GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu,

I have never said that things were completely the result of our imagination, only the last three elements: embodiment, potency and function. Form and essence are actual, however they differ from that which is real in that they are composite, and are subject to continuous alteration.

I am not so sure about emodiment, potency, and function not being actual, but I do understand that things are not real. I am trying to hone in on the difference between being actual and imaginary.

In Sankara’s doctrine, the nature of being is ‘existentially monistic’, but ‘essentially pluralistic’, and so it accords perfectly with the Buddhist’s assertion that the nature of reality is ‘non-dualistic’ or “Not-Two”; that is to say, the nature of reality comprises two ‘interdependent and complementary elements’, and so is neither entirely monistic, nor entirely pluralistic.

I would agree with that, because my own monism was arrived at in a short moment of insight, and later refined through thought to something quite like this, in which neither unity nor individuality is the total picture.

But it is interesting that elsewhere on the forum, there is the argument about whether God or the Totality has consciousness, and Kevin et al insist that it cannot have consciousness because there must be something that is not itself for it to be conscious of. Since all is itself, there cannot be consciousness. But in your system, there can be consciousness. So this duality is very useful. Apparently Mikiel will agree here, as he does not think that pure awareness must have an object, or even if it must, it transcends the forms within itself.

Yes, we are agreed, however, this does no mean that I ascribe to any of the current interpretations of the symbol which abound within the modern Taoist community.

Well I don't know what those things might be; I don't think I have read them. I have pondered yin and yang, and other similar things, such as the one time I took a chemistry class, and was blown away by the way positive and negative forces create and sustain everything. And it's the same with nerve conduction, or the heartbeat.

This is not so, for whenever and wherever the causes and conditions are right, the candle flame will manifest once again; for it does no come from anywhere nor does it go anywhere.

You think THAT'S what he was driving at? That it doesn't go anywhere?

The one element (knowledge) has only a ‘relative existence’ and so is dependent upon two extrinsic causes: (1) pre-existing knowledge, which also partakes of relative existence and (2) cognizant awareness, which partake of an absolute existence’ and so is dependent only upon its own intrinsic cause – knowledge.

Wait a minute! What are you saying? You are saying that the absolute existence which is self existent depends upon knowledge for its existence? This is an impossible circle. If the absolute requires internal knowledge to exist, then that knowledge precedes the absolute. How can the intrinsic cause of the absolute be that which is not real and dependent?

If so much as one sentient being becomes aware their true nature, then it follows that there must be self-awareness of the absolute; for there is no other.

Yeah, well it was the monistic part I was asking after. Are you saying that it is ONLY through beings like us that the absolute has self-awareness? If that is so, then it is quite fragmented...

Ioluas wrote:I am not so sure about embodiment, potency, and function not being actual, but I do understand that things are not real. I am trying to hone in on the difference between being actual and imaginary.

That which is ‘actual’ has its origin in that perfect knowledge which is embodied in the objective universe, and the evolution of which is the domain of ‘absolute awareness’, while the ‘imaginary’ has its origin in that imperfect knowledge which is embodied within internal structure of the sentient brain, and is the domain of ‘sentient awareness’ (consciousness). Nevertheless, both sort of things are constituted in precisely the same manner, and so are not real (absolute), but merely apparent (relative) entities.

But it is interesting that elsewhere on the forum, there is the argument about whether God or the Totality has consciousness, and Kevin et al insist that it cannot have consciousness because there must be something that is not itself for it to be conscious of. Since all is itself, there cannot be consciousness. But in your system, there can be consciousness. So this duality is very useful. Apparently Mikiel will agree here, as he does not think that pure awareness must have an object, or even if it must, it transcends the forms within itself.

I think that it is important here to draw a distinction between what I have been calling ‘awareness’, which is the operative cause of ‘consciousness’, and consciousness itself, which is merely a function of the sentient mind. Just as in a dream, consciousness arises only with the arising of the dream persona and its associated sense organs; so too does sentient consciousness arise with the emergence of the sentient persona and its sense organs – as its function. The senses, however, are only necessary as a means of interaction with things that are extrinsic, and since the nature of the absolute is intrinsic (inherent), there is no need for sense organs or their associated sense consciousnesses.

You think THAT'S what he was driving at? That it doesn't go anywhere?

You do not seem to understand, there is no ‘it’ that might come or go, there is only the coming together of causes and conditions, and the manifestation of the form that those causes and conditions entail. If one brings together fuel and sufficient heat to ignite it, a flame will arise, and so long as there is fuel and heat, a flame will continue to arise, and when the fuel or heat is removed, the flame will cease to arise. It is as simple as that!

Wait a minute! What are you saying? You are saying that the absolute existence which is self existent depends upon knowledge for its existence? This is an impossible circle. If the absolute requires internal knowledge to exist, then that knowledge precedes the absolute. How can the intrinsic cause of the absolute be that which is not real and dependent?

The absolute, being possessed of its own intrinsic cause – the continuous and indefinite evolution of knowledge (the relative), has a ‘necessary’ existence, and so if it cause exists, so too must it exist; consequently, we cannot say that because awareness is dependent upon knowledge, that knowledge must precede awareness. In truth, both elements have always been, and will always continue to be, for they have no choice.

What we must keep in mind here is that the absolute and the relative are interdependent and complementary elements of that higher universe of discourse which we call ‘Being’. And as we said from the beginning, Being is fundamentally unified, and that there is no other (i.e., non-being). Being then possesses the characteristics of both the absolute and the relative, and this is what make the whole thing possible.

Are you saying that it is ONLY through beings like us that the absolute has self-awareness? If that is so, then it is quite fragmented...

No, but it is in this way that those fragments of the absolute which have embodied themselves in knowledge may regain that self-awareness.

mikiel wrote:Jehu,
My intent to get back to you on the subject of enlightenment is now manifesting.
It's a shame we have developed a disrespectful relationship... mostly my "fault" I think, as a have an abrasive "style"... especially so (the "shame") because my whole website http://www.consciousunity.org is an affirmation of the title of your thread here.

As a peace offering, here is the link to my page: "What Is Enlightenment?"
http://www.consciousunity.org/PAGE5.html

There is no need to make peace. I have nothing but the most profound respect for all who seek the truth – including yourself; but my interest here is only to facilitate a rational enquiry into the validity of that metaphysical view which underlies the wisdom traditions of the ancient essentialists. For this reason, I have resisted being drawn into the kind of contentious arguments which seem to endlessly rage over whose theory most nearly conforms with our experience of the world, and have chosen instead to follow the path of reason. It is not that I have not read what you have to say on your site, for I have, but that I do not wish to comment on it. However, if you are willing to abide by the laws of thought, I welcome your input; but I must warn you, I do not wish to discuss anything which cannot be logically supported.

Agreed.
I'll "input" as spontaneously inspired in response to the present flow of this thread... not yet inspired to read the whole thing... tho I have checked in and read a few pages here and there.

Note: Gnosis is beyond logic. It is beyond conceptual thinking, if that is what you mean by "the laws of thought."
In my life, inspiration, vision, and identity with The One has trnscended the latter.
If that is forbiden in discourse with you, then I must stifle my gnosis of the Truth to fit within your logical framework.
Yet I agree for the sake of meeting you on your own ground rules.
(If the inspiration doesn't strike... well... there IS no *proof of God* in the consensual use of the term 'proof.')
Will remain open to your posts, however.

