti as rain.
Zen aside, there is great benefit in discussing Emptiness when it is discussed in the spirit of Emptiness.
So to the degree that one finds one's own life to be meaningful, the realization of meaninglessness is meaningful.
If one's I AM is not in union with their meaning, then there will always be degrees of meaning present. It is the unconditionality of Meaning that makes a person truth
full.
On the contrary, it is the very end. Once you are permanently without delusion, there is nowhere else to go. You are fully integrated with Reality at all times.
This sounds to me as if you are meaning the same thing as me when I speak of the unconditional I AM of Meaning. However, where you see logic continuing once this integrity of I AM is realized, I do not [except to awaken another to their own Singular Reality].
