GENIUS FORUMS

Amanda said "all religions" not "orthodox religions."

Yes. I'm aware of the fact that the distinction was my own.

Jason wrote:

elderwoodxxx wrote:All religions stem from the same roots of all that IS.

Even Scientology?

LOL

Kevin Solway wrote:Actually I mistook your post as one written by brokenhead, in which case I imbued your words with more delusion than they probably had. I interpret brokenhead's words as simply trying to weazle out of any kind of logic at all.

Big of you to admit your predisposition to ignore what I have to say. It shows a lazy attitude on your part when it comes to analytical thinking, but that's hardly breaking news.

You state you interpret my words as simply trying to "weazle" (is that some kind of Aussie marsupial counterpart to a weasel?) out of any kind of logic at all.

But what you don't seem to grasp is that it's not just any kind of logic---it's your particular twisted, heart poisoning brand.

Most of the mainstream religions are all but identical in that they believe in a vague, invisible, humanity-loving higher power of some kind. So in that sense you are right. The religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, are different in outer forms only. At their core, they are all the same religion with different garbs on... David Q


Religion is just a name.. peoples beleifs are there own. and have stemmed from roots, that have roots in the same place..If you want an indepth esoteric analysis then that would take a while here.. But I am currently writing up my findings..

amandaxxx

Kevin Solway wrote:

Carl G wrote:

Rather, we use the term "human being" to indicate a thing which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics).

Ah, then "we" are not attempting to discern with complete accuracy -- I wonder if that is even possible -- what a human being actually is. "We" are then, for purposes of argument, defining human in some sort of limited way.

Certainly we are. Things don't exist independently of how we perceive them.

Yes, they do. I may perceive myself or you as Genius and yet you or I may be highly delusional.

A "human being" is whatever we perceive to be a human being, at any moment in time.

To me this is a goofy statement from one who is concerned with divining the ultimate truth of things. Sounds like you are saying ultimate truth is completely subjective.

In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time.

I don't see this as a necessarily logical statement. I don't see how we could know this.

Consciousness is the process of making duality. It is the process of dividing reality into parts, into "self" and "other", and into "past" and "present", and into "here" and "there".

If you take these things away from consciousness, then consciousness no longer exists.

I am certainly not speaking of doing this.

The idea of having two experiences simultaneously is a contradiction in terms, since "experience" is whatever we are experiencing right now. It simply doesn't mean anything to have more than one experience in any given moment.

Well, it does to me. Therefore, under your parameter -- I define as I perceive -- I am correct.

It would be like saying that I can have two selves, which is like saying that 1 = 2, which is just plain illogic.

No, two or more as parts of one. Sections of an orange you could say.

If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.

Again, I don't see this as being logically and provably true, except maybe by our own, self-limiting definition.

Our definitions, and the boundaries we draw, are inherent in the reality we experience.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? Perhaps I draw the boundaries differently?

Iolaus wrote:

Consciousness is like anything else. It is a localized phenomenon that appears when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then, like a cloud disappearing in the midday sun, dissolves when it is time to do so.

If, as we once agreed, the entire universe is the body of God, then there is no reason that body cannot have a mind, which is aware of all.

The "body of God" is just a metaphor, to indicate that all things are a part of God. It doesn't really have a body.

Iolaus wrote:

Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaninfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task.

I respect your admission, but yours is then a profoundly incomplete philosophy, and it is incongruent for you to mock others who may think that consciousness is primary, or what have you.

I subscribe to the view that banana is primary, so what do I know?

There is nothing incomplete or unsatisfying about the discerning of truth. If you think there is, then it means that you have other issues, emotional issues, coming into play.

When people ask what caused the big bang, they are told the very thing you have just said. Asking what could have been the cause and source of such a stupendous output of energy is meanngless, because before the Big Bang there wasn't time or space, so the question can't be asked. How paltry! And so unsatisfying.

The cosmologists who claim such things are being disingenuous. There is no logical necessity for there to be nothing before the Big Bang, even within their own models. For example, there is nothing within their models to dismiss the possibility of other universes, and other big bangs, occuring both before and after ours.

So this is a very different situation to the one we are discussing here, which is purely based on logical necessity.

We have no way of resolving the matter you say, yet you don't believe in a consciousness outside of meat brains, and also don't believe matter or forms can appear without consciousness.

You're psyching yourself out of accepting that consciousness is a product of brain-processes by dismissing the brain as a piece of meat. There is a little bit more to the brain than just being a piece of steak.