Jehu,

That which is ‘actual’ has its origin in that perfect knowledge which is embodied in the objective universe, and the evolution of which is the domain of ‘absolute awareness’, while the ‘imaginary’ has its origin in that imperfect knowledge which is embodied within internal structure of the sentient brain, and is the domain of ‘sentient awareness’ (consciousness). Nevertheless, both sort of things are constituted in precisely the same manner, and so are not real (absolute), but merely apparent (relative) entities.

OK...altho that sounds a little bit like I might be right that stuff in the objective universe could exist without sentient awareness. Are we differentiating between sentient awareness and absolute awareness for the existence of the objective universe?

But it is interesting that elsewhere on the forum, there is the argument about whether God or the Totality has consciousness, and Kevin et al insist that it cannot have consciousness because there must be something that is not itself for it to be conscious of. Since all is itself, there cannot be consciousness. But in your system, there can be consciousness. So this duality is very useful. Apparently Mikiel will agree here, as he does not think that pure awareness must have an object, or even if it must, it transcends the forms within itself.

Jehu wrote: I think that it is important here to draw a distinction between what I have been calling ‘awareness’, which is the operative cause of ‘consciousness’, and consciousness itself, which is merely a function of the sentient mind. Just as in a dream, consciousness arises only with the arising of the dream persona and its associated sense organs; so too does sentient consciousness arise with the emergence of the sentient persona and its sense organs – as its function. The senses, however, are only necessary as a means of interaction with things that are extrinsic, and since the nature of the absolute is intrinsic (inherent), there is no need for sense organs or their associated sense consciousnesses.

Ok, that is good to make it clear. I believe that Kevin et al are using the word consciousness in this case to mean any awareness or consciousness.

The senses, however, are only necessary as a means of interaction with things that are extrinsic, and since the nature of the absolute is intrinsic (inherent), there is no need for sense organs or their associated sense consciousnesses.

Well, that is interesting and I had not thought of it that way. So, this would mean that when we, with our awareness, investigate ourselves internally, we need no sense organs.
There is the famous question, "Who am I?" which I have not been able to answer. At any rate, its answer will not depend upon sense organs.

You do not seem to understand, there is no ‘it’ that might come or go, there is only the coming together of causes and conditions, and the manifestation of the form that those causes and conditions entail. If one brings together fuel and sufficient heat to ignite it, a flame will arise, and so long as there is fuel and heat, a flame will continue to arise, and when the fuel or heat is removed, the flame will cease to arise. It is as simple as that!

But how does this relate to your saying that beings are what we are, and that at death we may make a choice between remaining with the absolute (whatever that means!) or taking another birth?
You seem to go back and forth on this!

The absolute, being possessed of its own intrinsic cause – the continuous and indefinite evolution of knowledge (the relative), has a ‘necessary’ existence, and so if it cause exists, so too must it exist; consequently, we cannot say that because awareness is dependent upon knowledge, that knowledge must precede awareness. In truth, both elements have always been, and will always continue to be, for they have no choice.

Somehow, this just does not answer my question, which is possibly unanswerable by a human, which is, how is it that there is existence?

OK...altho that sounds a little bit like I might be right that stuff in the objective universe could exist without sentient awareness. Are we differentiating between sentient awareness and absolute awareness for the existence of the objective universe?

I have said from the very beginning that awareness cannot exist without knowledge, and so it follows that this perfect knowledge – which is embodied in that which we perceive as an ‘objective universe’, is not dependent upon the existence of any sentient being; however, if we speak in terms of the existence of ‘things’, this is a different matter. You see, perfect knowledge accounts only for the constitutive causes (essence) of a thing, but not for its operative cause (existence).

Well, that is interesting and I had not thought of it that way. So, this would mean that when we, with our awareness, investigate ourselves internally, we need no sense organs. There is the famous question, "Who am I?" which I have not been able to answer. At any rate, its answer will not depend upon sense organs.

Well said! It is through the sensory organs that we perceive that which is “not real”, but there is another organ whereby we perceive that which is ‘real’ – this organ being the ‘mind’.

But how does this relate to your saying that beings are what we are, and that at death we may make a choice between remaining with the absolute (whatever that means!) or taking another birth?
You seem to go back and forth on this!

Awareness partakes of an absolute existence, and so can neither be created nor destroyed. Consequently, that fragment of awareness which was embodied in the sentient being, is not lost upon the cessation of its physical embodiment, but either rest in the absolute, or re-embodies itself – either in the objective world, or in a world of its own making. However, it does not go anywhere, for the absolute is omnipresent – like space.

The awakened ones, like lucid dreamers, are masters of the dream; and so, upon the death of their human embodiment, may chose to take on another human embodiment – in the objective world, or to embody themselves in a world of its own making – a state which might be call a ‘heaven’ or ‘nirvana’. The un-awakened, on the other hand, are bound to the objective world, for they do not have access to the absolute, or to the immeasurable creative power that is their birthright.

Somehow, this just does not answer my question, which is possibly unanswerable by a human, which is, how is it that there is existence?

By the term “how” do you not mean “by what means”, and are not means and causes one and the same? Being necessarily is, for it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes/reasons, and so does not require any cause/reason apart from itself.

Jehu,

I have said from the very beginning that awareness cannot exist without knowledge, and so it follows that this perfect knowledge – which is embodied in that which we perceive as an ‘objective universe’, is not dependent upon the existence of any sentient being; however, if we speak in terms of the existence of ‘things’, this is a different matter. You see, perfect knowledge accounts only for the constitutive causes (essence) of a thing, but not for its operative cause (existence).

Alright, I will soon have time to go back and reread some of this. But the operative cause is the absolute, yes?

Somehow, this just does not answer my question, which is possibly unanswerable by a human, which is, how is it that there is existence?

By the term “how” do you not mean “by what means”, and are not means and causes one and the same? Being necessarily is, for it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes/reasons, and so does not require any cause/reason apart from itself.

Yes, I know that is has its own intrinsic cause, although the use of the word 'cause' here bugs me, if only because of the association with time. Cause and effect seem sequential. I understand that Being necessarily is, yet it continues to frustrate me that I can't understand it.

Alright, I think we have covered a lot of ground. What do you think? It may be that I will reopen a few questions if I can go over this thread with a view to kind of studying it, in the next day or so.

Yes, I know that is has its own intrinsic cause, although the use of the word 'cause' here bugs me, if only because of the association with time. Cause and effect seem sequential. I understand that Being necessarily is, yet it continues to frustrate me that I can't understand it.

The reason that cause and effect seem to be sequential is that all relative entities (things) appear to be dependent upon other subsidiary things (their constitutive causes) for their existence, and these subsidiary things must exist antecedent to and independent of the thing itself. Hydrogen and oxygen, for example, must both exist before they can give rise to water. However, it must be clearly understood that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms only become the ‘causes’ of a water molecule, when the water molecule has already arisen. You see, a cause cannot exist without an associated effect, for what then would it be the cause of, and neither can an effect exist without a associated cause, for what then would it be the effect of. A cause and its effect then are both interdependent and complementary, interdependent in that the one cannot exist in the absence of the other, and complementary in that the two complete one another in the thing itself – with its altered form or essence. Perhaps we should make a more exhaustive enquiry into the matter of causality, for there is much confusion regarding this subject, especially in the West.

Alright, I think we have covered a lot of ground. What do you think? It may be that I will reopen a few questions if I can go over this thread with a view to kind of studying it, in the next day or so.

Yes, we have covered a great deal.

Jehu,

I have said from the very beginning that awareness cannot exist without knowledge, and so it follows that this perfect knowledge – which is embodied in that which we perceive as an ‘objective universe’, is not dependent upon the existence of any sentient being; however, if we speak in terms of the existence of ‘things’, this is a different matter. You see, perfect knowledge accounts only for the constitutive causes (essence) of a thing, but not for its operative cause (existence).

