GENIUS FORUMS

Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

As high a functioning is vision-based logic when compared with other human mentalities that include sense interpretation of sound, touch, taste, and smell, the interpreter of logic cannot escape the truth that logic, like all human-sense mentalities, is based on belief in dualism, the belief that subject and object are separate from one another. It is not possible to determine the logic of a circumstance without visually separating the subject and the object of the "matter of the circumstance." What this means is that no interpretation that is of dualism is ever absent of the tension that is experienced within the interpreter to "see" what "is inside" that imagined gap between subject and object.

Because the man of logic has dropped his attachment to the denser physical senses of sound, touch, taste and smell, he has a clearer vision of the causality of all sense attachment, but as close as the man of logic can come to reducing the senses of cause and effect to "vision only", he cannot find the way to eliminate the innate tension he experiences by his belief that he, the subject, is separate from that, the object of his vision.

The wisdom of logic that reduces the tension of the illusory subject-object gap is beneficial wisdom in the human realm of belief in the existence of such a gap, but would not the most beneficial wisdom be that which points the way to eliminating this chronic, longstanding tension of the gap of "thinking about that?" The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

Is not the subject matter of logic dependent on the object matter of vision whether seen or visualized? And should this be true, is not the umbilical cord which unites subjective thought, and objective thought none other than thought itself? So what is it which divided thought from thought if not the illiogical assumption that one can fill the gap with interpretations of thoughts which have no clarifaction of understanding of the link which unites inner subjective feelings, and outer subjective visions?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Is not the subject matter of logic dependent on the object matter of vision whether seen or visualized?

Matter is the manifestation of belief in subject-object separation/reunion, so yes, the subject matter of logic (I feel [sense that] I am separate...) is dependent on the object matter of vision (...from that).

And should this be true, is not the umbilical cord which unites subjective thought, and objective thought none other than thought itself?

Since there can be nowhere where thought is not, yes, it is thought itself which unites subjective thought (feeling/desire) and objective thought (that).

So what is it which divided thought from thought if not the illogical assumption that one can fill the gap with interpretations of thoughts which have no clarification of understanding of the link which unites inner subjective feelings, and outer subjective visions?

Thought which unites all ways or realms of thinking is transcendent to all ways of thinking; therefore, being transcendent to all ways of thinking, cannot be understood by any one way of thinking. What this means is that any one mentality cannot claim itself to be an agent of or a follower of that which transcends all mentalities.

Excellent answers movingalways!!!

In dealing with mental-isms, and your saying:

Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

So then, as all words of men, they cannot transcend beyond the speakers own meaning. What a man means in expressions of words are metaphors, and metaphors are only personal to the individual. Therefore when a person quotes what another has stated as a truth [without building a foundation which uses said quotes as a reference brick in said foundation] is unfair to the reader should that reader desire to reply. Unfair because the originator cannot be addressed for true clarity of experience which lead to the writing in the beginning.

I said all this to say all logic of ones individual senses, therefore are myth to the reader because the reading only provided images of a relative vision within the readers mind only. So the question to be asked: What is a myth? In the sense of defining what a myth is, I have come to recognize most people view a myth as a fable, or story. Any telling of a fable or story of the past [this is what all writings are] can be classified as an ancient myth dealing with supernatural being, ancestors, or heroes. All these ingredients goes into stories simply by presenting figures of achievement or failure by individuals. This is ture because man is always in need of a scapegoat, or mentor. And in all myth one finds crucifixions of the body whether physical or mental, and someone greater or lessor which men walk upon, or stand upon the shoulders of. Myths are metaphors stemming from individual believes and non-beliefs in one's own experience.

Let us go a little deeper into this by saying:

"some believe God is a myth. But God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcend all categorites of human thought, even the category of being and non-being." - Joseph Campbell

Freud, Addler, and Jung, especially Jung say

"myth are public dreams [that which is the presented story]. Dreams are private myth, [that which an individual receive metaphorically] . By an individual finding their own dream, it will lead them into the myth of the world in which they live. Freud, Addler, and Jung concluded that the figures of dreams are really the figures of personal mytholization, which means individuals are creating their own figures -[myth, which each poster on this board, each poet, writer, lecturer does by expressing opinions, and concepts from figures of their metaphorical thoughts ]- related to the occupied, which is the individual." Joseph Campbell

God's wisdom is the foundation of all thoughts. Thoughts are the foundation of the imagination, spoken words, knowledge, and forms of man's interpretational experiences manifested to express the reality of the nature of life in order for man to begin to understand the expand of thoughts, images, words, knowledge, and forms which are the seeds which contain the substance, essence, energy, and "law of the Spirit of life."

All knowledge and words men discover, fill their minds with, and analyze have always been. All words men speak and give meaning to from their acquired knowledge, carries with them personal meaning and labels because of man's individual experience of living their lives.

Experience is the awakening of the human mind to knowledge. Absorption is the filling of the human mind with man's experiences, and analyzed feelings of interpretations. These are theories, opinions, and concepts which become the man and his world. Neither are pure, whole, perfect, or complete because they are the moving interpreted output of the universal mind's reciprocal projections of time, space, distnce, and matter as human thoughts.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. . .for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Man's thoughts and ways are only fragments of original thoughts, and purpose intent.

