GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius:

All one has to do is eliminate the “separation” conceptually, which is absolutely possible, without actually breaking up any thing at all.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
(Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science)

What gave these men the right to be considered philosophers, unlike the other astronomers, geographers and doctors who were active especially in the latter half of the period, was their common assumption that the world possessed some kind of integral unity and determinability which could be understood and explained in rational terms. A more important debt to myth appears in the central presupposition that the world is coherent and intelligible, is somehow a unity in spite of the diversity of its appearance. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)

It is from the more or less obscure (mystical) intuition of the oneness that is the ground and principle of all multiplicity that philosophy takes its source. And not alone philosophy, but natural science as well. All science, in Meyerson's phrase, is the reduction of multiplicities to identities. Divining the One within and beyond the many, we find an intrinsic plausibility in any explanation of the diverse in terms of a single principle. (Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy)

The Eastern mystics see the universe as an inseparable web, whose interconnections are dynamic and not static. The cosmic web is alive; it moves and grows and changes continually. Modern physics, too, has come to conceive of the universe as such a web of relations and, like Eastern mysticism, has recognised that this web is intrinsically dynamic. The dynamic aspect of matter arises in quantum theory as a consequence of the wave-nature of subatomic particles, and is even more essential in relativity theory, where the unification of space and time implies that the being of matter cannot be separated from its activity. The properties of subatomic particles can therefore only be understood in a dynamic context; in terms of movement, interaction and transformation. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics)

This is what the great mystics of all times and the greatest artists have experienced. But whilst the latter can only achieve it in their most creative moments, the former, due to their complete inner detachment and their fundamentally changed spiritual outlook, have been able to dwell more or less permanently in this state. For them the impermanent world of ordinary mortals has disappeared, though they may live with them and extend to them their loving kindness, because they have found the central harmony and never can lose the conception of totality in that of the individual. They are the Siddhas who have achieved the magic power that transforms Samsara into Nirvana. They are the saints and sages who attained enlightenment. (Lama Anagarika Govinda, Creative Meditation)

Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the preposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly, because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one. ..That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one! (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Liberation is not escapism, but consists in the conscious transformation of the elements that constitute our world and our existence. This is the great secret of the Tantras and of the mystics of all times. Among modern mystics nobody has expressed this more beautifully than Rilke, though few may have recognised the profound truth of his words, when he said:
Transiency hurls itself everywhere into a deep state of being. And therefore all forms of this our world are not only to be used in a time-bound (time-limited) sense, but should be included into those phenomena of superior significance in which we partake (or, of which we are part). However, it is not in the Christian sense, but in the purely earthly, profoundly earthly, joyfully earthly consciousness, that we should introduce what we have seen and touched here, into the widest circumference. Not into a ‘beyond’ whose shadow darkens the earth, but into the whole, into the universe. Nature, the things of our daily contact and use, all these are preliminaries and transciencies: however, they are, as long as we are here, our possession, our friendship, participants of our pain and pleasure, in the same way as they were the trusted friend of our ancestors. Therefore we should not only refrain from vilifying and deprecating all that which belongs to this our world, but on the contrary, on account of its very preliminary nature which it shares with us, these phenomena and things should be understood and transformed by us in the innermost sense.- Transformed?- Yes, because it is our task to impress upon ourselves this preliminary, transient earth in so deep, so painful, so passionate a manner, that its essential nature is ‘invisibly’ resurrected within us. (Rainer Maria Rilke, Briefe aus Muzot, 1937) (Lama Anagarika Govinda, Creative Meditation)

The idea of the individual being linked to the cosmos is expressed in the Latin root of the word religion, religare (to bind strongly), as well as the Sanskrit yoga, which means union. (Fritjof Capra, Turning Point, 1982)

The most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one could almost say the essence of it - is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics)

In Indian philosophy, the main terms used by Hindus and Buddhists have dynamic connotations. The word Brahman is derived from the Sanskrit root brih – to grow- and thus suggests a reality which is dynamic and alive. The Upanishads refer to Brahman as ‘this unformed, immortal, moving’, thus associating it with motion even though it transcends all forms.’ The Rig Veda uses another term to express the dynamic character of the universe, the term Rita. This word comes from the root ri- to move. In its phenomenal aspect, the cosmic One is thus intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic nature is basic to all schools of Eastern mysticism.
They all emphasize that the universe has to be grasped dynamically, as it moves, vibrates and dances. (Fritjof Capra, 1975)

Constantly think of the Universe as one living creature, embracing one being and one soul; how all is absorbed into the one consciousness of this living creature; how it compasses all things with a single purpose, and how all things work together to cause all that comes to pass, and their wonderful web and texture. (Marcus Aurelius, 170 A.D.)

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein)

All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. (Heraclitus, 500BC)

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many.
.. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms. Gaia - One Nature Cosmos
(Rig Veda)

Behold but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray. (Kabir)

The Universe is Brahman, the One that underlies and make possible all the multiplicity; the universal consciousness that is the soul of all existence. It is the primordial no-thingness from which all things arise, the one reality whose oneness is all-inclusive; and includes all that is, or shall be. It is Brahman; the source of the entire cosmos and all cosmic activities relating to the emergence, existence and dissolution of the terrestrial phenomena that form the cosmic rhythm. And this ultimate reality is One- absolute and indeterminable. (Sudhakar S.D. I am All)

Tao (pronounced 'Dao') can be defined as 'path', or 'road'. The way of the Tao is the way of Nature and of ultimate reality. Tao is often described as a force that flows through all life. A happy and virtuous life is one that is in harmony with the Tao, with Nature.
So the philosophy of Taoism understands Tao as the One Thing which exists and connects the Many things. Tao, Nature, Reality are One. The idea that 'All is One and interconnected' is not found solely within Chinese Philosophy. The ancient Indians and Greek Philosophers also understood the universe as a unity, as have many other philosophers and scientists over the past 2500 years.

