GENIUS FORUMS

T.S.:

I was a paraphrasing what he said in #2. I took out all the filler, and found it was impossible for me to determine if he is bullshitting or not. The only difference is that he was more cunning than simple and direct -- but I don't consider an intelligent bullshitter any more wise than an unintelligent one. I guess, since you consider the paraphrase to be bullshit, that answers my question. He is bullshitting, at least on #2.

Joel:

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

This clearly refers to the non-dual nature of Ultimate Reality as distinct from the intrinsic nature of relative duality in the thinking, distinguishing, naming process which creates concepts as objects in the mind. Again if you were scholar enough to study the Merrell-Wolff material, then you would be able to compare the above distinctions created by language and naming from the pure essence of "Consciousness Without an Object."

As in last post, the nature of Ultimate Reality is (ultimately) ineffable, as is well known in all Traditions, as in the quotes you are not debating
Words are fingers pointing at the moon. One cliche' here should suffice as a ref to the above ineffability.

Your slur-word judgements ("cunning"... "bullshitter") add nothing to the discussion as substantial debate but only degrade the level of intelligence of this discussion. And what Joel teaches is exactly, in essence, what all the other quotes are saying as well as the whole body of Merrell-Wolff's work... which you seem too lazy to even study as the brief abstracts given in the links provided.

A scholar truly interested in this material would study his masterpiece, "Consciousness
Without an Object," Joel's work, as offered on his site, His book, "Naked Through The Gate" and my website and then come to a discussion such as this prepared with the depth of wisdom expressed by all three "generations" of teachers.

You keep it shallow by jumping to conclusions based on your own ignorance of the transcendental aspect of consciousness and the ensuing negative judgements springing from that ignorance.

This clearly refers to the non-dual nature of Ultimate Reality as distinct from the intrinsic nature of relative duality in the thinking, distinguishing, naming process which creates concepts as objects in the mind.

You just paraphrased what I already said, except I was more clear. "The undefined is undefinable because definitions, by definition, define." There is absolutely nothing more revealed in how you said it. It's just a silly tautology fluffed up to sound wise. There's no particular reason even to care about the undefinable.

Again if you were scholar enough to study the Merrell-Wolff material, then you would be able to compare the above distinctions created by language and naming from the pure essence of "Consciousness Without an Object."

Scholars are not the paragons of wisdom. We see this already in Joel, who I still cannot see as wise. I have no idea why you are so eager to move onward to the wisdom of guy number two, before convincing me of the first.

Your slur-word judgements ("cunning"... "bullshitter") add nothing to the discussion as substantial debate but only degrade the level of intelligence of this discussion.

I never claimed to be intelligent, so could we please stick to the wisdom? I had good reasons for saying that he was a cunning bullshitter, as opposed to a wise man, and I don't think you have trounced my criticisms. Mostly because there is only ONE SENTENCE in this entire post of yours that actually addresses Joel's wisdom at all -- and even then, you felt the need to paraphrase his jargon into different jargon, without explaining how my own paraphrase was not accurate.

A scholar truly interested in this material would study his masterpiece...

Hold it there, cowboy. This stuff doesn't interest me at all. Disinterest has served me far better. If you want to convince me to read more, you're going to have to convince me that what I've read so far was even worth reading. I don't jump on every book that someone tells me to read.

At the moment, I'd sooner read some of these ancient wise men he quoted than any more of his pseudoenlightened pretentions. And I don't really need even to do that, since I can already think quite well without their help.

Trevor,
This is not a serious discussion of enlightenment.

Hold it there, cowboy. This stuff doesn't interest me at all. Disinterest has served me far better. If you want to convince me to read more, you're going to have to convince me that what I've read so far was even worth reading. I don't jump on every book that someone tells me to read.

First, I have almost zero motivation to "convince" you, an obvious ignoramus re enlightenment what it actually is from direct firsthand experience. The "almost" merely refers to the essence of the Bodhisattva vow, which I serve in my own way without affiliation to any doctrine but only universal Truth.

If you are not interested in this thread you really should STFU and go away.
So this is for readers not now posting.

T.S. proposes to compare Joel's statement labeled #2 above with the ridiculous assertion as follows:

Let's say someone says, "the reason the undefined is undefined is because definitions, by definition, define", would you have any reason to believe he is enlightened?

For starters... I'll save my breath otherwise...
Does anyone here see a reasonable comparison with the T.S. quote above and Joel's statement:

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

Next, does anyone understand my commentary following that qoute in my last post, as follows:

This clearly refers to the non-dual nature of Ultimate Reality as distinct from the intrinsic nature of relative duality in the thinking, distinguishing, naming process which creates concepts as objects in the mind. Again if you were scholar enough to study the Merrell-Wolff material, then you would be able to compare the above distinctions created by language and naming from the pure essence of "Consciousness Without an Object."

