GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When something is described as unborn it's because it's not even a part of some "All". It's because it has no actual reality beyond any provisional, constantly changing and deeply relative notion.

The provisional, relative reality of things is a part of the All, and so it is also objective, actual reality.

Then we proceed to attach emotions, belief of convictions to things because of some set of reasoning, repetitions or scientific arguments. But that remains an artificial and illusionary context, like the self and not any philosophical one.

"Illusory and artificial" relative to what? If there is nothing apart from illusions, then illusions themselves are the reality.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When something is described as unborn it's because it's not even a part of some "All". It's because it has no actual reality beyond any provisional, constantly changing and deeply relative notion.

The provisional, relative reality of things is a part of the All, and so it is also objective, actual reality.

While illusion is actual reality (being some illusion) it doesn't make it actual and objective. It would not be an illusion anymore by definition.

"Illusory and artificial" relative to what? If there is nothing apart from illusions, then illusions themselves are the reality.

They are the reality of your self since for your self there's nothing apart from illusions.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:While illusion is actual reality (being some illusion) it doesn't make it actual and objective. It would not be an illusion anymore by definition.

What makes it an illusion to begin with if there is nothing you can contrast its illusory nature with?

"Illusory and artificial" relative to what? If there is nothing apart from illusions, then illusions themselves are the reality.

They are the reality of your self since for your self there's nothing apart from illusions.

My self is ultimately the All. Its parts are not illusions, since there is nothing real apart from them.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote: It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

There you go Jupiviv, what did you say about Quinn agreeing with your idiotic notion of death as an end?

It should be clear enough to you now, that which was 'never born' cannot die. Again "deathless". The mind does not die with the body, it is not in the body.

Hi Seeker, namaste and maranatha.

Sorry to say Seeker, Jupiviv is right. This board and all three of the founders hold the idea of cognitive dissonance as wisdom. None of the three founders will engage in a discussion with me as I point out the glaring contradiction in their fundamental belief-system. We have been going at it for years and now, they just simply ignore me - as if I just do not 'get it'. I am just a troublesome irritant that asks straight questions that never seem to be addressed.

This is the heart and essence of the contradiction. They will try to sidetrack you, make fun of you and ultimately ignore you when you point this out. Are you ready? Here it is, the ultimate in the stunning mother of all contradictions. You need to stick to this because it is the underlying problem of this board making any progress at this juncture.



It goes like this: " I am the All, I am the Totality. I am beyond beginning because I was never born. I am beyond end because I will never die. I am the emptiness of the infinite totality."

So far so good, right? What they do not tell you is they believe they are finite all at the same time because the universe is a machine. The truth is, the universe is alive. Like the trillions of cells in your body are alive that make up the single you.

Here is what they really believe:
"Except that I really was born. Except that I will also die one day and be no more. My body will die and that means all trace of my mind, consciousness and life will be as if it never happened. But I have no beginning, except when we do have a beginning, when we were conceived. I have no end, except when I will die and be no more. I am the All except when I am just me. I am the Totality, except when my mind and consciousness is inside my brain. Once I am free from this body, I will be the All but not really because my body will have died and I will not be conscious. I am emptiness, except right now while I have thought but one day, including today, I am empty because I realize I am in my body, which is not empty or the totality - sometimes it is tho."

Until they can reconcile this conflicting and blatant contradiction, you will hear all kinds of things that sound like truth.

Let the babble begin.

Beingof1 wrote: This board and all three of the founders hold the idea of cognitive dissonance as wisdom. None of the three founders will engage in a discussion with me as I point out the glaring contradiction in their fundamental belief-system. We have been going at it for years and now, they just simply ignore me - as if I just do not 'get it'. I am just a troublesome irritant that asks straight questions that never seem to be addressed.

This is the heart and essence of the contradiction. They will try to sidetrack you, make fun of you and ultimately ignore you when you point this out. Are you ready? Here it is, the ultimate in the stunning mother of all contradictions. You need to stick to this because it is the underlying problem of this board making any progress at this juncture.

It goes like this: " I am the All, I am the Totality. I am beyond beginning because I was never born. I am beyond end because I will never die. I am the emptiness of the infinite totality."

So far so good, right? What they do not tell you is they believe they are finite all at the same time because the universe is a machine. The truth is, the universe is alive.

I certainly don't think of the universe as a machine, but nor do I think of it as being alive either. The universe is too pure and too formless to be categorized in such ways.

The universe isn't a machine, as it doesn't have any parts. It isn't alive, as there is nothing other than it.

