GENIUS FORUMS

Ioluas wrote:So it seems that what is actually happening to sentient beings is that they can only perceive the world as it appears to their senses, and these senses give them a limited view. Imagine a 12X12 foot sheet world, and a tiny sentient being sees only a small circle the size of a quarter. All they see of causation happens within that quarter sized circle. Certainly animals perceive this way. And the only way out then, to truth, is to use reason to know how it must work because the senses don't tell you. It is very much like humans supposing that the sun traverses the sky as we stay still. Yet from a space station, all would be so clear.

Indeed!

OK, I can accept that, but how much of this ability of the mind is dependent upon memories of actual experiences? Suppose I had been raised in a very neglectful situation, in a dark cellar with minimal stimulation. Perhaps there are even colors I have never seen since birth. How much capacity would my mind have if the brain were stimulated by the scientists? But that the mind can generate sensations without external stimulus - this is true.

If sensations such as colour were dependent upon our having previously perceived them, and yet we cannot perceive without the mediation of such sensations, then we are in logical conundrum tantamount to the chicken and the egg.

What essences does knowledge have?

The ‘essence’ (constitutive causes) of knowledge is other subsidiary knowledge.

Can you talk a little about why you say there exists only forms and essences, by which you mean that only forms and essences are real.

When I said that there are only forms and essences, I meant that they are ‘actual’ vs. ‘imaginary’, and not that they are ‘real’ – for none of the five elements is real.

The law of identity?

Precisely!

What is the operative cause to bring about a molecule of water?

From the relative perspective, the operative cause is that binding energy which holds the constitutive causes (hydrogen and Oxygen atoms) together as an entity (water molecule).

Obviously it is only the absolute which has an intrinsic quality and relation. But what can be the quality and relation of the absolute?

As I said earlier, there is nothing that may be predicated of the absolute except to say that it is (exist). However, it should be noted here that neither the absolute nor the relative may be considered a true entity on its own, it is only Being that may be called a true entity, its quality being 'knowledge' (the relative) and its relation, 'awareness' (the absolute). We are speaking of them as though they were entities, only so that we may come to understand their natures.

Now, let us consider the relationship which holds between the absolute and the relative, and see if it will not tells us the nature of Being itself.

An absolute entity, being totally self-contained, cannot be related to anything beyond itself (extrinsic); for to be related is to be connected, and if two things are connected then they must, to some degree, enter into one another, and so are not two separate things, but merely two different aspects of one and the same thing. On the other hand, a relative entity, being totally dependent upon extrinsic causes, cannot be related to anything intrinsic (within itself).Nevertheless, given that Being is fundamentally one, it follows that these two modes of being are necessarily related; and there is but one possible relationship which does not violate the laws of thought – the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’ (PIC).

Since the absolute entity can relate only to itself, it follows that all relative entities must abide within the one absolute entity, as its intrinsic essence (properties), and given that the relative entity must have at least two causes that lie elsewhere, it follows that each must depend upon some other thing(s) for its ‘essence’ (characteristics), and upon the absolute for its ‘form’ (identity). Further, given that the absolute entity is immutable, it follows that whatever changes may appear to take place within its constitutive causes (essence) are simply that – appearances (illusory), for if the constitutive causes of a thing truly change, so too must the thing’s identity (form) change. And finally, if the essence of the absolute is fundamentally illusory, then it follows the absolute must be fundamentally aware, for that which is unaware cannot be deluded by appearances.

Therefore, it may be asserted that the nature of Being is essentially cognizant, and so comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge; the former being ‘absolute’ (monistic, necessary, independent, immutable and real) and the latter, ‘relative’ (pluralistic, contingent, dependent, mutable and apparent).

Jehu,

Yet from a space station, all would be so clear.

Indeed!

This indicates, though, that it isn't exactly the case that our senses give us illusion, but that they give us a very incomplete picture. Perhaps that is not so very different...

If sensations such as colour were dependent upon our having previously perceived them, and yet we cannot perceive without the mediation of such sensations, then we are in logical conundrum tantamount to the chicken and the egg.

But if there is an actual objective world that our senses are designed to decode, or at least designed to decode to a certain extent, then when a baby opens its eyes and looks at the sky, he would not be needing any memories to see blue. But to see blue with eyes closed in a dark room, he might need to have seen blue while awake in the light. At any rate, that was my point.

The ‘essence’ (constitutive causes) of knowledge is other subsidiary knowledge.

So the essence of knowledge is knowledge.

When I said that there are only forms and essences, I meant that they are ‘actual’ vs. ‘imaginary’, and not that they are ‘real’ – for none of the five elements is real.

Alright, why are the other three elements imaginary? Perhaps this is where I'm hung up.

How do we envision awareness and knowledge causing matter to manifest?

Since the absolute entity can relate only to itself,

Perhaps it would be better to say within itself?

It seems to me that here is where to seek the answer to the QRS philosophy that the Totality cannot possess awareness. Most likely you are familiar, but essentially they say that in order for there to be awareness, there must be something that it is not, to be aware of. However, with interdependent complementarity, and the ability to relate to relative entities within itself, the possibility arises.

given that the relative entity must have at least two causes that lie elsewhere, it follows that each must depend upon some other thing(s) for its ‘essence’ (characteristics), and upon the absolute for its ‘form’ (identity).

How is a relative entity dependent upon the absolute for its form? Isn't that part of its relativity?

And finally, if the essence of the absolute is fundamentally illusory, then it follows the absolute must be fundamentally aware, for that which is unaware cannot be deluded by appearances.

All your points make logical sense, except there is a leap here I don't get. Just because the changes are illusory - and I agree that they are - does not to me require a mind to be deceived by the illusion. Suppose we have a covered pot of water on a stove. At times it becomes steam, and then cools and falls back as water, and then is left in the cabin in winter and the water freezes in the pot. We could say that the water never really changes, with those different states being illusory. But that does not mean that there must be a mind to perceive the illusion.

Do you think the awareness of the absolute has a transcendent aspect or is it rather unconscious and fully deceived by the illusion - which hardly seems likely if you suppose an omnipotent mind of correct knowledge has given rise to the physical universe.

I am grateful for the effort you are putting out here.

This indicates, though, that it isn't exactly the case that our senses give us illusion, but that they give us a very incomplete picture. Perhaps that is not so very different...

Just as being on a space station gives one a different perspective from which to interpret what one perceives, so too does adopting a different metaphysical view alter the way that we interpret our perceptions.

So the essence of knowledge is knowledge.

Yes, this is exactly so. For example, imagine that you are introduced to a ‘term’ that you do not understand (know). The first thing that one should do is to look up the term’s definition in the appropriate dictionary or lexicon, for a definition is an ‘expression of the essence’ of a term, and if we understand a term’s essence, then we understand its meaning; that is to say, we will hold within our own mind a mental structure or concept that we may associate with the given term. The definition, we will find, consists in a finite set of other subsidiary terms (its constitutive causes), each of which is associated with its own specific concept. If we understand all of concepts associated with the subsidiary terms in a definition, then we will be able to form a concept of the definition’s associate term; whereas, if there are terms we do not understand, then we must look up the definition of those terms. So you see, the ‘constitutive causes’ (essence) of a term is other subsidiary terms, and the essence of a concept is other subsidiary concepts, but the one ‘operative cause’ which amalgamates these subsidiaries into an entity (term or concept) is the sentient mind.

Alright, why are the other three elements imaginary? Perhaps this is where I'm hung up.

The reason why the elements: embodiment (matter), potency (energy) and function (activities) are classified as ‘imaginary’ is that they are not given to the mind immediately (seemingly through the senses), but are mediated through that interpretive mental faculty we call the ‘imagination’ – which include the faculty of memory.

Perhaps it would be better to say within itself?

Yes, but to say so might be problematic, for given that an absolute entity is unbounded, and so cannot be said to have an outside, we cannot rightfully say that it has an inside either; for inside and outside are interdependent and complementary concepts. The same is true of the relative entity, for if it does not possess and inside, it cannot possess and outside. It is better, I think, if we think of the absolute aspect, not as having an inside, but as being the outside of that one true entity we call ‘Being’; while the relative aspect is its inside. In other words, The absolute is the container, and the relative is its content.