..it is impossible that the primary existent, being eternal, should be destroyed.
.. that among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things.
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know the source of its movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

Well done Sapius!

frank

Please.

Keep pushing yourself, Sapius :)

David Quinn understands it:

Where do we begin and end?

It is often assumed that our skin forms a boundary between what is inside our bodies and the rest of the Universe. But as far as causation is concerned, it is as though this boundary does not even exist. The air that we exhale from our lungs easily finds its way into the cells of trees and plants. Our voice slides effortlessly from our larynx into the ears of those around us. The heat inside our bodies increases the surrounding air temperature to a small degree. The viruses in our sneezes create infections in the bodies of others. The decisions formulating in our brains influence the behaviour of others and exert ever-widening consequences in society. All of these examples demonstrate the obvious truth that the boundary between the world and ourselves is non-existent. The causal processes inside our bodies merge seamlessly with the causal processes in the outer environment to form one vast sea of causation. In a very real sense, "we" are not even there.

The same is true for every kind of boundary you care to imagine. None of it is real in the face of causation. If you want to open your mind to the majesty of the Infinite, then you need to understand this point thoroughly. Study it as though your life depended upon it - which, in a deeper sense, it does. Give yourself over to it, absorb your whole consciousness in it, allow it to permanently alter your mind. It is literally the key to the Kingdom of Heaven. Don't throw it away!


The Constancy of Nature

With every passing moment of time, the causes and conditions of the previous moment determine everything that happens in the next. Moreover, these causes and conditions were themselves produced by the causes and conditions of the moment before that, and so on back ad infinitum. This is the creative principle of Nature. Sometimes I call it God, the creator of all things. At other times I call it Tao, the never-ending flow of the Universe.

Others have called it Brahman, or Reality, or the Infinite. Lao Tzu, in the Tao Te Ching, called it the "constancy of nature":



The way of nature is unchanging.



Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.



Knowing constancy, the mind is open.



With an open mind, you will be openhearted.



Being openhearted, you will act royally.



Being royal, you will attain the divine.



Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao.



Being at one with the Tao is eternal.



And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.




People often have a very superficial understanding of causation. They do not perceive its fundamental nature and fail to discern its significance. They do not see into its soul, as it were. It is important to keep deepening your understanding of causation until you can "see" it in utterly everything in the Universe. When you can observe the same fundamental process at work in all phenomena, without any variation at all, from the smallest speck of dust to the largest of galaxies, and thus can observe the sheer constancy behind all change - and when you can perceive the process of causation and the Universe itself to be absolutely identical in every way - only then will you know that you are staring into the magnificent timelessness of Nature.


From Wisdom of the Infinite..an excellent work

frank

No, Frank..... that is ABSOLUTELY NOT the point...

The Fact is, that THAT it's empty and meaningless. Don’t forget THAT.

I’m sorry to say that I have to remind you of that, for in saying what you have said, you seem to have forgotten your own realization.

The prevailing truth is, David is the only reason that kind of started me off in opening my mouth and saying anything at all in a way. Which really doesn’t matter if it had been otherwise. If for whatever reason, David ever tells me just only once, to leave this site, no one will ever get any response from me, ever. I did not even have a computer of my own until 1995. I simply started drowsing around rather aimlessly. I did not have much idea about surfing, and I still don’t. I am always at this board only, or check my e-mails for further instructions to life, that is react accordingly, same goes for real life too. I simply look forward to instructions; otherwise each moment simply is, including the instructive part. I actually have no interest in discussing any thing at all, as if that could have any meaning, and yet, experiences are happening, plain and simple as ever it could be.

I never actually really speak to anyone in off-net life, there are none that I can actually converse with. David was the only person I found who reflected my thinking to the Tee so to speak, whom I noticed at a site adamantly defending the idea of masculinity/femininity from a philosophical point of view, and none of the people there actually understood what David was really talking about, hardly any actually understand it here, and that was an already realized thought for me since I was in my teens. I registered at that site, spoke to him, showed certain agreements, and the disagreement that it was not only that some sort of “Pure” masculinity was needed to attain clear thoughts as such, but that the blind and illogical strength found in femininity (strong headed emotions) is what actually gives a boost to a clear masculine thinking, for only through an “optimal” balance of both could one attain any thing “meaningful” at all. In the all absolute logical masculinity, one knows THAT it’s empty and meaningless, and when that is optimally supported by femininity, floods back with the mother of all meanings that Reality can provide. A state of being…… which is just that.

I know exactly where everyone stands, including me, and I don’t need to prove that to any one. And I say that with absolute humbleness, for that is what actually remains; absolute logical humbleness, appreciation, compassion, reflections of self in any and all things that that there are, (not the other way around) once a person knows the Truth. And suddenly, which is actually not as sudden as that, a fog lifts up…. things get clearer and clearer…..

So, Frank, please don’t give me an another reason to leave, let me live, and this board is kind of a second home to me, may be a confused one, but tell me, what place or point in eternity isn’t? Don’t try to find or really give meaning to any of your thoughts, as if we really needed to communicate in those terms, just live and let live. (By the way, I’m not a vegetarian)

And I know your real intent of making such a post, asking me to shut-up. :D

BTW: I’m on the road, will get back soon.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical.