This was a confusing paragraph. First, you are saying that actual things are constituted of knowledge and absolute existence; therefore they are dependent upon awareness. In my mind this is fine as to their origination, but as to their continuing? I suppose that your answer will in some way convey the idea that their continuing is an ongoing process of the embodiment of knowledge and therefore can never be independent of it for any moment.

However, it must be clearly understood that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms only become the ‘causes’ of a water molecule, when the water molecule has already arisen. You see, a cause cannot exist without an associated effect, for what then would it be the cause of, and neither can an effect exist without a associated cause, for what then would it be the effect of. A cause and its effect then are both interdependent and complementary, interdependent in that the one cannot exist in the absence of the other, and complementary in that the two complete one another in the thing itself – with its altered form or essence.

Well, interdependent and complementary they may be, yet time is the passage of objects through space, more or less, and causes and effects have long chains, yet you are taking time out of the equation. I don't see why their interdependence and complementarity should be disrupted by the need for sequence. In fact, it makes things endlessly chaotic, because there is not just a dyad of a cause and an effect, but rather all causes are also effects, and those effects become causes, ad infinitum.

Perhaps we should make a more exhaustive enquiry into the matter of causality, for there is much confusion regarding this subject, especially in the West.

Yes, probably.

Jehu wrote:Mansman,
The awakened ones know that there is nothing which is endless (does not change), and that pain is nothing more than a sensation – an idea.

And a BAD idea, too. 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?

Further, given enough pain, the brain simply stops registering it

Oh reallllly? How encouraging! Is this something you learn by experience or did you read it in a book?

and given that the sort of bodily damage that results from the infliction of pain will eventually kill one, there is still nothing to fear.

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

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. When they have a toothache, they have the matter taken care of, or if they feel their fingers burning, they remove their hand from the stove. They are not dead, nor do they go through their lives in an anaesthetized state. Nevertheless, you will not find them bemoaning the fact that they are in pain, nor attempting to avoid it by not living a full life.

Oh reallllly? How encouraging! Is this something you learn by experience or did you read it in a book?

Knowledge is attained from books, but wisdom must be learned first hand.

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.

Ioluas wrote:This was a confusing paragraph. First, you are saying that actual things are constituted of knowledge and absolute existence; therefore they are dependent upon awareness. In my mind this is fine as to their origination, but as to their continuing? I suppose that your answer will in some way convey the idea that their continuing is an ongoing process of the embodiment of knowledge and therefore can never be independent of it for any moment.

What I have said is that ‘Being’ is constituted of awareness and knowledge, while things are constituted only of other things (knowledge), but owe their existence to awareness. With respect to the continuation of things, it must be understood that there is no entity which continues through time, there is merely a succession of instantaneous manifestations which are bound together, as an entity, by the observing sentient mind’s faculties of memory and imagination. It is just as in a motion picture, where there is nothing that actually moves about the screen, there is only a progression of still pictures which, to the mind, give the illusion of things moving about.

Well, interdependent and complementary they may be, yet time is the passage of objects through space, more or less, and causes and effects have long chains, yet you are taking time out of the equation. I don't see why their interdependence and complementarity should be disrupted by the need for sequence. In fact, it makes things endlessly chaotic, because there is not just a dyad of a cause and an effect, but rather all causes are also effects, and those effects become causes, ad infinitum.

Let me offer the following example of how causality actually operates: a billiard ball is sitting stationary on a table, when it is struck by another billiard ball which was traveling at a fixed speed across the table, causing the both billiard balls to alter their states of motion.

The conventional theory of causality identifies the moving ball as the cause of the stationary ball’s having been moved (the effect), and for this reason, holds that a cause must exist antecedent to and independent of its effect. However, this is not the case, this is merely how it appears. In reality, at the instant of contact, an essential aspect of the moving ball informs itself upon the once stationary ball, and in doing so, causes both balls to simultaneously alter their state of motion – which is an element of their ‘essential being’.

For the stationary ball, there are two causes which come together to create the effect: (1) the stationary ball itself, which is the ‘constitutive cause’, and (2) a measure of capacity or energy which is obtained through its contact with the moving ball, and which is the ‘operative cause’. These two interdependent and complementary causes amalgamate to form the effect – an alteration in the ball’s state of motion. For the moving ball (constitutive cause), the case is similar, except that instead of acquiring additional capacity by the interaction, it gives up a equal measure of capacity (operative cause), resulting in a diminished state of motion.

The true causes of the alteration in the state of motion of either ball is: (1) the ball itself (constitutive cause), and (2) the measure of energy which it either receives or gives up (operative causes); and not the other ball – as is commonly believed. However, as we are unable to perceive this capacity, we do not recognize it as a cause, and so we posit the function of a cause upon the other ball, which we erroneously take to be the origin and source of the capacity. However, if we think it through carefully, we will realize that both before and after the contact, the other ball has no more causal relationship to the effect than does any other object - which is not its cause. The other contributing factor to our mistaking the other ball to be a cause, is that we do not generally accept that an object’s state of motion is an essential characteristics of the thing. Rather, we think that a thing remains unaltered by a change in its speed, but this is not the case; for an increase in speed equates to an increase in mass (momentum). Further, since the contact has altered the essential being of both balls, neither ball may be said to be identical to the ball that preceded it, that is to say, the two are not one and the same thing; and so there is no entity that continues through time.

Jehu,

With respect to the continuation of things, it must be understood that there is no entity which continues through time, there is merely a succession of instantaneous manifestations which are bound together, as an entity, by the observing sentient mind’s faculties of memory and imagination. It is just as in a motion picture, where there is nothing that actually moves about the screen, there is only a progression of still pictures which, to the mind, give the illusion of things moving about.

While I can accept that this is true to an extent, there is nonetheless a reason why the sentient mind perceives a particular thing as continuing through time, and certainly all would be chaos otherwise. In the example of the billiard balls, I can see that they are not really exactly the same entity from moment to moment, yet they are far more related to their 'previous' self than they are to, say, the tree outside, or a pebble in China.

The true causes of the alteration in the state of motion of either ball is: (1) the ball itself (constitutive cause), and (2) the measure of energy which it either receives or gives up (operative causes); and not the other ball – as is commonly believed.

But the balls receive and give up energy due to their contact.

However, if we think it through carefully, we will realize that both before and after the contact, the other ball has no more causal relationship to the effect than does any other object - which is not its cause.

The moving ball on the table has no more causal relationship to what happens to the stationary ball than a twig in Canada?

The other contributing factor to our mistaking the other ball to be a cause, is that we do not generally accept that an object’s state of motion is an essential characteristics of the thing. Rather, we think that a thing remains unaltered by a change in its speed, but this is not the case; for an increase in speed equates to an increase in mass (momentum). Further, since the contact has altered the essential being of both balls, neither ball may be said to be identical to the ball that preceded it, that is to say, the two are not one and the same thing; and so there is no entity that continues through time.

Yes, it is interesting that the state of motion is not considered a trait of the thing and it ought to be, yet as I said above, it seems not quite correct to say that because the two are not one and the same, that there is no entity which continues through time. Iit is true, what with A equaling A, that there is not an entity continuing through time, yet it's change is trivial compared to its other qualities which do continue through time, the change being very gradual. If you get one new gray hair per day, it will take years and years to go grey, and day by day you will appear quite recognizable. So it seems like an important insight, to realize that after all, everything is in a flux and not really stationary from moment to moment. Yet in the end, how important is this?