It seems to me that here is where to seek the answer to the QRS philosophy that the Totality cannot possess awareness. Most likely you are familiar, but essentially they say that in order for there to be awareness, there must be something that it is not, to be aware of. However, with interdependent complementarity, and the ability to relate to relative entities within itself, the possibility arises.

Indeed!

How is a relative entity dependent upon the absolute for its form? Isn't that part of its relativity?

Without a cognizant subject, nothing can arise, persist or cease.

All your points make logical sense, except there is a leap here I don't get. Just because the changes are illusory - and I agree that they are - does not to me require a mind to be deceived by the illusion. Suppose we have a covered pot of water on a stove. At times it becomes steam, and then cools and falls back as water, and then is left in the cabin in winter and the water freezes in the pot. We could say that the water never really changes, with those different states being illusory. But that does not mean that there must be a mind to perceive the illusion.

What you are actually saying here is that because you, a sentient being, are capable of imagining that all these states of water might exist in the absence of any sentient observer, that they must have an independent existence; when in actuality, it is through your imagining them to be so that they come to exist at all. Terms such as ‘apparent’ or ‘illusory’ imply a sort of deception, and that which is incapable of imagining (thinking) cannot be deceived. We cannot, for example, deceive a thermometer into thinking that it is immersed in hot water, when the water is in fact cold; nor can we make a rock believe that it is in the shade, when it is actually in full sun.

Do you think the awareness of the absolute has a transcendent aspect or is it rather unconscious and fully deceived by the illusion - which hardly seems likely if you suppose an omnipotent mind of correct knowledge has given rise to the physical universe.

That awareness which becomes cut off from the whole, by means of its embodiment in the substance of the objective world (knowledge), loses sight of itself, and falls into a state of confusion wherein it imagines itself to be something else. However, this being cut off is itself only an illusion, for it is imagination alone which separates it from the whole. The whole, on the other hand, is perfectly clear with respect to all that goes on in the objective world, as well as in the myriad subjective worlds that arise out of the delusion of sentient beings. Although the absolute is not itself conscious, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, given that all beings, sentient or other wise, partake of the same element of awareness, we cannot say that it is entirely unconscious either.

Jehu,

First of all, let me reiterate that I only comment upon something with which I disagree or don't understand. I fully accept most of your last post.

The reason why the elements: embodiment (matter), potency (energy) and function (activities) are classified as ‘imaginary’ is that they are not given to the mind immediately (seemingly through the senses), but are mediated through that interpretive mental faculty we call the ‘imagination’ – which include the faculty of memory.

I or we will need to spend more time on the 5 elements. In my rereading of the thread, I had stopped on page 10, and will continue as I get time. I want to put those five elements in one spot where I can keep them from wiggling so much.

But I do see what you say here about these 3 being more of an interpretive understanding of what we see.

Did you watch the utube video I linked? The picture this gives me is that a local phenomenon, such as one ball hitting another, is in fact enmeshed in the entire web of all things - and it is that small limited view we have which interprets the more proximal causes as the true cause. I am not sure, however, that this understanding goes far enough in addressing the absolute as the true cause. What do you think?

for given that an absolute entity is unbounded,

You know, I have begun to question infinity. It seems unavoidably necessary, yet impossible. Do you suppose manifest existence is infinite in extent, or does the term unbounded refer to something else?

Without a cognizant subject, nothing can arise, persist or cease.
Terms such as ‘apparent’ or ‘illusory’ imply a sort of deception,

But what sort.
Well of course there can be no deception without a mind, and in my view, we cannot have physical existence without something that I call God, which has a property I cannot fathom of uncaused existence...a universe of matter without a cognizant mind is one about which nothing can be said.
It seems to me there is a link here between the two understandings that nonexistence is impossible and cannot be imagined (but we imagine that we can imagine it) and the understanding that there cannot arise anything without a cognizant mind. Do you see the similarity?
So this is the koan for my mind, I will try to ponder this some more. I have an emotional resistance to being fooled into believing you. I would need to see it for myself in the same way that I see the impossibility of nonexistence and see the necessity for an uncaused entity, the self-inhering self.

It would appear that in your method of enlightenment, the realization of who one is, one's true nature or true self, depends upon a logical path in which one is ultimately cornered, checkmated by there being no other possibility.

The whole, on the other hand, is perfectly clear with respect to all that goes on in the objective world, as well as in the myriad subjective worlds that arise out of the delusion of sentient beings. Although the absolute is not itself conscious, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, given that all beings, sentient or other wise, partake of the same element of awareness, we cannot say that it is entirely unconscious either.

This is hard to understand, what it means to be clear about and aware of, yet not conscious. It is not, however, imperative that I understand it at this time.

Ioluas wrote:I or we will need to spend more time on the 5 elements. In my rereading of the thread, I had stopped on page 10, and will continue as I get time. I want to put those five elements in one spot where I can keep them from wiggling so much.

But I do see what you say here about these 3 being more of an interpretive understanding of what we see.

I agree, and we will return to them as soon as you think you are ready.

Did you watch the utube video I linked? The picture this gives me is that a local phenomenon, such as one ball hitting another, is in fact enmeshed in the entire web of all things - and it is that small limited view we have which interprets the more proximal causes as the true cause. I am not sure, however, that this understanding goes far enough in addressing the absolute as the true cause. What do you think?

I think that so long we continue to look to things themselves as the origin and causes of their activities, we are bound to fall into to that seemingly infinite web of apparent causes that the Hindus call “Indra’s Net”. Reason, however, tells us that there cannot be an infinity of causes. For this reason, the awakened ones recognizes the futility of searching outwardly for the truth – by way of observing things, and so turn inward – to the observe the ‘observer’.

You know, I have begun to question infinity. It seems unavoidably necessary, yet impossible. Do you suppose manifest existence is infinite in extent, or does the term unbounded refer to something else?

That which is infinite is by definition ‘unfinished’, and so this term may rightfully be applied only to processes. That evolution of knowledge which constitutes the unfolding objective universe, for example, is infinite, for it is incapable of coming to a conclusion. Things, on the other hand, are necessarily finished, for each thing is possessed, either intrinsically or extrinsically, of that which is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is; and so must be complete. For this reason, we cannot speak of anything being infinite in extent, but only unbounded. Being, for example, is unbounded, for there is nothing beyond that might act to delimit it. For this reason, we say that Being does not abide within space or time, but rather, space and time abide within Being. Neither can we rightfully speak of Being as being big or small, or any other relative term.

But what sort.

Why the sort we call ‘self-deception’ of course!

Well of course there can be no deception without a mind, and in my view, we cannot have physical existence without something that I call God, which has a property I cannot fathom of uncaused existence...a universe of matter without a cognizant mind is one about which nothing can be said.

I am not sure what you mean by the term “God”, but if you mean the one real, absolute, independent and immutable cause of all things, then I believe that your ‘God’ and my ‘Being’ are one and the same.

It seems to me there is a link here between the two understandings that nonexistence is impossible and cannot be imagined (but we imagine that we can imagine it) and the understanding that there cannot arise anything without a cognizant mind. Do you see the similarity?

Very well put! We cannot imagine the non-existent, but we do imagine that we can, and the reason why is this: whenever we set some group of things apart, by specifying some defining characteristic (e.g., things that are real), in the process, we establish another group of things that are complementary (e.g., things that are not real), and since there are no exceptions to the rule, we think that the term ‘Being’ must also have a complementary form – ‘Non-being’.

So this is the koan for my mind, I will try to ponder this some more. I have an emotional resistance to being fooled into believing you. I would need to see it for myself in the same way that I see the impossibility of nonexistence and see the necessity for an uncaused entity, the self-inhering self.

Yes, this is the only way, for all else is mere hearsay.

It would appear that in your method of enlightenment, the realization of who one is, one's true nature or true self, depends upon a logical path in which one is ultimately cornered, checkmated by there being no other possibility.

An awakened one once said “knowledge will set you free.”, but the knowledge of which he speaks is not the empirical knowledge of the sciences, nor that which can be found in countless books, but that which if found by that straight and narrow path that is deductive reasoning. Only this kind of knowledge brings realization.

This is not a reply to the last post. Just going through some stuff...

Yes, but if there is no essential alteration in the absolute, and still there is the appearance of change, then must this apparent change not be illusory?

But what about all this knowledge? From where does the absolute get it, and does it not increase?