These fragmented thoughts and actions of activity of men are the ideas, theories, opinions, and concepts which are the building blocks the universal human mind is based in, and use, to keep the eternal human nature of men alive in the begetting of offsprings, who keeps the recycling human attributes alive to be pased onto the next generation.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Thoughts are like switching a Gas cooker on, so that the heat slowly creates a thought in our mind. But gas cookers have a pilot light, and we are the pilot of our bodies. The pre-thought is energy that is lit so low as to be an invisible flame. It only takes this almost invisible energy source to light up the whole brain.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. . .for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Man's thoughts and ways are only fragments of original thoughts, and purpose intent.

If man does not realize he is a finite metaphor to himself of fragmented visions, he remains locked in his belief that his fragmented human thinking is the one and only thought reality in his thought continuum of I AM.

These fragmented thoughts and actions of activity of men are the ideas, theories, opinions, and concepts which are the building blocks the universal human mind is based in, and use, to keep the eternal human nature of men alive in the begetting of offsprings, who keeps the recycling human attributes alive to be passed onto the next generation.

This is the belief that a physical body is needed for thought expression; what is not realized is that thought is always expressing itself. If this were not so, it also would not be so that:

God's wisdom is the foundation of all thoughts. Thoughts are the foundation of the imagination, spoken words, knowledge, and forms of man's interpretational experiences manifested to express the reality of the nature of life in order for man to begin to understand the expand of thoughts, images, words, knowledge, and forms which are the seeds which contain the substance, essence, energy, and "law of the Spirit of life."

One minute of being still and ceasing to interpret life as if it is personal to oneself will reveal the impersonal foundation of life that are the seeds thoughts for every thought, including that of man's fragmented world of subject-object mentalism. Should man acknowledge this one minute of awakening as being one of significance in the expanding of his awareness, he will find himself going where "[few] men have gone before."

Thoughts are like switching a Gas cooker on, so that the heat slowly creates a thought in our mind. But gas cookers have a pilot light, and we are the pilot of our bodies. The pre-thought is energy that is lit so low as to be an invisible flame. It only takes this almost invisible energy source to light up the whole brain.

By saying there is pre-thought and thought, are you saying there are two separate realities of substance?

movingalways wrote:

Thoughts are like switching a Gas cooker on, so that the heat slowly creates a thought in our mind. But gas cookers have a pilot light, and we are the pilot of our bodies. The pre-thought is energy that is lit so low as to be an invisible flame. It only takes this almost invisible energy source to light up the whole brain.

By saying there is pre-thought and thought, are you saying there are two separate realities of substance?

Zero substance would be a hole if it could exist. Pre-thought is zero substance, and therefore it is nothing.

However.. zero does not exist, and nothing does not exist.

What then fills this hole?

If you have ever put a beer mat on a pint glass, and turned it upside-down you will know that the beer mat sticks to the glass.

A pre-thought is like removing the beer mat from the glass. Although there is a hole in the glass to drink from, it is instantly spilling beer, and therefore instantly filled.

The other substance is something trying to always fill zero in our minds... conscience.

Zero substance would be a hole if it could exist. Pre-thought is zero substance, and therefore it is nothing.

However.. zero does not exist, and nothing does not exist.

What then fills this hole?

Zero substance does exist. Your speaking on zero substance gave it the substance of your life's thoughts.

To be sure, zero exist because to define zero, you have to have a image of a defined circle to speak upon the hole which you say does not exist because nothing does not exist. But the definition of the circle which produced the zero "o" is filled by that within and and without. For that within the circle is the same zero substance without the definitive outline of the circle. The circle is filled by the zero substance you gave life to for the definition of the circle touches the inner and outer dimension of the circle making all one with the definition.

Never give power to anything a person believes is theri source of strength - jufa

movingalways,

Let's see if I can translate your opening post into what I would call plain English. Feel free to correct me if I go wrong.

This thread, and a number of others like it, is far too convoluted than it ought to be. All the participants thus far on this thread have a habit of unnecessarily complicating things by using tortuous forms of language. It is mistake often made by youth - that of mistaking genius and intelligence with complexity of thought.

In reality, the very opposite is the case. The sign of a clear-sighted thinker who knows his material is the simplicity of his expression.

movingalways wrote:Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

Translation: Logic needs dualistic or finite conceptions in order to function.

My response: True. However, this doesn't mean that a logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

On the one hand, without duality, consciousness wouldn't be able to exist at all. All conscious perceptions are dualistic in nature, which means that it is impossible for us to escape duality while remaining conscious - at least in the sense of leaving duality behind and entering into a "non-dualistic" realm. There is no such thing as a "non-dualistic" realm. It is a contradiction in terms.

However, we can escape duality in another way, and that is by understanding the illusory nature of all dualistic entities (i.e. all things) and training the mind into never being fooled, not even for an instant, by any form of duality at all. This is a case of transcending duality even while continuing to experience it in each moment.

Or to put the matter more poetically, we can never wake up from the dream of life and become aware of something else, but we can realize that we are indeed dreaming. The enlightened person is someone who is so aware that everything is a dream that nothing can ever disturb him.

As high a functioning is vision-based logic when compared with other human mentalities that include sense interpretation of sound, touch, taste, and smell, the interpreter of logic cannot escape the truth that logic, like all human-sense mentalities, is based on belief in dualism, the belief that subject and object are separate from one another. It is not possible to determine the logic of a circumstance without visually separating the subject and the object of the "matter of the circumstance." What this means is that no interpretation that is of dualism is ever absent of the tension that is experienced within the interpreter to "see" what "is inside" that imagined gap between subject and object.

Translation: A logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

My response: As I explained above, not necessarily so. Logic only needs appearances of duality. It doesn't require us to go that extra step and believe that these appearances are ultimately real.

