GENIUS FORUMS

Passthrough,
Is it any comfort for you to know that a great number of the brightest people in history have had to face
exactly that problematic. I personally don't know how it could be any different or even if it should. At any time our species produces a tremendously low ratio of these variously superb specimens, bent on achieving freedom or realization of the self - I don't tend to cling to any exact wording of that experience -
This path is one of inevitable withdrawal; it is easy and - in relative terms - justified to feel quite desolate as yourself in an ocean of «THEY»...Heidegger analyzes very well that process of alienation of the individual, drowned in a sea of faceless «they».It does seem sometimes that there is no bridge long enough anyone could use to re-establish some kind of understanding between these two solitudes...I tend to think there is not just one species of humans but rather a few; and that a few amongst these choicest few individuals are able to reach some kind of exteriority
to the whole experiment...an exteriority that comes at a price
in one's daily life..some kind of curse... It is a burden you must accept and train to carry before you're able to cherish it as the gift it really is. Training would mean here giving some external structure to what you seem to be experimenting as overwhelming feelings..just like a cathedral needs buttresses to sustain itself and it's ultimate purpose, so do humans need structures..the beauty with the latter is that they can let go of them at some point, something not adviseable for cathedrals...

Hope there is something in there for you,

P.S: Don't go to Heidegger for your answers at this point in time, that could put you back on medication!

Pyrrho

Passthrough,

Sapius left because of Sue's comments, I think. Emotionally, he had some growing to do (in my opinion). Maybe I'm wrong...I've only known him by his posting here. I hope he gets what he's looking for.

Easily understood, hard to live.

Yup. Your understanding will deepen, the more you see the truths as you go about your day.

The biggest attachment to be rid of to move from understanding to living is my job.

A job isn't an attachment. It's a duty, and someone doesn't need to quit their job in order to become enlightened. Thinking your job is stopping you is more of an obstacle than the job itself.

Becoming enlightened isn't determined by what you do, but it's by how you change your perception.

It isn't going to happen at least for another ten years.

Who knows when it will happen? You can guess. It could happen tomorrow. Maybe not in your life. When it will happen isn't important. Now is the most important time.

There may be enlightened people in the workforce and perhaps, one day, I shall be one of them, but my job involves those that are so grounded in their delusions that even those that are blind and ignorant can see how delusional these people are. These singular perceptions of their delusional state are, in appearance but not necessarily proven, shared by the consciousness of others that work with me, but I may be deluding myself to think that they agree in order to make me feel better about what I am doing in life to pass time. I am not sure I said that correctly, but nevertheless, I do not think of myself as free to be in the moment. I have sporadic moments but that is all.

I suggest that you forget about your coworkers' delusion. Who knows if they're enlightened or unenlightened? You can only guess. They may know the truth and just go about their day as they always have.

If they're delusional, it doesn't stop you from becoming enlightened. If they're enlightened, it doesn't really help your progress towards true wisdom (unless they discussed these things with you).

So my advice is to forget about the job altogether. Go to it, do your thing, but let your mind be immersed in thoughts of truth.

Of course if you have to use your mind to do something, then use it. That's part of your job. Also, be there for your family. Just remember that I said what you do doesn't determine your enlightenment, but a change in your perception does.

Quinn did not say anything that intellectually was offbeat, in fact, he was uncanny at his ability to explain, although he berated his readers if they failed to understand, which I don't understand.

Is it honorable to shun wisdom and goodness, and seek out falseness and wrongness? I don't think so. But perhaps David's abusive words aren't helpful, and are born from unresolved personal issues he has. The enlightened person surely doesn't get all emotional about people's choices, since he knows that all things happen as they will. That's where his knowledge lies...not in the world, where people are good and bad.

Hope that made sense.

The reason I had questions before was because I hadn't reached the end where all came together...Sapius told me to focus on reading the whole thing without stopping - good advice. And...maybe I don't understand, but I think I do. I'm sure you'll tell me if I don't. ;-)

Perhaps you understand it all. You seem bright enough to me. But understanding the teachings don't make you enlightened. Enlightenment is something way different than simply getting it. It is living it.

There are Marthas and there are Marys in this world, and I am a Martha. I would like to be a Mary, and I will not stop trying to become one but perhaps I am not "cut out for these lofty heights."

Luke 10: 38-42

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."

Perhaps you aren't cut out for such lofty heights. That is to be determined by what you choose to become. Each moment, do you choose to be loud, or do you choose to listen?

A quiet life leads to wisdom, and a loud life leads to delusion. Simplicity leads to knowledge, and complexity leads to ignorance.

If you have a chance to hear the truth, and you choose to cook dinner for the person telling it, instead of hearing the truth, then that's what you'll get from the experience. No truth. A bunch of pots, pans and plates to clean.

It's all about what you want. Do you want to know the truth, or do you want to be the host of a person who knows the truth? You don't need to answer...just keep thinking about it.