Ioluas wrote:While I can accept that this is true to an extent, there is nonetheless a reason why the sentient mind perceives a particular thing as continuing through time, and certainly all would be chaos otherwise. In the example of the billiard balls, I can see that they are not really exactly the same entity from moment to moment, yet they are far more related to their 'previous' self than they are to, say, the tree outside, or a pebble in China.

Yes, there is most certainly a reason why the sentient mind perceives a particular thing as continuing through time, but this reason (operative cause) does not abide within the essence of the thing, that is to say, within that set of subsidiary things which are its constitutive causes – each of which is subject to continuous change, but within the sentient mind itself.

But the balls receive and give up energy due to their contact.

While this is what is generally believed, it is not really the case, for things, having only a relative existence, are not possessed of any intrinsic properties. In fact, this notion has been one of the fundamental philosophical stumbling blocks to the physical sciences, and scientists have gone to great lengths to imagine how such a transference might be possible. In the end, however, they are simply unable to provide a coherent theory, and so eventually revert to some sort of philosophical slight of hand such as the “virtual force carrying particle” – which is both scientifically unverifiable and philosophically unsupportable.

The moving ball on the table has no more causal relationship to what happens to the stationary ball than a twig in Canada?

Yes, this is precisely the case. To be related is to be connected in some way, and so related things are not entirely separate things.

Yes, it is interesting that the state of motion is not considered a trait of the thing and it ought to be, yet as I said above, it seems not quite correct to say that because the two are not one and the same, that there is no entity which continues through time.

When we say that an entity continues through time, is it not generally held to be one and the same entity, and not a sequence of slightly different entities? For example, the virtual entities that we see on the movie screen do not continue through time, though they certainly appear to do so.

Iit is true, what with A equaling A, that there is not an entity continuing through time, yet it's change is trivial compared to its other qualities which do continue through time, the change being very gradual. If you get one new gray hair per day, it will take years and years to go grey, and day by day you will appear quite recognizable. So it seems like an important insight, to realize that after all, everything is in a flux and not really stationary from moment to moment. Yet in the end, how important is this?

It is of the utmost importance, if we are to come to a rational understanding of our true nature, and a thorough understanding of our true nature is vital to that psychological transformation that is called “enlightenment”. You see, our metaphysical view is what keeps us bound to the relative world, for it directs our intentions, and it is our intentions that determine our future being.

Jehu,

If there is no entity which continues through time, then there are no entities at all. There are no balls to speak of.

So why do we see them as continuing through time?

Yes, there is most certainly a reason why the sentient mind perceives a particular thing as continuing through time, but this reason (operative cause) does not abide within the essence of the thing, that is to say, within that set of subsidiary things which are its constitutive causes – each of which is subject to continuous change, but within the sentient mind itself.

This cannot be true, because sentient minds easily agree on the entities which continue through time. If it were only the sentient mind, we would not have the world in which we do, with most animals able to respond appropriately to the same stimulus. Albeit there are differences in greatly different creatures.

While this is what is generally believed, it is not really the case, for things, having only a relative existence, are not possessed of any intrinsic properties.

There are no intrinsic properties! Yet things have properties...what does it matter that they are not intrinsic? You could take apart a molecule of water - now it is two gases - completely different properties. So no, the properties are not intrinsic. Yet they are exact.

In fact, this notion has been one of the fundamental philosophical stumbling blocks to the physical sciences, and scientists have gone to great lengths to imagine how such a transference might be possible. In the end, however, they are simply unable to provide a coherent theory, and so eventually revert to some sort of philosophical slight of hand such as the “virtual force carrying particle” – which is both scientifically unverifiable and philosophically unsupportable.

Is this true? This is a puzzle in physics? They don't really know how one object hitting another really makes a transference of energy?

When we say that an entity continues through time, is it not generally held to be one and the same entity, and not a sequence of slightly different entities? For example, the virtual entities that we see on the movie screen do not continue through time, though they certainly appear to do so.

Without knowledge of molecules, atoms, atomic particles, and their motion, I don't believe it would be at all possible to come to this conclusion philosophically. But I have to agree that there is no moment, no nanosecond, that even a very stable entity such as a statue, is really the same. But I guess I would say, it is 'same enough.'

It is of the utmost importance, if we are to come to a rational understanding of our true nature, and a thorough understanding of our true nature is vital to that psychological transformation that is called “enlightenment”. You see, our metaphysical view is what keeps us bound to the relative world, for it directs our intentions, and it is our intentions that determine our future being.

I tend to already think that there is but one substance in the universe, disguising itself through permutations of yin-yang into the elements and thus the many things, yet I am not enlightened, at least in according to my understanding, which would have more to do with ego and perspective. Perhaps the enlightenment I want isn't possible. Although I long to stop fearing death, I do worry that if that was the case, what would I care about? What if I stopped caring about my family, or planting my flowers?

How do our intentions determine our future being?

I realize that it was hard for me to follow your paragraph about operative cause, and so it is time for me to go back over this entire thread ! and I will cut and paste into a word document what goes together and try to make something readable. Since this is time consuming, I will clarify questions as I go, thereby accomplishing two tasks.

You have said that existential being is everywhere the same in quantity and quality...so this means the same in my awareness as in a material object?

Imagine that there were a white sphere on a black background, and that the sphere was the entity, and the whiteness was its essence (that aspect witch is perceptible). This symbolizes the absolute mode of existence; for the essence (whiteness) abides inherently within the entity (sphere). Now, imagine a black sphere of a white background, and that the essence (whiteness), rather than abiding within the sphere itself, is extrinsic. This symbolizes the relative entity, which although it has the appearance of an entity, is in reality, merely an illusion.

I really don't understand this paragraph.

‘Being’ is itself an absolute and continuous form. For although its constitutive causes (essential being) abide in a state of indefinite and continuous change, it operative cause (existential being) remains forever immutable. Further, if there were no continuous existential being, then there would be intervals in which nothing existed, and so there would be no way that anything might possibly arise (come to exist); given that everything must have causes, and these causes must exist antecedent to the thing itself.

Why would there be intervals of nothingness, and if causes exist antecedent to things, doesn't that sort of negate what you've been saying about the billiard balls?
Haven't you said it is a mere appearance that one thing leads to another?

Well! I have made it through page 4.

Ioluas wrote:You have said that existential being is everywhere the same in quantity and quality...so this means the same in my awareness as in a material object?

Yes, both awareness and knowledge (material objects) ‘exist’ (partake of being); although not in the same way, for the former is real (absolute), while the latter is only apparent (relative).

Jehu wrote: Imagine that there were a white sphere on a black background, and that the sphere was the entity, and the whiteness was its essence (that aspect witch is perceptible). This symbolizes the absolute mode of existence; for the essence (whiteness) abides inherently within the entity (sphere). Now, imagine a black sphere of a white background, and that the essence (whiteness), rather than abiding within the sphere itself, is extrinsic. This symbolizes the relative entity, which although it has the appearance of an entity, is in reality, merely an illusion.

I really don't understand this paragraph.

Let me try another example then. We are all familiar with the illusion wherein two black vases are placed side by side so that in the intervening space there arises the appearance of a white vase, however, if either black vase is removed the illusion is broken. This is the nature of all relative entities. They are like shadows, wherein other things play the part of the light source (constitutive causes), and sentient awareness, the opaque object (operative cause) – which imbues them with a form or identity.