Lol, as if.

I've only read the first sentence.

The most profound sensation is the one that one is not used to. It is all f'n chemicals, and these chemicals are subjectively activated based on one's prior experiences.

There is NO mysticism, only bodily reactions.

Sorry Sapius,

It's a dreadful thing to be Nouned. (Sapius walks with the Greats).
A heavy burden...responsibility.

A Wise Man eschews it wisely for it's loss of freedom.

To be Roled...when you prefer to be paRoled and released from any Script...
...realising as you do 'it's empty and meaningless THAT it's empty and meaningless...'

It's just when I read this:

All one has to do is eliminate the “separation” conceptually, which is absolutely possible, without actually breaking up any thing at all.

I want to celebrate...I get excited...
by Nouning you it was concomitant to jailing you, I forgot the power of language to trap and bind...

My apologies.

I wanted to highlight you..raise you up in celebration...and I've offended...I'm such an idiot.

Subjecting with praise or criticism in the Predicate is harmful either way...I have to get my Act together.

If Wisdom's greatest Act is 'gentle, thoughtful Playing' (activity)
...then I've played too rough.

I think we're on the same page now...thanks to you.

frank

Sapius wrote:

I registered at that site, spoke to him, showed certain agreements, and the disagreement that it was not only that some sort of “Pure” masculinity was needed to attain clear thoughts as such, but that the blind and illogical strength found in femininity (strong headed emotions) is what actually gives a boost to a clear masculine thinking, for only through an “optimal” balance of both could one attain any thing “meaningful” at all. In the all absolute logical masculinity, one knows THAT it’s empty and meaningless, and when that is optimally supported by femininity, floods back with the mother of all meanings that Reality can provide. A state of being…… which is just that.

How does “logical masculinity” know that “it’s empty and meaningless”?

How do you know that the feminine “mother of all meanings” is true?

I know exactly where everyone stands, including me, and I don’t need to prove that to any one. And I say that with absolute humbleness, for that is what actually remains; absolute logical humbleness, appreciation, compassion, reflections of self in any and all things that that there are, (not the other way around) once a person knows the Truth. And suddenly, which is actually not as sudden as that, a fog lifts up…. things get clearer and clearer…..

Where is it that “everyone stands”?

What are these “reflections of self”?
-
Sue

Frank,

I want to celebrate...I get excited...

I know you will not be surprised. Actually, so do I at such things, may be a million times more strongly than you, I’m not inhuman so to speak, only that the sanity found in logic, which is also as strong, keeps emotions at bay, actually holding the “I” of the mind at an optimal balance, otherwise, insanity would be a hairs breath away. Ask the people who superficially know me in off-net life, they already have declared me an “alien”, taking my suggestions to what would help them cope with their daily life, as that which could only come from an “alien”, who has absolutely no idea of how a persons nature actually works. What can I say…. :D


So I would say I am, 51% masculine, and 49 % feminine, which is an optimal balance in my opinion, that makes one what I am, but not necessarily by deliberate choosing as such, it is developed through the natural urge one has to really know the truth of existence and where does that actually place a Self; not a search for actually attaining some “enlightenment” as such, as described by the ones who claimed to be enlightened, for not in the whole of existence as such, one could actually DESCRIBE what it is to be in an optimal balance, also known as, insanity.

I can perfectly understand how or why one acts or reacts in the way one does in such a state, be it a U G krishnamurty, or a person who takes his own life, being a 'Genius" that is, because the balance just tips a hair breaths width to the feminine side, and such strong emotions towards valuing logic could result only in one action, that is, not to be, which is illogical of course, but, however... it is quite knowingly apparent to me.

I have to get my Act together.

You better well get on with it, because however causal Casuality is, a Self does play an integral part in being a cause of his own effects, hence a logical responsibility in and of of a Self, that one cannot waiver from. Which I take it you know, hence take responsibility so seriously.

I think we're on the same page now...thanks to you.

No, good for you, end of the day, you are no different than I, neither is Leyla, only if she'd actually know that :)

Jamesh wrote:The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical.

Lol, as if.

I've only read the first sentence.

The most profound sensation is the one that one is not used to. It is all f'n chemicals, and these chemicals are subjectively activated based on one's prior experiences.

There is NO mysticism, only bodily reactions.

Very true, however, that thought itself is a mental construct, so what real evidence does that hold for a “body” so to speak?

Frank, just a note…

Now that causality has made me come out with it, without any boast as such, all the Zag’s, Miffy’s, Steven’s, add infinitum, put together with all that would meaningfully move them in emotions to their hilt, cannot even begin to imagine how I’m move by simply watching a flower, backed by my logical understanding of what it really means to be aware, for what is existence but just that, an experience of awareness.

Hence I humbly say, I perfectly know what moves anyone or anything at all, basic awareness, A=A. (Sue, I may address your questions when I get back, but this should actually be the crux of the matter in a way. You are a good thinker, among quite a few others, and of course, I cannot forget Diebert, but actually, David is the one I place faith in, in explaining such things in the most plain and simple manner, which unfortunately I'm not much capable of, but one problem remains, his non-admittance of his feminine side, which is necessarily a positive force of a "Genius", and that he is using exactly that that actually sinks his realizations in him.)

I’m sure that all will not understand any of this, but surely I’m not the only one.