Next, T.S. seems to have no comprension, and certaily no intelligent response to my further commentary:

As in last post, the nature of Ultimate Reality is (ultimately) ineffable, as is well known in all Traditions, as in the quotes you are not debating
Words are fingers pointing at the moon. One cliche' here should suffice as a ref to the above ineffability.

Finally, in broad perspective, to define means basically to make finite, as in distinctions between "things", whereas the infinite aspect of consciounsess transcends the distinction between things, as contrived by the thinking, labeling mind. This aspect is the essence of enlightenment, consciousness transcending its content, of which Trevor and the founders of this forum have no clue.

Does anyone here unde3rstand this? Treavor does not, and is not even interested in what true enlightenment is, as he will settle for logic
reason as a substitute.
(Clue: It will not relieve suffering as actual awakening into the Infinite will.)

Finally, Trevor wrote:

...there is only ONE SENTENCE in this entire post of yours that actually addresses Joel's wisdom at all -- and even then, you felt the need to paraphrase his jargon into different jargon, without explaining how my own paraphrase was not accurate.

As to how out of touch he is, he didn't even specify the "sentence."
I certainly feel no "need" to paraphrase my teacher's wisdom, but I will say it in my own words as well in the usual manner of confirmation, as from my own direct realization.
(Just another case of his painting it negative where is was all affirmation of the same Truth from different perspectives.)

Maybe tis will be the end of "dialogue" (sarcastic label, if you know what dialogue means) between Trevor and mikiel. If he is not interested he really should shove off and contribute where his interest does lie.
But, I'm open to comments on all the above.
What would interst me most is a formal (i.e. respectful) dialogue between others who have actually read some of Merrell-Wolff's and Morwood's wisdom and myself... just as a matter of the minimal study to know what they are actually saying... which is the same as my message and the that of the 50 or so quotes from other enlightened sages in the "Mystic Traditions" quotes.

mikiel, you are rude and demanding. How long did it take you to read and comprehend all the material? How long would it have taken you to read it if someone demanded you read it for the sole purpose of belittling others?

A Bodhisattva is a teacher. He understands the limits of his students, by recognizing his own limits.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:mikiel, you are rude and demanding. How long did it take you to read and comprehend all the material? How long would it have taken you to read it if someone demanded you read it for the sole purpose of belittling others?

A Bodhisattva is a teacher. He understands the limits of his students, by recognizing his own limits.

( A true Teacher has no limits. Divine Identity is infinite... Consciousness Itself... not "mine" or "yours.")

I am rude in direct proportion to your ignorance and (rude negative judgement) of the transcendental aspect of enlightenment as taught my an enlightened teacher, Joel Morwood... whom I know for sure to be enlightened through many years as his student... and my eventual "graduation" into Self-Realization.

(Wanna see the Wilber quote again? I've worn it out, but it is still a legitimate Teacher persona as confronting nasty self-important egocentricity. Really... the link is handy if you still haven't seen it.)

Not to mention (oopse.. just did!) your self proclaimed disinterst while yet persisting in ignorant shit slinging... and your laziness in regard to even a brief intro to Merrell-Wolff, Joel's teacher.

If you can't be bothered to read even the brief abstracts, how is it that you presume to be an intelligent/wise critic of "classical enlightenment" as presented in this thread through all three generations of teachers... and all 6 major Traditions... same Truth in common among us all?

This does not require an answer. (Just a rhetorical expose' of your obvious ignorance.)

I would like to hear from any who are interested in what i am presenting here. Dissing without comprehension is the earmark of this forum... the model presented by the Trio. In that sense, Trevor, you are a loyal disciple. Welcome to it. I am the voice of classical enlightenment here. Study up or shut up.

Mikiel,

I've just read the link the link explaining Wolff's philosophy. http://www.integralscience.org/wolffsheart.htm

It seems to me that it doesn't differ substanitally from the 'QSR doctrine',apart from a more liberal usage of jargon and seemingly uneccessary oveuse of capital letters.I doubt 'they' would have any objection(at least as far as I can tell)

Until this bit:

Now direct your attention to the inside of the circle and recognize that the outside space does not literally disappear from awareness, even though it is ignored when you focus on the inside space. Thus, the outside of the circle can still be recognized as present even though it is being ignored and is not cognized as an object. Thus, from the point of view of objective consciousness, the inside space exists and the outside space does not exist. Yet, the outside space is still recognized as being there. This illustrates how an objective consciousness can coexist with a recognition of its non-objective complement.

Is this not another way of saying A=not(-A) ?