-

Carl G wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Things don't exist independently of how we perceive them.

Yes, they do. I may perceive myself or you as Genius and yet you or I may be highly delusional.

That's right. And for that reason you should never perceive another person as a "genius", but only as someone who appears to be behaving like a genius.

The reason things don't exist independently of how we perceive them is that a thing only "exists" when its boundaries are demarcated, and our perception is involved in the creation of those boundaries.

A "human being" is whatever we perceive to be a human being, at any moment in time.

Sounds like you are saying ultimate truth is completely subjective.

Whatever you perceive is absolute. For example, if you perceive that a person is a genius, then it is an absolute that that is what you are perceiving. If the person isn't really a genius, then that is also an absolute, but that is also what you perceive (ie, that your perceptions may be deceived).

The idea of having two experiences simultaneously is a contradiction in terms, since "experience" is whatever we are experiencing right now. It simply doesn't mean anything to have more than one experience in any given moment.

Well, it does to me. Therefore, under your parameter -- I define as I perceive -- I am correct.

As I define the term "correct", a person cannot be correct if they are being illogical.

If your particular definition of "experience", whatever it is, is logical, then it is correct. Otherwise not.

I suspect that it is not logical, for reasons which follow.

It would be like saying that I can have two selves, which is like saying that 1 = 2, which is just plain illogic.

No, two or more as parts of one. Sections of an orange you could say.

Yes, but a section of an orange is not an orange.

Likewise a part of experience is not experience.

If a part of experience had all the qualities of experience itself, then it would be a complete consciousness on its own. That's why we can't have two experiences simultaneously.

Our definitions, and the boundaries we draw, are inherent in the reality we experience.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? Perhaps I draw the boundaries differently?

Certainly, and where you draw the boundaries will determine what you experience.

For example, Israel draws the boundaries to its country differently to the Palestinians, which results in different experiences.

1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.
2) Things only appear by the inference of their causes.
3) Cause and effect is a linear effect of the totality.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as it is caused by the totality.
5) Cause and effect is deduced by A=A.
6) Consciousness is required for A=A.
7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.
8) The totality is beyond consciousness.

Therefore; this makes not a lick of sense at all. It is an epic merri go round and the breadth of the illogic is so wide, it becomes difficult to see because not all aspects are considered at the same time. If you consider the entire postulate, with all of the separated premises, the dots are only connected by leaving out one of the primary premises in a disconnect.

I mean - how hard is that to see?

Hello - calling all sages, can anyone connect the dots?

Beingof1 wrote:1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.

Correct.

2) Things only appear by the inference of their causes.

A thing doesn't appear unless it is caused to appear.

3) Cause and effect is a linear effect of the totality.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as it is caused by the totality.

The Totality is "all things", and cause and effect is the relationship between all things. Therefore cause and effect is an inherent part of the Totality. Cause and effect is not caused by the Totality, but is an expression of it. Cause and effect can't be caused for the same reason that the Totality can't be.

5) Cause and effect is deduced by A=A.

It is revealed through logic, yes.

6) Consciousness is required for A=A.

Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

Consciousness is caused (since all things are caused).

8) The totality is beyond consciousness.

Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.

Does that connect the dots for you?

Kevin Solway wrote:

It would be like saying that I can have two selves, which is like saying that 1 = 2, which is just plain illogic.

No, two or more as parts of one. Sections of an orange you could say.

Yes, but a section of an orange is not an orange.

Likewise a part of experience is not experience.

If a part of experience had all the qualities of experience itself, then it would be a complete consciousness on its own. That's why we can't have two experiences simultaneously.

We are speaking of the parameters of being a human, and now the definition of experience.

You are right, we cannot technically have two experiences at once. But we can have multiple parts of an experience. All I am saying is that some of these parts may occur in another 'time' or 'place.' I was simply disputing David's original pronouncement -- if you recall -- that a human could not possibly be in two places at once. I said that we do not know this. Indeed part of a person's experience may be here and part of it may be there.

Kevin Solway:

1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.

Correct.

How can you be sure so that is without question?
"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

2) Things only appear by the inference of their causes.

A thing doesn't appear unless it is caused to appear.

We agree.

3) Cause and effect is a linear effect of the totality.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as it is caused by the totality.

The Totality is "all things", and cause and effect is the relationship between all things. Therefore cause and effect is an inherent part of the Totality. Cause and effect is not caused by the Totality, but is an expression of it.

Then how is it not caused by the Totality? Are all things caused by the Totality?

Saying it is an expression of the Totality means what?