I have to catch a flight, bye for now...

Now that causality has made me come out with it, without any boast as such, all the Zag’s, Miffy’s, Steven’s, add infinitum, put together with all that would meaningfully move them in emotions to their hilt, cannot even begin to imagine how I’m move by simply watching a flower, backed by my logical understanding of what it really means to be aware, for what is existence but just that, an experience of awareness.

I can begin to imagine alright! And I can finish with delight!

Want to see who walks greatly? Watch who loves themselves the most. In love, the most is synonymous with the best.

:D

Sue,

How does “logical masculinity” know that “it’s empty and meaningless”?

How do you know that the feminine “mother of all meanings” is true?

The best answer I could give is, I don’t. Does that tell you something?

Where is it that “everyone stands”?

A=A

What are these “reflections of self”?

Ah! When an identity of a self gets absolutely lost due to actually Realizing (conceptually) how any and all THINGS do not exist permanently, except a permanent casual condition the makes it apparent, hence there is no REAL “me”, and yet here “I” am able to experience a casual condition in and of any given moment, these TWO opposing logical conclusions become an automatic ingrained ‘concept’ as One, hence the prevailing “I” seems no different than any thing else but a casual construct of a moment, hence expressed verbally as Self reflecting in all and every thing, and not that all and every thing is “me”, for that did not inherently exist originally, and that was the my first lesson. isn’t it? The only problem is that generally people forget one of the two lessons, that I exist AND not exist at the same TIME of any given moment as seen from two actual opposing conceptual perspectives as seen from False-Ego, but is actually only One thing happening, casual condition. And this is exactly what one cannot super-impose because of the strength of the False-Ego logic that does not allow it to happen easily, but can be seen from an Ego logic, that does not discard either of the seemingly opposite contradictory logic seen from the False-Ego point of view but Realizes them both at the same time, because TIME itself holds no real meaning, another lesson learnt through False-Ego, because it has discarded the False-Ego absolutely, by Realizing These two ideas converging into one non-contradictory one, for very obvious reasons, for me of course, but that is Exact what none who have come to Realize this can actually explain how that happens. I actually don’t KNOW.

However, False-Ego is an absolutely necessary thing, AKA, illusory world, that allows one to actually realize an Ego, the real “I” of a mind, and yet remain in the world of False-Ego, but now it Knows them both for what they are, say a final Realization of a REAL Separation, that makes any and all things possible, hence takes place a conceptual absence of separated-ness, call that a final realization, for there cannot exist any further separated-ness beyond that, logically. Of course according to my cumulative thinking, and according to but a casual condition of an alive moment in and of the Now, that “I” am. So how could “I” ever in eternity not be appreciative and come to unconditionally LOVE the world that actually helped an “I” Realize the illusory-ness of All that there is, including the “I” so to speak?

My response to your earlier questions are not a “smart” evasion as such, they cannot be answered in any other way, at least not by me.

Zag,

I can begin to imagine alright! And I can finish with delight!

Sure you can, however, I could never ever actually know YOUR delight nor you could know mine. Hence an actual comparison is actually meaningless.

Want to see who walks greatly? Watch who loves themselves the most.

Greater/Smaller, Pure/Impure, enlightened/unenlightened, certainty/uncertainty, et all, belongs to the world of a False-Ego still dwelling or making comparison through superficial evaluations. If seen through Ego, the same thing takes a U-turn, and actually results in an absolutely unconditional LOVE (if that is the word you choose to define the ‘coming-together-ness’) so to speak, for All that there is, including a Self, which remains BUT just another Thing that essentially is the same Thing as any Thing else, absolutely.

“Love” and “Hate”, both are an inherent thing in nature, if when Realized as such, releases one from being a prisoner of either one so to speak. For what is repulsion if not “hate”? And what is attraction if not “Love”? After having learnt that at school, through a simple lesson that opposite poles attract and like poles repel, can’t one see that THAT is happening at any and every level of existence? From a highly complex Mind able to conceptualize to the most basic level even going deep beyond a quark? What is our make up, or existence for that matter, if not an on going casual attraction and repulsion of lowly atoms, particles or whatever?

Ever think of that, Zag? A simple lesson taught at age 8, resulting in a lesson of Life. It all depends on who is thinking about it and learns what from it. However, one could still reject it as a stupid example now that one has degrees and degrees of academic success, but I really did not need that, to learn a lesson in and of Existence itself.

This one realization should be enough to kick a mind into seeing love/hate from a different perspective. That is all that happens, a permanent change of perspective of how one looks at things. Now one knows exactly how and why people and things actually work. What is their essence at the core of it all.

I couldn’t be more empty in “myself’ than what people call Emptiness, and yet, I EXIST! Isn’t that ironic? :D

Now being in such a state is NOT an eternal bliss as such, it is a Hellhole at the same time, only the optimal balance that kind of keeps canceling out the opposites as and when they arise that keeps one sane. At times I think so hard that it effects me physically and I get physically sick from just ‘thinking’. One can even really forget to eat for days at a time, or sleep for that matter, without actually intending to forget either. It is really a dangerous situation to be in, mentally speaking too. Hence I have already informed a friend of mine who kind of understands my situation, to look for Frank here, if he ever really thinks that I cannot cope with a False-Ego world, for surely at times I literally forget it, and have to actually work hard in reminding myself as to what I should be doing next.

I though much over how I could or should respond to your one line remark, but all that I thought about during my trip, I can hardly remember, this comes out as and when I start writing, without any pre-remembered response as such.