Jehu wrote:‘Being’ is itself an absolute and continuous form. For although its constitutive causes (essential being) abide in a state of indefinite and continuous change, it operative cause (existential being) remains forever immutable. Further, if there were no continuous existential being, then there would be intervals in which nothing existed, and so there would be no way that anything might possibly arise (come to exist); given that everything must have causes, and these causes must exist antecedent to the thing itself.

Why would there be intervals of nothingness, and if causes exist antecedent to things, doesn't that sort of negate what you've been saying about the billiard balls?

Haven't you said it is a mere appearance that one thing leads to another?

There are two positions from which to view things: from the relative and from the absolute. From the relative (apparent) view a given thing arises as a result of the coming together of other subsidiary things (its constitutive causes), and so these subsidiary things must exist independent of and antecedent to the given thing – else they could not come together. However, given that all things are not real, but merely apparent, it follows that they these subsidiary things cannot be the true (real) causes of the given thing, but only its apparent causes. Just as in a dream, when your dream persona brushes against a piece of furniture and knock it over, your dream body is not the real cause of the furniture’s falling over – though it looks that way. Rather, it is the dreaming mind that is the true cause. However, from the view of the absolute, all things are mere illusion, or as Master Lao called them, “straw dogs”; and there is but one true cause of everything.

Jehu,

I am satisfied with all your replies, but I wrote two posts yesterday, and you did not see the first one, which was the usual response to your previous post. The one you did answer, was a few bits from my rereading.

Meanwhile, as I continue to review this whole thread-

Now, if you are asking what is it that partitions itself into subject (awareness) and objects (knowledge), then the answer is ‘Thought’, for thinking and being are one and the same; and the principle which divides/unites the two is none other than the first principle of though – the ‘Principle of Identity’.

Now this is very strange, that you say thinking and being are the same, and how does the law of identity unite and divide them?

Let me reiterate that there is no ‘non-being’, for such a thing can neither be perceived nor imagined; thus they do not exist. Consequently, any division of Being is purely an intellectual one, and may be carried out only by a thinker; that is to say, those qualities or characteristics which we use to separate one thing from another are not their own, but are posited to the thing by that which is the ground of all being - awareness. Further, this separation is ultimately an illusion, for Being is fundamentally one, and this is why the Principle of Identity states: Everything is the same with itself, but different from another.

When you say that the qualities of a thing are not their own but are posited, that sounds like awareness is making things up willy nilly, but aren't those qualities actual?

Is there a particular translation of Tao te Ching that you find most useful?

I'm having trouble still with the idea that things do not influence one another because they are not real. Since in this case we mean the word real in the philosophic sense, but yet things are actual. Perhaps we need to discuss what it means to be actual. Why shouldn't existent things influence one another? It appears that the cognizant mind which is the source of actualized things has set them up to interact with one another.

Now if you answer that in my own dream I can do the same thing, I will have to agree, but yet we have discussed the difference between my dream ability, and the ability of the Absolute - which can cause actualization!

I have now finished page 10. There are not so many questions but I am creating a word document for myself with the meat of the philosophy.

Ioluas wrote:I am satisfied with all your replies, but I wrote two posts yesterday, and you did not see the first one, which was the usual response to your previous post. The one you did answer, was a few bits from my rereading.

Yes, I’m sorry about that, I failed to notice that there were two posts.

Jehu wrote:Now, if you are asking what is it that partitions itself into subject (awareness) and objects (knowledge), then the answer is ‘Thought’, for thinking and being are one and the same; and the principle which divides/unites the two is none other than the first principle of though – the ‘Principle of Identity’.

Now this is very strange, that you say thinking and being are the same, and how does the law of identity unite and divide them?

The Principle of Identity is not only the first principle of thought, it is the Universal Law of Causality, and it is for this reason that I say that thinking and being are the same. Further, given that this one law is non-regressive, it is the very same law which takes things apart as puts things together.

When you say that the qualities of a thing are not their own but are posited, that sounds like awareness is making things up willy nilly, but aren't those qualities actual?

The qualities themselves may be either actual or imaginary, depending upon the sort of thing that they constitute, but they are not real (absolute).

Is there a particular translation of Tao Te Ching that you find most useful?

There are many good translations available, although the commentaries are generally quite misleading. Personally, I prefer the recent (1998) translation by Ursula K. Le Guin - mainly for it poetic quality.

I'm having trouble still with the idea that things do not influence one another because they are not real. Since in this case we mean the word real in the philosophic sense, but yet things are actual. Perhaps we need to discuss what it means to be actual. Why shouldn't existent things influence one another? It appears that the cognizant mind which is the source of actualized things has set them up to interact with one another.

Now if you answer that in my own dream I can do the same thing, I will have to agree, but yet we have discussed the difference between my dream ability, and the ability of the Absolute - which can cause actualization!

The interaction of objective things, which we attribute to an exchange of energy, is really nothing more that a reordering of information, similar in ways to the way that the virtual objects on our computer screen are manipulated by the reordering of bits of data stored in memory. However, the in-formation which is being reordered is the formal aspect of the thing itself.

If there is no entity which continues through time, then there are no entities at all. There are no balls to speak of.

So why do we see them as continuing through time?

Principally it is because of the limited nature of perception. For example, even though a light bulb is flickering at a rate of sixty times each second, we do not perceive it so, because of limitations inherent in the eye. You see, a change (effect) must be perceptible, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed by the sentient mind. Further, it is due to the influence of the faculty of memory, without which there would be no sense of time, nor would anything happen.

Jehu wrote: Yes, there is most certainly a reason why the sentient mind perceives a particular thing as continuing through time, but this reason (operative cause) does not abide within the essence of the thing, that is to say, within that set of subsidiary things which are its constitutive causes – each of which is subject to continuous change, but within the sentient mind itself.

This cannot be true, because sentient minds easily agree on the entities which continue through time. If it were only the sentient mind, we would not have the world in which we do, with most animals able to respond appropriately to the same stimulus. Albeit there are differences in greatly different creatures.

Again, there can be neither time nor activity without that there is a memory of the past, and thought of the future.

There are no intrinsic properties! Yet things have properties...what does it matter that they are not intrinsic? You could take apart a molecule of water - now it is two gases - completely different properties. So no, the properties are not intrinsic. Yet they are exact.

The term “property” implies that the quality in question belongs to the thing itself (intrinsically). Consider, once again, the case of the shadow: neither the light that the eye perceives nor the shape that is embodied in that light is a property of the shadow; nevertheless, we still perceive it. Now, if as you say, the water molecule has properties that are completely different from those of its constitutive causes (hydrogen and oxygen), how then can we account for those differences; for an effect must be fully accounted for in its causes?

Is this true? This is a puzzle in physics? They don't really know how one object hitting another really makes a transference of energy?

I assure, this is the case. Unfortunately, most people do not understand that science deals in hypotheses, and not in facts; and that concepts such as “energy” or “force” represent nothing more than measurable relationships between things, mere approximations of how things might work.

Without knowledge of molecules, atoms, atomic particles, and their motion, I don't believe it would be at all possible to come to this conclusion philosophically. But I have to agree that there is no moment, no nanosecond, that even a very stable entity such as a statue, is really the same. But I guess I would say, it is 'same enough.'

The Greek philosopher Parmenides came to this same conclusion twenty-five hundred years ago, without the aid of such concepts. Also, we must not confuse that which is similar with that which is the same (identical).

I tend to already think that there is but one substance in the universe, disguising itself through permutations of yin-yang into the elements and thus the many things, yet I am not enlightened, at least in according to my understanding, which would have more to do with ego and perspective. Perhaps the enlightenment I want isn't possible. Although I long to stop fearing death, I do worry that if that was the case, what would I care about? What if I stopped caring about my family, or planting my flowers?