The wisdom of logic that reduces the tension of the illusory subject-object gap is beneficial wisdom in the human realm of belief in the existence of such a gap, but would not the most beneficial wisdom be that which points the way to eliminating this chronic, longstanding tension of the gap of "thinking about that?" The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

Translation: Doesn't the greatest wisdom consist of eliminating dualistic perception altogether?

My response: No, the greatest wisdom doesn't consist of striving for the impossible. Only dead people stop experiencing duality.

The tension you talk about is eliminated by understanding the illusory nature of duality.

-

jufa wrote:

Zero substance would be a hole if it could exist. Pre-thought is zero substance, and therefore it is nothing.

However.. zero does not exist, and nothing does not exist.

What then fills this hole?

Zero substance does exist. Your speaking on zero substance gave it the substance of your life's thoughts.

To be sure, zero exist because to define zero, you have to have a image of a defined circle to speak upon the hole which you say does not exist because nothing does not exist. But the definition of the circle which produced the zero "o" is filled by that within and and without. For that within the circle is the same zero substance without the definitive outline of the circle. The circle is filled by the zero substance you gave life to for the definition of the circle touches the inner and outer dimension of the circle making all one with the definition.

Never give power to anything a person believes is theri source of strength - jufa

Zero substance would end the Universe if it existed. Have you ever wondered how the brain manages to eliminate entropy? Our electrons realistically should all power down through entropy, and our brain should become an even mass of power, Yet, not only does our brain not suffer from entropy, but we are able to actually steer the power inside it like driving a car. The power to eliminate entropy is the power to eliminate zero substance. If the brain were winding down to zero we would be dead, and if the universe were winding down to zero it would be dead. What happens at zero is that it is filled instantly, without a pause. It is filled so quickly that zero does not have time to exist.

Filling zero instantly is also a requirement of an infinite Universe. The universe is infinite without pause, because zero doesn't exist (it tries to exist), it is filled instantly. (Forget the fact that I am talking about the membrane here in actual fact)

David,

movingalways,

Let's see if I can translate your opening post into what I would call plain English. Feel free to correct me if I go wrong.

:)

This thread, and a number of others like it, is far too convoluted than it ought to be. All the participants thus far on this thread have a habit of unnecessarily complicating things by using tortuous forms of language. It is mistake often made by youth - that of mistaking genius and intelligence with complexity of thought.

You are making assumptions based on your interpretation of your understanding of thought, both of my style and of my age and of my intent. Correction: I write of thought according to my comprehension; I am not young, and my intent is not one to claim genius or to display intelligence.

In reality, the very opposite is the case. The sign of a clear-sighted thinker who knows his material is the simplicity of his expression.

Again, you are making an assumption as to my intent. Correction: My intent is to be purged of my human thinking, of my belief in dualism.

movingalways wrote:
Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

Translation: Logic needs dualistic or finite conceptions in order to function.

My response: True. However, this doesn't mean that a logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

Belief is at the very heart of dualistic thinking, for dualistic thinking arises because of the translation of one's reality as originating from a source that is external to, or is in opposition to, Pure Thought Awareness. The belief that thought awareness needs to be translated is the activity of believing.

On the one hand, without duality, consciousness wouldn't be able to exist at all. All conscious perceptions are dualistic in nature, which means that it is impossible for us to escape duality while remaining conscious - at least in the sense of leaving duality behind and entering into a "non-dualistic" realm. There is no such thing as a "non-dualistic" realm. It is a contradiction in terms.

I have never used the word "nondual", although I recognize it as being a tool for understanding the two ways or directions of thinking in man's consciousness.

You say that without duality, consciousness wouldn't be able to exist at all. This is not so. If this were so, consciousness would be restricted or limited to human consciousness, the consciousness that "needs duality." Human consciousness is but one expression of infinite consciousness. There is "dog consciousness", there is "bee consciousness", there is "rose consciousness," there are infinite consciousness' within the infinite consciousness of God, of Tao. Can we know the reality of the consciousness of "dog", of "bee", of "rose?" No. It is for this reason that man must cease his vanity of speaking for the infinity of consciousness using his human consciousness of awareness of dualism.

What you say about all conscious perceptions being dualistic is true. It is the perceptions of the intellect that must be transcended so that realization of spirit may be received.

However, we can escape duality in another way, and that is by understanding the illusory nature of all dualistic entities (i.e. all things) and training the mind into never being fooled, not even for an instant, by any form of duality at all. This is a case of transcending duality even while continuing to experience it in each moment.

What you present here is mind battling mind. To transcend a thought, one must reject their identification or attachment to that thought. This is the meaning of transcendence. This is the purging I addressed earlier. If the mind is not purged of its need to experience life, rather than to be the life that it is, then it remains caught in its darkness of belief that thought originates within human consciousness.

Or to put the matter more poetically, we can never wake up from the dream of life and become aware of something else, but we can realize that we are indeed dreaming. The enlightened person is someone who is so aware that everything is a dream that nothing can ever disturb him.

We do indeed wake up from the dream of life and become aware of something else, that being that the dream is a lie. Life dreams not, Life IS. Only man dreams of Life; Life does not dream of man. This was the awareness of Jesus and of the Buddha, this was the veil that was lifted for them so that they could begin the discipline of being obedient to being purged of their belief in the dualism of a Dreamer of Life.

Quote:
As high a functioning is vision-based logic when compared with other human mentalities that include sense interpretation of sound, touch, taste, and smell, the interpreter of logic cannot escape the truth that logic, like all human-sense mentalities, is based on belief in dualism, the belief that subject and object are separate from one another. It is not possible to determine the logic of a circumstance without visually separating the subject and the object of the "matter of the circumstance." What this means is that no interpretation that is of dualism is ever absent of the tension that is experienced within the interpreter to "see" what "is inside" that imagined gap between subject and object.

Translation: A logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

My response: As I explained above, not necessarily so. Logic only needs appearances of duality.

Thought is an infinite continuum. You are an individual expression of the thought continuum. As is the rose, the dog and the bee. What this means is that if you continue to need the appearance of duality, you will continue to need the appearance of duality. When your sense body is no more, your mentality of continuing to need duality will continue (your need for a flesh body - sense awareness - will continue).

It doesn't require us to go that extra step and believe that these appearances are ultimately real.

Why would a seeker of the truth of themselves continue to grasp onto appearances of themselves? Once the "jig is up", why continue dancing the jig?

Quote:
The wisdom of logic that reduces the tension of the illusory subject-object gap is beneficial wisdom in the human realm of belief in the existence of such a gap, but would not the most beneficial wisdom be that which points the way to eliminating this chronic, longstanding tension of the gap of "thinking about that?" The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

Translation: Doesn't the greatest wisdom consist of eliminating dualistic perception altogether?

My response: No, the greatest wisdom doesn't consist of striving for the impossible. Only dead people stop experiencing duality.

Dead people is the experience of duality. Belief you are a person, and not Thought Itself, is to be dead to (unaware of) your Thought Infinity. It is the taking of thought to be personal that is the darkness of the dreamer. Thought is impersonal, Life is impersonal; it is man's interpretation of his sense reality as being the one and only reality that causes him to believe thought is personal to him. It is this interpretation that also causes him to believe in life and death.

It is one's awareness of being an expression of the Thought Continuum of God's Infinity that brings them to the awareness that "with [the omnipresent] God [of I and the Father are One], all things are possible."

The tension you talk about is eliminated by understanding the illusory nature of duality.

The very activity of understanding the illusory nature of dualism is the tension I am talking about. Understanding implies reflection, a pause, a gap between thoughts so as to "think about." As long as man is in his sense awareness, this tension of "thinking about" exists. This is why it is critical to comprehend that man's awareness does not end when his sense awareness ends. Every sense existence is an opportunity to become aware of this truth of the infinite nature of man as an expression of the Infinite Thought Continuum. Every sense existence is an opportunity to purge oneself of their having to stop the flow of thought so as to understand what thought "means", be it perceived to be of logic or of emotionalism.

Pincho wrote

Zero substance would end the Universe if it existed. Have you ever wondered how the brain manages to eliminate entropy? Our electrons realistically should all power down through entropy, and our brain should become an even mass of power, Yet, not only does our brain not suffer from entropy, but we are able to actually steer the power inside it like driving a car. The power to eliminate entropy is the power to eliminate zero substance. If the brain were winding down to zero we would be dead, and if the universe were winding down to zero it would be dead. What happens at zero is that it is filled instantly, without a pause. It is filled so quickly that zero does not have time to exist.

Filling zero instantly is also a requirement of an infinite Universe. The universe is infinite without pause, because zero doesn't exist (it tries to exist), it is filled instantly. (Forget the fact that I am talking about the membrane here in actual fact)

Pincho, this has nothing to do with the brain, nor any other effect operating in the realm of this dimension. That which you are unaware of does not exist to you. You, however, are aware of zero "0" substance, so tell me how are you aware of it if it does not exist.

And what is this power to eliminate measurement?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:Pincho wrote

Zero substance would end the Universe if it existed. Have you ever wondered how the brain manages to eliminate entropy? Our electrons realistically should all power down through entropy, and our brain should become an even mass of power, Yet, not only does our brain not suffer from entropy, but we are able to actually steer the power inside it like driving a car. The power to eliminate entropy is the power to eliminate zero substance. If the brain were winding down to zero we would be dead, and if the universe were winding down to zero it would be dead. What happens at zero is that it is filled instantly, without a pause. It is filled so quickly that zero does not have time to exist.

Filling zero instantly is also a requirement of an infinite Universe. The universe is infinite without pause, because zero doesn't exist (it tries to exist), it is filled instantly. (Forget the fact that I am talking about the membrane here in actual fact)

Pincho, this has nothing to do with the brain, nor any other effect operating in the realm of this dimension. That which you are unaware of does not exist to you. You, however, are aware of zero "0" substance, so tell me how are you aware of it if it does not exist.

And what is this power to eliminate measurement?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Somehow you have skipped all of my references to the brain. look......

jufa.....

Pincho, this has nothing to do with the brain..

Pincho...

Have you ever wondered how the brain manages to eliminate entropy? Our electrons realistically should all power down through entropy, and our brain should become an even mass of power, Yet, not only does our brain not suffer from entropy, but we are able to actually steer the power inside it like driving a car. The power to eliminate entropy is the power to eliminate zero substance.

Then you say....

jufa....

You, however, are aware of zero "0" substance, so tell me how are you aware of it if it does not exist.

I am not aware of zero substance, because it does not exist as I explained. I am aware that at zero matter alters its state from 1 thing to another. The theory of Cause and Effect should really include a change of state at zero or even at paradox. The cause of energy draining down to zero has an effect of yet more energy, therefore zero is broken.

Take the two slit experiment, and two slits open, and one photon. Man thinks that the photon will either go through the top slit, or the bottom slit. The photon then goes through both slits. How does a single photon go through both slits? Because the paradox which basically turned a single photon into two Photon, because at attempting zero there was a hole, and the hole allowed a new photon to enter.

Or the Bose-Einstein experiment which allows atoms to occupy the same space at almost zero.

The beginning of a thought is effect with zero as the cause. this breaks the Cause and effect paradox of thought. With zero as the cause of effect it is like saying that nothing was the cause of your thought, you made up your own mind. But zero doesn't exist, but it does attempt to exist.

Imagine Captain Kirk on the Transporter beaming aboard the Enterprise. For a moment he is not there, and then he is there. But he always existed at every stage of the transport, and even before he was transported. He was never zero, and yet he wasn't there but somewhere else.

These holes can even be move around to other places. Spooky matter is an example of how the hole can be moved to another place.

The pre-thought is a thought that has energy from somewhere else, always ready to fill a zero hole in our universe, yet the hole never has time to exist.

More often than not, it is difficult for one person to absorb a style of writing and make judgment assumptions without one on one communication and be parallel in thought. This is because each person is expressing their intellect garnered from human learning and adaptation of displaying that learned. Also conditions of living, peers, and ones environ plays upon what one absorbs and project by way of their thinking. And then parallelation of one another thought process is also determined by ones abstractness of visions, for the intellect cannot blend the deeds of Spirit abstractness with the illusion of flesh. Both, in aspect of observation may appear the same, but there is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

The garment of Life is an omnipresent blanket. Separation from the life of anything is impossible. This is why writing are intended for all levels of comprehension. Individuals stop and start upon ingestion that which they need to assimilate mentally, causing one to say, huh, I never thought of it in that manner before. A mind has been opened to the door of unlimited possiblities of expansion.

Consciousness is not antithesis of itself. Analogous to the perception of depth created by intergrating two slightly displaced visual viewpoints, is only viable where there are two different consciousness' active. All individuals have different precepts, ideas, thought analysis and thought precessives for thinking, but where does one find two or more methods, or techniques for receiving thoughts from the invisible? If one has not been faithful to the Original reception of the Original Thought, irrespective of beliefs or non-beliefs, that one is antithesis to themselves, and the governing "law of the Spirit of life." So it doesn't matter what one beliefs, or whether they go to the utmost part of the heavens iintellectually or spiritually, vanity, all is vanity for them,

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Pincho, did not skip your reference concerning the brain:

Pincho, this has nothing to do with the brain, nor any other effect operating in the realm of this dimension.

The brain is a substance of matter. Are we not indulged in zero substance?

p.s. Just want to point out to you, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In another thread you copied and printed my entire post, and then proceeded, not to deal with the contents of it, but give bits and pieces of your philosophy, without directing the readers to any specifics of where you came from or where you were going.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:Pincho, did not skip your reference concerning the brain:

Pincho, this has nothing to do with the brain, nor any other effect operating in the realm of this dimension.

The brain is a substance of matter. Are we not indulged in zero substance?

p.s. Just want to point out to you, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In another thread you copied and printed my entire post, and then proceeded, not to deal with the contents of it, but give bits and pieces of your philosophy, without directing the readers to any specifics of where you came from or where you were going.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

You always say that posts do not follow the pattern of your own posts, and that is because you don't understand the following posts. My posts always answer your posts. You need to study a lot more. I can't post every single example of Quantum Physics in all of my posts, it would take me about 2 hours to write a single post. But I do make my posts very easy to understand so you should really be reading them.

Pincho wrote:

Zero substance would be a hole if it could exist. Pre-thought is zero substance, and therefore it is nothing.

However.. zero does not exist, and nothing does not exist.

What then fills this hole?

jufa wrote:

Zero substance does exist. Your speaking on zero substance gave it the substance of your life's thoughts. . .the definition of the circle which produced the zero "o" is filled by that within and and without.

Pincho wrote:

Zero substance would end the Universe if it existed.

jufa wrote:

You, however, are aware of zero "0" substance, so tell me how are you aware of it if it does not exist.

And what is this power to eliminate measurement?

Pincho wrote:

I am not aware of zero substance, because it does not exist as I explained.

Just want to know who is it that entered "zero substance" into this conversation between you and I? And how can you enter "zero substance" into this conversation if it is as you have stated directly above?

Pincho wrote:

I can't post every single example of Quantum Physics in all of my posts,

Why not if you want to make you point clearly understood? at least by me. Quantum Physica is not beyond my understanding.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:
Why not if you want to make you point clearly understood? at least by me. Quantum Physica is not beyond my understanding.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Look for the part where the photon exists in two places at once, and particle / wave duality...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Look for the part where an effect is moved away from the cause...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_ ... _(physics)

Look for the part where there is a change just before zero deg happens...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80 ... condensate

The old theory of the Aether, I have now changed from a wind to a bubble...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

And finally time dilation, which I have changed to the Aether bubbles causing an update in map location..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Then add that information to my previous post....

I am not aware of zero substance, because it does not exist as I explained. I am aware that at zero matter alters its state from 1 thing to another. The theory of Cause and Effect should really include a change of state at zero or even at paradox. The cause of energy draining down to zero has an effect of yet more energy, therefore zero is broken.

Take the two slit experiment, and two slits open, and one photon. Man thinks that the photon will either go through the top slit, or the bottom slit. The photon then goes through both slits. How does a single photon go through both slits? Because the paradox which basically turned a single photon into two Photon, because at attempting zero there was a hole, and the hole allowed a new photon to enter.

Or the Bose-Einstein experiment which allows atoms to occupy the same space at almost zero.

The beginning of a thought is effect with zero as the cause. this breaks the Cause and effect paradox of thought. With zero as the cause of effect it is like saying that nothing was the cause of your thought, you made up your own mind. But zero doesn't exist, but it does attempt to exist.

Imagine Captain Kirk on the Transporter beaming aboard the Enterprise. For a moment he is not there, and then he is there. But he always existed at every stage of the transport, and even before he was transported. He was never zero, and yet he wasn't there but somewhere else.

These holes can even be move around to other places. Spooky matter is an example of how the hole can be moved to another place.

The pre-thought is a thought that has energy from somewhere else, always ready to fill a zero hole in our universe, yet the hole never has time to exist.

movingalways wrote:

movingalways wrote:
Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

Translation: Logic needs dualistic or finite conceptions in order to function.

My response: True. However, this doesn't mean that a logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

Belief is at the very heart of dualistic thinking, for dualistic thinking arises because of the translation of one's reality as originating from a source that is external to, or is in opposition to, Pure Thought Awareness. The belief that thought awareness needs to be translated is the activity of believing.

You are here engaging in dualistic thinking yourself. Should I therefore be dismissing what you are saying as mere belief?

You say that without duality, consciousness wouldn't be able to exist at all. This is not so. If this were so, consciousness would be restricted or limited to human consciousness, the consciousness that "needs duality." Human consciousness is but one expression of infinite consciousness. There is "dog consciousness", there is "bee consciousness", there is "rose consciousness," there are infinite consciousness' within the infinite consciousness of God, of Tao. Can we know the reality of the consciousness of "dog", of "bee", of "rose?" No. It is for this reason that man must cease his vanity of speaking for the infinity of consciousness using his human consciousness of awareness of dualism.

All these different forms of consciousness consist of perceiving "things" within the Totality. They all involve a process of being aware of some aspect of the Totality to the exclusion of all else.

Without perception of things, there is no consciousness.

Even your perception (and experience) of "Pure Thought Awareness" boils down to being a perception/experience of a thing.

What you say about all conscious perceptions being dualistic is true. It is the perceptions of the intellect that must be transcended so that realization of spirit may be received.

The very attempt to "transcend" something, whatever it might be, is dualistic in nature. All it achieves is shifting the mind from one dualistic realm to another. One still remains as trapped within the illusion of duality as ever.

The root of the problem lies in believing that a particular dualistic realm (e.g. the realm of "pure thought awareness") is none other than Ultimate Reality, while other realms (e.g. the intellectual realm, the physical realm, etc) aren't. The end result is the constant pursuit of a dualistic phantom, which is a form of insanity.

There is a story in Zen which describes how a madman in the mountains used to desperately search for the source of piercing sounds that he regularly heard, not realizing they were echoes caused by his own shrieks. This is exactly how the deluded spiritual seeker behaves. He creates mirages of enlightenment with his dualistic thinking and then chases after them, not realizing they are merely illusions of his own making.

The enlightened sage is perfectly at home in all realms. He sees them all as equal expressions of Ultimate Reality. He doesn't have to strive to enter a particular realm in order to feel closer to God.

movingalways wrote:

However, we can escape duality in another way, and that is by understanding the illusory nature of all dualistic entities (i.e. all things) and training the mind into never being fooled, not even for an instant, by any form of duality at all. This is a case of transcending duality even while continuing to experience it in each moment.

What you present here is mind battling mind. To transcend a thought, one must reject their identification or attachment to that thought. This is the meaning of transcendence. This is the purging I addressed earlier. If the mind is not purged of its need to experience life, rather than to be the life that it is, then it remains caught in its darkness of belief that thought originates within human consciousness.

True, nothing can ever originate at all. Not just thoughts, but all things. They all stretch back and become lost in the beginningless past.

We do indeed wake up from the dream of life and become aware of something else, that being that the dream is a lie.

This sort of statement is confusing. For example, should I be regarding your statement as a lie? After all, it is part of the dream ....

Life dreams not, Life IS. Only man dreams of Life; Life does not dream of man. This was the awareness of Jesus and of the Buddha, this was the veil that was lifted for them so that they could begin the discipline of being obedient to being purged of their belief in the dualism of a Dreamer of Life.

Again, I find what you are saying here, and your general message overall, to be confusing.

For example, if, as you say, man's thoughts don't really originate from his own consciousness, then how is he responsible for his "dreaming of Life"? And if Life is not the thing which dreams of man, then what does? Are you saying that man was produced by something other than Life?

Thought is an infinite continuum. You are an individual expression of the thought continuum. As is the rose, the dog and the bee. What this means is that if you continue to need the appearance of duality, you will continue to need the appearance of duality. When your sense body is no more, your mentality of continuing to need duality will continue (your need for a flesh body - sense awareness - will continue).

It's not a matter of my "needing" the appearances of duality. Rather, it's a matter of recognizing the reality that consciousness cannot operate without these appearances. No appearances, no consciousness.

Even your "pure thought awareness" is a mere appearance.

movingalways wrote:

It doesn't require us to go that extra step and believe that these appearances are ultimately real.

Why would a seeker of the truth of themselves continue to grasp onto appearances of themselves? Once the "jig is up", why continue dancing the jig?

We have no choice but to continue it. The jig in unavoidable as long as we remain conscious.

I'm not talking about "grasping" at appearances here - that doesn't have to continue, no - but rather, the experience of appearances. The continual experiencing of appearances continues to chug along in the post-enlightenment phase, the same as before. Enlightenment makes no difference in this regard.

movingalways wrote:

The tension you talk about is eliminated by understanding the illusory nature of duality.

The very activity of understanding the illusory nature of dualism is the tension I am talking about.

No. You are creating this tension yourself by mistakenly believing that duality and thinking have to be discarded or transcended in favour of something else. Genuinely wise people are perfectly at ease with duality and the act of thinking.

You're still a long way from truly understanding the illusory nature of duality, primarily because you are still locked in the belief that dualistic entities are real things that need to be pushed aside.

Understanding implies reflection, a pause, a gap between thoughts so as to "think about." As long as man is in his sense awareness, this tension of "thinking about" exists.

When Jesus and Buddha were giving their teachings (not to mention the rest of their time, such as deciding when to eat, when to stretch the legs, when to go to bed, etc), they were engaged in thought. Did they suffer from this tension you talk about? If not, why not?

-

Did you guys go potty yet??

David:

movingalways wrote:
Logic is a mentality of the senses. In order for the mentality of logic to function, there must be an imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic.

Translation: Logic needs dualistic or finite conceptions in order to function.

My response: True. However, this doesn't mean that a logical thinker necessarily believes in dualism.

Belief is at the very heart of dualistic thinking, for dualistic thinking arises because of the translation of one's reality as originating from a source that is external to, or is in opposition to, Pure Thought Awareness. The belief that thought awareness needs to be translated is the activity of believing.

You are here engaging in dualistic thinking yourself. Should I therefore be dismissing what you are saying as mere belief?

Who said anything about dismissing belief?

All these different forms of consciousness consist of perceiving "things" within the Totality. They all involve a process of being aware of some aspect of the Totality to the exclusion of all else.

Without perception of things, there is no consciousness.

Even your perception (and experience) of "Pure Thought Awareness" boils down to being a perception/experience of a thing.

You are assuming that awareness/consciousness is dependent on the sense perception to exist. On what do you base this assumption?

Pure Thought Awareness is infinite thought, therefore, Pure Thought Awareness cannot be perceived or experienced. Pure Thought Awareness is not a thing; Pure Thought Awareness is all things/everything (all thoughts, every thought).

The very attempt to "transcend" something, whatever it might be, is dualistic in nature. All it achieves is shifting the mind from one dualistic realm to another. One still remains as trapped within the illusion of duality as ever.

Transcending has nothing to do with shifting the mind. It is the mind that is to be transcended, from sense consciousness into spirit consciousness. It is, however, necessary to go through the mind (use human words that suggest spirit) to go beyond the mind.

The root of the problem lies in believing that a particular dualistic realm (e.g. the realm of "pure thought awareness") is none other than Ultimate Reality, while other realms (e.g. the intellectual realm, the physical realm, etc) aren't. The end result is the constant pursuit of a dualistic phantom, which is a form of insanity.

There is a story in Zen which describes how a madman in the mountains used to desperately search for the source of piercing sounds that he regularly heard, not realizing they were echoes caused by his own shrieks. This is exactly how the deluded spiritual seeker behaves. He creates mirages of enlightenment with his dualistic thinking and then chases after them, not realizing they are merely illusions of his own making.

The enlightened sage is perfectly at home in all realms. He sees them all as equal expressions of Ultimate Reality. He doesn't have to strive to enter a particular realm in order to feel closer to God.

You have just revealed the difference between our wisdom in your last statement above. I am aware that it is not possible to "feel closer to God", for God is the very foundation of my conscious awareness. Where can God go that I need to "feel closer to Him/It?"

As for quoting a story from Zen, it is meaningless to me, for that is someone else's story, not mine.

True, nothing can ever originate at all. Not just thoughts, but all things. They all stretch back and become lost in the beginningless past.

Is not every thing, a thought?

We do indeed wake up from the dream of life and become aware of something else, that being that the dream is a lie.

This sort of statement is confusing. For example, should I be regarding your statement as a lie? After all, it is part of the dream ....

The dream is a lie (an illusion), as is every word that I give you, as is every word that you give me. Human words are lies, for they are fragments of the Infinity of God and have no exactness, no absoluteness in meaning.

Life dreams not, Life IS. Only man dreams of Life; Life does not dream of man. This was the awareness of Jesus and of the Buddha, this was the veil that was lifted for them so that they could begin the discipline of being obedient to being purged of their belief in the dualism of a Dreamer of Life.

Again, I find what you are saying here, and your general message overall, to be confusing.

For example, if, as you say, man's thoughts don't really originate from his own consciousness, then how is he responsible for his "dreaming of Life"? And if Life is not the thing which dreams of man, then what does? Are you saying that man was produced by something other than Life?

Man is responsible for his dreaming of Life in that he interprets Life to be divided into good and evil selves. When he realizes that Life is not good or evil, it is then his responsibility to being obedient to this awareness.

Thought is an infinite continuum. You are an individual expression of the thought continuum. As is the rose, the dog and the bee. What this means is that if you continue to need the appearance of duality, you will continue to need the appearance of duality. When your sense body is no more, your mentality of continuing to need duality will continue (your need for a flesh body - sense awareness - will continue).

It's not a matter of my "needing" the appearances of duality. Rather, it's a matter of recognizing the reality that consciousness cannot operate without these appearances. No appearances, no consciousness.