If so,then my question to you, is how can the A (inside the space) exist,but the not(-A) not exist.Both have been identified,thus recognised by (Ataraxia's,Mikiel's,Wolff's etc.)consciousness.
Moreover what is the meaning of the phrase "from the point of view 'objective consciousness' "in this context?

If 'it' has a point of view that we can grok,'it' must be a thing-itself.

The 'outside of the circle' has been recognised,we can even name it "everything else" if we like.What role does objective consiousness--if there indeed is such a thing-itself-- play?

Ataraxia:

It seems to me that it doesn't differ substanitally from the 'QSR doctrine',apart from a more liberal usage of jargon and seemingly uneccessary oveuse of capital letters.I doubt 'they' would have any objection(at least as far as I can tell)

Right off the top (literally, of McFarlane's intro):
"The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolff's philosophy transcends conceptual understanding."

Is the QRS doctrine not all about conceptual understanding, as per logic/reason?

Do they not claim that consciousness is defined by what one is conscious of, completely oblivious to what "Consciousness Without an Object" actually is?

The rest will be the finer points of foreground of attention as contrasted with the background of emptiness. (See Wolff's "Pathways Through to Space"... his version of the Fertile Void.
Thomas (a friend of mine) quotes Wolff in this regard as follows:

The kind of consciousness that falls outside the subject-object field is more than difficult to express in relative terms. It is absolutely impossible to do so. It is not simply a question of our not yet having developed sufficient skill. The impossibility inheres in the fact that the subject-object form, essential to language as such, can only distort the Transcendent. (Experience, p. 141)

The QRS doctrine has no comprehension at all of this transcendental aspect of consciousness.

To further elaborate...
Wolff:

When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. (Experience, p. 310.)

McFarlane:

When this Nirvanic consciousness is awakened and complements the consciousness of the Universe, the nature of conception is likewise transformed. Conception bound to the universe of objects now opens up to include a complementary, inverse mode of cognition. Before, concepts were limited to their explicit definitions and referred only to objects. Now, a trans-conceptual mode of cognition gives concepts another dimension, transforming them into more than mere concepts, so they have the capacity to carry Transcendental Meaning. As Wolff describes it,

Wolff:

One finds this inherent meaning, not by the appropriate kind of action, but by the correct kind of meditation, that is, by a process of introception…a movement of consciousness such that a successful outcome implies a transcendence of both thinking and perception, so that consciousness enters something like another dimension. (Transformations in Consciousness, p. 169)

The circle exercise is McFarlane's.
the essence of it is:

Thus, the circle is a symbol for the distinction in consciousness between any object and its non-objective complement, where the space inside the circle represents the object and the space outside the circle represents its Nirvanic complement.

What is contained within the circle is the object of focus of consciousness while what is beyond it is infinite space, symbolic of consciousness itself. Both are present at once, ergo non-dual.

McFarlane:

Just as the inside of the circle cannot exist without the outside, every object that appears in consciousness implies its own non-objective complement in consciousness. And just as the circle not only divides the inside space from the outside space but also joins them together, the power of conception not only draws a distinction in consciousness between an object and the rest of awareness, but also unites them.

Wolff:

I realized that pure subjective consciousness without an object must appear to the relative consciousness to have objects. Hence Recognition did not, of itself, imply a new experiential content of consciousness. (Experience, p. 263)

The "A=A" jargon is pure tautology chasing its tail, exhibiting the limit of the rational mind unable to grok the transcendental aspect of consciousness.

In the conclusion, Wolff states:

That in some sense the Object exists cannot be denied, for it is unquestionably a datum for immediate experience. But to affirm further that the Thing exists is to add an overbelief that is not necessary for either experience or reason. …The “Thing” is that which is supposed to exist, quite independently of any relationship to or within consciousness. (Experience, p. 332)

I do see a similarity between the above and the QRS doctrine in denial of what I call the objective reality of the manifest world/cosmos (independent of subjective perception of it.

Here is where I depart from Wolff (and the Trio here) as a free thinker myself.

In my direct experience as both a mystic and a scientist, "non-dual" affirms both the reality of transcendental consciousness as the awareness in which all "things" (phenomena) arise and the reality of the phenomena we all observe as manifest the world/cosmos.

Ataraxia,
To further address your inquiry into objective consciousness...

Moreover what is the meaning of the phrase "from the point of view 'objective consciousness' "in this context?

If 'it' has a point of view that we can grok,'it' must be a thing-itself.

The 'outside of the circle' has been recognised,we can even name it "everything else" if we like.What role does objective consciousness--if there indeed is such a thing-itself-- play?