Cause and effect can't be caused for the same reason that the Totality can't be.

So cause and effect is the Totality?

I thought you said it was an "expression"?

5) Cause and effect is deduced by A=A.

It is revealed through logic, yes.

We agree.

6) Consciousness is required for A=A.

Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

Does that mean without consciousness there is no cause and effect?

7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

Consciousness is caused (since all things are caused).

Since you refer to consciousness as being a "thing", could you demonstrate this?

When is a "thing" able to logically deduce cause and effect? Could you give an example.

8) The totality is beyond consciousness.

Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.

How did you logically deduce this? If A=A is a subset of consciousness, where is the outside that is the Totality?

Does that connect the dots for you?

1) All "things" require consciousness.
2) All "things" require the Totality.
3) All "things" require cause and effect.

Therefore what follows?

Beingof1 wrote:

1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.

Correct.

How can you be sure so that is without question?

Since I define the word "Totality" to mean "everything".

The Totality is "all things", and cause and effect is the relationship between all things. Therefore cause and effect is an inherent part of the Totality. Cause and effect is not caused by the Totality, but is an expression of it.

Then how is it not caused by the Totality?

One reason is that cause and effect cannot be "caused", otherwise cause and effect would already be in existence before cause and effect came into existence — which is nonsensical.

Are all things caused by the Totality?

It's possible to say that all things are caused by the Totality, the All, or God (all of which I consider to be synonyms), but this is only a poetic expression, and only to understood in a transcendent way. It's not a scientific statement.

Saying it is an expression of the Totality means what?

It is one of the ways in which the Totality appears to us.

Cause and effect can't be caused for the same reason that the Totality can't be.

So cause and effect is the Totality?

Cause and effect is an aspect of it. You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

6) Consciousness is required for A=A.

Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

Does that mean without consciousness there is no cause and effect?

We can conceive of consciousness evolving from non-consciousness, which means that there is cause and effect before consciousness.

7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

Consciousness is caused (since all things are caused).

Since you refer to consciousness as being a "thing", could you demonstrate this?

There are things which are not consciousness, for example, unconsciousness. Therefore consciousness is contrasted with unconsciousness, and both are "things".

When is a "thing" able to logically deduce cause and effect? Could you give an example.

A consciousness is able to deduce cause and effect when it realizes that no thing is inherently existent, or existing without any cause.

8) The totality is beyond consciousness.

Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.

How did you logically deduce this?

If there is consciousness then there is something that is not consciousness (eg, unconsciousness), therefore the Totality is more than just consciousness.

If A=A is a subset of consciousness, where is the outside that is the Totality?

I don't know what you mean by A=A. To me, "A=A" means "logic". Logic is not a subset of consciousness, but is what makes consciousness what it is.

The Totality is not "outside" consciousness, since, as we have already said, the Totality is all things — so it can never be said that the Totality is "outside" anything.

1) All "things" require consciousness.

Things existed before consciousness evolved, so things don't require there to first be consciousness. A conscious mind establishes the existence of things for all time, including the time before consciousness evolved.

2) All "things" require the Totality.
3) All "things" require cause and effect.

Therefore what follows?

Are you thinking that there is only consciousness?

But there is unconsciousness (eg, ignorance).

David,

The "body of God" is just a metaphor, to indicate that all things are a part of God. It doesn't really have a body.

Of course it's a metaphor. Nonetheless, it is still possible that there is a mind or consciousness that pervades the universe, just as there is a mind involved in your own physical and mental person, which is a mini universe of trillions upon trillions of parts and actions. You think there can't be a mind because the universe is too big.

I subscribe to the view that banana is primary, so what do I know?

People of great thought might come up with a few candidates for universal primacy, but a banana wouldn't be considered. We are talking about consciousness, and its necessity or not to bring forth the universe.

There is nothing incomplete or unsatisfying about the discerning of truth. If you think there is, then it means that you have other issues, emotional issues, coming into play.

Of course there is not. I said that your understanding of the truth does not satisfy me, because it does not answer the questions that are important to me, and apparently will not be able ever to do so. While I recognize the limitations of the human mind, I do not see why I must be satisfied to find myself in a situation where existential puzzles cannot be answered. The answers, after all, do exist.

The cosmologists who claim such things are being disingenuous. There is no logical necessity for there to be nothing before the Big Bang, even within their own models. For example, there is nothing within their models to dismiss the possibility of other universes, and other big bangs, occurring both before and after ours.