I cannot speak for Brokenhead, but when I say that the nature of reality is essentially ‘cognizant’ I mean that it is pure undifferentiated awareness; and that it has the appearance of space to we sentient beings.

Awareness look like space, or fills what looks like space?

But for the Buddha, that which is real (Dharma) is not a thing, but a single universal and inviolable law.

You mean the absolute is no more than a law?

Ioluas wrote:But what about all this knowledge? From where does the absolute get it, and does it not increase?

Knowledge has always been an aspect of Being, for as I said, there can be no awareness without knowledge; but knowledge neither increases nor decreases, it merely changes – or appears to change.

Awareness look like space, or fills what looks like space?

The sensual fields of awareness, to the sentient mind, give the appearance of space.

You mean the absolute is no more than a law?

Yes, that is correct; but I would not say that it is “no more that a law”, for it is the one great inviolable law. As I said, every entity comprises both a quality and a relation, and the same is true of the one true entity – Being. The quality of ‘Being’ is knowledge: the relative beings that comprise the objective world; while its relation is awareness: the one intelligent law which governs the evolution of all things. It is called Truth, Reason, The Absolute, Love, Thought, The Tao, or sometimes God; but in truth, it is the true self of things.

Jehu,

Page 11 and 12:

What is the law?
The Law of Identity or Principle of Interdependent Complementarity.

Are you saying the law of identity and interdependent complimentarity are the same law?

However, though space is ‘not a thing’(nothing), it is not nonexistent, but rather, is absolute, independent and immutable. What’s more, far from being passive, space is the one ‘operative cause’ of all things.

How now?

And your post...

I agree, and we will return to them as soon as you think you are ready.

I've gone through some of it, and have saved chunks of it. I must say, you've had to do a fair amount of repetition, but that is why I decided to reread the thread. It seems only fair.

I think that so long we continue to look to things themselves as the origin and causes of their activities, we are bound to fall into to that seemingly infinite web of apparent causes that the Hindus call “Indra’s Net”. Reason, however, tells us that there cannot be an infinity of causes. For this reason, the awakened ones recognizes the futility of searching outwardly for the truth – by way of observing things, and so turn inward – to the observe the ‘observer’.

I had not heard of Indra's net. I read about it in a couple of links. I must say, that it is a description of a hologram.
As for an infinity of causes, I am not sure that the entire universe which causes a particular dust particle to fall in a room, is actually infinite. It may be a very large number.
But perhaps we have two slightly different things here. The picture I got from the utube video, was a clearer understanding of how causation is not just one little chain here in this spot, but that it is all connected together in a web of causation. However, that does not exactly address the need for a true or ultimate cause.

And so, how do we turn inward to observe?

I am not sure what you mean by the term “God”, but if you mean the one real, absolute, independent and immutable cause of all things, then I believe that your ‘God’ and my ‘Being’ are one and the same.

I may mean more by the term God than you do, but without speculation as to the nature of God, what I can be sure of, is your above definition, which I sometimes simply call 'existence.'

Very well put! We cannot imagine the non-existent, but we do imagine that we can, and the reason why is this: whenever we set some group of things apart, by specifying some defining characteristic (e.g., things that are real), in the process, we establish another group of things that are complementary (e.g., things that are not real), and since there are no exceptions to the rule, we think that the term ‘Being’ must also have a complementary form – ‘Non-being’.

Yes, that is probably right.
Now, I wonder what the cause is, that I cannot perceive that matter is not independent of mind.

Only this kind of knowledge brings realization.

Do you not think that there might be other ways to realization, just as there is more than one way to wake up from sleep?

Ioluas wrote:Are you saying the law of identity and interdependent complementarity are the same law?

Yes, the are one and the same principle or law. You see, the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is that relationship which holds between subsidiary things (knowledge), that is to say, which binds them together, so that there arises in their place the appearance of something new (an effect). However, since this newly arisen thing is not real, but merely apparent, it is this same cognizant principle (awareness) which perceives the effect and determines what sort of thing it is, that is to say, determines the thing’s ‘identity’.

However, though space is ‘not a thing’(nothing), it is not nonexistent, but rather, is absolute, independent and immutable. What’s more, far from being passive, space is the one ‘operative cause’ of all things.

How now?

As a said in my last post, space is merely the appearance of the sentient sphere of sensual awareness; and it is the sentient mind that imagines the thing to be.

As for an infinity of causes, I am not sure that the entire universe which causes a particular dust particle to fall in a room, is actually infinite. It may be a very large number.

Exactly! Although the number of things that presently exist in the universe may be exceedingly large, they cannot be infinite. However, if we accept that all things are composite, and that each must entail at least two subsidiary things (constitutive causes), it follows that there must be either an infinite regress of causes, or a ‘first cause’ which is not itself composite. Then, if we accept that there must be a first cause, since the idea of an infinite regress of causes is logically untenable, then we are left with only two possibilities; either there is a single first cause, or there are some finite number of individual first causes, for as we have said, we cannot logically support the idea that there is an infinite number of things. Now, if we accept that there is a finite number of individual first causes (e.g., fundamental particles) – and that these alone exist (are real), then we have to deal with the question as to what it is that separates them, and if this separator does not exist (is not real), how then can we claim that they are separate – for if that which separates these fundamental particles is not real, then the particles are not really separate – but one and the same.

And so, how do we turn inward to observe?

The tried and true method is three-fold: (1) learning – as we are doing here, (2) contemplation – as I am sure you are already familiar, and (3) meditation- which is a state of mind wherein there is no intentional activity at all.

I may mean more by the term God than you do, but without speculation as to the nature of God, what I can be sure of, is your above definition, which I sometimes simply call 'existence.'

Yes, I thought that you might, and this is why I prefer not to use the term ‘God’, for I am certain that this term has as many interpretations as there are people who use it, and so is of little use in conveying precise meaning.

Yes, that is probably right.
Now, I wonder what the cause is, that I cannot perceive that matter is not independent of mind.

If you would like my opinion, I think that it is simply force of habit; and you need only allow yourself some time to get used to the concept of an essentially cognizant reality. After all, your original worldview was not built in a day, but over the course of your entire life.

Do you not think that there might be other ways to realization, just as there is more than one way to wake up from sleep?

There are many different things that may awaken a sleeper, but there is but one way to awakened. One must set foot upon the Path of Reason, and set ones mind firmly upon the goal of awakening; then, as Socrates once said to a traveler who wished to know how he could get to Mount Olympus, “ensure that every step you take leads in that direction.”

Jehu,

Yes, the are one and the same principle or law. You see, the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is that relationship which holds between subsidiary things (knowledge), that is to say, which binds them together, so that there arises in their place the appearance of something new (an effect). However, since this newly arisen thing is not real, but merely apparent, it is this same cognizant principle (awareness) which perceives the effect and determines what sort of thing it is, that is to say, determines the thing’s ‘identity’.

But the first set of subsidiary things within Being are awareness and knowledge, which is also the absolute and the relative. Therefore, how does it work when you say that it is the awareness which perceives the effect?

I am still not seeing that they are the same law. How is independent complementarity the same as A=A?

Incidentally, on another thread, the poster used the term 'interdependent origination' and I thought it might be the same as your interdependent complimentarity, but when I looked on google, it seems to mean the same idea as was described in the utube video and what you called Indra's net. That is, it rightly shows us that all things are interconnected in causation throughout the universe and not locally derived, but it does not address ultimate cause.

As I said in my last post, space is merely the appearance of the sentient sphere of sensual awareness; and it is the sentient mind that imagines the thing to be.

Yes, but that is not the same as saying that space itself is the the absolute and is the operative cause of all things. Is that what you meant to say?

Exactly! Although the number of things that presently exist in the universe may be exceedingly large, they cannot be infinite. However, if we accept that all things are composite, and that each must entail at least two subsidiary things (constitutive causes), it follows that there must be either an infinite regress of causes, or a ‘first cause’ which is not itself composite. Then, if we accept that there must be a first cause, since the idea of an infinite regress of causes is logically untenable, then we are left with only two possibilities; either there is a single first cause, or there are some finite number of individual first causes, for as we have said, we cannot logically support the idea that there is an infinite number of things. Now, if we accept that there is a finite number of individual first causes (e.g., fundamental particles) – and that these alone exist (are real), then we have to deal with the question as to what it is that separates them, and if this separator does not exist (is not real), how then can we claim that they are separate – for if that which separates these fundamental particles is not real, then the particles are not really separate – but one and the same.