In love, the most is synonymous with the best.

Not necessarily, that's subjevtive, which is another story actually, but first actually Realize what Love and Hate is. How and why do they exist? Unless and until I don’t sense that you know that, none of your declaration of Love hold any meaning actually, since it would be the same as coming from the one who believes he exists, rather than actually KNOW he exists. Like any preacher of any religion, and defined religions are not the only “religions” I have encountered, or have thought about, with the little knowledge that I have.

Hence it is absolutely true, that I travel the world without stepping outside, and know the world without looking out side the window, since I know what the essence of Love and Hate is, from an otherwise insignificant lesson learnt at school as a kid.

If I were anybody else who had not seen or thought about it as such before now, I would cry my heart out, just in this ONE realization, as I did then, and it is this emotional burst of logical realization that actually help the permanently sinking of such a conceptualization into your psyche. It happens to me even now since I do live as a flux, but when I see things through an over-all perspective that has sunk into my psyche, it balances out. Hence, in my opinion, one cannot help holding back the emotions that erupted from the realization of such a Knowing, if it is a real Knowing for HIM, and Emotions are also one of the essence of Reality, for they cannot be an “un=natural” manifestation, only that one has to Realize them for what they really are, which are essentially the same as any other Thing, a casual moment of the Now.

Of course, if it is THIS how one Realizes IT AS, IS, essentially speaking, then One could even CALL it Infinity, or any Thing else for that matter, that is his expressive realization not mine, and doesn’t actually concern me for I wouldn’t actually know how or what he has arrived at, I simply and humbly have no word for what I Realize, and that does not make a difference to me either way.

End of the day, I remain,

Yours most :D ly.

BTW, Frank, where is you work of practice? How much do you charge? :D I’m not joking. You could always leave me your contact as a note in the private Post-box provided here, I’m sure it will come in handy.

And don’t for a moment you think that my “bliss” side is actually not multiplied, which I have already mentioned somewhere else much before you started this thread out of your excitement, and that it does not further multiply it any further by knowing “we are on the same page”, actually there is not limit as such, but yet I remain = :) and so should you internally, of which I'm quite sure you will. We really don’t need the meanings in the words to communicate, however, we do need them to make some meaning of our communications. There may be hundreds like us, but as I am very aware of myself, they will not speak for it really does not matter, and David is the only reason that I did initially speak up, for I find him kind of on the same page too, only that it is simply nice to know. :)

On the other hand, just as existence is always an “on the other hand” kind of a thing, on the other hand you have actually let the cat out of my bag in starting this thread. Isn’t it? :D Trying to explain that essentially there is actually NOTHING greater than any thing else, in Existence.

Sapius, I think I must ahve learn soemthing about love and hate too somewhere.

Love is a flower but not in a flower. So People keep a telling me.

I'll never believe it.

:D

Zag,

Sapius, I think I must ahve learn soemthing about love and hate too somewhere.

Absolutely.

Love is a flower but not in a flower. So People keep a telling me.

I'll never believe it.

I say that Love and Hate is IN that all that there is, and reason helps one choose the one one values the most.

Ultimately, how does that too really matter, really. :D

Sapius wrote:

Hence I humbly say, I perfectly know what moves anyone or anything at all, basic awareness, A=A. (Sue, I may address your questions when I get back, but this should actually be the crux of the matter in a way. You are a good thinker, among quite a few others, and of course, I cannot forget Diebert, but actually, David is the one I place faith in, in explaining such things in the most plain and simple manner, which unfortunately I'm not much capable of, but one problem remains, his non-admittance of his feminine side, which is necessarily a positive force of a "Genius", and that he is using exactly that that actually sinks his realizations in him.)

It is true that David is good at explaining Truth in a plain and simple way, but that is because he knows what he is talking about. If you have seriously considered your understanding of truth, you too should be able to explain it in a clear fashion. It is the same with anything: if you know it, you can explain it – and in detail, and simply.

Also, how does having “faith” in David’s ability to know what he is talking about affect your ability to explain your thinking?
-
Sue

Sapius wrote:

Sue: How does “logical masculinity” know that “it’s empty and meaningless”?

How do you know that the feminine “mother of all meanings” is true?

The best answer I could give is, I don’t. Does that tell you something?

Your reply is very simply put, and clearly points to the fact that you don’t know the answers to either of my questions. So, looking to my post above, you’ve shown that you are “capable” of expressing your thoughts in a clear and simple fashion, but now you need to add substance.

What I now question is whether or not your answer is the “best answer” you could give. When you originally posted these ideas, you sounded like you knew what they meant – below a reminder of what you wrote:

In the all absolute logical masculinity, one knows THAT it’s empty and meaningless, and when that is optimally supported by femininity, floods back with the mother of all meanings that Reality can provide. A state of being…… which is just that.

I asked your reasoning behind these two ideas, to which you replied that you “don’t”. And yes, this is very telling. It points to you not having considered your ‘ideas’, and that they are instead just whimsical bits of fluff.

But; giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s say they aren’t ‘bits of fluff’. Let’s say they are reasoned out ideas which you are capable of describing how you came about them. How about you give it a go?

* * *

Philosophy isn’t about creating chaos and ambiguity. It’s about certainty and clarity.

* * *

Sue: Where is it that “everyone stands”?

A=A

Which you understand to mean what?

This next paragraph of yours is a beauty! To try and understand what you’re getting at I’m going to have to unravel it and see what comes out. I asked:

Sue: What are these “reflections of self”?