Yes, that is quite true, so true I don't know why anyone takes it seriously.
Unfortunately, the following struck me as quite similar, albeit arrived at with more rigor. Nonetheless, I find it inconsistent, logically, to say that consciousness and forms must appear together, that forms are an appearance to consciousness, and to limit consciousness to human brain type consciousness. It has boxed you into the below corner:

Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaningfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task.

***

You're psyching yourself out of accepting that consciousness is a product of brain-processes by dismissing the brain as a piece of meat. There is a little bit more to the brain than just being a piece of steak.

I'm pointing in the direction of understanding that our upper reality here, the one we humans perceive through our senses, is built up upon layers much more subtle. This is the direction of new discovery, both mainstream and nonmainstream. We could say that we entered a new layer of reality with the microscope and such. And, I think, we are soon or are already on the cusp of getting at the next smaller layer. It's really interesting down there.
Consciousness need not be confined to the outer heaviest, layer.

As for the complexity of the brain, I'm aware of it. I've got a whole book about it. It is truly amazing.
If we are to have a creature as stupendous as the human being, it will of course require a worthy apparatus through which to bring out what consciousness is capable of. Consciousness in a dog or an insect, is not as developed because the apparatus cannot give as much expression.

However, it's not that consciousness requires a brain, it's that a brain requires consciousness.

Kevin Solway:

Beingof:
1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.

How can you be sure so that is without question?
"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

Kevin:
Since I define the word "Totality" to mean "everything".

How can you define something that is, by your own words, beyond your ken?

If 'every thing' or "everything" is beyond your consciousness, how can you logically deduce what the Totality is? It then resides beyond the realm of comprehension itself, according to you and therefore, this concept is tenuous and ethereal. To totalize all things as if having cognizance of something beyond informed knowledge is like claiming awareness of what is not discernable nor perceptible in the mind itself.

It is like saying "I remember the time I was not here."

Therefore; the concept Totality beyond consciousness, is nondescript and is a nonconductor of any information whatsoever. Nothing goes in and therefore, no information is extracted because it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience.

Being:
3) Cause and effect is a linear effect of the totality.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as it is caused by the totality.

Kevin:
The Totality is "all things", and cause and effect is the relationship between all things. Therefore cause and effect is an inherent part of the Totality. Cause and effect is not caused by the Totality, but is an expression of it.

Being:
Then how is it not caused by the Totality?

Kevin:
One reason is that cause and effect cannot be "caused", otherwise cause and effect would already be in existence before cause and effect came into existence — which is nonsensical.

Then we are speaking of 'causation' itself, yes?

Then, using simple logic, causation and the concept Totality are one and the same in your view. Therefore, cause and effect is an effect of the Totality. Therefore, it is the same conceptual framework, yes?

Unless you have another way of defining what you are saying, the above must be true within the conceptual Totality as defined by you.

Cause and effect, at some point, must go into operation, can you tell me when that happens? When does this concept Totality become efficacious?

The rational substance you are seeking does not exist in some 'single' location but in all of nature and in all 'things'.

"Thus," replied the Buddha,
"the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahman.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahman and has been born in it.
There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."

Being:
Are all things caused by the Totality?

Kevin:
It's possible to say that all things are caused by the Totality, the All, or God (all of which I consider to be synonyms), but this is only a poetic expression, and only to understood in a transcendent way. It's not a scientific statement.

On the contrary Kevin, your postulate of the concept Totality exists only in the object realm, you said so yourself.
"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

This postulate Totality lies only in the view of the objective lens and it needs to be scorched to a plasma state so that we may actually experience the transcendant in hyper. The universe is not about a meta matrix of causation, it is about you.

You are the transcendant, not some idea or model.

Saying it is an expression of the Totality means what?

It is one of the ways in which the Totality appears to us.

If causation is eternal, it becomes an appearance outside perception. There is a constant in the universe beyond the relative appearances. It is what is and never changes, it just exapands.

Kevin:
Cause and effect can't be caused for the same reason that the Totality can't be.

Being:
So cause and effect is the Totality?

Kevin:
Cause and effect is an aspect of it. You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

If all things are caused, and the concept Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists, could you tell me the difference?

Again, causation and the concept Totality are identical unless you can distinguish them in some meaningful way. Either way, both seem to evaporate into the nether regions of what is beyond experiential knowledge or information theory of any kind.

This would not be a big deal if we could somehow manage to bring value to experience and where the rubber meets the road.