This entire paragraph I had already more or less reasoned out for myself, and also came to the conclusion that there cannot be more than one original first cause. That is why, at the beginning of this thread, I said I liked string theory for its proposal that all things arise from one fundamental energy or particle, which merely takes on the appearance of different qualities by its many vibrations.

(3) meditation- which is a state of mind wherein there is no intentional activity at all.

So you advocate some kind of zen meditation?

Yes, I thought that you might, and this is why I prefer not to use the term ‘God’, for I am certain that this term has as many interpretations as there are people who use it, and so is of little use in conveying precise meaning.

Yes, all true, but I like the term as it is the most affectionate.

If you would like my opinion, I think that it is simply force of habit; and you need only allow yourself some time to get used to the concept of an essentially cognizant reality. After all, your original worldview was not built in a day, but over the course of your entire life.

Alright, then I am working on it. As for my worldview, it has changed markedly in the past few years. But as you say, through a long slow process of contemplation and insight.

I am still not sure, however, that there is truly only one way. If, for example, someone like Mikiel, or me, have come to certain conclusions through a kind of direct experience and not through reason, and yet ended up with the same view, how do you account for it? In my case, it seems I had a life changing experience that brought very little intellect with it, but over the course of months and years, because of it, I have pondered and contemplated until I understand it better, through reason. I mean, to an extent. At this point, it is difficult to separate that which I have come to on my own, and that which I have learned through reading and conversing, because when I set out to figure out what had happened to me, I did not of course foresee the variety of ideas I would find and how they would intermingle with my own.

Jehu wrote:

Mansman wrote: So what do they do when get some tooth acke? repeat to himself "its only a sensation, nothing but a sensation, its ok not to like this sensation, this sensation really sucks, and thats ok. its ok I can hardly think straight with this throbbing sensation"
Jehu, are you bothered by physical pain at all?

The awaken one continues to feel pain, for pain is the body’s way of alerting us that we are engaged in some sort of self-destructive activity, however, they do not suffer.

Is that right.
Ok, definitions may be diferent, let us this way put it- Does it HURT? yes or no.

lets compare two then, the worst possible pain in awakened one (AO) and some sexy babe ties up him and then she bring AO to great orgasim. both are sensations, no? , no suffer and no (what is opposite of suffer you say?), is that the right jehu?

Ok Mr Superman. Is ok with you if I include you like this with other geniuses- JQRS!

I worry myself only with such things as lie within my sphere of control, and not with what other do or don't do.

M:Be honest my friend, you do have a preference, yes or no to be added or not added, tell me because if you leave up to me I may do a thing later you not appreciate.
Are you afraid we think is your ego. so what, not good to pretend to be perfect.

Speaking of pretend, I notice QRS not write in this list, my guesses are (tell me which are the correct choice)

a. they try to pretend not read your ideas
b. they offended you teach on there forum to there disciple
c. both J and QRS discuss in advance in private to do things this way
d. you think you greater than they, and not acknolege them
e. you had fight on another forum so not talking now each other
f. you are also a genius like QRS but they want to see which disciple figure it out so not acknolege your enlightment and keep all wondering

If truth is one of these then TELL US AND BE BRAVE!
when i think more possibiity i can add later,ok.

thank you J

Ioluas wrote:But the first set of subsidiary things within Being are awareness and knowledge, which is also the absolute and the relative. Therefore, how does it work when you say that it is the awareness which perceives the effect?

First, let us be clear that Being is not a ‘thing’ (relative entity) and so does not possess any subsidiaries. Rather, it comprises a single quality (knowledge) abiding within a single relation (awareness), and give that it is the relation that is real (absolute), it follows that it must be the relation that is cognizant, and not the quality. Imagine that the Being is the same as Dreaming, and that Awareness is akin to the dreaming mind, while Knowledge is akin to the dream objects themselves. Awareness, just like the dreaming mind, not only creates the dream, but embodies itself within the dream, as the dream persona, and thereby partakes of conscious perception.

I am still not seeing that they are the same law. How is independent complementarity the same as A=A?

The Principle of Identity is more properly expressed “A is A” for it represents not equivalence, but identity. What the principle tells us is that everything is identical with its self (its real or existential being), but different from another (in its apparent or essential being). In other words, that all things interdependent, in that they each depend for the existence upon other things, and complementary, in that they all complete one another in the whole - Being .

Incidentally, on another thread, the poster used the term 'interdependent origination' and I thought it might be the same as your interdependent complementarity, but when I looked on google, it seems to mean the same idea as was described in the utube video and what you called Indra's net. That is, it rightly shows us that all things are interconnected in causation throughout the universe and not locally derived, but it does not address ultimate cause.

Yes, that is correct. Also, the term ‘dependent origination’ is often used in Buddhist texts, but denotes the process whereby the relative world evolves, and not the great Dharma (Law) behind its evolution.

Yes, but that is not the same as saying that space itself is the absolute and is the operative cause of all things. Is that what you meant to say?

Yes, that which is real cannot be neither perceived nor imagined, but it is that which enables us to perceive or imagine.

This entire paragraph I had already more or less reasoned out for myself, and also came to the conclusion that there cannot be more than one original first cause. That is why, at the beginning of this thread, I said I liked string theory for its proposal that all things arise from one fundamental energy or particle, which merely takes on the appearance of different qualities by its many vibrations.

Yes, but the fact that these fundamental particles share the same essential characteristics, does not render them logically tenable; for although these particles are ‘similar’ they are not ‘identical’, for each must occupy its own particular space.

So you advocate some kind of zen meditation?

There are many forms of meditation, and no one form appeals to everyone. It is better that you try some of the different techniques for your self, and select the one that you are most comfortable with – but not too comfortable, else you will simply go to sleep.

I am still not sure, however, that there is truly only one way. If, for example, someone like Mikiel, or me, have come to certain conclusions through a kind of direct experience and not through reason, and yet ended up with the same view, how do you account for it? In my case, it seems I had a life changing experience that brought very little intellect with it, but over the course of months and years, because of it, I have pondered and contemplated until I understand it better, through reason. I mean, to an extent. At this point, it is difficult to separate that which I have come to on my own, and that which I have learned through reading and conversing, because when I set out to figure out what had happened to me, I did not of course foresee the variety of ideas I would find and how they would intermingle with my own.

There are times in everyone’s lives when they are confronted by challenges that push the interpretive mind to its limits, life and death moment, or moments of great adversity. In such moments, the interpretive process which dominates our mental activity collapses (temporarily), and in the mental quiescence that follows such a collapse there is an opportunity to reconnect with our true selves, and to function accordingly. However, such moments, although life changing, are not sustainable, and one will slowly sink back into one's habitual patterns of behaviour. It is only through the overcoming of one’s erroneous worldview, that one can develop ‘right view’ - as the Buddhist call it, and this is the beginning of the path to awakening.

Jehu,

I was trying to understand this paragraph:

Yes, they are one and the same principle or law. You see, the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is that relationship which holds between subsidiary things (knowledge), that is to say, which binds them together, so that there arises in their place the appearance of something new (an effect). However, since this newly arisen thing is not real, but merely apparent, it is this same cognizant principle (awareness) which perceives the effect and determines what sort of thing it is, that is to say, determines the thing’s ‘identity’.

and

First, let us be clear that Being is not a ‘thing’ (relative entity) and so does not possess any subsidiaries.

But in the above paragraph you use the word subsidiaries. So you must be using it to refer to items of knowledge. I'm sorry, I just can't seem to formulate a question. What you have said is all understandable but not as an explanation for how Interdependent Complementarity are the same as Identity.

Rather, it comprises a single quality (knowledge) abiding within a single relation (awareness), and give that it is the relation that is real (absolute), it follows that it must be the relation that is cognizant, and not the quality.

That makes sense (although it is not proved to me that either must be cognizant).

The Principle of Identity is more properly expressed “A is A” for it represents not equivalence, but identity. What the principle tells us is that everything is identical with its self (its real or existential being), but different from another (in its apparent or essential being). In other words, that all things interdependent, in that they each depend for the existence upon other things, and complementary, in that they all complete one another in the whole - Being.