Here is more from Wolff on the subject from the Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship site ( http://www.merrell-wolff.org/philo.htm ):

2. The Subject to Consciousness transcends the object of Consciousness.
To understand this philosophical proposition, we need to first clarify Wolff's use of the terms subject and object. Our experience is normally conditioned or structured by the distinction between a subject to consciousness and objects of consciousness. The subject to consciousness is that which is aware of objects or appearances in consciousness. Objects of consciousness are distinct states or appearances in consciousness, ranging from the most concrete to the most subtle. A concrete object in consciousness might be a visual perception of a chair or a sensation of pain in our foot. More subtle objects are appearances in consciousness such as a thought or memory, an intuition about something, or a state of consciousness such as an experience of the world that is permeated by a subtle sense of bliss. It is important to note that the term "object" as used here by Wolff includes our thoughts, feelings, and other inner experiences. Such inner phenomena are still objects in consciousness just as much as outer phenomena are.
In contrast to objects in consciousness, the subject to consciousness is the principle or aspect of consciousness by which there is awareness of objects. Because an object cannot be reasonably said to be in consciousness if it is not an object of awareness, the existence of any object in consciousness necessarily implies a subject to consciousness. At the basis of our relative experience, therefore, is a distinction between subject and object. The second fundamental of the philosophy states that the subject transcends the object, i.e., that the subjective principle or aspect of consciousness is more fundamental to consciousness than the objective appearances in consciousness. This philosophical proposition derives from the insight that, on the one hand, the objective appearances of consciousness vanish in the transcendent nirvanic state of consciousness, while, on the other hand, the subjective principle of consciousness, i.e., the capacity of awareness, is common to both relative and transcendent levels of consciousness. The subjective principle is therefore transcendental, while the objective principle is not.

You may also find the rest of this site informative as it summarizes his three "premonitory recognitions" his two "fundamental recognitions" the three fundamentals of his philosophy, and his aphorisms.
Edit: Oopse... "Here (above) is more from" McFarlane on Wolff on the subject.
Thing is... Tom understands (actually, more deeply, "groks") Wolff perfectly from identical 'recognition-realization', as do I.

So... Ataraxia,
These important questions are yet unanswered, as they *always* get swept under heavy fabric of the rug of reason/logic, in all my experience in this forum.
Do you too, like the founding Trio, follow the tactic of ignoring what you can not fathom and address intelligently?
Is such "ignor-ance" the default position in answer to all questions and beyond-logic perspectives raised by this thread?
Obviously so.
But here it is in your face again.

(Bump):

Right off the top (literally, of McFarlane's intro):
"The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolff's philosophy transcends conceptual understanding."

Is the QRS doctrine *not* all about conceptual understanding, as per logic/reason?

Do they *not* claim that consciousness is defined by what one is conscious of, completely oblivious to what "Consciousness Without an Object" actually is?

I assumed they were rhetorical questions.

Ok:

M:
Is the QRS doctrine *not* all about conceptual understanding, as per logic/reason?

It does seem to be, yes.
I too am interested in reasoning in philosophy.Appeals to any authority don't particular interest me.


My comment that I didn't imagine 'they' would have too much objection was in regard to McFarlane and Wolff's explanation of the non-inherent nature of things;emptiness.It seems to me consistent with "QSR doctrine"

Thats all.

Do they *not* claim that consciousness is defined by what one is conscious of, completely oblivious to what "Consciousness Without an Object" actually is?

*shrug*

I think you may have to ask them that.

Anyway thanks for the extra info.Theres some interesting reading there.

Ataraxia,
First, thanks for the civil reply.

Regarding your "appeals to authority" remark in following exchange:

m:
Is the QRS doctrine *not* all about conceptual understanding, as per logic/reason?
A:It does seem to be, yes.
I too am interested in reasoning in philosophy.Appeals to any authority don't particular interest me.

Direct "recognition" or "Self-Realization" is a first hand experience, not an appeal to authority, as in religious context.

This from the "Verification" subsection of "Mystic Traditions" at
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... html#verif

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)

A:

My comment that I didn't imagine 'they' would have too much objection was in regard to McFarlane and Wolff's explanation of the non-inherent nature of things;emptiness.It seems to me consistent with "QSR doctrine"

Agreed. I disagree with Wolff, Mcfarlane Morwood and "the QRS doctrine" on the 'reality factor' of temporary, manifest phenomena... "things", the physical *reality* of the cosmos. I do agree with the distinction between the absolute reality of consciousness and the relative reality of all "things", which are all transient (yet real while they exist in the Now.)

Re:

m: Do they *not* claim that consciousness is defined by what one is conscious of, completely oblivious to what "Consciousness Without an Object" actually is?
A:*shrug*

I think you may have to ask them that.

This too was rhetorical. They have stated very clearly that there is no such 'thing' as consciousness independent of (transcending) what one is conscious of.