As it is, the concept Totality inhabits a part of the mind as an inferior idol that cannot be approached and becomes an infernal machine that explodes into defeatism as a form of jumping induction. It is always just out of reach, like a mirage, because we can never experience the concept Totality; one may only wax eloquent about its stately nature.

I see, throughout all of nature the operation of reason and law(principles). A pervading substantial form of reason that controls and orders the whole structure. It is very simple really: All things are contained within consciousness.

I can also tell you were all thought comes from, identify it, become in union with it, and experience it. This is transcendance right were you are - in front of your computer.

Being:
6) Consciousness is required for A=A.

Kevin:
Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

Being:
Does that mean without consciousness there is no cause and effect?

Kevin:
We can conceive of consciousness evolving from non-consciousness, which means that there is cause and effect before consciousness.

Stand a little less between me and the sun.

-- Diogenes

This is a gratuitous assumption, how kind you are to logic. You seem to lend it a helping hand when it falters.

A conception does not mean reality Kevin or in that case, fall on your face before Nan Tan Taka, the true God.

Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?
Can you remember when you began to be aware?

Being:
7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

Kevin:
Consciousness is caused (since all things are caused).

Being:
Since you refer to consciousness as being a "thing", could you demonstrate this?

Kevin:
There are things which are not consciousness, for example, unconsciousness. Therefore consciousness is contrasted with unconsciousness, and both are "things".

An object of thought is a "thing". In this way, there are things that think and things that do not think. Certainly you can call something to the conscious mind and it would be a 'thing'.

What is it before the thought of 'things' ever transpires? You just used an awareness of a mind ordering the universe into categories and were not mindful of the source. What was there, in the space between the thought and the question? Where did the thought come from and who made the decision to divide the universe into these categories?

Where does the category of 'things' exist? You were thinking about consciousness, that is not consciousness, that is called thinking.

Being:
When is a "thing" able to logically deduce cause and effect? Could you give an example.

Kevin:
A consciousness is able to deduce cause and effect when it realizes that no thing is inherently existent, or existing without any cause.[/quote]

And therefore, all 'things' exist within consciousness.

Being:
8) The totality is beyond consciousness.

Kevin:
Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.

Being:
How did you logically deduce this?

Kevin:
If there is consciousness then there is something that is not consciousness (eg, unconsciousness), therefore the Totality is more than just consciousness.

This is begging the question. You cannot have the conclusion in the premise Kevin, that is a logical fallacy.

You are presuming to see something inside of your very own consciousness as something apart and beyond from it. You see things that are not conscious, contained in your own field of perception, and then make the assumption it is 'outside' somewhere?

Outside of what?

Being:
If A=A is a subset of consciousness, where is the outside that is the Totality?

Kevin:
I don't know what you mean by A=A. To me, "A=A" means "logic". Logic is not a subset of consciousness, but is what makes consciousness what it is.

Logic is the source of consciousness???? Where does logic reside?

The Totality is not "outside" consciousness, since, as we have already said, the Totality is all things — so it can never be said that the Totality is "outside" anything.

Yes, the concept Totality exists within your very own consciousness. Your entire posting on this subject is proving and affirming this over and over.

You are proving the universe is not a product of chance but as the product of an ordering mind, reason, or Logos. The very fact you can conceive of that which is not conscious is evidence prima jumping up and down.

The realization then transpires that is highly optomistic levels of transcendant wisdom is loaded with possibilities. The alternative is scepticism and to behave without a criterion of truth. We will keep looking for smaller particles molecules, atoms, quarks, ad infinitum. The universe is not about matter - it is about mind.

Kevin, there is more than just inert matter, there is a force and power that shapes events and elements. The fact that you use logic, math, and thought is proof.

1) All "things" require consciousness.

Things existed before consciousness evolved, so things don't require there to first be consciousness. A conscious mind establishes the existence of things for all time, including the time before consciousness evolved.

Again the appeal to that which is beyond your experience to prove your experience?

Did random cause and effect make a 'conscious' choice to become conscious? When has this ever been observed, duplicated, or experienced in the history of humankind?

Being:
1) All "things" require consciousness.
2) All "things" require the Totality.
3) All "things" require cause and effect.

Therefore what follows?

Kevin:
Are you thinking that there is only consciousness?

But there is unconsciousness (eg, ignorance).

Demand not that events would happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen and you will go on well.

-- Epictetus Stoic Greek philosopher

Beingof1 wrote:Therefore; the concept Totality beyond consciousness, is nondescript and is a nonconductor of any information whatsoever. Nothing goes in and therefore, no information is extracted because it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience.