Scott: Sapius left because of Sue's comments, I think. Emotionally, he had some growing to do (in my opinion). Maybe I'm wrong...I've only known him by his posting here. I hope he gets what he's looking for.

Hahahahahaaa………. What can I say Scott? Really.

PT: Sapius (where is he anyhow?)

Traveling, actually. I took this opportunity to actually show some things that I couldn’t show otherwise. I shall attend to that later though, and to some of your appropriate thinking, and some of Scott’s misconceptions. (Not the one above though, for that should be obvious.)

Actually I mentioned that I’m going back home…. “MY” home. BUT, can one actually, as I do know, be anywhere at all in all of Existence and NOT be at HOME? Where else can one possible be? Being here or anywhere else would actually make no difference at all, essentially. Can I go somewhere “out” of Existence? Is ANY SUCH PLACE POSSIBLE? The only question that is true in that regard would be, TO BE OR NOT TO BE! Exactly! Which is actually an ANSWER rather than a question. Either one IS, or is NOT, there is no other alternative. One is not an “infinity” AND an A=A at the same time, however, Infinity can be conceptualized by an A=A thing, which is also Reality, at the same time.

I come and go as I please, led by my reasoning, and I have been doing just that all along. BTW, do you know that ACTUALLY there is no such thing as an “emotional” response? Each and every “emotional response” is actually based in logic and reasoning, and I can prove that. If any one has any doubt, give me what one thinks is an “emotional response” and I will show you the reasoning behind it.

For those who can see, let me tell you this, all “reasoning’s” may be comparatively more or less correct, but however, all responses are a result of ones own “reasoning”, subjectively, which another thinks is a “belief” comparatively form his own point of view and Reasoning. Step in the shoes of that person’s ‘thinking’, without any prejudice, and you will see HIS 'reasoning'.

Unless one can do that, one will always remain in his own shoes, so to speak. So step “out” of your shoes and Realize. That is all that is there to "achieve" in a way. AND that cannot be done until one sheds all EGO based thinking, which requires utter humbleness, in really understanding and then accepting, I KNOW NOTHING. The first AND the last step in Realization. Err.. that is in my opinion of course, so please don’t sue me for saying so. :D

PT, you say that I must be the most accepting person, but I am actually the absolute opposite. My “acceptance” happens only when it makes perfect sense to me, as it should happen to another when his reasoning makes him really accept. At least that should logically be the case. Isn’t it? That is, if we are talking about “certainty”, and that is what “philosophy” is supposed to be all about; at least I’m told THAT, but I am amazed to see how people can hang on to uncertainties and call THAT “certainty”. So, how certain is one of his own subjectivity is the REAL question, for there is NOTHING that could confirm “MY” subjectivity to be "objective", unless I Realize that it is not all only in my head, for nothing that I know of “out-side” of “me” or “my head”, as seen through A=A, adheres to “my” whims and wishes. NOTHING is in MY control, and yet THINGS EXIST as they ARE, and I too am nothing more than a “thing”, so “I’ too am exactly a THING, nothing more, and THAT is an absolute certainty, A=A!

Now I know, some “brilliant” mind will come along and question ‘my’ subjectivity, least understanding that there is all that there is, hence necessarily Reality, and each “subjectivity” is as unique as any thing could get, and all is but a REAL smoke with no “underlying” FIRE at ALL. Hence, no confirmation is actually required, absolutely.

Just as one cannot question Causality, as to How did it start? For it didn’t, hence the question is it self is a false question.

One should drop the pride associated with “having no beginning or end”, but conceptually it can be thought of in that way however, or “all that there is, is ‘me’” because I feel or see it so, or even “KNOW’ it so, because that does not change ANY THING at all, A=A still remains, look back and THINK. Things always remain what THEY are, at any given moment of Existence.

For example, I want to get back home before tonight, because I hear a Typhoon (hurricane) will hit Hong Kong by tomorrow night, and I want to enjoy that, yet again. BUT, I will NOT step right into it thinking “all is me or me is all”, nor will anyone who thinks THAT, because realizing the connectivity does not mean “I’ and “all” are one and the same thing, literally, just because one has “profoundly” accepted that “there is NOTHING beyond the Mind”; just step in front of a speeding car and say how much you are one with all things; in fact, only then can one really be one with something else, spread and stuck all over the windscreen.

So, I will enjoy it from a relatively safe distance, for I am still aware of A=A, and I am necessarily just that, and at the same time I KNOW that there is no Essential difference between a Typhoon and me, as seen through the connectivity of causality.

Diebert, CP, Nick, Marsha, I will get back to the “worldly matter” later. Got to go now…

Sapius,

If I'm wrong about you, then I'm wrong. It's just a gut feeling I get from reading your posts. I didn't mean it to be insulting, so I hope you didn't take it personally.