Beingof1 wrote:Here is what they really believe:
"Except that I really was born. Except that I will also die one day and be no more. My body will die and that means all trace of my mind, consciousness and life will be as if it never happened. But I have no beginning, except when we do have a beginning, when we were conceived. I have no end, except when I will die and be no more. I am the All except when I am just me. I am the Totality, except when my mind and consciousness is inside my brain. Once I am free from this body, I will be the All but not really because my body will have died and I will not be conscious. I am emptiness, except right now while I have thought but one day, including today, I am empty because I realize I am in my body, which is not empty or the totality - sometimes it is tho."

Until they can reconcile this conflicting and blatant contradiction, you will hear all kinds of things that sound like truth.

You’re an intelligent chap, so I’m sure you have the capacity to see that apparent contradictions of this kind are really just different ways of looking at the same thing.

For example, a person might point to a huge mountain before him that is blocking out the sun and state that it consists of 99.99% empty space (between its atoms). Should we class this as a contradiction?

Greetings David

I certainly don't think of the universe as a machine, but nor do I think of it as being alive either.

Are you a machine?
Are you your body?
Is your mind created by your brain?
Who or what designed your brain?
Were you caused to be?
By what mechanism are you alive?
What does being alive mean to you?

The universe is too pure and too formless to be categorized in such ways.

Are you aware of the universe from the inside of it or outside of the universe?

Do you experience a whole reality or a partial reality?

The universe isn't a machine, as it doesn't have any parts. It isn't alive, as there is nothing other than it.

How do you know the universe has no parts?

How do you know the universe is not alive?

This is for all of you that think consciousness is created by the brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

This next link is of blind people, most from birth, having NDE and recalling sights that were third person verified because they could see outside of their body. Open your mind and let a little light in please.
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ri ... 01-147.pdf

Beingof1 wrote:It goes like this: " I am the All, I am the Totality. I am beyond beginning because I was never born. I am beyond end because I will never die. I am the emptiness of the infinite totality."

That's not true if you think that the person saying that is literally the All. It only has meaning within a context, i.e, the context that the source of a person's existence is the All, or the context that the boundary of a thing intermingles with the universe until the original finite thing becomes boundless. An essential part of philosophy(or any intellectual endeavour, really) is creating logical contexts and categories and connecting them with each other.

So far so good, right? What they do not tell you is they believe they are finite all at the same time because the universe is a machine. The truth is, the universe is alive. Like the trillions of cells in your body are alive that make up the single you.

All finite things are machines, including the body and mind, since they are all caused. The universe(the totality of finite things) is not caused, so it's not a machine. Neither is it alive, nor is it neither alive nor a machine, nor is it both alive and a machine. It's utterly beyond any quality or combination of qualities attributable to finite things.

All finite things are machines, including the body and mind, since they are all caused. The universe(the totality of finite things) is not caused, so it's not a machine. Neither is it alive, nor is it neither alive nor a machine, nor is it both alive and a machine. It's utterly beyond any quality or combination of qualities attributable to finite things.

That's right.

Beingof1 wrote:How do you know the universe has no parts?

Because it's defined to be a whole. It's not like a container or any other thing which could "have" such things.

How do you know the universe is not alive?

Because you need to something dead next to it for that to work. So it's neither dead or alive. Not dead and alive at the same time and it's not void of death and life either.

Beingof1 wrote:Greetings David

Greetings, Inquisitor.

Beingof1 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The universe isn't a machine, as it doesn't have any parts. It isn't alive, as there is nothing other than it.

How do you know the universe has no parts?

Because there are no beginnings or ends in the universe, other than what our minds happen to contrive in any given moment.

How do you know the universe is not alive?

Because the universe has no beginning or end.

Are you a machine?

If I think of myself as having parts, then I am a machine.

Are you your body?

How can I separate my body from the rest of the universe?

Is your mind created by your brain?

The mind is created by not-mind.

Who or what designed your brain?

Evolution by natural selection, it would seem.

Were you caused to be?

Is a cloud caused to be?

By what mechanism are you alive?

By the mechanism of illusion.

What does being alive mean to you?

Slipping into illusion.

Are you aware of the universe from the inside of it or outside of the universe?

There is no inside or outside.

Do you experience a whole reality or a partial reality?

The whole can be always seen in its parts, if you know how to look.

Hey Being, to me it seems we are all talking about the same thing, yet I have noticed the 'discrepancy' you refer to.

I'm a little confused by their position also, from one perspective they are perfectly describing enlightenment such as in "never born" and not engaging in life and death, so forth.

Then I'll read Kevin Solway say something like enlightenment can logically be reciprocated if all the atoms of an enlightened one's body were exactly identical.