Well phrased! Actually this could be said of all the finger-pointing to the Absolute: causality, A=A, God and so on. It's an important point as most people come in expecting this type of truth to reveal some new 'occult' information or use it to prosper or restore "wholesomeness". Another feather to stick in their hat.

In contrast to the situation David Quinn described as: "One no longer projects ultimate reality onto any particular appearance and thus one no longer has a personal stake in any one of them being real. ".

Ultimate reality doesn't "participate" in reality by definition and is therefore "dead" or meaningless to anyone still absorbed in the participation. One is already projecting the ultimate on appearances, making them more 'real' this way and so nothing new is uncovered by noticing this projection. This is the reason it was once said that "everyone is already enlightened" - we are all fiddling with the absolutes, no matter how conscious we are of doing it.

This boils down to the question of what is gained after all and the answer is nothing.

dejavu wrote:

You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

Why?

It's a useful way to think of the relationship between cause and effect and the Totality.

Wise people interpret the words "will of God" as cause and effect.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:You are being arbitrary in choosing to reaffirm things like external physical reality but then refusing to do the same with ego and emotion. Mountains are mountains once more, but ego is ego once more too.

When a sick person regains his health, he eliminates the illness that was afflicting him. Despite the fact that illness is illness, and that when it appears it is a valid appearance, the healthy person no longer experiences it.

In the same way, when an enlightened person eliminates the illnesses in his mind, he no longer experiences them. If he were to start experiencing them again, he would no longer be enlightened.

When a boy receives a bicycle for christmas, he still keeps the legs that have carried him up to that point. The fact is that legs are legs, and when legs appear they are a valid appearance, and thus a boy with a bicycle can still experience them.

In the same way, when a person reaches enlightenment, he can still experience emotion and ego.

Wow, glad we cleared that up. Isn't it refreshing to have such a productive and meaningful exchange? I sure would hate it if empty throw-away analogies(which were themselves merely convoluted stand-ins for unsupported pronouncements) were to take the place of substantial discussion. ;P

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:You miss the subtlety of the situation. Appearances necessarily can only ever have exactly the qualities that are attributed to them. Saying that an appearance doesn't really have the attribute that it does is nonsensical.

Further, "subconsciously projecting" is itself merely an appearance too, but just like with some other appearances, you're clinging to it as if it had some innate remarkable difference and significance. Talk about projecting!

I do see the subtleties you describe, but they don't affect the fact that the mind can be deluded.

I agree with you that there is fundamentally nothing to do, that delusion and truth ultimately have no meaning, but it is a matter of whether one of conscious of this or not. If one isn't conscious of it, then one immediately begins to project imaginary qualities onto each experience.

For example, one might project the impression that the sitution before one isn't quite right, that it is lacking, that it needs changing. No doubt, you would respond here by saying that such projection is part of the experience and thus, all told, it is still a perfectly valid appearance.

Yes I would. One little caveat though: I would eventually dispense with the idea that viewing a situation as lacking, is a "projection." Rather, I'd say that such a view was simply reality as it is. "Projection", to me, tends to give the impression that such a view is somehow a false overlay on "real" reality.

While that is true, if such an appearance causes one to embark on a series of actions which results in a lengthy loss of consciousness of the fundamental truth of "nothing to do", then there is clearly a problem. It is a sign that one has been taken in by that appearance.

When you talk about the fundamental truth of "nothing to do", in what way is there nothing to do? I may in fact agree that there is "nothing to do", but only in a very specific sense. Only in a deeply philosophical sense, in that there is nothing ultimately to search for; because every thing, every moment, is pure undistorted reality as it is.

Like my favourite Zen proverb:
"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."

This is an understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, and I agree that consciousness of this can potentially be lost for various reasons. And because I value this understanding I also agree that it is a problem if consciousness of it is lost.

However, emotions and desires and ego are not impediments to consciousness of this understanding. I am angry - therefore I understand and know that reality now displays(the appearance) of anger, and so on. This is still pure undistorted reality.

I don't know why you believe egotism and emotion obstruct this understanding. Do you think that every thought a person has should be this one understanding? For me it is only necessary for the understanding to arise when relevant questions or situations arise, such as philosophical questions about reality. If questions like "What is reality?" arise then the understanding should appear to meet them, then eventually such questions will no longer occur.

It is akin to how a physicist will not be thinking about physics whilst he's playing with his dog, but as soon as the right situation occurs, such as his son suddenly asking him a physics homework question, the understandings emerge.