The truly awakened ones care equally about everything, for they know that every single thing, although different from another thing, is one and the same in itself; thus they have reverence for all things and live in full accordance with their true nature.

How do our intentions determine our future being?

Intention is everything! We cannot cheat the law of recompense (karma), for we are one with all things, and so whatever unwholesome actions we unleash upon the world, must come back to us in time. There are many who work feverishly in the name of charity, but because their intention is to enhance their own status, by being seen to do good works, there works will bring additional suffering to the world – and to themselves.

deleted due to double posting

Jehu,

The Principle of Identity is not only the first principle of thought, it is the Universal Law of Causality, and it is for this reason that I say that thinking and being are the same. Further, given that this one law is non-regressive, it is the very same law which takes things apart as puts things together.

Neither of these sentences in this paragraph are understandable to me. How are thinking and being the same, how does this relate to A=A, why does it equal causality, what do you mean non-regressive.

The qualities themselves may be either actual or imaginary, depending upon the sort of thing that they constitute, but they are not real (absolute).

You had said that things have no qualities of their own, but only that which is posited to them. I suppose that is somewhat like saying that they were created to be a certain way.

However, the in-formation which is being reordered is the formal aspect of the thing itself.

I have no idea what this means. What do you think actually happens on the billiard table?

Principally it is because of the limited nature of perception. For example, even though a light bulb is flickering at a rate of sixty times each second, we do not perceive it so, because of limitations inherent in the eye. You see, a change (effect) must be perceptible, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed by the sentient mind. Further, it is due to the influence of the faculty of memory, without which there would be no sense of time, nor would anything happen.

Well this makes sense.

This cannot be true, because sentient minds easily agree on the entities which continue through time. If it were only the sentient mind, we would not have the world in which we do, with most animals able to respond appropriately to the same stimulus. Albeit there are differences in greatly different creatures.

Again, there can be neither time nor activity without that there is a memory of the past, and thought of the future.

That may be so, but it does not address the question of why their seems to be an objective reality that does not depend upon our own minds.

The term “property” implies that the quality in question belongs to the thing itself (intrinsically).

Well, the problem is that water itself does not exist intrinsically, and if anything does, we have not yet discovered it. Yet water, as water, most certainly has properties. I would say those properties are intrinsic to water.

Now, if as you say, the water molecule has properties that are completely different from those of its constitutive causes (hydrogen and oxygen), how then can we account for those differences; for an effect must be fully accounted for in its causes?

It is quite obvious that hydrogen and oxygen have the exact and reliable capacity, based upon mathematical or other relations within the constitution, to create the substance water, when combined. I would say that water is fully accounted for by the two causes of hydrogen and oxygen.

I have the sense of being quite confused on this point, that your comments revert back and forth from a denial of the reality of things, to an affirmation of it. And I do not use reality in the philosophic sense of being immutable. If things are actual, why shouldn't they affect one another? It seems to me we have a gap between the agreement that only the absolute is real, that all things have no permanent and essential characteristics and are in flux, and the idea that therefore they do not contain actual properties while they are in the configuration that they are in. If we substituted a water balloon on our billiard table, the results would be different. Although I can imagine (quite unclearly) that the absolute is the true causer of all things, yet I don't quite see how there isn't a chain of causation in which billiard balls hit one another and transfer energy. I do appreciate, however, that some of what you are trying to describe to me is a wider view, a kind of bird's eye view of reality. I am like an ant on the ground, being so small and caught up in a tiny sphere of vision, I don't see the big picture.

At our local hospital, in the children's lobby, is a huge entertainment contraption, a round cylinder with clear glass or plastic, from floor to ceiling and inside are all sorts of little mechanical devices, balls fall into a ramp, down the ramp they go into a shute, once there they accumulate until their weight causes something else, and so on. One could think that a falling ball has caused the next thing, but in reality the whole thing starts at just one point, and all else follows. Now, to me, this explains both your view, and mine as well. Because while the ultimate cause is either electricity or whatever the initial point is, at the same time, those other things do act upon one another in precise ways.

The Greek philosopher Parmenides came to this same conclusion twenty-five hundred years ago, without the aid of such concepts.

But how? By what argument would he assume that yesterday's statue was not the same as today's?

Also, we must not confuse that which is similar with that which is the same (identical).

Good point, and perhaps that is what I meant by 'same enough.' Yet in the statue example, the vast majority of its molecules are in more or less the same place for many, many years, the very same molecules. Whereas, we could say that a plum is similar to a nectarine, and that would be quite a different kind of similarity. So when the difference between today's statue and tomorrow's statue is so small, how is it useful to say it isn't the same entity, and that entities don't continue through time? and if entities don't continue through time, then in what sense can we call them entities at all?

The truly awakened ones care equally about everything, for they know that every single thing, although different from another thing, is one and the same in itself; thus they have reverence for all things and live in full accordance with their true nature.

What would happen if an awakened 25 year old woman gave birth. What kind of mother would she make?

Ioluas wrote: How are thinking and being the same, how does this relate to A=A, why does it equal causality, what do you mean non-regressive.

It is thought which divides “Being” into awareness (subject) and knowledge (objects), in accordance with the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity – the principle law of thought (reason), and it is thought that amalgamates existing knowledge (things) in order that it might give rise to new knowledge (more complex things) – and so it is also the law of causality. Now, the cycle wherein awareness operates upon knowledge is necessarily a non-regressive cycle, for in order that a cycle might reverse itself, it must first come to a complete stop; however the cycle of existence cannot stop, for the essence of Being (knowledge) is necessarily dynamic, and so must abide in a state of perpetual change/motion.

You had said that things have no qualities of their own, but only that which is posited to them. I suppose that is somewhat like saying that they were created to be a certain way.

Yes, and if you wish to demonstrate this to yourself, you need only place yourself in a completely dark room, and then gently press on the sides of your eyeballs. What you will experience is a display of intense colours, as if one were looking into a brilliant light source. The fact that we can perceive the full spectrum of colours in an dark room clearly demonstrates that the sensation called colour originates neither in the object itself, nor in the light that impinges upon the eye, but in the mind itself.

I have no idea what this means. What do you think actually happens on the billiard table?

What ‘actually’ happens, or what ‘really’ happens? What actually happen is precisely what you see, two billiard balls react to one another in accordance with there nature as billiard balls. What really happens is the absolute reorders the information that is embodied in the objective world, in accordance with the law of Identity; and we sentient beings imagine that there are two real entities partaking in some sort of interaction.

That may be so, but it does not address the question of why their seems to be an objective reality that does not depend upon our own minds.

The objective world is not dependent upon our sentient minds, it is that our sentient minds imagine the objective world to entail entities, properties and activities – when in actuality, there are only forms and essences.

Well, the problem is that water itself does not exist intrinsically, and if anything does, we have not yet discovered it. Yet water, as water, most certainly has properties. I would say those properties are intrinsic to water.

Because of the inviolable nature of the principle of identity, two identical things will always relate in the same way; and it is this constancy which enables science to do its work. However, if some unwitting scientist were to undertake a study of the interactions between the virtual entities in a computer generated world, s/he would find the same sort of constancy, and if unaware of the fact that that constancy had its origin in a computer algorithm, might mistakenly think that it was the entities themselves that were the origin and cause – through some intrinsic properties.