Each and every “emotional response” is actually based in logic and reasoning, and I can prove that. If any one has any doubt, give me what one thinks is an “emotional response” and I will show you the reasoning behind it.

I agree with you here. But if someone has a lot of emotions, generally, they don't have a lot of wisdom. The more wisdom you have, the more tranquil you are.

Beingof1 wrote:This question has been asked by everyone that has ever lived including yourself - tell me, why do you value truth?

I don't think I can answer this question this week without being heavily influenced by Nietzsche, since I've been reading quite a bit of him lately. He might answer this in terms of a "will to power" and a "will to truth". For N., the will to truth would be subservient to the will to power. I'm not sure if that is a satisfying answer or not; I'm thinking on it.

Anyway, I think this points to a deeper question: why have values? Why value anything? If we answer that, then we will know if we should value truth, and why. Again turning to Nietzsche , he tells us that it is human nature to will, to want - and that even to will nothing is better than to not will. As humans make meanings, we also make values. So we will end up having some values. So we are left with the task of selecting wise values - or just accepting the values of those around us without reflection - which would be unacceptable to the man of thought, or anyone willing to take on responsibility for their own values.

Why did you respond to my post?

It's a question that keeps coming up, and I see what looks to me like a lot of mystical, deluded thinking around it. Sometimes I respond to that. Not always.

There is a great misperception that truth can only be percieved by one who is void of all desire - that has never been the case with any state of consciousness that has ever lived - now that, is the Truth.

I agree with that, actually. You can't be void of desire - or, at the least, almost no one is (some Buddhists might claim to be free of desire). But there is a great variety in how much people allow their desires to color their perceptions.

Some desires are based on a delusion. For instance, valuing truth because you think it has some magical property that will make you happy or serene, would be valuing truth because of a delusion (IMO). If that is why you value truth, you will be disappointed. The value of truth is just that it is true.

The value of truth is that it is true. It doesn't necessarily have any other value.

It carries with it an infinite amount of value.

It might, or it might not. Or it might turn out to have a different value than you thought.

Example:
If I were to tell you that you had just won the lottery, and you were to believe me. That would create a paradigm in your mind that would alter they way you viewed your present moment and life.

Let's take a different example. You tell me what the winning lottery number was for last week. However, I did not buy a lottery ticket. The truth of your statement is of no value to me - and probably of no interest, either. Just because it happens to be true doesn't mean it has value to me.

Valuing truth does not mean that any particular true statement is of value.

I think I might actually state it in the reverse - not that I value truth, but that I actively and strongly dislike delusion. When you get rid of delusion, truth is what's left.

I ask you Mr. Hodges, what do you want?

I would say that I want to live the best life I can, without regret. Living in delusion, to me, is something that would cause me to not respect myself. It would be unwise, silly, foolish.

Most people have all sorts of delusions - convictions they take to be truths. If you don't actively fight it, that's where you end up. That's unacceptable to me. It would mean a complete lack of integrity.

I also have a sense of responsibility - a sense that truth is better than falseness, lies and delusion - that not promoting (or at least seeking out) truth is irresponsible. I'm willing to grant that this is a matter of taste, my personal valuing, not an objective fact - but that is how I see it.




--

sschaula wrote to passthrough:

passthrough: Quinn did not say anything that intellectually was offbeat, in fact, he was uncanny at his ability to explain, although he berated his readers if they failed to understand, which I don't understand.

Is it honorable to shun wisdom and goodness, and seek out falseness and wrongness? I don't think so. But perhaps David's abusive words aren't helpful, and are born from unresolved personal issues he has. The enlightened person surely doesn't get all emotional about people's choices, since he knows that all things happen as they will. That's where his knowledge lies...not in the world, where people are good and bad.

Hercule Poirot said, “Wherever there is human nature, there is drama”.

And how could it be any other way when most people live their lives lost in the fantasy created by their emotions. Once lost, it is mostly impossible for a person to ever rise out of that sticky mess. So when a person looks toward philosophy for solace and encouragement, and are instead met with discrimination and discernment, they often take offence. They protest that they are “human”, and that all humans have equal value, and that therefore everyone deserves equal treatment and equal civility. Not that they themselves indulge in that sort of behaviour – no way – as that would mean an end to the drama they adore so much. No, they just direct their loathsome nagging toward anyone who they think isn’t kowtowing to their absurd sentiments.

What these lost souls are blind and deaf to, is that the true thinker is the only person on the planet that always treats every person in exactly the same manner. This isn’t because he holds any feelings of brotherly love for humanity, or agrees with the lost souls sentiments. No - he treats everyone the same, because they are.

Because of causality, all boundaries are illusionary, which means the supposed boundaries creating the divisions of self and others, doesn’t exist. This means he sees all people, including himself, as truly ‘one’. And since the true thinker has only one love, and that is Truth, he necessarily only ever concerns himself with it. So where there is untruthfulness, he roots it out. Where there is truthfulness, he presses it onwards to discover deeper truths. He does not take sides, bond with others, or take into consideration the special needs of any group. No, he just thinks about Truth, and the effects of that thought naturally spreads throughout the universe.

