Beingo1,
You mentioned something like you were hoping I wasn't using a sword to cut off the heads of friends, by mistake, in the Mental Universe thread.
There are quite a few stories in spiritual literature about taking up one's sword. I can think of a few off-hand. There's Arjuna, who decided eventually, after some thought, that he would raise his sword Govinda against all his kin. And Manjusri had the same sword, of discrimination.
I decided a good icon would be one that reminded me to think logically, and to use a clean, direct thrust to pierce deep into the heart of delusion.
If it appears aggressive, probably that's because it takes quite a bit of discomfort to get used to wielding the sword of reason at all things. There's no better friend than a sword of clear, direct, truthful judgment.
---
: KJ: This is what the "thinker" is: an appearance that is identified in the same way anything is identified. There isn't a thinker apart from the identity of a thinker.
Bo1: No matter how hard we look we will never find a "thinker" per se. In other words we do not find a "person" as an identity. We do find a source of thought however. For example; Think of a snow capped mountain, who told your brain to think of a snow capped mountain? Now, think of anything you choose, who told your brain to image the thought?
You did. Since "you" appears in my consciousness, it's also a thought. Therefore it is not a source of thought. Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise there is no finite source for
all things, since every finite thing is part of all things.
Bo1 wrote:Think of white noise. Can you empty your mind of any comparisons? Can you go between the words and images?
I think you're trying to actually perceive the Infinite as something in consciousness. It makes you want to hold onto something like "empty your mind of all comparisons", when it isn't necessary or logically possible. Reality isn't a thing. Emptiness isn't an appearance.
Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying memory does or doesn't play a significant role in a rational understanding of emptiness?
Bo1: It does.
Have you changed your mind, or do you still think that memories are not reality itself?
Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying that emptiness is a composite, that is, some kind of a unified set, of fractals?
Bo1: A fractal is a whole in itself. If you put a line through a triangle, you have a 'whole' triangle. Are you experiencing a whole reality or a partial reality?
You earlier used "fractal" to represent all consciousnesses. Is there only one, or more than one? Is there a fractal beyond the fractal?
KJ: If a thinker (an x) doesn't appear, and only a particular thing (an x) does appear, then there is only that particular thing, which is existing by contrast with "not-x".
Bo1: How does *X* and *-X* appear without perception? What is the source of the appearance?
It's straightforward. Appearances are things. Thus, the cause of all things cannot be a thing, because it cannot appear. Since it never appears, it doesn't exist, and therefore is not causal. Thus, only things are causes. I.e. ALL things are causes. The source of all things is everything: the Infinite. I.e no thing at all.
KJ: An example: the observer perspective is just focus in sight, which seems to imply a being is looking. This is imaginary.
Bo1: Unless we see behind the appearance and go to the root cause and effect. The resolving of the enigma is in the understanding that there is no being, not even a supremely great being, there is being in and of itself.
This means there is experience in a state of flux and a perceiver that has no memory, experience, or objective observation of beginning or end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind.
We could say it begins at birth, conception, or at some point but this is a projection as it is beyond any logical construct. None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.
The perceiver has never an end and continues ever present. It has no memory, experience, or objective observation of an end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind. It transmutates itself into perpetual consciousness. None has ever witnessed the end or cessation of consciousness.
It`s not an optical illusion. It just looks like one. - Joke
You're going through unnecessary twists to understand consciousness. It's not a thing, constrained in some straightjacket of concepts. It is all concepts, full stop. Are you more interested in having bizarre experiences to empower your ego, than in understanding what's really true for all things?
KJ: Most people believed that their self is the "inner" and is somehow outside everything that appears in consciousness. They believe they are separate, and peering into the world. They believe that self is really there, even though it appears in consciousness the same as everything else.
Thus, one cannot use the self, nor any other "thing" as the grounding of Reality, but to understand that all things are equally empty and illusory.
Bo1: Right, and so the divorcing of the universe from the perceiver. There is not a single thing, appearance, experience, or being that is separate from the whole. Therefore the true self is the whole excluding nothing and including everything.
You don't need to "divorce the universe from the perceiver". If the perceiver appears, then that's what the universe has created in that moment. It's no different to any other creation, it's neither more illusory or more real. It's as lacking in inherent existence as absolutely every other thing. Selflessness means not having any attachment to any experiences, because the logical thought has turned up and been accepted (that also has been created by the universe), that nothing is really there to be held onto.
KJ: When things disappear, Reality continues unchanged.
Bo1: Yup
KJ: Is this agreement? If so, why hold that Reality is the observer, since any experience of an observer is a thing?
Bo1: Because reality continues and so does the observation of it.
The observation is another experience, just one more creation of the universe. So it isn't itself Reality, but merely a thing. Reality is all things, not a single one.
KJ: For the thinker to logically be originating all thoughts, it would have to be beyond consciousness. This is why it isn't real.
Bo1: Unless the source were beyond thought, then it defies the "thinker". Consciousness transcends thoughts.
Again, only things appear in consciousness. So, the source of all things is not a thing, because otherwise it couldn't be responsible for everything. In other words, only the hidden aspect of Reality is responsible for the un-hidden (things). It never appears to mind, in exactly the same way that the Infinite itself never appears to mind (as a thing).
It's the ego (the delusion of inherent self-existence) that drives the yearning to find Reality as form.
KJ: So far, you've mentioned that one must begin with a fractal to understand what is true for all things; the fractal is one's consciousness, which is all that ever exists, ie. all consciousnesses; and that emptiness is this unified set of all consciousnesses.
Bo1: The singularity of the universe is not multiple consciousness, it is singular in experience, observation, and logic.
Alright, we'll throw out the "fractal" idea, since evidently it just means "everything". Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that there is only one thing in Reality, called "singular experience, observation, and logic" ? If so, you're quite mad!
KJ: Thoughts identify something (as what it is, reflexively). This process of identifying occurs so often, that identities quickly grow as the mind's vocabulary of things, like a dendritic branching-out. The very rapidity of thoughts generates a momentum, such that particular links harden. The result is that a particular thing is assumed to be "always so", out of habitual need.
Bo1: This is why you must push beyond thought. Logical constructs are dependant upon comparisons. It certainly has its use to see whether we are in delusion and for this it an effective tool but it cannot define reality. Nothing defines reality.
"Nothing defines reality" = sounds like a definition to me, and it's certainly a thing!
No, it's impossible for consciousness to have no thoughts at all, since by definition consciousness is of thoughts. Rather, one ought to detect which kinds of thoughts and identities are false (out of habitual need), and which are actually accurate (even if they are painful and hard to remember). Truthful logical thoughts certainly can define Reality, by comparing a definition for "thing" to a definition for "everything".
--
By the way, I've recently had another look at David Quinn's "The Wisdom of the Infinite". I noticed that quite a few of his clear, simple explanations would probably be of assistance to you, if you cared to have a look.
For instance, he addresses ideas like: the need to make logical judgments for spiritual health, as well giving quite a few tips about pitfalls people are likely to experience as they investigate Reality.
Have you had a look at it? I'd strongly recommend it, because it's really the best read I know about.
---