Beingof1 wrote:

Since I define the word "Totality" to mean "everything".

How can you define something that is, by your own words, beyond your ken?

It's not beyond my ken. Consciousness can understand things that are not consciousness, as well as the Totality.

If 'every thing' or "everything" is beyond your consciousness

I don't think I've ever said that the Totality is beyond my consciousness. I've only said that my consciousness is only a part of the Totality.

how can you logically deduce what the Totality is? It then resides beyond the realm of comprehension itself

Consciousness can comprehend unconsciousness.

it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience.

Unconsciousness (or the Totality) doesn't reside beyond our experience. We can experience both unconsciousness and the Totality.

Then how is it not caused by the Totality?

One reason is that cause and effect cannot be "caused", otherwise cause and effect would already be in existence before cause and effect came into existence — which is nonsensical.

Then we are speaking of 'causation' itself, yes?

Causation is really just a name for cause and effect.

Then, using simple logic, causation and the concept Totality are one and the same in your view. Therefore, cause and effect is an effect of the Totality.

So long as you don't confuse your second "effect" with anything to do with cause and effect.

Cause and effect can't be caused, for the reason I've already mentioned.

Therefore, it is the same conceptual framework, yes?

The Totality is not a conceptual framework. I don't have a "conceptual framework" of the Totality.

Cause and effect, at some point, must go into operation, can you tell me when that happens? When does this concept Totality become efficacious?

The Totality is timeless, since it doesn't exist in time. Likewise, cause and effect doesn't exist in time.

The rational substance you are seeking does not exist in some 'single' location but in all of nature and in all 'things'.

I haven't mentioned any kind of rational substance. I am not seeking any such thing.

It's possible to say that all things are caused by the Totality, the All, or God (all of which I consider to be synonyms), but this is only a poetic expression, and only to understood in a transcendent way. It's not a scientific statement.

On the contrary Kevin, your postulate of the concept Totality exists only in the object realm, you said so yourself.
"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

The Totality doesn't exist in any "realm", since, by definition, it is absolutely everything. It is all realms.

If causation is eternal, it becomes an appearance outside perception.

Whatever appears is perceived.

I don't know what you mean by "outside perception". Every thing we perceive is outside perception, since what we perceive is not perception (for the reason that a fingertip cannot touch itself).

There is a constant in the universe beyond the relative appearances. It is what is and never changes, it just exapands.

You contradict yourself. If it gets bigger ("expands") then it is definitely changing. What you are talking about is then infinitely less than the Totality.

So cause and effect is the Totality?

Cause and effect is an aspect of it. You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

If all things are caused, and the concept Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists, could you tell me the difference?

You could view cause and effect (and the things being caused) as being the same thing as the Totality. But cause and effect is only an aspect, or one particular way of looking at the Totality.

As it is, the concept Totality inhabits a part of the mind as an inferior idol

The Totality could only be "inferior" if there were something other than the Totality. And there can't be — by definition.

It is always just out of reach

It is everywhere, and therefore can never be out of reach.

Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?

Yes. That is the very purpose of memory.

With each moment we have a new existence, and are a new person. Memory is precisely for recalling experiences of what happened before our existence.

Can you remember when you began to be aware?

Yes.

An object of thought is a "thing". In this way, there are things that think and things that do not think. Certainly you can call something to the conscious mind and it would be a 'thing'.

What is it before the thought of 'things' ever transpires?

It is a thing before the thought of things transpires.

Things existed before there was consciousness.

You just used an awareness of a mind ordering the universe into categories and were not mindful of the source.

I am always mindful of the source. The source is God, or the Totality.

What was there, in the space between the thought and the question? Where did the thought come from and who made the decision to divide the universe into these categories?

Cause and effect.

Where does the category of 'things' exist?

It doesn't. It is the Totality.

A consciousness is able to deduce cause and effect when it realizes that no thing is inherently existent, or existing without any cause.

And therefore, all 'things' exist within consciousness.

That doesn't follow. Since consciousness itself is a thing, it too must be caused by something other than itself.

K: Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.
B: How did you logically deduce this?
K: If there is consciousness then there is something that is not consciousness (eg, unconsciousness), therefore the Totality is more than just consciousness.
B: This is begging the question.

Your question was "how did you logically deduce this?", and I explained how I did so. There's no begging the question there.

You doubt that there is anything that is not consciousness. Yet an object of perception is not consciousness, and all the other causes of consciousness are not consciousness, therefore there are countless things that are not consciousness. This is a given.