This also makes sense.

I think the problem is that you are saying identity depends upon other things to make it what it is. Whereas, I had not thought of it that way. I would think that identity stands alone, as the 'thing in itself' that things are unique in their essential being independent of being contrasted with other things.

Suppose that Awareness had manifested exactly one atom of hydrogen - would not this hydrogen atom be identical with itself?

Me: Yes, but that is not the same as saying that space itself is the absolute and is the operative cause of all things. Is that what you meant to say?

Yes, that which is real cannot be neither perceived nor imagined, but it is that which enables us to perceive or imagine.

Oh, dear. That which is real cannot be perceived or imagined? How are we to understand it then?
Nonetheless, why do you call it space? Because it is the container?

This entire paragraph I had already more or less reasoned out for myself, and also came to the conclusion that there cannot be more than one original first cause. That is why, at the beginning of this thread, I said I liked string theory for its proposal that all things arise from one fundamental energy or particle, which merely takes on the appearance of different qualities by its many vibrations.

Yes, but the fact that these fundamental particles share the same essential characteristics, does not render them logically tenable; for although these particles are ‘similar’ they are not ‘identical’, for each must occupy its own particular space.

Yes, that is true...I guess it makes sense for a monist, although I am some sort of qualified monist. It isn't that I think of particles as self-caused or a fundamental cause. It's that I think everything is God, of God, originates out of God, and that all things must be created of one fundamental substance.

There are many forms of meditation, and no one form appeals to everyone. It is better that you try some of the different techniques for your self, and select the one that you are most comfortable with – but not too comfortable, else you will simply go to sleep.

I have always said that if I ever got enlightened, it would have to be without meditation...at any rate, there seem to be two basic forms, one in which one tries to empty the mind of all thought, and the other in which you try to extinguish the restless mind by concentrating upon one thought, such as in mantra, so as to more or less pin the mind down and make it stop moving.

There are times in everyone’s lives when they are confronted by challenges that push the interpretive mind to its limits, life and death moment, or moments of great adversity. In such moments, the interpretive process which dominates our mental activity collapses (temporarily), and in the mental quiescence that follows such a collapse there is an opportunity to reconnect with our true selves, and to function accordingly.

It was nothing like that, nothing traumatic. It was more or less a contemplation experience that caused a big shift. As to not sustaining it, I am not quite sure. It was sustained for two years unabated, but then began to integrate. It is true that I rise and fall, but nonetheless, nothing has ever been the same and I sense a kind of wisdom that I did not have before. Our conversation, also, is a result of it.

Ioluas wrote:I was trying to understand this paragraph:

Yes, they are one and the same principle or law. You see, the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is that relationship which holds between subsidiary things (knowledge), that is to say, which binds them together, so that there arises in their place the appearance of something new (an effect). However, since this newly arisen thing is not real, but merely apparent, it is this same cognizant principle (awareness) which perceives the effect and determines what sort of thing it is, that is to say, determines the thing’s ‘identity’.

and

First, let us be clear that Being is not a ‘thing’ (relative entity) and so does not possess any subsidiaries.

But in the above paragraph you use the word subsidiaries. So you must be using it to refer to items of knowledge. I'm sorry, I just can't seem to formulate a question. What you have said is all understandable but not as an explanation for how Interdependent Complementarity are the same as Identity.

If everything is the same with itself (it existential being), then all things are fundamental one and the same (identical), and so are ‘complementary’. Then, if everything is dependent upon other things for its existence (relative), then everything is ‘interdependent’. Consequently, the Principle of Identity is merely an expression of the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity.

Rather, it comprises a single quality (knowledge) abiding within a single relation (awareness), and give that it is the relation that is real (absolute), it follows that it must be the relation that is cognizant, and not the quality.

That makes sense (although it is not proved to me that either must be cognizant).

Given that there are only these two modes of being, and given that there is cognizance, it follows that it must belong to one mode or the other.

I think the problem is that you are saying identity depends upon other things to make it what it is. Whereas, I had not thought of it that way. I would think that identity stands alone, as the 'thing in itself' that things are unique in their essential being independent of being contrasted with other things.

Suppose that Awareness had manifested exactly one atom of hydrogen - would not this hydrogen atom be identical with itself?

As I said a couple of posts back, whenever we specify some set of essential characteristics, such as those that constitute a ‘hydrogen atom’, we simultaneously bring into being a set of complementary characteristics. For example, in order to say what a hydrogen atom is, we must be able to say what it is not; for there can be no large without that there is a small, no soft without hard, no fast without a slow, no red without that which is not red (other). In truth, we can only determine what a thing is in comparison to that which it is not.

Oh, dear. That which is real cannot be perceived or imagined?

I have said from the very beginning that there is nothing that may be predicted of the absolute, other than to say that it is (exists).

How are we to understand it then?

We can only understand the absolute by understanding its complementary aspect – the relative. Remember, if we know the characteristics of one elements of a complementary pair, we can deduce the characteristics of the other element, and so we need not be able to perceive or imagine it.

Nonetheless, why do you call it space? Because it is the container?

’Space’ is simply the term that we use to denote those regions of our sensory field(s) of awareness where there is no ‘thing’ that is apparent.

Yes, that is true...I guess it makes sense for a monist, although I am some sort of qualified monist. It isn't that I think of particles as self-caused or a fundamental cause. It's that I think everything is God, of God, originates out of God, and that all things must be created of one fundamental substance.

Would you not agree that the mind is the origin and cause of all of our imaginings? And would you not agree that the stuff of our imaginings is the same stuff as of our mind? There are not two substances here, but only the one, and when it is the stuff of mind it is monistic, and when it is the stuff of imaginings it is pluralistic. Imaginings may come and go, but the mind remains unchanged. If we imagine the smallest sub-atomic particle, then this minute particle fills the mind, but when we imagine the vast recesses of outer space, its vastness still fits within the mind. Likewise, whether we imagine a single thing, or a multitude of things, there is nothing that enters the mind or leaves it; for that which we imagine is merely a manifestation of the cognizant nature of mind.

I have always said that if I ever got enlightened, it would have to be without meditation...at any rate, there seem to be two basic forms, one in which one tries to empty the mind of all thought, and the other in which you try to extinguish the restless mind by concentrating upon one thought, such as in mantra, so as to more or less pin the mind down and make it stop moving.

It was nothing like that, nothing traumatic. It was more or less a contemplation experience that caused a big shift. As to not sustaining it, I am not quite sure. It was sustained for two years unabated, but then began to integrate. It is true that I rise and fall, but nonetheless, nothing has ever been the same and I sense a kind of wisdom that I did not have before. Our conversation, also, is a result of it.

The method that I have found most fruitful is to first read an except from one of the wisdom traditions, and then taking up an alert posture – so as not to fall asleep, contemplate the piece until such a time as my mind has called into play every possible piece of related knowledge available, then, when the analytical mind is able to go no further, simple give in to that stillness that underlies all mental activities. However, I must emphasize that you must maintain an easy but alert posture throughout, for the mind will follow the body, and if you lie down or otherwise relax, you will slip into a dream state.

Jehu,

If everything is the same with itself (it existential being), then all things are fundamental one and the same (identical), and so are ‘complementary’. Then, if everything is dependent upon other things for its existence (relative), then everything is ‘interdependent’. Consequently, the Principle of Identity is merely an expression of the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity.

OK, this just isn't how I had understood identity. That all things share in existential being and are united in that - that is not being the same as itself. Being the same as itself, simply means that this particular item is the same as itself in its essential being, its elements and molecules.
Your way, doesn't really mean anything. I hope this isn't important, because I don't disagree at all with your paragraph.

As I said a couple of posts back, whenever we specify some set of essential characteristics, such as those that constitute a ‘hydrogen atom’, we simultaneously bring into being a set of complementary characteristics. For example, in order to say what a hydrogen atom is, we must be able to say what it is not; for there can be no large without that there is a small, no soft without hard, no fast without a slow, no red without that which is not red (other). In truth, we can only determine what a thing is in comparison to that which it is not.

You are speaking of the imaginary elements, but I am focusing on the actual ones.

Given that there are only these two modes of being, and given that there is cognizance, it follows that it must belong to one mode or the other.

Is every possible characteristic represented that way, in one of the two modes of being?
Aren't there a lot of characteristics that all belong to the realm of the ten thousand things?