It is quite obvious that hydrogen and oxygen have the exact and reliable capacity, based upon mathematical or other relations within the constitution, to create the substance water, when combined. I would say that water is fully accounted for by the two causes of hydrogen and oxygen.

Then you cannot reasonably claim that its properties are completely different from the properties of its constituents; lest you leave the door open to there being another sort of cause – operative cause, wherein the new properties originate. Is this not so?

I have the sense of being quite confused on this point, that your comments revert back and forth from a denial of the reality of things, to an affirmation of it. And I do not use reality in the philosophic sense of being immutable. If things are actual, why shouldn't they affect one another? It seems to me we have a gap between the agreement that only the absolute is real, that all things have no permanent and essential characteristics and are in flux, and the idea that therefore they do not contain actual properties while they are in the configuration that they are in. If we substituted a water balloon on our billiard table, the results would be different. Although I can imagine (quite unclearly) that the absolute is the true causer of all things, yet I don't quite see how there isn't a chain of causation in which billiard balls hit one another and transfer energy. I do appreciate, however, that some of what you are trying to describe to me is a wider view, a kind of bird's eye view of reality. I am like an ant on the ground, being so small and caught up in a tiny sphere of vision, I don't see the big picture.

At our local hospital, in the children's lobby, is a huge entertainment contraption, a round cylinder with clear glass or plastic, from floor to ceiling and inside are all sorts of little mechanical devices, balls fall into a ramp, down the ramp they go into a shute, once there they accumulate until their weight causes something else, and so on. One could think that a falling ball has caused the next thing, but in reality the whole thing starts at just one point, and all else follows. Now, to me, this explains both your view, and mine as well. Because while the ultimate cause is either electricity or whatever the initial point is, at the same time, those other things do act upon one another in precise ways.

Yes, I can understand your confusion, for as they say in the Buddhist tradition there are two truths: the absolute and the relative. The same can be said of the dream state, for if in the dream state one’s dream persona were to bump into a chair, the chair would most likely move. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the dream persona, it is the dream persona that is the cause of the chairs moving, but in actuality, it is the dreaming mind that moves the chair.

But how? By what argument would he assume that yesterday's statue was not the same as today's?

By the force of reason – see his treatise “On Nature”.

Good point, and perhaps that is what I meant by 'same enough.' Yet in the statue example, the vast majority of its molecules are in more or less the same place for many, many years, the very same molecules. Whereas, we could say that a plum is similar to a nectarine, and that would be quite a different kind of similarity. So when the difference between today's statue and tomorrow's statue is so small, how is it useful to say it isn't the same entity, and that entities don't continue through time? and if entities don't continue through time, then in what sense can we call them entities at all?

Two things may be said to be identical (one and the same) only if there is nothing that may be predicated of one which cannot also be predicated of the other. How it is useful to say that it is not a real entity, but merely the appearance (illusion) of an entity, is in that it opens the door to our understanding the true nature of Being – and of ourselves. This knowledge, in turn, frees us of all stress and despair.

What would happen if an awakened 25 year old woman gave birth. What kind of mother would she make?

Let me put it this way. I would consider myself the most fortunate of all beings, if in my next life, I were to find myself born of such a mother.

Jehu,

It is thought which divides “Being” into awareness (subject) and knowledge (objects), in accordance with the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity –

It is odd that they are not really two and yet understanding them as two is essential for us to understand reality.

and it is thought that amalgamates existing knowledge (things) in order that it might give rise to new knowledge (more complex things) –and so it is also the law of causality.

Again, this is difficult because we are saying that nothing happens and yet we say that things arise. Do they arise or not?

Yes, and if you wish to demonstrate this to yourself, you need only place yourself in a completely dark room, and then gently press on the sides of your eyeballs. What you will experience is a display of intense colours, as if one were looking into a brilliant light source. The fact that we can perceive the full spectrum of colours in an dark room clearly demonstrates that the sensation called colour originates neither in the object itself, nor in the light that impinges upon the eye, but in the mind itself.

I've no argument, but it could also be that the stimulation to the eyeballs causes some movement, of blood perhaps, which might release photons. At the same time, I am again confused as to the objective world and its purpose. Perhaps the mind is quite capable of generating the sense of color with no outside input, yet when people open their eyes, they do see the same thing, and as we have discussed previously, this universe is generated by an omnipotent mind with perfect knowledge. What you are describing is like the movie the Matrix, in which sleeping beings are given a dream in which they think they are awake. What would be the purpose of creating this universe, if we could just have the Matrix?

The objective world is not dependent upon our sentient minds, it is that our sentient minds imagine the objective world to entail entities, properties and activities – when in actuality, there are only forms and essences.

If you don't mind, tell me quickly the difference between essence and property. I have gone through and tried to find that but didn't.

However, if some unwitting scientist were to undertake a study of the interactions between the virtual entities in a computer generated world, s/he would find the same sort of constancy, and if unaware of the fact that that constancy had its origin in a computer algorithm, might mistakenly think that it was the entities themselves that were the origin and cause – through some intrinsic properties.

Your analogies are as always good and certainly give me a glimmer of possibility, but quickly my mind thinks of objections. That is, our world might be just like that computer algorithm, but it might not be. What is the purpose of the law of identity which as you say allows science to do its work, if the elements are nothing more than an algorithm? Is not the reality of a cartoon much more shallow than the actual items. A cartoon dog versus an actual dog?

It is quite obvious that hydrogen and oxygen have the exact and reliable capacity, based upon mathematical or other relations within the constitution, to create the substance water, when combined. I would say that water is fully accounted for by the two causes of hydrogen and oxygen.

Then you cannot reasonably claim that its properties are completely different from the properties of its constituents; lest you leave the door open to there being another sort of cause – operative cause, wherein the new properties originate. Is this not so?

I am sorry to be so dense - truly I am. What do you mean here by operative cause. In some cases you seem to mean something like a person. Are you implying that it is the absolute who is the cause of the new properties that occur when two constituents come together? Why shouldn't the amalgamation of two constituents give rise to new properties? Or why not consider them latent properties? I agree that the absolute set everything up - but you seem to be saying, what? that it is the mind of the absolute which actually directly causes every interaction and reaction?

Yes, I can understand your confusion, for as they say in the Buddhist tradition there are two truths: the absolute and the relative. The same can be said of the dream state, for if in the dream state one’s dream persona were to bump into a chair, the chair would most likely move. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the dream persona, it is the dream persona that is the cause of the chairs moving, but in actuality, it is the dreaming mind that moves the chair.

Yes, I see the problem, and I must say that I have had good insights into the both/and neither/nor condition of reality in other realms, but I am finding this one particularly difficult.

It's not that I don't see what you're getting at, I just am not able to see that it is definitely so. It so much seems that matter has been imbued with certain properties and that it operates according to how it is set up, which is to interact. I had mentioned earlier, that perhaps we needed to spend time on the difference between real and actual. Is that what we are doing? This is a real stumbling block for me. I do apologize.

By the force of reason – see his treatise “On Nature”.

OK, I did. And a little of explication on google as well. However, I did not see what related to the question of his coming to the conclusion that there are no entities which continue through time. I rather did see where he claims that no real change takes place, that things cannot move for there is no void for them to move into, which I do find interesting.

This knowledge, in turn, frees us of all stress and despair.

I would surmise that you have found this freedom.

Ioluas wrote:It is odd that they are not really two and yet understanding them as two is essential for us to understand reality.

Indeed, the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is exceedingly difficult to understand, but understand it we must, if we are to delve into the true nature of things.

Again, this is difficult because we are saying that nothing happens and yet we say that things arise. Do they arise or not?