Ah! When an identity of a self gets absolutely lost due to actually Realizing (conceptually) how any and all THINGS do not exist permanently, except a permanent casual condition the makes it apparent, hence there is no REAL “me”, and yet here “I” am able to experience a casual condition in and of any given moment, these TWO opposing logical conclusions become an automatic ingrained ‘concept’ as One,

The self depends on its causes to exist, and therefore does not exist inherently.*

To make this idea clearer, could you define what you mean by ‘exist’ and ‘self’. Also, why do you think these* are “two opposing” concepts?

hence the prevailing “I” seems no different than any thing else but a casual construct of a moment, hence expressed verbally as Self reflecting in all and every thing, and not that all and every thing is “me”, for that did not inherently exist originally, and that was the my first lesson. isn’t it?

The self, along with everything else, is a mental construct.

The second bit where you’ve got the self “reflecting” just doesn’t make any sense. Try and reword it to make your idea clearer.

The only problem is that generally people forget one of the two lessons, that I exist AND not exist at the same TIME of any given moment as seen from two actual opposing conceptual perspectives as seen from False-Ego, but is actually only One thing happening, casual condition.

The self depends on its causes to exist, and therefore does not exist inherently.

This is not “two opposing conceptual perspectives” – this is one concept.

What is the “false-ego” and how does it operate?

And this is exactly what one cannot super-impose because of the strength of the False-Ego logic that does not allow it to happen easily, but can be seen from an Ego logic, that does not discard either of the seemingly opposite contradictory logic seen from the False-Ego point of view but Realizes them both at the same time, because TIME itself holds no real meaning, another lesson learnt through False-Ego, because it has discarded the False-Ego absolutely, by Realizing These two ideas converging into one non-contradictory one, for very obvious reasons, for me of course, but that is Exact what none who have come to Realize this can actually explain how that happens. I actually don’t KNOW.

The last sentence is the only bit that makes sense. What is “ego logic”? What are you trying to say?

However, False-Ego is an absolutely necessary thing, AKA, illusory world, that allows one to actually realize an Ego, the real “I” of a mind, and yet remain in the world of False-Ego, but now it Knows them both for what they are, say a final Realization of a REAL Separation, that makes any and all things possible, hence takes place a conceptual absence of separated-ness, call that a final realization, for there cannot exist any further separated-ness beyond that, logically.

Once you have clarified the definition of the term “false-ego”, you could then describe how it does all that stuff you mention above.

Of course according to my cumulative thinking, and according to but a casual condition of an alive moment in and of the Now, that “I” am. So how could “I” ever in eternity not be appreciative and come to unconditionally LOVE the world that actually helped an “I” Realize the illusory-ness of All that there is, including the “I” so to speak?

If “All” is illusory, what is this “unconditionally LOVE the world” you speak of?

My response to your earlier questions are not a “smart” evasion as such, they cannot be answered in any other way, at least not by me.

Sapius, I don’t think you are in any way trying to be “evasive”, I just don’t think you have clearly thought a lot of this stuff out for yourself. Perhaps if you spent some time looking at your ideas a bit closer, you’d come to understand them more clearly. As it stands, you’re not making much sense.
-
Sue

Sue:

Philosophy isn’t about creating chaos and ambiguity. It’s about certainty and clarity.

:D I can't help thinking about your budgie stunt reading this Sue!

Certainty, and clarity too cause chaos and ambiguity, and not only more of themselves.

Do you dance?

Sue,

I assure you, I may not be able to explain very well, but I have done essentially nothing except think of and on existence. I think you shall know in time.

Philosophy isn’t about creating chaos and ambiguity. It’s about certainty and clarity.

Of course, but clarity and certainty is in ones own self. That certainty and clarity, in essence, cannot be transmitted to another, one has to work on his own. And that is exactly why one will not easily accept another’s “philosophy” unless it is clear to him, and clarity is not necessarily in the words, but in the reader. If, as you say, David’s writhing is quite clear and simple, which I agree, then it his art of writing combined with clear thinking, but if it were really that clear, then we should have had none arguing against him, would we? So, it is quite apparent that his clear and simple writing is so to you and me, since we may relate to exactly what he is speaking about, and that came to be because you have that clarity to understand, not necessarily because the writing is so simple. Hence, I place more confidence and “faith” in his writhing that it may be more easily understood than mine, who is so poor at English vocabulary to begin with. :D


By false ego, which I think I did mention here…

False-Ego is an absolutely necessary thing, AKA, illusory world,….

False ego is the egoistical “I” that one believes exists inherently, and all that follows from and through that perspective. And an Ego “I” is what is left after one sheds the False-ego “I”. An "I" of the mind rather than "my I", is now able to actually differentiate clearly without being fogged by any False ego related attributes, since he now doesn't see the world through that perspective, that perspective is Dead so to speak.

The self depends on its causes to exist, and therefore does not exist inherently.

The self, along with everything else, is a mental construct.

I need you to please answer me one thing though before I attempt to explain things as clearly as I could.

Does All being a mental construct mean that NO THING, actually do NOT EXIST at all in any form whatsoever?

This is actually the crux of the matter, which I think might help me explain myself better.

Sapius wrote:

Sue: Philosophy isn’t about creating chaos and ambiguity. It’s about certainty and clarity.

Of course, but clarity and certainty is in ones own self. That certainty and clarity, in essence, cannot be transmitted to another, one has to work on his own. And that is exactly why one will not easily accept another’s “philosophy” unless it is clear to him, and clarity is not necessarily in the words, but in the reader. If, as you say, David’s writhing is quite clear and simple, which I agree, then it his art of writing combined with clear thinking, but if it were really that clear, then we should have had none arguing against him, would we? So, it is quite apparent that his clear and simple writing is so to you and me, since we may relate to exactly what he is speaking about, and that came to be because you have that clarity to understand, not necessarily because the writing is so simple. Hence, I place more confidence and “faith” in his writhing that it may be more easily understood than mine, who is so poor at English vocabulary to begin with. :D

You are correct that it is easier to understand another’s thought if you have thought it yourself, but it is still important to strive to communicate your thoughts in a clear and direct (simple) way, to make clear your meaning – even if it is only for yourself.

Again, what has David’s writing got to do with you relating your thoughts?

False ego is the egoistical “I” that one believes exists inherently, and all that follows from and through that perspective. And an Ego “I” is what is left after one sheds the False-ego “I”. An "I" of the mind rather than "my I", is now able to actually differentiate clearly without being fogged by any False ego related attributes, since he now doesn't see the world through that perspective, that perspective is Dead so to speak.

By your introduction of a “false-ego” you have muddied up what could be described simply. For example: you could have just said that the ego/self/‘I’ exists only in its causes, and therefore does not exist inherently. What we experience is the appearance of ego/self/‘I’, which arises from its causes. As you say, once this is known, you can never again consider the ego/self/‘I’ as existing inherently.

Sue: The self depends on its causes to exist, and therefore does not exist inherently.

The self, along with everything else, is a mental construct.

I need you to please answer me one thing though before I attempt to explain things as clearly as I could.

Does All being a mental construct mean that NO THING, actually do NOT EXIST at all in any form whatsoever?

This is actually the crux of the matter, which I think might help me explain myself better.

Things ‘exist’ in their causes. Therefore, I can say with certainty that I experience the appearance of things existing. And that even my “experiencing” is ‘itself’ an appearance, because it too depends on its causes.
-
Sue

Sue,

You are correct that it is easier to understand another’s thought if you have thought it yourself, but it is still important to strive to communicate your thoughts in a clear and direct (simple) way, to make clear your meaning – even if it is only for yourself.

If it’s only for myself, then why the hell would I want to communicate? It may be clear and simple to me, but as you mentioned, it may be “chaos and ambiguity” to you.

Sue: Again, what has David’s writing got to do with you relating your thoughts?

I am doing just that, relating my thoughts, but since you do not follow and see chaos and ambiguity, I’m simply pointing out that although David’s writings are “clear and simple”, which you agree, I hardly see any that actually understand or realize it, including yourself if I may add.

Sue: By your introduction of a “false-ego” you have muddied up what could be described simply. For example: you could have just said that the ego/self/‘I’ exists only in its causes, and therefore does not exist inherently.

No, not at all, in fact it is clear than ever to me.

Nothing exists unless caused, but what you are effectively saying is that that which is caused is NOT caused. I’m quite clear in my understanding and expression that however you try, it is absolutely impossible to get rid of an A=A “I”, which I call the Ego, that is, an entity that exists and operates thoughtfully to recognize or believe permanency, inherency of a self, resulting in a “false-ego” and operates through that basic belief.

Sue: What we experience is the appearance of ego/self/‘I’, which arises from its causes. As you say, once this is known, you can never again consider the ego/self/‘I’ as existing inherently.

So what is experiencing that the - ego/self/”I” - does not exist inherently?

Sue: Things ‘exist’ in their causes. Therefore, I can say with certainty that I experience the appearance of things existing. And that even my “experiencing” is ‘itself’ an appearance, because it too depends on its causes.

Of course everything is caused, but since you say “experiencing” itself is an “appearance” because it is caused, then I can safely say that you may not be experiencing any thing at all except meaningless appearances. Is that right? Similarly a tree may not exist although you experience it’s appearance, but it is actually amazing to me that one can even define such a thing. Hence, all that you define is actually meaningless since they may not exist as you define them, and hence anything you say from that point of view is actually meaningless to me.

One necessarily needs to define things as experienced to even think in ones own head. If nothing at all, then things are exactly what they are by definition.

Sue: Things ‘exist’ in their causes

All you have to do is remove the inverted commas you have placed around – exist. Things literally exist because they are a caused phenomena existing temporarily hence considered non-inherent, as opposed to existing independently, on there own, in and of itself, etc, etc,…

I still ask…

Does All being a mental construct mean that NO THING, actually do NOT EXIST at all in any form whatsoever?

Is the form of a tree not a form of a tree? Even by definition? And exists as it is the moment one perceives it? That is true for any thing that has the capability of perceiving it as such, even without ever verbally defining it as a ‘tree’. For an animal would not be aware of what to eat, and a cow would repeatedly try out a stone every morning to finally find by the end of the day what is edible. Once registered, memory tells you what exactly is as experienced, otherwise one cannot move a single step as far as any reaction is concerned, including thinking.



You responded to Diebert in ‘Death is’ thread…

Sue: If the mind had a beginning and an end, that is: if it existed independently from everything else in the universe, it wouldn’t be able to interact with anything; making it useless at the job it does now. Only causally can it do all that it does, which means that it has neither a beginning, nor an end.

If that is absolutely true, then what is it you are referring to when you say “IT” has no beginning or end? What is the ‘it’? Do you experience an “it”? However caused that “it” may be. “IT” may not have a conceptual beginning or an end, but the fact that you can talk about “IT” proves that “IT” exists as a thing, and most assuredly does have a beginning and an end since it is an "IT". Only ‘a beginning and an end in itself’ could have no beginning or an end. The “mind” itself is a casually created thing, and will most assuredly end when caused to end. Please drop the pride.

In effect I’m saying the same thing as Diebert, and even his simple and clear explanation is obscure to you. What can I say…

If what I write here is clear enough, then all your questions in your 2 July post will clear up, if not, I will still try to answer each question in that post.

Sapius wrote:

Sue: By your introduction of a “false-ego” you have muddied up what could be described simply. For example: you could have just said that the ego/self/‘I’ exists only in its causes, and therefore does not exist inherently.

No, not at all, in fact it is clear than ever to me.

Nothing exists unless caused, but what you are effectively saying is that that which is caused is NOT caused.

How do you figure that?

My point is: why introduce the concept of the “false-ego” if you already know and accept that the ego, along with everything else, is caused? People don’t have two egos; a real one and a false one. There is just the one, and it exists - albeit through its causes.

For the ego (or anything else) to arise or fall away, there has to be in place the necessary circumstances for it to do so. Each thing has its own unique circumstances, which means that no other thing can arise in its place. And because these circumstances are always changing, all things are also always changing. That is: things change into other things, such as, thought becomes action. In this way, things have no beginning or end because they always arise from other things. From this, we can know for certain that things are dependent on each other (caused), and are not independent from one another (not caused).

I’m quite clear in my understanding and expression that however you try, it is absolutely impossible to get rid of an A=A

And yet people do it all the time. For example, what you have written below doesn’t look to be in accordance with A=A. Let’s take a look.

“I”, which I call the Ego, that is, an entity that exists and operates thoughtfully to recognize or believe permanency, inherency of a self, resulting in a “false-ego” and operates through that basic belief.

Firstly you stated that “nothing exists unless caused” – which describes the infinite nature of things.

But then it looks as if you are introducing a concept of the self which can only be described as finite in its nature - “an entity that exists and operates thoughtfully to recognize or believe in permanency...”

So it looks like you have the ego being finite and infinite at the same time. This seems to be a direct violation of A=A.

Or maybe you think a thing can be both finite and infinite at the same time?

Sue: What we experience is the appearance of ego/self/‘I’, which arises from its causes. As you say, once this is known, you can never again consider the ego/self/‘I’ as existing inherently.

So what is experiencing that the - ego/self/”I” - does not exist inherently?

Everything is caused. Therefore the mind, the ego, experiences, appearances, feelings and thoughts – all arise and fall away due of their causes.

Sue: Things ‘exist’ in their causes. Therefore, I can say with certainty that I experience the appearance of things existing. And that even my “experiencing” is ‘itself’ an appearance, because it too depends on its causes.

Of course everything is caused, but since you say “experiencing” itself is an “appearance” because it is caused, then I can safely say that you may not be experiencing any thing at all except meaningless appearances. Is that right? Similarly a tree may not exist although you experience it’s appearance, but it is actually amazing to me that one can even define such a thing. Hence, all that you define is actually meaningless since they may not exist as you define them, and hence anything you say from that point of view is actually meaningless to me.

One necessarily needs to define things as experienced to even think in ones own head. If nothing at all, then things are exactly what they are by definition.

You say “everything is caused”, but then cannot see how everything we think, and the way we think, is also caused, and also become causes. Our minds are caused to discriminate between things – tree/not tree. We can say a tree is a tree because it appears to be a tree: that is, it has the characteristics of what we define to be a ‘tree’. This is an A=A statement. We use our definitions of things to help make sense of our world.

Defining things seems like a straight forward process, but for a lot of people it is not something that brings them enough pleasure. They much prefer to make things what they are not. For example, a person might see what appears to be a tree, because it has the characteristics of a ‘tree’, but then add onto that definition their own personal fantasy – something like, trees are conscious, for example. By doing so, they corrupt the definition of tree, making it irrational, and therefore absurd. A tree cannot be considered conscious, because it does not display the characteristics of being conscious – as it doesn’t possess a mind to be aware of its own existence.

So wanting something to be a certain way, because you get pleasure from it being that way, isn’t the same as living in accordance with logic (A=A).

-
The rest of your post raises the same issues which I have dealt with above.
-

Sue

I have not forgotten your post, Sue, just that I have been a little busy.

Will attempt other things later, for now…

And yet people do it all the time. For example, what you have written below doesn’t look to be in accordance with A=A. Let’s take a look.

Firstly you stated that “nothing exists unless caused” – which describes the infinite nature of things.

But then it looks as if you are introducing a concept of the self which can only be described as finite in its nature - “an entity that exists and operates thoughtfully to recognize or believe in permanency...”

So it looks like you have the ego being finite and infinite at the same time. This seems to be a direct violation of A=A.

Or maybe you think a thing can be both finite and infinite at the same time?

Let me first ask you this, what do you know about A=A?

And what has different conclusions arrived at using A=A, got to do with comparing different conclusions AS A=A?

They are two different conclusions reached about the same thing from two different point of reasoning, and each is true from either perspective using the same A=A, fundamentally, now unless these two perspectives merge in their Truths that are apparent form either perspectives, which is actually only one in its Truth, but not in its Dual nature as it exists, one cannot "see" reality. Merging of the Truths of the concepts rather than concepts themselves, for they always remain two, due to duality, but their Truths are One.