’Space’ is simply the term that we use to denote those regions of our sensory field(s) of awareness where there is no ‘thing’ that is apparent.

But why have you said that space is the absolute and the source of all things?

Would you not agree that the mind is the origin and cause of all of our imaginings? And would you not agree that the stuff of our imaginings is the same stuff as of our mind? There are not two substances here, but only the one, and when it is the stuff of mind it is monistic, and when it is the stuff of imaginings it is pluralistic. Imaginings may come and go, but the mind remains unchanged. If we imagine the smallest sub-atomic particle, then this minute particle fills the mind, but when we imagine the vast recesses of outer space, its vastness still fits within the mind. Likewise, whether we imagine a single thing, or a multitude of things, there is nothing that enters the mind or leaves it; for that which we imagine is merely a manifestation of the cognizant nature of mind.

I don't know if I understand the underlined sentence. The rest I understand.

Your meditation method is the best, as it makes use of contemplation, at which I think I excel more than other forms.

Ioluas wrote:OK, this just isn't how I had understood identity. That all things share in existential being and are united in that - that is not being the same as itself. Being the same as itself, simply means that this particular item is the same as itself in its essential being, its elements and molecules.

Remember, there is but one true entity ‘Being/Existence’ which it the ‘true self’ of all things, and so all things are one and the same (identical) with their self. Nevertheless, things differ with respect to their essences (essential characteristics), but given that these essences are not real, but merely apparent, it follows that the differences themselves are only apparent.

Is every possible characteristic represented that way, in one of the two modes of being?

Indeed, for there is no mode of being beyond these two.

Aren't there a lot of characteristics that all belong to the realm of the ten thousand things?

The Chinese term “ten thousand things” was simply their way of expressing the idea of an innumerable quantity, for they had not yet developed the concept of infinity. All such characteristics as can be perceived through the senses, and which constitute the essence of a physical/material thing belong to the relative mode of existence; in that they are actual.

But why have you said that space is the absolute and the source of all things?

Space is merely the term used to denote the element of ‘form’ as it applies to physical/material things, and form is the element that is most closely related to the absolute - awareness. It is for this reason that awareness is able to recognize form – for we can only recognize what we already know.

There are not two substances here, but only the one, and when it is the stuff of mind it is monistic, and when it is the stuff of imaginings it is pluralistic.

I don't know if I understand the underlined sentence. The rest I understand.

Consider the words of Master Lao (the brackets are mine):

“The one [Being] gives rise to two [Awareness (form) and Knowledge (essence) – the actual],
The two give rise to three [embodiment, potency and function – the imaginary]
The three give rise to the ten thousand things [all relative entities]”

Jehu,

Remember, there is but one true entity ‘Being/Existence’ which it the ‘true self’ of all things, and so all things are one and the same (identical) with their self.

But is it in this sense that people discuss A=A? Have most people agreed or even thought to consider it in this manner? It just hasn't much meaning to me this way. To say all things are the same in their existential being. Because in this, there is no difference between one object and another. They are the same in their essential being. So a particular pencil equals itself, but also equals anything else or the entire totality.

Nevertheless, things differ with respect to their essences (essential characteristics), but given that these essences are not real, but merely apparent, it follows that the differences themselves are only apparent.

I'm still struggling with what you really mean by saying things aren't real when they are actual. At any rate, this is what I thought was meant by A is A.

Is every possible characteristic represented that way, in one of the two modes of being?

Indeed, for there is no mode of being beyond these two.

Yes, but what I meant was, if we have cognizance, must it mean that it is a fundament of one of the modes of being? Are there not many things which all belong to the mode of the relative? Without an opposite in the absolute?

The Chinese term “ten thousand things” was simply their way of expressing the idea of an innumerable quantity,

Yes, I know.

“The one [Being] gives rise to two [Awareness (form) and Knowledge (essence) – the actual],
The two give rise to three [embodiment, potency and function – the imaginary]
The three give rise to the ten thousand things [all relative entities]”

Well, that is certainly succinct and fits incredibly well with what else you have laid out here. Are those five elements part of Taoistic philosophy? Because I thought they were either Hindu or Buddhist.

I had a working hypothesis that was roughly not at variance with this. The One is the unnamable existence, the two was awareness of the one, i.e., awareness of existence, which makes two but is really still one, and the three was the sum of the one and the two. Actually, that last was perhaps a bit lame.

But also, how do we fit yin and yang in here because I think it is this interaction that really gives rise to the ten thousand things.

I think what I was trying to express is that while mind may be the true origin of all things, that physical manifestation must be reducible to one substance also.

Ioluas wrote:But is it in this sense that people discuss A=A? Have most people agreed or even thought to consider it in this manner? It just hasn't much meaning to me this way. To say all things are the same in their existential being. Because in this, there is no difference between one object and another. They are the same in their essential being. So a particular pencil equals itself, but also equals anything else or the entire totality.

For most people, the Principle of Identity means simply that “a bicycle is a bicycle, and is not a can opener”; but if this were all that it said, it would tell us little indeed. Let me paraphrase an argument put forward by Socrates in Plato’s ‘Theaetetus’.

Let us consider two different sorts of things, a ‘colour’ and a ‘sound’, for example; and I will assume, for the sake of the argument, that you will agree that both these things exist. Now, a colour is given to the mind by way of the eye, and a sound, by way of the ear, and it would make no sense to ask you what a colour sounds like, or a sound looks like, for each organ has its own specific object, and is blind to all others. Still, there is a universal quality (being/existence) which both sorts of things (sounds and colours) partake of, and so we must now ask ourselves “which organ is it that perceives this universal quality?” We cannot say that it is the eye that perceives it, else the eye would perceive it in a sound as well as in a colour; and for the same reason, we cannot say that it is the ear that perceives it either. What then is the organ that perceives the being/existence of a thing, and upon which that being/existence is dependent? It can be non other that the perceiving mind. Then, given the fundamental unity of all being, it follows that all minds are fundamentally one and the same mind; which is to say, the nature of Being is essentially cognizant.

I'm still struggling with what you really mean by saying things aren't real when they are actual. At any rate, this is what I thought was meant by A is A.

If we return again to the dream analogy, we will see that there are two interdependent and complementary minds at play: the partially unconscious mind of the dreamer, and the partially conscious mind of the dream persona. The partially unconscious mind of the dreamer is that aspect (objective) of the whole mind that generates the dream world, and orchestrates all that takes place within; and so may be likened to the ‘actual’, for each of the props in the dream, be they animate or inanimate, responds in accordance with its own nature; and for this reason, gives the illusion of there being an objective world which exists external to and independent of the dream persona. The partially conscious mind of the dream persona is that aspect (subjective) of the whole mind that experiences the dream world, and imagines that there is an external objective world with which it may interact, and so may be likened to ‘imaginary’; for what the dream persona thinks may or may not accord with what is actually going on in the dream.

Yes, but what I meant was, if we have cognizance, must it mean that it is a fundament of one of the modes of being? Are there not many things which all belong to the mode of the relative? Without an opposite in the absolute?

If we strip a thing of those elements that are purely imaginary, then we are left with only form and essence, neither of which is ‘real’, for all forms may be reduced to other subsidiary forms, just as all essences may be reduced to subsidiary essences. Nevertheless, they are not ‘imaginary’ either, hence we may say that they are ‘actual’. Of the two interdependent and complementary elements, it is ‘form’ that is the superior (operative/active) element, and ‘essence’, the inferior (constitutive/passive) element.

Are those five elements part of Taoistic philosophy? Because I thought they were either Hindu or Buddhist.

The Five Elements were central to all forms of ancient essentialism, abeit they varied from one tradition to another. In China, for example, they were metal, water, earth, fire and wood; but they still denoted form (metal), essence (water), embodiment (earth), potency (fire) and function (wood).

But also, how do we fit yin and yang in here because I think it is this interaction that really gives rise to the ten thousand things.

The Yin (active/absolute) and the Yang (passive/relative) symbolize the two interdependent and complementary primitive elements which comprise the nature of Being; that is to say, awareness and knowledge. However, their true significance has long been lost, as the wisdom traditions of Lao Zu and Chang Zu have all but died out in China, while its symbols, such as the Tai Chi Tu and the Five Elements have been expropriated by those who are essentially nothing more than herbalists – and retain no real knowledge of the metaphysical doctrines of ancient Taoism.