Instantly Kevin shows himself as a Jupiviv clueless noob here.

So I guess your very good question remains,
Who is utterly stupid enough to think the body is necessary for the existence of the mind?
or
Who hasn't yet recognized the body is nothing more than a reference to transient formations arising/fading from the mind which exists timelessly despite any experience of a body?
or
to be perfectly clear as to not raise confusion.
Will this mind-experience continue once the body has been burnt to ash? (yes, ofcourse, as the mind is not created by or caused by the body)


I think this accurately sums up your confusion with their writings, agreed?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:So I guess your very good question remains,
Who is utterly stupid enough to think the body is necessary for the existence of the mind?
or
Who hasn't yet recognized the body is nothing more than a reference to transient formations arising/fading from the mind which exists timelessly despite any experience of a body?
or
to be perfectly clear as to not raise confusion.
Will this mind-experience continue once the body has been burnt to ash? (yes, ofcourse, as the mind is not created by or caused by the body)?

I assume, then, that you were conscious before your birth, and have been all throughout the infinite past ....

Do you base your existence on what you can remember?

Can't remember, didn't happen...

That is a hell of a lot of experience that you're not remembering! It is like a person in this life unable to remember anything that happened more than a second ago.

Why do you suppose you are unable to remember anything before your birth?

Jupiviv:

It goes like this: " I am the All, I am the Totality. I am beyond beginning because I was never born. I am beyond end because I will never die. I am the emptiness of the infinite totality."



That's not true if you think that the person saying that is literally the All. It only has meaning within a context, i.e, the context that the source of a person's existence is the All, or the context that the boundary of a thing intermingles with the universe until the original finite thing becomes boundless. An essential part of philosophy(or any intellectual endeavour, really) is creating logical contexts and categories and connecting them with each other.

And all at the same time you are your body/brain which is not in context with the all powerful OZ?

If it requires the All to make up who and what you are, how long have you been around and when will you cease to be?

Do you ever ask yourself how you can hold two contradictory things in your mind as truth?

All finite things are machines, including the body and mind, since they are all caused.

In which context does the mind belong, the All or the finite?

I think I get it - sometimes its finite and other times its infinite depending on what you feel like that day?

It depends on which part of your post I read - In the first part of your post the mind can be infinite in the right context and then magically becomes finite and all at the same time - its both and neither. Did I understand your - er um - position?

The universe(the totality of finite things) is not caused, so it's not a machine. Neither is it alive, nor is it neither alive nor a machine, nor is it both alive and a machine. It's utterly beyond any quality or combination of qualities attributable to finite things.

Says someone with a finite mind.

So let me see here - your mind is finite because it is caused but it can hold the infinite inside of it to determine what the infinite is?

Makes perfect sense - a finite thing can contain the infinite.

And you see no glaring contradiction with this view?


Diebert:

How do you know the universe has no parts?


Because it's defined to be a whole. It's not like a container or any other thing which could "have" such things.

A whole what?

Oh - you mean a "whole" reality. Like your consciousness is a "whole" and is not made of the sum of its parts? Like your consciousness cannot be divided because it is a "whole"? Like your experience is a "whole"?

Is that how you derived the universe has no parts?

How do you know the universe is not alive?


Because you need to something dead next to it for that to work. So it's neither dead or alive. Not dead and alive at the same time and it's not void of death and life either.

That is just simply not true that you need something dead to determine life. In fact, it is the exact opposite. I know I am alive and speaking to an alive Diebert. I would caution you about preaching a belief of death.




David:

Greetings, Inquisitor.

Oh sure; I am the prosecutor of your faith because I ask questions?

Really - the drama is like a tragedy play. Are you being a victim?

How do you know the universe has no parts?


Because there are no beginnings or ends in the universe, other than what our minds happen to contrive in any given moment.

Do you notice how the mind always seems to pop up in these discussions? You say the universe is eternal and you know this because your mind has come to this conclusion?

Does that mean your mind has no end because it can determine the ends of the universe?

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong in the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you - begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured."
-- Huang Po

All the sages know this as truth.

The universe and reality are not a subset of consciousness. Equally true is that consciousness is not a subset of the totality. They are one and the same.
To believe they are somehow separate is to try to divide awareness from itself.
This is the great trap of comparisons and duality.

In other words David, the only way you could know the universe is a whole and is eternal is if your consciousness were the same as.

How do you know the universe is not alive?


Because the universe has no beginning or end.

Says someone who is alive.

Are you a part of the universe and do you have a beginning and end?