-
Sue

Scott said:

A job isn't an attachment.

Ah, but is it not? One gains an identity through their job, their ego is fed. Although, I have a passion about what I do, I don’t really wish to discuss what I do, it is enough to know that it consumes me. I do not think of it as a duty. People ask what is their purpose in life, this one is most likely mine.

Then what the fuck are you doin' here?

Then what the fuck are you doin' here?

Good Question, one that I'm considering very strongly.

Passthrough,

Ah, but is it not? One gains an identity through their job, their ego is fed. Although, I have a passion about what I do, I don’t really wish to discuss what I do, it is enough to know that it consumes me. I do not think of it as a duty. People ask what is their purpose in life, this one is most likely mine.

What do you want me to say? That I was wrong?

What do you want me to say? That I was wrong?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! You are not wrong for what you live, I only wish I could think of it that way. God knows, there are so many people who have tried to convince me of what you said over the years in an effort to get me to be less intense in what I do, chill out a little, you know?

Anyhow, thinking about what PRINCE said off and on all day, I began to wonder about something...

If you think about countries, governments, churches, communities...all of them have some type of hierarchical order to them. In the Catholic Church, there is a pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, deacons and the secular members. In the states, you have a Governor, appointed agency heads, deputy agency heads, supervisors and the regular employees. Even in the local property owner's association for your neighborhood, there is a hierarchy. African tribes, clubs, volunteer organizations, all of them have a hierarchy.

If causality is the mother of all things, then it would follow that a hierarchical structure is caused to maintain order in the world. So, it would also follow that there may be some type of hierarchical structure in the Universe of All Things.

From what I understand Quinn to say is that there is the Void and there is consciousness...so why would a hierarchical structure not exist in enlightenment as well? Think about it...not every person can be the leader at the same time. There are leaders, sub-leaders, and so on. Why should all be in the thinker's realm?

You are in a war situation. There are the Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Corporals, Sargeants and the Privates. If all the Privates decided to be Generals, who would fight the war?

And Sapius, when you answer (and I hope you do) please pretend like you are trying to explain your answer to an eight year old child...maybe twelve...that's about my level of understanding. IOW, I get lost after the first A=A argument...it makes my brain hurt. ;-)

Passthrough,

ABSOLUTELY NOT! You are not wrong for what you live, I only wish I could think of it that way. God knows, there are so many people who have tried to convince me of what you said over the years in an effort to get me to be less intense in what I do, chill out a little, you know?

Well, I'm not asking for you to change either. I'm saying keep doing what you're doing...that enlightenment has nothing to do with that, but has everything to do with how you see the world.

No need to try and chill out, or lose your intensity.

If you think about countries, governments, churches, communities...all of them have some type of hierarchical order to them. In the Catholic Church, there is a pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, deacons and the secular members. In the states, you have a Governor, appointed agency heads, deputy agency heads, supervisors and the regular employees. Even in the local property owner's association for your neighborhood, there is a hierarchy. African tribes, clubs, volunteer organizations, all of them have a hierarchy.

If causality is the mother of all things, then it would follow that a hierarchical structure is caused to maintain order in the world. So, it would also follow that there may be some type of hierarchical structure in the Universe of All Things.

Enlightenment brings freedom, because in truth, all things are equal. Kings wearing their crowns look silly. They are human beings just like the peasants they look down upon. The president is in the same boat as your governor. He's in the same boat as your mayor. You're in that boat as well. We all play roles, but truly there's no heirarchy.

But of course, the current state of the world is held in balance because of the natural order of things. That changes, and then there's a new incarnation of the world.

From what I understand Quinn to say is that there is the Void and there is consciousness...so why would a hierarchical structure not exist in enlightenment as well?

There isn't a void. Reality manifests in various ways, but its true nature is hidden as if it were a void. It's like looking at a lake...you see the actions at the surface level...but you don't see the whole lake...yet you know it's a whole lake! So in the same way, we see fluctuations in reality but we know those are just appearances. They point to the fact that there's more that we are unaware of.

But remember there isn't some void. A void is an absence of anything, so for a void to exist just negates itself. It's impossible for a void to exist.

Think about it...not every person can be the leader at the same time. There are leaders, sub-leaders, and so on. Why should all be in the thinker's realm?

You are in a war situation. There are the Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Corporals, Sargeants and the Privates. If all the Privates decided to be Generals, who would fight the war?

Funny, a lot of privates do try to act like generals...myself included. I hate authority. But I do what I'm told so I don't get in trouble.

Perhaps its the same way with a lot of people. They're too afraid to take their freedom. Yet enlightenment has nothing to do with taking freedom in the world. You can be in jail and be enlightened. It's about being in the realm of truth. Then who could possibly be imprisoned (since these forms are just an illusion of reality)?

You asked why everyone should be in the thinker's realm...well I'm not trying to convince you to be in the thinker's realm. Mostly everyone is there. I'd say 99.999999999999999% of people have thoughts and think on a daily basis...philosophers hone their thinking so that it's always truthful (well, at least that's what they aim for). That's the only difference.

But once enlightenment hits, you aren't in the thinker's realm anymore. You're in the reality realm, which isn't really a realm at all since it's above all realms. There's no more valuing truth or trying to be more truthful. All is reality.

So people that want to figure out the truth of things would definitely benefit from this. People that aren't satisfied with life would lose their dissatisfaction. People that experience negative emotions would not experience those anymore.

I guess those are some of the reasons why people should pursue this path. There doesn't need to be a hierarchy in the world of enlightened people and unenlightened people.

But remember there isn't some void. A void is an absence of anything, so for a void to exist just negates itself. It's impossible for a void to exist.

No, you are right, Quinn described it as something that exists but it is beyond the realm of consciousness. He chooses not to call this “hidden void” God which falls in line with his initial argument of how people chalk what that cannot empirically test to “God”…or faith. I don’t really see why this hidden void cannot be God.

Isaiah 55: 8-11

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts. For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down And do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, Giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats, So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it.

You asked why everyone should be in the thinker's realm...well I'm not trying to convince you to be in the thinker's realm.

It’s not that I don’t want to think, actually I do it all the time, it’s just that people here are so finite, so exacting. A big example is your reaction to my thinking out loud about my view of my job in my world…I can imagine why you would react that way. Sapius is sometimes over my head, he can be so logical that I have a hard time getting there. However, the other day he wrote somewhere that unless you stand in someone’s shoes you do not know if they are acting within logic and reason of whence they came. At least I think that was what he was saying. I don’t really see how anyone could be “wrong” because of what they went through to get them to the place they are now. You don’t see life the way I see it, nor the reverse, nor anyone else for that matter.

As Sue said, you go it alone. What it takes to “ripen causality” for you to move forward will be completely different than anyone else, so how can something ever be “wrong”? For instance, one thing you have taught me is perception. I have changed the way I react to people at work over the past week, and it has made a remarkable difference in the way we interact. In fact, it is almost unbelievable. Now, is causality at work? Yes. Was I wrong? Maybe and maybe not. I used to be extremely shy when I was younger. Events occurred that caused me to lose trust in people at a very young age. Was I wrong to protect myself? Who knows? But it is time that this protection ends, so here you are…it’s perception, and guess what? It worked, but would it have worked one year ago, even three weeks ago?

That is why I cannot understand the logic behind ferreting out the truth anyway you can because it is all that matters. It is not all that matters if you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Truth is important, but he is the truth, he spoke the truth and to say that love and compassion is not necessary is contradicting truth.

Hierarchical structures are only minimally necessary. They're way overrated. 90% percent of our hierarchies today are just there to facilitate abuse and inhumanity.

Passthrough,

No, you are right, Quinn described it as something that exists but it is beyond the realm of consciousness. He chooses not to call this “hidden void” God which falls in line with his initial argument of how people chalk what that cannot empirically test to “God”…or faith. I don’t really see why this hidden void cannot be God.

I don't know if there is some big being who created the earth by flying over its waters, and taking a rib out of the first man he created from dust to create a woman...I don't know if those things are metaphors. I do know that some descriptions of God in the Bible paint him exactly as what I call "Reality"...but that leaves a lot of questions, like why do people always personify God? Does God actually speak to people? There are a ton more which I have no reason to ask.

But like I said, some descriptions in the Bible show God to be reality itself. I just hope you consider the implications of that, and then decide whether reality should be called God or not.

It’s not that I don’t want to think, actually I do it all the time, it’s just that people here are so finite, so exacting. A big example is your reaction to my thinking out loud about my view of my job in my world…I can imagine why you would react that way.

I reacted that way because I wanted to make it clear that we shouldn't just post for the hell of it. We should have a purpose in posting our thoughts here. Otherwise the board will become overrun with uselessness.

Sapius is sometimes over my head, he can be so logical that I have a hard time getting there.

Same here...which makes me wonder how logical he is.

However, the other day he wrote somewhere that unless you stand in someone’s shoes you do not know if they are acting within logic and reason of whence they came. At least I think that was what he was saying. I don’t really see how anyone could be “wrong” because of what they went through to get them to the place they are now. You don’t see life the way I see it, nor the reverse, nor anyone else for that matter.

It's not "all good". There are wrongs things. Killing a baby because you can't handle it screaming is a good example of something wrong. Shooting a cop because they are mistaken in arresting you is wrong. When people do those things, it comes from what they went through to get where they are...they have been totally caused to do these things. They've been caused to be wrong. Hopefully they read this, which will cause them to become right.

Sapius' point was that everyone thinks, even if what they do can be termed "illogical". They always use logic to reach their wrong conclusions. It's just faulty logic.

As Sue said, you go it alone. What it takes to “ripen causality” for you to move forward will be completely different than anyone else, so how can something ever be “wrong”?

I don't get what you mean by "ripen causality".

Just take an honest look at things and see what you think is wrong or right. If you think too hard about this stuff, you'll forget that some things make you sad and some things make you happy.

When you're enlightened, then nothing can touch you...but don't fake it. Things can affect you, and being honest about it will help you progress. Covering it up with supposed "truths" will only take you further from enlightenment.

A philosopher should always be honest, despite what they try to become!

For instance, one thing you have taught me is perception. I have changed the way I react to people at work over the past week, and it has made a remarkable difference in the way we interact. In fact, it is almost unbelievable. Now, is causality at work? Yes. Was I wrong? Maybe and maybe not. I used to be extremely shy when I was younger. Events occurred that caused me to lose trust in people at a very young age. Was I wrong to protect myself? Who knows? But it is time that this protection ends, so here you are…it’s perception, and guess what? It worked, but would it have worked one year ago, even three weeks ago?

It's good to see a positive change. Truly living truthfully will have that effect in some areas. It can also have negative effects in other areas.

When you percieve things as they are, you lose the fears and things built up inside that you've kept. Things that've made you the way you are. When you see clearly, then you act according to the truth, not according to delusions.

Negative effects of the philosophical life come when you're dealing with your delusions. You may have a fear of losing friends, and when your friends drift away because you're not the same person they knew, you'll have to deal with your loneliness. That must be seen through, and your mind must become one with the truth, otherwise you'll always feel bad.

The wise person is serene. He seeks nothing out, because he is fully wise...fully immersed in truthfulness. All of his delusions are gone, and there's no foothold for loneliness.

So any bad things you experience on the path aren't due to truth, but they're actually due to your lingering delusions.

I need to be honest. I said that you don't have to quit your job to become enlightened, but at a certain point of truthfulness, you WILL be changed. This is probably apparent to you as you've seen the small change in your perception, where you deal differently with people now. Well, at some point, you probably won't see the need for a job. I just wanted you to know that what we think doesn't have to correspond with our outward actions. If you've gotta pay the bills then it's important to keep working. Truth is on a different plane, so to speak. You can "see through" the job and yourself, though.

It's just that constantly seeing through things will make you so peaceful that you may end up needing nothing. That's a long time away though! So I urge you to not quit your job!

That is why I cannot understand the logic behind ferreting out the truth anyway you can because it is all that matters. It is not all that matters if you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Truth is important, but he is the truth, he spoke the truth and to say that love and compassion is not necessary is contradicting truth.

He said the truth will set you free, and he also said the first commandment was the most important, with the second commandment following it. The first is to place God above all else. In another topic, you were saying that God is reality.

If that's the case, then ferreting out the truth anyway you can is quite the Christian thing to do.

Saying that Jesus is the truth doesn't make sense to me. I wish Jesus himself had made an indepth commentary on what he meant by saying that he was "the way, the truth and the life".

But like I said a while ago...Christian stuff just confuses me.

passthrough wrote:

No, you are right, Quinn described it as something that exists but it is beyond the realm of consciousness. He chooses not to call this “hidden void” God which falls in line with his initial argument of how people chalk what that cannot empirically test to “God”…or faith. I don’t really see why this hidden void cannot be God.

It's because God is the totality of all there is. The hidden void is just one aspect of God, just as the world we experience in our consciousness is merely one aspect.

The hidden void is simply that part of God which cannot be experienced by anyone or anything.

-

Everything we do is 'in order to'....

It's our Nature.

Study Nietsche...'in order to'......?????What????

Study Jesus...'in order to'....????What????

You could know every Buddhist Sutra by Heart but remain unenlightened...

Ask yourself 'in order to' what?...am I doing whatever I am doing.

'In order to'.....add something?...knowledge?...yet another viewpoint?...be loved.

'In order to'....lose something?...bad habit?...

It's a process of 'in order to'....your whole Life that is...working up a Script 'in order to'.....???What???

It's Hilarious.

frank

Passthrough,

I'm going to be gone the entire rest of the month.

Scott,

If I'm wrong about you, then I'm wrong. It's just a gut feeling I get from reading your posts. I didn't mean it to be insulting, so I hope you didn't take it personally.

I don't; but you wouldn’t go wrong if you used your reasoning rather than a gut feeling. Isn’t ‘intestines’ another word for ‘guts’? Just curious. How does if feel to feel from there?

Just Joking. :D

I have to mention that so you don’t start a whole big discussion over it. :D

David Wrote;

It's because God is the totality of all there is. The hidden void is just one aspect of God, just as the world we experience in our consciousness is merely one aspect.

The hidden void is simply that part of God which cannot be experienced by anyone or anything.

Then why talk about "it", "Void", if it cannot be experienced, which means it is beyond consciousness? So does it lie beyond consciousness?

On the other hand, it can be conceptually thought of; right? Which necessarily gives “it” some sort of a thing-ness even if “it” is not considered an “IT”; but because of the fact that one is actually attempting to “describe”, hence it has to necessarily be a “thing”, and if one cannot actually describe “IT”, THEN it is necessarily and logically a NO-THING. It cannot be both ways.

So what are you actually trying to describe, when you cannot even really define it? In other words, you are saying that a NO-“thing” exists, and I cannot actually define or explain it, which is the same thing as decribing a Theological God.

The problem is that everyone is carrying a flag that says God, but when you ask them what does that mean, they give a different definition; so why then don’t they make up a different word to define exactly what they mean?

The usage of the word God actually confuses even the person using it. How can there be an “Ultimate” thing or thought, which the word “God” supposedly holds by any definition, when one consciously knows that even the thought of “God” cannot even be conceptualized without remaining in duality, consciousness, and that there can be nothing beyond THAT, that is, beyond consciousness, so how One is the One-ness that one sees in GOD, if it were not for duality? If any thing at all, then Duality IS God, which is Consciousness, without which I cannot even begin to think or conceptualize A GOD, or any thing “ultimate” at all.

Existence is possible because of Duality, and that consciousness cannot exist without it, and consciousness that thinks of a One-ness through conceptualization, is possible, but one is actually forgetting that even that would not possible to think up or even maintain for the minutest of moments without duality being in place ALL the Time, even when thinking up a One-ness, or God.

So how real is the thought of “God” if one removes the legs of duality that it stands upon, and what kind of real Ultimate-ness would that though even hold?

It's a process of 'in order to'....your whole Life that is...working up a Script 'in order to'.....???What???

It's Hilarious.

in order to make a reality - fill the void;
reality is your only thruth - be-live your truth,and you can-make a reality.
who doth deny the flesh ,and thus Self,is diseased.
believe in Self,for you have failed to realise yourself; who can conceive what he is conceiving?
all of life is desire,for ever desirous.we always embrace obvious stuff;our conceptions cast forth a feeling for a particular not a whole,that's the defect.hence,it makes us an Identity in time-space.
man is a conjunction,a multiple-layer syndrome,and when he's self-forgetful lives on borrowed cliches.
what we know are our impressions of reality,and we find it illusive : our shadowness .equation:Reality is illusion;Illusion is reality.
let me drink with Dionysus and Satyros,cause like them...I like to sleep on the bellie of the Nymph.

Sapius wrote:

DQ: It's because God is the totality of all there is. The hidden void is just one aspect of God, just as the world we experience in our consciousness is merely one aspect.

The hidden void is simply that part of God which cannot be experienced by anyone or anything.

S: Then why talk about "it", "Void", if it cannot be experienced, which means it is beyond consciousness? So does it lie beyond consciousness?

On the other hand, it can be conceptually thought of; right? Which necessarily gives “it” some sort of a thing-ness even if “it” is not considered an “IT”; but because of the fact that one is actually attempting to “describe”, hence it has to necessarily be a “thing”, and if one cannot actually describe “IT”, THEN it is necessarily and logically a NO-THING. It cannot be both ways.

So what are you actually trying to describe, when you cannot even really define it?

We can define it. For example, I specifically define it to be that which lies beyond consciousness - e.g. that which existed before consciousness arose in the Universe, that which will exist after all consciousness in the Universe vanishes, that which lies beyond our own individual consciousness and gives rise to what we experience in each moment, etc.

Yes, it is nothing more than a mental construct, an appearance, a thing. It is something which appears to exist as soon as we try to determine where consciousness and experience comes from. The beauty of the "hidden void" concept is that it resolves the issue with the utmost simplicity and relegates it to a secondary level of importance where it belongs.

In other words, you are saying that a NO-“thing” exists, and I cannot actually define or explain it, which is the same thing as decribing a Theological God.

The hidden void is a "thing" in the sense that it can be distingushed from what is not it - namely, the perceptual world we experience in each moment. But in another sense, it can never be a "thing" because it cannot have any form or attributes. Only a thing experienced within consciousness can have form and attributes.

The problem is that everyone is carrying a flag that says God, but when you ask them what does that mean, they give a different definition; so why then don’t they make up a different word to define exactly what they mean?

If you want a God that is timeless, absolute, beyond life and death, and the creator of all things, then you need to define Him as the totality of all there is. No other definition fits the bill.

The usage of the word God actually confuses even the person using it. How can there be an “Ultimate” thing or thought, which the word “God” supposedly holds by any definition, when one consciously knows that even the thought of “God” cannot even be conceptualized without remaining in duality, consciousness, and that there can be nothing beyond THAT, that is, beyond consciousness, so how One is the One-ness that one sees in GOD, if it were not for duality? If any thing at all, then Duality IS God, which is Consciousness, without which I cannot even begin to think or conceptualize A GOD, or any thing “ultimate” at all.

Good question. When a person tries to conceptualize God as a thing, he is already falling into error. He is showing that he doesn't understand the formless nature of God. Once you understand the formless nature of God, thinking about Him with dualistic thoughts is no problem at all.

Existence is possible because of Duality, and that consciousness cannot exist without it, and consciousness that thinks of a One-ness through conceptualization, is possible, but one is actually forgetting that even that would not possible to think up or even maintain for the minutest of moments without duality being in place ALL the Time, even when thinking up a One-ness, or God.

So how real is the thought of “God” if one removes the legs of duality that it stands upon, and what kind of real Ultimate-ness would that though even hold?

It all hinges on your understanding. If you fully comprehend the nature of God, then your every thought about God will be spotless and true - regardless of the fact that each of these thoughts will be dualistic in nature.

You're still making the mistake of trying to apprehend God dualistically, as though He had an objective form to grasp. As a result, you still suffer from the illusion that you have to negate duality in order to see God.

-

It all hinges on your understanding. If you fully comprehend the nature of God, then your every thought about God will be spotless and true - regardless of the fact that each of these thoughts will be dualistic in nature.

you have to hail presumptions,that is the basis of our reasoning and learning.
try and imagine what that implies...experience takes on testimony,the same as recognition by the idea.
you have been given direction!

I assume frank would say:It's hilarious.

David: We can define it. For example, I specifically define it to be that which lies beyond consciousness - e.g. that which existed before consciousness arose in the Universe, that which will exist after all consciousness in the Universe vanishes, that which lies beyond our own individual consciousness and gives rise to what we experience in each moment, etc.

My response – exactly would be…

David: You're still making the mistake of trying to apprehend God dualistically, as though He had an objective form to grasp. As a result, you still suffer from the illusion that you have to negate duality in order to see God.

YOU are necessarily negating Duality when you say that it is THAT which lies BEYOND CONSCIOUSNESS! Can't you see it?

Look at it again.

David: We can define it. For example, I specifically define it to be that which lies beyond consciousness - e.g. that which existed before consciousness arose in the Universe, that which will exist after all consciousness in the Universe vanishes, that which lies beyond our own individual consciousness and gives rise to what we experience in each moment, etc.

that which lies beyond consciousness

Really? And it is THAT which cannot be consciously comprehended. So what faculty does one use? Transcendence? Resurrection? Even then one could not see beyond consciousness.

that which existed before consciousness arose in the Universe

Yeah? When exactly was that? Do you see a beginning and an end to Consciousness? Whereas you have been saying that you have no beginning or an end becasue of causality, and Consciousness does? How logical is that?

that which will exist after all consciousness in the Universe vanishes

Again, when will that come to pass?

that which lies beyond our own individual consciousness and gives rise to what we experience in each moment, etc.

What can ever lie beyond our “own” individual consciousness?

Not that I agree to that question itself as it is, because I know that “consciousness” does not begin with my own “individual” consciousness, nor does it end with mine.

For example: What gives rise to Consciousness other that A=A? As in - Recognition - differentiation - reaction. What is there other than A=A?

And finally, according to that definition, what can you point to that which does not adhere to that principle at its core? From an atom, to the largest star system, including an insignificant faculty called a “mind”. What is not “conscious” at its core? Where is A=A not happening? Even when you talk about an Ultimate Conceptualized God, could that lie beyond A=A? A Human consciousness, which I have always defined as Logi-consciousness, meaning that human consciousness is ‘logically’ aware that ‘I am’, because of its linguistic capabilities and reasoning, where as an animal or an atom is necessarily aware that “I AM” without any linguistic involvement, otherwise it would be impossible for it to react to its environment since it would not recognize or differentiate.

What you have been suggesting as “emptiness”, and all those that have expressed it before you, do not actually comprehend save a rare few, because if you can see what you define as “emptiness”, as = Consciousness itself! It will solve all confusions that involve in comprehending "emptiness" as not a “thing”, for consciousness is not a “thing” either. It lies in each and every thing that there is, as A=A, which IS Consciousness.

Look at it again in that light, and tell me what you see? There is nothing that “underlies” consciousness; All that there is, IS A=A. Nothing else, absolutely, and that is consciousness, and nothing lies beyond or hidden away as such.

bert wrote:

DQ: It all hinges on your understanding. If you fully comprehend the nature of God, then your every thought about God will be spotless and true - regardless of the fact that each of these thoughts will be dualistic in nature.

B: you have to hail presumptions,that is the basis of our reasoning and learning.
try and imagine what that implies...experience takes on testimony,the same as recognition by the idea.
you have been given direction!

A good thinker knows how to go beyond all presumptions, assumptions, articles of faith, etc.

I assume frank would say:It's hilarious.

Frank is driven by his own presumptions.

-