I think what I was trying to express is that while mind may be the true origin of all things, that physical manifestation must be reducible to one substance also.

As I demonstrated before, nothing new may arise without that it has at least two constitutive causes, and so it is not possible to reduce essence (substance) to a single thing. Just as the props in our dreams are ultimately nothing more that constructs of the mind, operating upon our own personal store of knowledge, so to is the objective world a mind construct, and nowhere in it is there to be found anything that is real; that is to say, which is not mind dependent.

How do we know something is true or false?

Logical axioms (formulas in a formal language that are universally valid) which has at least some minimal set of tautologies (propositional formula that is true under any possible valuation) for proving all tautologies in the language.

We also know because of Topological space/Topological vector spaces (mathematical structures that allow formal definition of concepts such as such as convergence, connectedness, and continuity and appear in virtually every branch of modern mathematics and are a central unifying notion) which comply directly with axioms!

We call this principle a self-evident implication

So basically something either exists, 1 or doesn't exist, 0. We have to logically express something in order for it to exist in physical reality. A four sided triangle outside of time and space could exist, but if we cannot logically express such a thing than it doesn't matter to physical reality. If a quart becomes a river and an ounce a pound, it is extraneous to our cognition (at least, as far as I'm concerned)

But the fact remains that I don't think anything in your original post followed any logic. Not to mention the fact that the admin of this site is a pretentious prick who compares himself to Jesus and says that Albert Einstein wasn't a Genius.

For the record, Albert Einstein = great contribution to our understanding of physics and mathematics and thus a better perception of the fundamental forces of nature as a whole in our universe. This would qualify him as a genius.

Some random guy sitting on his fat ass discrediting one of the greatest minds in history because "he didn't have good relationship with reality" (which doesn't help humanity) = idiot.

Doing calculations on the dynamics of quantum gravity and hyperbolic space (which greatly helped humanity) = genius

Some guy on a forum rambling about a bunch of pseudoscientific and philosophical nonsense = not genius

By the way:
Bite me

Jehu:

Just as the props in our dreams are ultimately nothing more that constructs of the mind, operating upon our own personal store of knowledge, so to is the objective world a mind construct, and nowhere in it is there to be found anything that is real; that is to say, which is not mind dependent.

This is synchronistic with my challenge of Nic's (obvious to me, tho he denies it) solipsism as in my just finished reply to him in the "Oneness Experience" thread.

Are you arguing that the objective world/cosmos does not exist but in the mind/perception of humans, as "constructs of the mind?"

Or do you acknowledge a cosmic consciousness ("mind" in the largest sense) which creates and sustains what we call the objective world/cosmos even had the Earth and its homosapient inhabitants never formed/evolved?

Surely "the fundamental unity of being" IS the unity of all "beings" as manifest objective parts of one body, cosmos and One in Identity as Omnipresent Consciousness... the One Being Whose objective body is cosmos.

Jehu,

Let me paraphrase an argument put forward by Socrates in Plato’s ‘Theaetetus’.

Alright, I can see that your version has A is A embedded in all of reality, rather than just the relative. So it has more aspects, and is therefore more complete.

What then is the organ that perceives the being/existence of a thing, and upon which that being/existence is dependent? It can be non other that the perceiving mind. Then, given the fundamental unity of all being, it follows that all minds are fundamentally one and the same mind; which is to say, the nature of Being is essentially cognizant.

I am not quite sure why this means all minds are one and the same mind, although I suspect this is somehow so.

I found this a pretty good argument for showing the role and importance of the mind - but does it show that being is dependent upon mind?

The partially conscious mind of the dream persona is that aspect (subjective) of the whole mind that experiences the dream world, and imagines that there is an external objective world with which it may interact, and so may be likened to ‘imaginary’; for what the dream persona thinks may or may not accord with what is actually going on in the dream.

Well that particular paragraph was very good, but the only oddity is comparing the subjective to the imaginary, as I had understood the subjective ("I") as being awareness, and therefore the part of me which partakes of the absolute, that is, mind.

If we strip a thing of those elements that are purely imaginary, then we are left with only form and essence, neither of which is ‘real’, for all forms may be reduced to other subsidiary forms, just as all essences may be reduced to subsidiary essences. Nevertheless, they are not ‘imaginary’ either, hence we may say that they are ‘actual’. Of the two interdependent and complementary elements, it is ‘form’ that is the superior (operative/active) element, and ‘essence’, the inferior (constitutive/passive) element.

Alright, but I'm not sure how to relate this to my question about the two modes of being, and their complementarity. It is clear, for example, that there can be only the choice of either being contingently caused, or self caused. But I am not clear on how cognizance and noncognizance are qualities that must belong to the two modes.

The Five Elements were central to all forms of ancient essentialism, abeit they varied from one tradition to another. In China, for example, they were metal, water, earth, fire and wood; but they still denoted form (metal), essence (water), embodiment (earth), potency (fire) and function (wood).

Perhaps, but I had never heard of them explained in the depth that you have, although I had run across them without real study in a Buddhist text, but again, had not equated them with the earth, air, fire and water of Greek thought, astrology, etc. It fits quite neatly with the particular piece from Tao te Ching that you cited.

The Yin (active/absolute) and the Yang (passive/relative) symbolize the two interdependent and complementary primitive elements which comprise the nature of Being; that is to say, awareness and knowledge. However, their true significance has long been lost, as the wisdom traditions of Lao Zu and Chang Zu have all but died out in China, while its symbols, such as the Tai Chi Tu and the Five Elements have been expropriated by those who are essentially nothing more than herbalists – and retain no real knowledge of the metaphysical doctrines of ancient Taoism.

Oh, yes, I agree with your assessment of yin and yang. It helps to think for oneself...
Not that I had thought of awareness and knowledge as their root. Did you mean to call yin active? And which would you consider active, awareness, or knowledge? Seems to me awareness is passive.

As I demonstrated before, nothing new may arise without that it has at least two constitutive causes, and so it is not possible to reduce essence (substance) to a single thing. Just as the props in our dreams are ultimately nothing more that constructs of the mind, operating upon our own personal store of knowledge, so to is the objective world a mind construct, and nowhere in it is there to be found anything that is real; that is to say, which is not mind dependent.

It seems to me we are missing a step. If the nature of being is necessarily a complement of awareness and knowledge, and from these two we get the three imaginary characteristics of embodiment, potency and function, we have come far indeed into the actualization of matter. What I wonder is how do we get the manifestation of matter out of the two, awareness and knowledge; how does it start? So far as I can discern, the difference between a positive and negative force in matter may be no more than a direction of spin.

Now, if every thing has two constitutive causes, then we must ask, what are those causes? Do they arise as a pair, simultaneously?

“The one [Being] gives rise to two [Awareness (form) and Knowledge (essence) – the actual],
You seem to be saying that the manifestation of matter occurs here- but I thought we also had considered awareness to be real and knowledge to be not real?

Mikiel,

If you followed this discussion much, you'd know the answer to your question!

No, he does not think we great apes create and sustain the world.

Iolaus:

Mikiel,

If you followed this discussion much, you'd know the answer to your question!

No, he does not think we great apes create and sustain the world.

It's true that I only drop in occassionally. Last time I did, I found this quote, with my emphasis in bold:

Just as the props in our dreams are ultimately nothing more that constructs of the mind, operating upon our own personal store of knowledge, so to is the objective world a mind construct, and nowhere in it is there to be found anything that is real; that is to say, which is not mind dependent.

My mustake if he was using our personal minds as a scaled down example of Universal Mind, Creator and Sustainer of all there is.

I too see cosmos as Consciousness-made-manifest. However I don't see how this diminishes its 'reality quotient' as the objective cosmos... as an actual, real creation, dependent only upon the Creator (Universal consciousness) for its perpetual existence/reality.

(PS: It's a little strange addressing the above to you as Jehu's proxie.)

Ioluas wrote:I am not quite sure why this means all minds are one and the same mind, although I suspect this is somehow so.

I found this a pretty good argument for showing the role and importance of the mind - but does it show that being is dependent upon mind?

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that people think that they can imagine a world without any sentient observer, but in truth, they cannot. For example, in the absence of any sentient being whatsoever, the ‘objective world’ could not look like anything, feel like anything, taste, smell or sound like anything; and so how can one possibly imagine such a state; or say that such a state can constitute an existence of any sort?

Well that particular paragraph was very good, but the only oddity is comparing the subjective to the imaginary, as I had understood the subjective ("I") as being awareness, and therefore the part of me which partakes of the absolute, that is, mind.

Yes, it is the cognizant subject which is real, but all that which the subject takes as it object is merely apparent. However, these apparent objects may be further divided into two groups, those which ‘actually’ exist and those which are only ‘imagined’ to exist. For this reason, it may be said that there is but one objective world (the actual), but a multiplicity of subjective worlds (the imaginary). For example, when I say that I saw a wolf cut across the road this morning, what I really mean is that I think or imagine what I saw to be a wolf, however, the imaginary aspect of my experience only becomes evident when something happens to prove me wrong. So you see, the sentient experience is two-fold, the one aspect being what ‘actually’ happened, and the other, what we ‘imagined’ to have happened. For example, we pass someone on the street whom would normal greet us, and because of something which is going on in their own life, they fail to acknowledge us, and we immediately imagine that it is because of something we have done – a result of the ego’s self-centralizing tendency.

Alright, but I'm not sure how to relate this to my question about the two modes of being, and their complementarity. It is clear, for example, that there can be only the choice of either being contingently caused, or self caused. But I am not clear on how cognizance and noncognizance are qualities that must belong to the two modes.

Given that the two modes of being are complementary, it follows that they are mutually exclusive, and so if one of the modes is ‘aware’, and one of them must necessarily be, then the other is necessarily unaware.

Oh, yes, I agree with your assessment of yin and yang. It helps to think for oneself...
Not that I had thought of awareness and knowledge as their root. Did you mean to call yin active? And which would you consider active, awareness, or knowledge? Seems to me awareness is passive.

Yes, it might appear that way, but it is Yin (awareness) that is the active or operative cause, while Yang (knowledge) is the passive or constitutive cause. Interestingly, the Chinese held the Yin to be the female aspect, for although woman appear inferior (passive) to men, it is actually the woman that possesses the creative power.

It seems to me we are missing a step. If the nature of being is necessarily a complement of awareness and knowledge, and from these two we get the three imaginary characteristics of embodiment, potency and function, we have come far indeed into the actualization of matter. What I wonder is how do we get the manifestation of matter out of the two, awareness and knowledge; how does it start?

To ask “how does it start” is to not grasp the nature of the absolute entity, for if its self-abiding causes (i.e., awareness (a relation) and knowledge (a quality)) do exist, then too must the entity itself exist. Conversely, if either of its self-abiding causes do not exist, then neither can the entity itself exist. Then, given that an absolute entity is immutable, it follows that if such an entity did not exist in the past, then it could never come into existence; and so it follows that such an entity must have necessarily always existed.

Now, if every thing has two constitutive causes, then we must ask, what are those causes? Do they arise as a pair, simultaneously?

The constitutive causes of a new thing, given that they are not real, but merely apparent, appear to exist independent of and antecedent to the new thing - which they together constitute. However, as I said earlier, these subsidiary things are not the constitutive causes of the new thing until the new thing (effect) has become manifest; thus we cannot say that the ‘constitutive causes’ of a given thing exist independent of or antecedent to the thing itself.

“The one [Being] gives rise to two [Awareness (form) and Knowledge (essence) – the actual],
You seem to be saying that the manifestation of matter occurs here- but I thought we also had considered awareness to be real and knowledge to be not real?

In that process wherein awareness (the real) operates upon knowledge (the apparent), that knowledge is altered – in accordance with the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity (PIC)”. However, to fully understand this process, one must look at the PIC from two complementary views. From the one view, the PIC is a creative or unifying principle which brings together a multitude of things to create a more complex thing (many into one). From the other viewpoint, the PIC is a destructive or divisive principle which takes a thing apart, and in so doing, creates a multitude of less complex things (one into many). In truth however, nothing remains the same from one instant to the next, and so, for example, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that were the constitutive causes of a water molecule at the time that it came into being, are not the same atoms that appear to be released when the water molecule ceases to be, but are entirely new atoms – albeit, only apparent ones.

This is what I meant earlier, when I said that it was a ‘non-regressive’ process, and it is this non-regressive aspect of the cycle that gives time it apparent direction from the past through the present into the future – the so called ‘arrow of time’. Logically, however, the concepts of past, present and future are completely untenable, for neither the past nor the future exist now, and in the instant that separates the two, there is no time for a present to exist either.

To understand how the PIC does operates, let us look at a simple syllogism, such as the one I used earlier to demonstrate that an effect must have at least two causes. If one were to simply ask oneself if an effect could arise solely from a single cause, it would seem impossible to say. However, if one divides the ‘universe of discourse’ (all effects) into two interdependent and complementary sets: (1) those that are identical to their cause, and (2) those that are not identical to their cause, and then, given that an effect cannot arise without a cause, one can see clearly that such a case is not possible. Now, let us take another simple example of deductive reasoning:
P1 – all couriers deliver packages.
P2 – John is a courier.
C1 – Therefore, John must deliver packages.

Here, the universe of discourse is ‘all couriers’, and the premise is that all members of this universe share the essential characteristic that they deliver packages; thus it follows that if John is a member of this universe, then John must necessarily partake of this universal characteristic. It is in this way that the PIC amalgamates two pieces of knowledge (P1 and P2) to yield an apparently new piece of knowledge (C1). In other words, P1 and P2 are the interdependent and complementary aspects of C1. By interdependent I mean that the conclusion (C1) cannot be true without that both P1 and P2 are true, and by complementary, I mean that together, the two premises complete one another in the conclusion, and there is nothing in the conclusion that is not accounted for in the two premises.

Mikiel wrote:I too see cosmos as Consciousness-made-manifest. However I don't see how this diminishes its 'reality quotient' as the objective cosmos... as an actual, real creation, dependent only upon the Creator (Universal consciousness) for its perpetual existence/reality.

I must infer, from your statement above, that you think that I also hold the cosmos to be “Consciousness-made-manifest”, but this is simply not true; for as I have said repeatedly, 'consciousness' is a function of the sentient mind, and the doctrine that I am putting forward here is not one of solipsism, but of absolute or objective idealism.

Jehu wrote:

Mikiel wrote:I too see cosmos as Consciousness-made-manifest. However I don't see how this diminishes its 'reality quotient' as the objective cosmos... as an actual, real creation, dependent only upon the Creator (Universal consciousness) for its perpetual existence/reality.

I must infer, from your statement above, that you think that I also hold the cosmos to be “Consciousness-made-manifest”, but this is simply not true; for as I have said repeatedly, 'consciousness' is a function of the sentient mind, and the doctrine that I am putting forward here is not one of solipsism, but of absolute or objective idealism.

Sorry I interrupted your process of indoctrination into "absolute... idealism." I do not understand how "objective" can reasonably be inserted into such a doctrine, because I have not followed your whole tedius process of indoctrination here... this thread.

So I will butt out and let you indoctrinate Iolaus, to the extent she is receptive.

My whole life as a mystic visionary has shown me directly that Cosmic Consciousness is constantly creating, sustaining and dissolving/disintegrating cosmos on all levels... i.e., that it is indeed Consciousness-made-manifest.

You presume to state as a fact, invalidating the Truth as I know it:
" but this is simply not true; for as I have said repeatedly, 'consciousness' is a function of the sentient mind..."
(validated, I presume, by your own repetition of it.)

This only confirms what I have suspected... that you are more than a little "self-absorbed" in a grandiose philosophical delusion that you are the Sole Gardian of the "Fundamental Unity of Being" (according to The Doctrine of Jehu... here presented for everyones edification and deliverence from ignorance.)

However you define "the sentient mind" in the tome which this thread has become, it must be an anthropomorphic version of sentience if you reject Universal Mind as the "Ultimate Reality" (ref: the subtitle of this forum.)

Now butting out. I've seen delusions of grandeur many times in my career, including several years as a psychotherapist in mental hospitals.
My professional opinion is to warn all readers of this thread... if they haven't figured it out yet on their own, that you are a delusional egomaniac.
I am open to other opinions if anyone here besides your one possible disciple agrees with you.