Are you a machine?


If I think of myself as having parts, then I am a machine.

Which part is machine and which part alive?

Are you your body?


How can I separate my body from the rest of the universe?

That has been a head scratcher for me also. I do not know how you hold that your body and the universe are in union and all at the same time they are not. In fact, don`t you believe your body is also finite?

If your body is not separated from the universe - is it finite or eternal?

My body is not eternal because it is in a state of change (like all thought) - unlike my consciousness (which contains thought) - which is not in a state of change. The mind is eternal stillness and is contained by consciousness. The mind simply witnesses change because it does not change.

Is your mind created by your brain?


The mind is created by not-mind.

Since you seem not to respect me, I will continue to quote someone that you seem to respect.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning is unborn and indestructible."
-- Huang Po

If something is greater than the mind, please point out what that something is. If mind is created by not-mind, how then, did it design a mind to think?

Who or what designed your brain?


Evolution by natural selection, it would seem.

So natural selection made a conscious decision to become conscious by designing a hyper-sophisticated processor that involved engineering a closed system of chemical/electrical energy to allow you to think? Blueprints, language and coded information complete with design all came out of the great - what?

Lets see here - something that cannot think designed something that can.

Reminds me of Sesame Street - "One of these things is not like the other. One of these things, doesn`t belong."

Which thing is smarter than you to design you?

How does an embryo in 17 days give rise to the nervous system? By the 4th week it is formed.
By the end of the month an embryo is one fourth an inch long and almost all of the organs have begun to form.
In 30 days it has mysteriously traveled the path of simple egg and sperm to the threshold of a human being.

Were you caused to be?


Is a cloud caused to be?

If what you are is an effect of a cause, like a cloud, how do you know anything? A cloud is a thought and has a beginning and end because - you think about it. All thought has a beginning and end. You think you are a thought because you think of yourself as a thought you just had.

Who or what is thinking?

Causality arises in the human mind because of belief in a beginning. You believe you have a beginning and an end because - you believe you will end one day and be no more. This is a thought you are thinking. Who is the thinker?


The truth is - We will grow into infinite possibilities as this is the evolution of the Ultimate - that is its inherent nature, to become more of what it is so to speak.

At the same time we are always aware of the observer that never changes or as some have said the 'Ascendant'. The one that never changes just observes while giving freely to every experience without judgment. It is selfless in its flow. The rain does fall on the just and the unjust equally.

Let it rain

By what mechanism are you alive?


By the mechanism of illusion.

1) I doubt, therefore I might be.

2) I think, therefore I am.

3) I am an illusion, therefore I am not here.

4) All of the above.

Are you aware of the universe from the inside of it or outside of the universe?


There is no inside or outside.

How about up and down?

Is your mind a part of the universe or the whole universe?

Do you experience a whole reality or a partial reality?


The whole can be always seen in its parts, if you know how to look.

So - I take it from your answer you experience a part of reality.

Reality is defined as “the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence,” the term “partial reality” makes no sense; since by definition “existence” is the fact or state of continued being,”

There is no such thing as a "part" of reality. Reality is always a whole in logic, experience, observation and common sense.

You cannot divide your consciousness up - it always remains a 'whole' no matter what happens.

I assume, then, that you were conscious before your birth, and have been all throughout the infinite past ....

The implication here is that you are finite and began at birth/conception.

David Quinn wrote:

It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

This is exactly the contradiction. Its called having your cake and eating it to. Its a logical fallacy and you need to see through it.

You hold two contradictory beliefs that cannot be reconciled.

In fact - it is whats blocking you from ascension. I respect that you have devoted your life to truth David and regardless what you think, I am not your "inquisitor."

That is a hell of a lot of experience that you're not remembering! It is like a person in this life unable to remember anything that happened more than a second ago.

Why do you suppose you are unable to remember anything before your birth?

Its really very simple.

"Master, how many lives have you had."
"As many times as I have been born."
"How many times have you been born"?
"I cannot remember."


Its like asking God "when did you begin"?
He answers "I cannot remember."

Do you remember being in your mothers womb?
No? It did not happen then. Its just New Age woo woo that says you were born.

Do you remember the moment of your conception? Its all made up isn't it?


There is zero evidence, objective or subjective, that consciousness has a beginning. No one has ever, under any circumstances, witnessed the beginning of consciousness. No lab coat, no scientific or medical observation, no memory, no time can we say "I remeber when I began."

Consciousness began in your parents add infinity. This is observation linked with logic that says "Gee, consciousness is perpetual as my lineage clearly demonstrates."