You are presuming to see something inside of your very own consciousness as something apart and beyond from it.

Consciousness is not a container. It doesn't contain anything whatsoever.

Nothing at all exists "in consciousness".

You see things that are not conscious, contained in your own field of perception, and then make the assumption it is 'outside' somewhere?

Nothing is "contained" in my field of perception.

To me, "A=A" means "logic". Logic is not a subset of consciousness, but is what makes consciousness what it is.

Logic is the source of consciousness?

Logic is what makes consciousness what it is, just as a car body and wheels makes a car what it is.

Where does logic reside?

If you find consciousness, then you've found logic.

The Totality is not "outside" consciousness, since, as we have already said, the Totality is all things — so it can never be said that the Totality is "outside" anything.

Yes, the concept Totality exists within your very own consciousness. Your entire posting on this subject is proving and affirming this over and over.

Consciousness is not a container, so it can't contain anything within it.

The universe is not about matter - it is about mind.

The distinction you draw between the two is a false one.

Kevin, there is more than just inert matter

I don't know why you think I believe in "inert matter". My consciousness is caused by such matter, so I wouldn't call it "inert". It is highly active.

there is a force and power that shapes events and elements. The fact that you use logic, math, and thought is proof.

The force and power that shapes all things is cause and effect.

Things existed before consciousness evolved, so things don't require there to first be consciousness. A conscious mind establishes the existence of things for all time, including the time before consciousness evolved.

Again the appeal to that which is beyond your experience to prove your experience?

It is a logical necessity that a thing is caused by that which is other than itself. This logical necessity is within my experience, and is absolute.

Did random cause and effect make a 'conscious' choice to become conscious?

This question is very mixed up for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the word "random" means unpredictable.

So you are asking whether unpredictable cause and effect made a 'conscious' choice to create consciousness.

Secondly, I don't know why you put the word 'conscious' in inverted commas. Either you mean conscious, or you don't.

I'll assume you don't mean conscious. So your question becomes:

"Did unpredictable cause and effect result in consciousness?

And the answer is, yes.

Being quoted,

"Thus," replied the Buddha,
"the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahman.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahman and has been born in it.
There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."

This is very interesting. In different words, he is speaking of being born again, which is the quickening by the Holy Spirit, after which one no longer doubts one's connection to God and enters the bridal chamber of the Lord.

...and the chamber is a very nice place ;-)
The path is very straight, once you see the way.
Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote: The path is very straight, once you see the way.

All straight roads lead to hell because once you're upon one, you don't have to think anymore.

Kevin Solway wrote:I'll assume you don't mean conscious. So your question becomes:

"Did unpredictable cause and effect result in consciousness?

But that wasn't the question. Beingof1 asked this:

Did random cause and effect make a 'conscious' choice to become conscious?

You then asked why he put the conscious in quotes and then went on to make the assumption above. Why don't we assume he meant what he asked? If we do, we just remove the quotation marks, in which case his question remains unchanged:

"Did unpredictable cause and effect make a conscious choice to become conscious?"

As usual, you cannot answer this question, which I and others have put to you dozens of different ways. Instead, you do what you always do, which is tell us what we are "really" asking and then proceed to answer your own question in place of the one which you have been asked:

And the answer is, yes.

If the answer is, in fact, "yes, " the you are saying that unpredictable cause and effect made a conscious choice to become conscious.

You can see, can't you, why this is not a satisfactory reply? Because it is not, you first must change the question. You could have changed the answer to "no," which you would have had to do since it was a yes-or-no queston.

If the answer to is no, that means consciousness is a random by-product of causation.

If it is random, then consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago, since you have said that causation itself extends infinitely back in time, no matter how improbable spontaneous consciousness may be. Surely you can see this. It is inarguable. It is a logical truth (set A, as I have defined it elsewhere - a logical truth and therefore not debatable.) Since consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago and the formation of the earth a finite time ago, consciousness predates the age of the earth. If you are being strictly logical, you must concur with what I have deduced so far. Am I correct?

I believe you are trying to weazle your way out of responding to Bof1's question.

All straight roads lead to hell because once you're upon one, you don't have to think anymore.

Not true. You've got to stay on your toes always.

BTW,
Truth is a pathless land.

Iolaus:

Diebert:All straight roads lead to hell because once you're upon one, you don't have to think anymore.

Not true. You've got to stay on your toes always.

Agreed. That's a worthless aphorism. I just sounds kinda wise. Might as well say "The road to hell is paved with candy."