Relatively speaking, things arise, persist for a time, and then cease, and there causes lie in other things which precede them. However, from the absolute, all things are illusions, brought about by a state of delusion which the Buddhists call ‘maya’. Maya arises because sentient beings, through the faculty of their imaginations, imagine that there are real entities abiding in a real world, and partaking of various activities.

I've no argument, but it could also be that the stimulation to the eyeballs causes some movement, of blood perhaps, which might release photons. At the same time, I am again confused as to the objective world and its purpose. Perhaps the mind is quite capable of generating the sense of color with no outside input, yet when people open their eyes, they do see the same thing, and as we have discussed previously, this universe is generated by an omnipotent mind with perfect knowledge. What you are describing is like the movie the Matrix, in which sleeping beings are given a dream in which they think they are awake. What would be the purpose of creating this universe, if we could just have the Matrix?

Cognitive scientists have demonstrated that the sensation of colour – along with all other sensations, may be brought about merely by stimulating the appropriate centre in the brain, therefore, the sensation of colour cannot originate in the eye, nor in the connective nerves which attach them to the brain. Now, the reasonable conclusion is this: if all sensations have their origin in the sentient mind, and nothing may be perceived or imagined except in term of these sensations, it follows that the sensations are that which give rise to the idea of the thing, and not the other way round.

If you don't mind, tell me quickly the difference between essence and property. I have gone through and tried to find that but didn't.

A property is any essential characteristic which originates ‘intrinsically’ or ‘inherently’ within the thing itself – and so belongs to the thing. For example, knowledge is a property of awareness, but knowledge has no properties of its own - only essences.

Your analogies are as always good and certainly give me a glimmer of possibility, but quickly my mind thinks of objections. That is, our world might be just like that computer algorithm, but it might not be. What is the purpose of the law of identity which as you say allows science to do its work, if the elements are nothing more than an algorithm? Is not the reality of a cartoon much more shallow than the actual items. A cartoon dog versus an actual dog?

Yes, of course, and so too are the entities which inhabit our dreams inferior to those in the objective world. However, the absolute is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, and it operates in accordance with a perfect and inviolable law.

I am sorry to be so dense - truly I am. What do you mean here by operative cause. In some cases you seem to mean something like a person. Are you implying that it is the absolute who is the cause of the new properties that occur when two constituents come together? Why shouldn't the amalgamation of two constituents give rise to new properties? Or why not consider them latent properties? I agree that the absolute set everything up - but you seem to be saying, what? that it is the mind of the absolute which actually directly causes every interaction and reaction?

By ‘operative cause’ I mean that which binds the constitutive causes together in such a way that they form an 'entity' (distinct existent). For example, the operative cause of any manmade thing ultimate lies in the mind of its creator, for a potter must first intend to make a pot, and this intention then gives rise to the idea of a pot, and this idea broken down and translated into muscular motion, which by the mediation of various tools manipulates the moist clay (constitutive causes) and causes it to form a pot. However, this is merely how it appears to work, for brains and muscles and tools and clay are all relative entities, and so are not real, and so they cannot be the true causes of the pot.

Yes, I see the problem, and I must say that I have had good insights into the both/and neither/nor condition of reality in other realms, but I am finding this one particularly difficult.

It's not that I don't see what you're getting at, I just am not able to see that it is definitely so. It so much seems that matter has been imbued with certain properties and that it operates according to how it is set up, which is to interact. I had mentioned earlier, that perhaps we needed to spend time on the difference between real and actual. Is that what we are doing? This is a real stumbling block for me. I do apologize.

Very well, let us return to the concepts of absolute and relative, and see if we cannot break through whatever obstacle is holding you back.

An entity is generally defined as that which has a ‘distinct existence’, as apposed to a ‘quality’ or ‘relation’; neither of which can be perceived or imagined independently. For example, a colour (quality) cannot be perceived or imagined without that it embodies some pattern of distribution (relation) within the visual field of awareness. If the outer boundary of the embodied pattern is, for example, everywhere equidistant from it centre, then the resulting ‘entity’ is called a disk (if two-dimensional) or a sphere (if three-dimensional). Consequently, every entity must comprise at least one quality and one relation (e.g., matter = mass + extension).

Now, there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted, either its quality and relation must abide intrinsically within the entity itself, or they must abide elsewhere – extrinsically. However, it must be remembered that this division of Being into two interdependent and complementary modes is a purely intellectual affair, for as we have already said, Being is existentially indivisible. Consequently, both of these modes must necessarily partake of existence, although not in the same manner. Further, because of their ‘complementary relationship’, we may infer that the two modes are mutually exclusive, and even before we begin to deduce their specific characteristics, we know that whatever characteristic may predicated of one mode cannot be predicated of the other.

If an entity is possessed of its own intrinsic quality and relation, then it follows that if that quality and relation exist, so too must the entity itself exist; and if either quality or relation does not exist, neither can the entity itself exist. Further, such an entity is said to be ‘real’, for it exists ‘in-and-of-itself’, and is dependent upon nothing else (extrinsic) for its existence – what in the Buddhist tradition would be called a ‘self-inhering self’. The absolute entity, if it exists, is then incapable of undergoing any sort of change whatsoever, for since it intrinsic quality and relation constitute that which is necessary and sufficient to it being (its causes), it follows that it either is or it is not, but it cannot transition from one state to another – and so is ‘immutable’. Such an immutable entity is called an ‘absolute entity’, and is said to partake of a ‘necessary existence’.

If an entity is not possessed of its own intrinsic quality and relation, then it follows that its existence must be dependent upon the coming together of an extrinsic quality and relation, both of which must already exist independent of the entity itself, and of each other. Such an entity is said to partake of only a ‘contingent existence’, for even if its quality and relation do exist, the entity itself need not necessarily exist. Consequently, such an entity is subject to arising, persisting and ceasing, and all manner of intermediate changes, for such an entity does not exist in-and-of-itself, but in the relationship between it extrinsic quality and relation – a relationship which abides in a state perpetual flux. For this reason, such an entity is said to be a ‘relative entity’ and is not real, but merely 'apparent'.

Any questions or comments thus far?

Jehu,

Relatively speaking, things arise, persist for a time, and then cease, and there causes lie in other things which precede them. However, from the absolute, all things are illusions, brought about by a state of delusion which the Buddhists call ‘maya’. Maya arises because sentient beings, through the faculty of their imaginations, imagine that there are real entities abiding in a real world, and partaking of various activities.

Here is a video called "There is no this causing a that"
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=45LuPQUUEAI

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.

Cognitive scientists have demonstrated that the sensation of colour – along with all other sensations, may be brought about merely by stimulating the appropriate centre in the brain, therefore, the sensation of colour cannot originate in the eye, nor in the connective nerves which attach them to the brain. Now, the reasonable conclusion is this: if all sensations have their origin in the sentient mind, and nothing may be perceived or imagined except in term of these sensations, it follows that the sensations are that which give rise to the idea of the thing, and not the other way round.

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.

A property is any essential characteristic which originates ‘intrinsically’ or ‘inherently’ within the thing itself – and so belongs to the thing. For example, knowledge is a property of awareness, but knowledge has no properties of its own - only essences.

What essences does knowledge have? 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.

and it operates in accordance with a perfect and inviolable law.

The law of identity?

By ‘operative cause’ I mean that which binds the constitutive causes together in such a way that they form an 'entity' (distinct existent).

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

Now, there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted, either its quality and relation must abide intrinsically within the entity itself, or they must abide elsewhere – extrinsically.

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

No other questions.