Consciousness has no objective or subjective beginning. It is as eternal as the totality by and through reason, logic and common sense.

Go ahead - give it your best shot. Show us all when consciousness began.



"If you students of the Way do not awaken to this Mind, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside of yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms."
-- Hang Po

David Quinn wrote:That is a hell of a lot of experience that you're not remembering! It is like a person in this life unable to remember anything that happened more than a second ago.

Why do you suppose you are unable to remember anything before your birth?

A memory is a new experience/imagination arising in that moment, the same with any feelings of recognition, it is not an accurate reflection of any past.

Your memory is confined to a few flashing fading images, you can't even get those feeble imaginings for the first 4 years of your life, or all the time you've spent asleep, the many experiences that you can't recollect 10 seconds after awaking, did all of those never occur then?

One's degree of awareness has nothing to do with if those experiences existed or not.
Memory is tied to the ego, as soon as that sense of self changes the memory fades beyond reach.

The point is, the body exists only as experience arising of the mind, there is nothing other than experience of the mind. Everything is like a dream or wavering vision, how could a show of passing form end one's existence?

You say ceasing to engage in life and death, while implying bodily birth is the beginning of, and death the end of, one's own experience, which is confusing indeed.

Being sums up that confusion well. Not to mention the Budda directly referencing repeated rebirths, aging and deaths, losing one's mother, brother, father thousands of times over and over.


"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

Buddha even spoke of universal mind and how everything is like a dream, nothing existing besides the mind.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:While illusion is actual reality (being some illusion) it doesn't make it actual and objective. It would not be an illusion anymore by definition.

What makes it an illusion to begin with if there is nothing you can contrast its illusory nature with?

What you know to be illusionary can be contrasted with what you know to be real. Just looking at something intensively does not make it real or illusive.

My self is ultimately the All. Its parts are not illusions, since there is nothing real apart from them.

Ultimately everything is the All, making further distinctions impossible, including the distinction of some existing self. The appearance of something is not false, only the understanding that they are existing inherently (as is, objectively, enduring or actual) becomes ilusive.

Hi jupiviv,

I wrote:
Infinite Mind is all things being caused now, non-attachment.

You wrote: Just clarify this for me if you will - by "all things" being caused, do you mean the infinite itself, or each part of the infinite(finite things)? If you mean the latter then I agree with you.

Infinite Mind = Eternal Causing of Things. I use the term things, not parts because of the latter term's implication of "being cut up" or "being separate-from."

Quote: I wrote:
When attachment to a thing is being caused, non-attachment is veiled.

You wrote: I don't quite know what you mean by "non-attachment", but if it is a finite thing like a rational mind, then it isn't "veiled" by attachment being caused.

Veiled is another word for "ignorance of." Is ignorance not a caused thing?

Quote: I wrote:
One (Infinite) Mind, two different experiences: one of suffering (attachment) one of no suffering (non-attachment).

You wrote: If the mind is said to be infinite then it can't be conscious and thus can't experience anything, since there is nothing apart from it that it can experience.

There is never a moment when Mind-of-Infinite-Causing is apart from Itself and yet, consciousness exists, experience exists. Why? Because of the caused thing “breath.”

Quote: I wrote:
I am (you are) of Infinite Mind of all things being caused now: the question is, do I (you) want to cause the perpetuation of suffering or to cause the end of suffering's perpetuation?

You wrote: If we are all just one infinite mind and there are just two experiences that we can have, for all eternity, why does it even matter what we cause?

I did not say Infinite Mind causes just two experiences. What I am saying is that as long as body awareness is caused, awareness of suffering is also caused. In other words, enlightened Infinite Mind, upon causing the death of "this" suffering body (breath), has the power (wisdom) not to (continue to) cause body awareness. What is caused of the causing of the end of body awareness, aliveness, no one alive can say. What the thinking alive body-mind can and does know, however, is that causing does not end because body-mind causing ends. As I said above, Infinite Mind = Eternal Causing of Things.

One is free to cause the naming/experiencing of Things however they will, which in truth, is an unnecessary layer of causing. Causing is causing.

"Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara; not to be discovered
is any first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance, and
ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening through this round
of rebirths.
[Samsara-the Wheel of Existence, lit., the "Perpetual
Wandering"-is the name by which is designated the sea of life ever
restlessly heaving up and down, the symbol of this continuous
process of ever again and again being born, growing old, suffering,
and dying. More precisely Put: Samsara is the unbroken chain of the
fivefold Khandha-combinations, which, constantly changing from
moment to moment, follow continuously one upon the other through
inconceivable periods of time. