GENIUS FORUMS

Jesus H. Christ BoI,

for enlightenment,
A logic of universals, of ultimate contexts, which allows for process, change, experience, and particular sets of contents must be generated.

The subject of the verb must be different from the object of the verb.

Think about thinking for 6 months.

Seeker: I'm the infinite, but I'm finite. The all is eternal, but I'm not, but it still is me.

Seeker, is it not the thinking about (reasoning) who or what that is the darkness blocking the light of truth?

Beingof1 wrote:There are trillions of cells that make up your body. Each with their "universe unto itself" and "field of awareness." Each cell is aware of its environment and communicates with other cells. Just as our society has professions in which people do a specific job very well, the cells create subregions, each of which allows certain cell functions to operate more effectively. I am speaking mainly of prokaryotes. The "universe' for a cell in your body - is your body.

Now get this - it takes the trillions of cells to make up the "whole" you and singular consciousness. That is because - as is evident in all of nature and life - consciousness is fractal.

Human consciousness being the product of trillions of cooperating cells proves that consciousness is an illusion. If a robot was programmed to consciously distinguish all things into just two categories, A and B, and we removed it's capacity to recognize B, then it recognizes everything as A, making it no more conscious than a rock. It ceases to resemble consciousness due to it's lack of the ability to differentiate. If we plucked our eyes out, we would find a new limitation to our own consciousness, similar to removing the capacity to recognize B in the robot.

This is how consciousness works. It distinguishes and demarcates, according to natures programming. It's merely the software of the brain, whereas distinguishing and demarcation is impossible without it.

Leyla Shen wrote:He who shall remain eternally nameless wrote:

I'm the infinite,

No.

but I'm finite.

Yes.

The all is eternal,

Yes,

but I'm not,

Right, and therefore:

but it still is me.

No, it is still the infinite, with or without you. You cannot make the same claim.

You are clueless Leyla, I was mocking Jup, read back if you like, that was sarcasm pointing out contradiction...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And Seeker is 30 now? Last time he said he was 19.

Again, it was clearly sarcasm, not 30.

David Quinn wrote:I don’t subscribe to that theory, for I affirm that neither the body nor the mind is me.

Ahh, neither body or mind is you - yet when the body dies you die, how odd?

David Quinn wrote:Impermanence is one of the characteristics of emptiness. and the aggregates are also governed by the principle of impermanence. Therefore each of the aggregates is undergoing constant changes

Clearly each of those aggregates undergoes constant change, how is that the same as predicting an end to existence?

Dennis Mahar wrote:meditate on 'unowned' seeker.

Yeah, I'll meditate on a word.


Movingalways, just in case you didn't notice, that was a mock and sarcasm, but in reply to your question, since we're all quoting Huang Po: "The foolish reject what they see, not what they think. The wise reject what they think, not what they see.". The truth is existence (what we know), which 'presents' as a show of appearances, wrongly discriminated into imagined multiplicites- beginning, end, location, external substance, self, other, etc.

David: The infinite field is manifesting all the time. It isn't something which only appears when a certain class of things are absent. It is fully present in every single moment, regardless of whether we are entertaining thoughts or not.

Rewrite for the sake of truth: It is fully present in every single moment, regardless of whether It is giving rise to thoughts or not.

"We" is the delusion.

Seeker: Movingalways, just in case you didn't notice, that was a mock and sarcasm, but in reply to your question, since we're all quoting Huang Po: "The foolish reject what they see, not what they think. The wise reject what they think, not what they see.". The truth is existence (what we know), which 'presents' as a show of appearances, wrongly discriminated into imagined multiplicites- beginning, end, location, external substance, self, other, etc.]

Mocking and sarcasm only serves to perpetuate disturbance of the mind.

It is not true that we're all quoting Huang Po. This is not being said to be nit-picky, but to bring attention to the way the mind is purified of delusion, that of speaking truth always.

As was said to David, "we" (personal pronouns in totality) is the (core) delusion.

LS: I have a delicate but completely indulgent palate, which comes with an appreciation for the finest aged whiskey. You’ve a way to go yet before you can make a claim to 30 years of full-bodied life, rather than an episode of confused and distorted drunkenness from drinking cheap wine.

D: What you're saying it that your drunkenness is better than his? Certainly more expensive and decadent, I'll give you that :-)

Hahaha, ho-ho-ho.

You blaspheme! One does not gorge themselves into the gutter of oblivion on whiskey like it’s cheap wine. That stuff’s pure, liquid enlightenment!

But more seriously;

No, what I’m saying is that I know he hasn’t accomplished the exquisite characteristics of a good bottle of whiskey, let alone coming close to enlightenment, and has a long way yet to arrive at even that.

And Seeker is 30 now? Last time he said he was 19. Perhaps he's Jesus today, starting his mission? False self this, false self that, ...

You’re both wrong. He’s no more than one, and I’m being generous.

...who cares, right?

Right. I’m not going to obsess over some idiot lying over the internet. There's only so much "wisdom" one can glean from bleeding such an experience.

~

Yes, oh grand enlightened one, you’re so clear one can see right through you...

The fool quotes:

"The foolish reject what they see, not what they think. The wise reject what they think, not what they see."

And then, unbeknownst perhaps only to him, proves his own foolishness with such blinding clarity one is left utterly speechless:

The truth is existence (what we know), which 'presents' as a show of appearances, wrongly discriminated into imagined multiplicites- beginning, end, location, external substance, self, other, etc.

seeker,

Yeah, I'll meditate on a word.

You meditate on quotes Mr Quote Guy,
Gosh, quotes are words.

Are you miffed again?

Mocking and sarcasm only serves to perpetuate disturbance of the mind.

Only if you let it.
Who could be that unenlightened?

Beingof1 wrote: If it requires the All to make up who and what you are, how long have you been around and when will you cease to be?

The All doesn't just cause me, but every finite thing that can be logically conceived to exist. Ergo, my beginning and end are those finite things that are not me.

If the mind is finite, how does it know the infinite?

By knowing the finite.

Where does the all begin and your mind end?

I already told you it is eternal.

There is no problem with any of you disagreeing, but have the sense to admit that enlightenment as spoken by Buddha has either been widely mistranslated, or clearly states otherwise to your view that one's existence begins and ends with the body, on numerous occassions:

And since these are more than clear enough to show that he does refute such a view, why are you on an enlightenment forum, tainting it by directly disagreeing?

The words birth, decay and death explained clearly:

What, now, is Birth? The birth of beings belonging to this or that
order of beings, their being born, their conception and springing into
existence, the manifestation of the groups of existence, the arising
of sense activity-this is called Birth.
And what is Decay? The decay of beings belonging to this or that
order of beings; their getting aged, frail, grey, and wrinkled; the
failing of their vital force, the wearing out of the senses-this is
called Decay.
And what is Death? The parting and vanishing of beings out of this
or that order of beings, their destruction, disappearance, death,
the completion of their life-period, dissolution of the groups of
existence, the discarding of the body-this is called Death.


"Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara; not to be discovered
is any first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance, and
ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening through this round
of rebirths.
[Samsara-the Wheel of Existence, lit., the "Perpetual
Wandering"-is the name by which is designated the sea of life ever
restlessly heaving up and down, the symbol of this continuous
process of ever again and again being born, growing old, suffering,
and dying."

Which do you think is the more: the streams of blood that, through
your being beheaded, have flowed upon this long way, or the waters
in the four oceans?
Long time have you been caught as dacoits, or highwaymen, or
adulterers; and, through your being beheaded, verily, more blood has
flowed upon this long way than there is water in the four oceans.
But how is this possible?
Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara; not to be discovered
is any first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance, and
ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening through this round
of rebirths."

"by taking the evil way in
deeds, words, and thoughts, at the dissolution of the body, after
death, they fall into a downward state of existence, a state of
suffering, into perdition, and the abyss of hell. But, this is the
misery of sensuous craving, the heaping up of suffering in the
future life"

"wherever their deeds ripen, there they will earn the
fruits of those deeds, be it in this life, or be it in the next
life,"

"Hence, the annihilation, cessation, and overcoming of
corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and
consciousness, this is the extinction of suffering, the end of
disease, the overcoming of old age and death."

(How does one overcome death if death is the complete and utter end to one's existence?)

"The Peaceful One,
freed from rage, from sorrow, and from longing, he has passed beyond
birth and decay."

"Rebirth is extinguished. Through the extinction
of rebirth, Decay and Death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and
despair are extinguished. Thus takes place the extinction of this
whole mass of suffering. This is called the Noble Truth of the
Extinction of Suffering."


It has literally been verified here that you are disagreeing with "enlightenment" as passed down from Buddha.

Dennis Mahar wrote:quotes are words.

They aren't one word. Unless we are quoting you of course.

movingalways wrote: This is not being said to be nit-picky, but to bring attention to the way the mind is purified of delusion, that of speaking truth always.

And should it not be clear to you how much they are speaking untruth suggesting the end of existence at bodily dissolution. Why not address that core delusion shared seemingly by Jup, David, Dennis, Cahoot and Leyla.

They aren't one word. Unless we are quoting you of course.

One word or a concatenation of words,
is constitutive of your epistemology.

You are 'thingifying' Self seeker,
muckin' about assigning characteristics, properties on 'not-a-thing' (infinite)

A story about Self is all you come up with.
get your fingers out of the machinery.

Geddit?

As Socrates indicated,
you cannot know Self in the same way you know things.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I don’t subscribe to that theory, for I affirm that neither the body nor the mind is me.

Ahh, neither body or mind is you - yet when the body dies you die, how odd?

The mind dies, but as I say the mind is not me.

You're the one who equates his self with the mind. I equate it with the ALL, which never dies.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Impermanence is one of the characteristics of emptiness. and the aggregates are also governed by the principle of impermanence. Therefore each of the aggregates is undergoing constant changes

Clearly each of those aggregates undergoes constant change, how is that the same as predicting an end to existence?

A thing changes when the causal conditions supporting it change. And when the causal conditions dictate that the thing in question disappears, it disappears. The mind is like a fountain gushing into the air, which ceases the moment the tap is turned off.

All things are impermanent is one of the primal truths of Buddhism. Even the mind is impermanent. Deal with it.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: You are clueless Leyla, I was mocking Jup, read back if you like, that was sarcasm pointing out contradiction...

It is noticeable that you become quite hostile and nasty whenever this subject is brought up, which suggests that you still harbour a great deal of fear. I put it to you that deep down you still very much believe in the reality of death and that your attachment to the belief that is designed to negate this fear is still very shaky. Hence your sudden bouts of hostility.

Beingof1 wrote:If you want me to acknowledge that the mind appears, you must tell us where it appears.

Where does the mind appear?

Within the ALL.

Beingof1 wrote:

I agree that things can only exist as appearances to the mind. But this doesn’t mean that the mind is an eternally unchanging substrate. It too is fleeting and impermanent.

You tell me, what does "things can only exist as appearances to the mind" mean? What are the implications?

I wrote about this at length in Chapter 6 of Wisdom of the Infinite.

Beingof1 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Did you just think that in your mind? Show us a universe outside of your field of awareness.

Your own field of awareness, which is a universe unto itself, is outside my field of awareness. I am not privy to what you will experience, for example, when you walk away from your computer.

Ah hah - the million dollar question. Since all things appear to a mind - you just popped the mind out of the body and extended it to all things that appear. You may not realise that but I would ask you to think it through logically.

You nailed it " a universe unto itself" and "my field of awareness." The implication here is possession by a self. You just owned your universe by implying a self separated from the universe you claim to own. It is very subtle but it is true.

What you have done is seeing the tangent of looking outside from an inside.This is the first logical distinction possible but logic is the art and craft of thinking. You believe you are looking 'outside' at a universe. The universe comes into being when space is severed. Your body cuts an inside and blocks an outside, right?

What is keeping most a prisoner in their body and brain is the attachment to the 'inside'. The mind itself is in a state of continuously breaking symmetries. Its constantly breaking things into 'bits' of data by the process of thought.

An analogy:
If you watch and listen to a CD with a movie on it, you can only see and hear a single bit of information in units of time. It would be Time by each Sine wave. If you eject the CD and were to look at the entire CD at zero time and duration, you then would see the singularity of the movie as a whole.

In order for you to perceive things, (such as me at my monitor) you must be limited by bits of time, duration and wave pattern. This is to say, to be omniscient would result in your thought being spred to infinity and aware of only the singularity or a single 'bit' of data. It would all be white noise or an incomprehensible field of energy. This is experienced when thought is absent but awareness remains in consciousness. Although all forms and thus all possible worlds are in existence, we are aware of one universe because of the individual things or bits.

Your body/brain acts as a resistor to consciousness and creates mind. This is obvious by our thought. It slows the field of energy down into comprehensible bits of data.Your field of awareness is not limited by a finite amount of objects it can contain in its field but thought is.

To believe you are still in your body is to not understand the logical implication of "all things appear to the mind."

let me give you a biological example of what I am saying:
There are trillions of cells that make up your body. Each with their "universe unto itself" and "field of awareness." Each cell is aware of its environment and communicates with other cells. Just as our society has professions in which people do a specific job very well, the cells create subregions, each of which allows certain cell functions to operate more effectively. I am speaking mainly of prokaryotes. The "universe' for a cell in your body - is your body.

Now get this - it takes the trillions of cells to make up the "whole" you and singular consciousness. That is because - as is evident in all of nature and life - consciousness is fractal.

And yet the fact remains, which you didn't deal with, the universe in which you inhabit exists outside my field of awareness, and always will.

David Quinn wrote:The mind dies, but as I say the mind is not me.

So now you are not the mind, and you then imply your existence continues and can never die.

We are just playing with definitions now, the mind is impermanent, but the self isn't? And it never dies because it is the all, not seeing anything wrong here. "Universal mind" and "one mind" are also equated with the all, so what's the difference there? They are both referring to one's own existence or "self"- this existence being nature. (That is not dismissing you and billions of other beings experience this).


Leyla only communicates to me with resentment, then goes on to do so creating an argument against a mimic of Being's mock sarcasm, (which is funny if anything) all I said was that she was clueless. I'm not under any impression death would have any more effect on me than being a passing experience, as much as I know I am not the body, which is more than blatantly clear.


"the universe in which you inhabit exists outside my field of awareness,"

But nothing exists outside of 'fields of awareness', if that is what you are calling existence. aka, this awareness is not a reflection received and reflected via the body, but rather the body being an experience arising in 'field of awareness'.

Leyla only communicates to me with resentment,

Huang Po (who you at least claim to have quoted earlier) would be turning in his grave!

How many times do I have to point out that you are not me?

...then goes on to do so creating an argument against a mimic of Being's mock sarcasm, (which is funny if anything) all I said was that she was clueless.

That being the case, if you weren’t resentful, you might simply have agreed with me.

Clearly, then, there was more to it than that for you.

I'm not under any impression death would have any more effect on me than being a passing experience, as much as I know I am not the body, which is more than blatantly clear.

A passing experience into that unfathomable non-existence?

I know you're under the impression you make perfect sense. But, as I keep pointing out, your half-baked ideas (aka, deeply rooted contradictions) leave a lot to be desired when it comes to the actuality.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The mind dies, but as I say the mind is not me.

So now you are not the mind, and you then imply your existence continues and can never die.

Yes, conscious or unconscious, my existence is unstoppable.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:We are just playing with definitions now, the mind is impermanent, but the self isn't? And it never dies because it is the all, not seeing anything wrong here. "Universal mind" and "one mind" are also equated with the all, so what's the difference there? They are both referring to one's own existence or "self"- this existence being nature.

The difference is that you treat the "universal mind" as a literal truth, whereas for sages it is simply a metaphor.

Life is “like” a dream. The universe is “like” the mind. These are useful analogies, but it would be foolish to read too much into them.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote: "the universe in which you inhabit exists outside my field of awareness,"

But nothing exists outside of 'fields of awareness', if that is what you are calling existence. aka, this awareness is not a reflection received and reflected via the body, but rather the body being an experience arising in 'field of awareness'.

True enough, but you need to step back a bit more and see that the mind is also just an experience. It is an experience arising .... in the field of the ALL.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Leyla only communicates to me with resentment,

Huang Po (who you at least claim to have quoted earlier) would be turning in his grave!

How many times do I have to point out that you are not me?

Lol

You're right, he is a little wet behind the ears.

(:

David Quinn wrote: Yes, conscious or unconscious, my existence is unstoppable.

...

True enough, but you need to step back a bit more and see that the mind is also just an experience. It is an experience arising .... in the field of the ALL.

Then there is really no disagreement, everything you've said here is accurate, jupiviv's nonsense on the other hand...


Leyla you say non-existence is unfathomable, so why is it you assert that it follows death? You, by your own word, don't even know what it is that you're asserting will happen.

SofW wrote:I never implied that anything of an ego would remain, any qualities or characteristics such as personality, but this does not mean 'someone else' is experiencing this mind, it only means that nothing is retained of any self-possession based in attachment to impermanent formations.