Even your "pure thought awareness" is a mere appearance.

How can you make this claim for all of consciousness that it cannot operate with the appearances of duality? Duality is the separation of subject and object - are you then saying that consciousness is divided into two realities that perceive one another, as if face to face?

movingalways wrote:

It doesn't require us to go that extra step and believe that these appearances are ultimately real.

Why would a seeker of the truth of themselves continue to grasp onto appearances of themselves? Once the "jig is up", why continue dancing the jig?

We have no choice but to continue it. The jig in unavoidable as long as we remain conscious.

I agree that we continue in dualism while we are transcending dualism, for as long as one is aware of their senses, it is unavoidable. But the difference between the one who is in the world but not of the world and the one who is of the world is that the the one who is in, but not of, is dedicated to releasing all attachments to good and evil (comparative thinking) that have accumulated in their conscious. This is his purpose for coming into the world. To become aware of and to speak of the Infinity of Thought, of which duality is but one expression.

I'm not talking about "grasping" at appearances here - that doesn't have to continue, no - but rather, the experience of appearances. The continual experiencing of appearances continues to chug along in the post-enlightenment phase, the same as before. Enlightenment makes no difference in this regard.

Can you tell me how one "experiences" appearances without separating the subject from the object so as to think about (grasp the relationship of) their comparative relationship?

movingalways wrote:

The tension you talk about is eliminated by understanding the illusory nature of duality.

The very activity of understanding the illusory nature of dualism is the tension I am talking about.

No. You are creating this tension yourself by mistakenly believing that duality and thinking have to be discarded or transcended in favour of something else. Genuinely wise people are perfectly at ease with duality and the act of thinking.

There is nothing else but thinking, of which dual thinking is an expression. You are putting words in my mouth by saying that I believe thinking has to be discarded; it is not possible to discard thought. Life is thought. I AM.

As for being at ease with duality, this is a partial ease, for if the sense awareness of the "genuinely wise person" should be threatened in any way, let's say a gun was placed to his or her head, he or she would not be at ease with duality. When the belly is full, and there is a roof over one's head, yes, one is at ease with duality.

You're still a long way from truly understanding the illusory nature of duality, primarily because you are still locked in the belief that dualistic entities are real things that need to be pushed aside.

Again with the assumptions that you understand what I understand about duality. You do not. Why not speak only of your understandings, and leave me to speak of mine?

Understanding implies reflection, a pause, a gap between thoughts so as to "think about." As long as man is in his sense awareness, this tension of "thinking about" exists.

When Jesus and Buddha were giving their teachings (not to mention the rest of their time, such as deciding when to eat, when to stretch the legs, when to go to bed, etc), they were engaged in thought. Did they suffer from this tension you talk about? If not, why not?

Since all who are sensually aware engage in subject-object separation by degree, I can only assume that Jesus and Gautama suffered from this tension until their sense awareness was no more. Again, it is about being aware of thought beyond the senses, and of being obedient to this awareness - "be still and know that I am God." When the last dual thought is purged, be it during this entry into sense awareness or another entry into sense awareness, one ascends into Pure Spirit Consciousness - I and the Father are One (in Spirit).

David, it is only now that I read your essay on "Woman", dualism displayed in all its self-righteousness. What you write in this essay is no different than all prejudicial works that are based on the fragmented thoughts of the man who listens not to his conscience where thought is impersonal and unconditioned, but instead, takes thought to be personal to himself and presents it as if it is not. This is the subject-object mentalism which I reference in the title of this thread.

This fragmentation of good and evil relativity that you present in your essay on "Woman" is no different than all works of men who do not comprehend that thought has nothing to do with gender, race, color, shape or size. Belief that one's fragmented thoughts speak for the whole is the suffering of man laid bare. What you present is not to be at ease in duality, what you present is the manipulation of duality to serve one's own conditioned view of the sense world.

This is why the one who is obedient to stopping their self-righteous taking of thought is the one who takes the more difficult path, for it requires obedience to speaking from their inner conscience of pure thought, and not from their outer conscience of "they say." Prejudices continue to arise yes, but they are recognized for what they are - the self-righteous taking of thought - and are dissolved within the inner conscience before they can be released into the world. Released into the world to spread disharmony amongst the ignorant who themselves believe that self-righteousness is the only thought reality that exists in their consciousness of infinity.

Thought has nothing to do with gender, except in the mind of the one who cannot see beyond his sense of self.

Pincho, This dialogue does not belong in this thread. Am moving it to "The Non-Spatiality Criterion - Part two"

I t is obvious you did not read "part one" for therein the same position you are ascribing to, is the same position "Nobody" also vented. Part two even extends my position, and answers all your comebacks concerning this subject matter. See you there in part two.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:Pincho, This dialogue does not belong in this thread. Am moving it to "The Non-Spatiality Criterion - Part two"

I t is obvious you did not read "part one" for therein the same position you are ascribing to, is the same position "Nobody" also vented. Part two even extends my position, and answers all your comebacks concerning this subject matter. See you there in part two.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Well my post answered the opening post exactly as far as I can tell, I explained the imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic, and the causality of all sense attachment,, also I explained the cause and effect to "vision only", he cannot find the way to eliminate the innate tension he experiences by his belief that he, the subject, is separate from that, the object of his vision., and I also covered The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

So my post appeared to me to be the most important post in the thread, being as I am the only person that can explain the pre-thought which is dualism.