Be this dismissal of, or ignorance of, the reincarnation-related, dependent origination concept of “samskara, sanskara.”

A = A
19 ≠ 30

Russell:

Human consciousness being the product of trillions of cooperating cells proves that consciousness is an illusion.

I am not really reading your post?

If a robot was programmed to consciously distinguish all things into just two categories, A and B, and we removed it's capacity to recognize B, then it recognizes everything as A, making it no more conscious than a rock.It ceases to resemble consciousness due to it's lack of the ability to differentiate.

This was the point of the entire answer to David. Remember my analogy of the CD and the singularity? Since we do think most believe they can 'only be' their thought. This is to fail to answer the question - who is thinking?

How many objects are you aware of right now? If you stand outside, how many things appear in your field of awareness? We only think of one thing at a time and this leads most on this board to believe they are only one thought at a time. I just demonstrated that your field of awareness is only conscious of the "A" in your example. Thought however. breaks things into bits of ABC.

Since David believes he cannot be aware of my monitor, it exists on the 'outside' of his consciousness. This is to not realize the very fact it appears as a thought, means it just appeared in the field of awareness.

The difference is the attachment to 'things' as material objects. I already explained that things are solid when they appear as constructs by our brain intentionally limiting the infinite energy of 'all things'. It is like a fish bumping his nose on a block of ice. He perceives the water to be a solid because the water has been slowed down or cooled. E=MC2 proves that all mass or material things are constructs of cooled or slowed down energy.

If we plucked our eyes out, we would find a new limitation to our own consciousness, similar to removing the capacity to recognize B in the robot.

No - your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses. You would be limited by thought, which is a subset of the mind.

This is how consciousness works. It distinguishes and demarcates, according to natures programming. It's merely the software of the brain, whereas distinguishing and demarcation is impossible without it.

No - that is how thought works. Consciousness never exhausts itself in experience, thought or momentum.

David:

B1: If you want me to acknowledge that the mind appears, you must tell us where it appears.

Where does the mind appear?


David: Within the ALL.

You said all things appear to the mind - then you wanted to assert that the mind appears. You say it appears within the ALL.

Does the ALL perceive the mind that appears? For something to appear, as you have acknowledged, it must be perceived.

You tell me, what does "things can only exist as appearances to the mind" mean? What are the implications?


I wrote about this at length in Chapter 6 of Wisdom of the Infinite.

Yes I know, I have read your book - You believe that nothing appears 'out there' and that it instead appears 'in there' meaning the brain.

If things only appear in the brain, I have some questions.


1- How can the mind perceiving this "larger set" known as the ALL be a subset of its own perception?
2- Could you tell us where the perceptual bubble ends?
3- Who is perceiving another entity as a set intersection?
4- How can a perception discover truth?

And yet the fact remains, which you didn't deal with, the universe in which you inhabit exists outside my field of awareness, and always will.

I did explain. I will again and try not to let your mind be repulsive.



No one has ever seen light. All that one can see is a reflection or a bending of light. It is a common belief that when looking at the sun, the light from it is seen. Light can only be known by and through its effects and reflection.

If a person stares to long at an intense bright light the 'burn' sensation begins to become painful. This is the result of the vibration of higher velocity.

E=Mc2 - reverse the equation and we see that mass or matter is simply energy slowed down to a slower velocity. It is still all just energy - it is a vast ocean of energy beyond comprehension. If it were not slowed down, we could not experience reality as it is known.

If you freeze water into ice cubes they appear as separate entities. This is a good analogy as the ice is at a slower state of velocity than in liquid form. When the heat/light speeds up - the water returns to one substance as the separation no longer exists and is seen as the illusion that it was. It is all one water not several water cubes. At its highest state of velocity water is a gas ;)

Every conditioned thing in Nature reflects the vibrations of every other thing, to fulfill its desire to synchronize its vibrations with every other thing. It seeks union with purpose.

Your consciousness is energy and cannot be separated from the Ultimate Reality. The only way it can be separated is by the perception that one chunk of light/energy is separate from the whole - that is temporary space time thought in motion and it will pass into gas.



If you were to see me as a physical object you would not be animating your body with energy - its that simple. It does not mean you are confined to your body, it means your consciousness has created a chunk of material by reducing the original state of high energy spin.


BTW - do you think your consciousness is a whole or is it not?

It just is not logical to say; I am one with the infinite but I am not.

Someone on this board, please snap out of it.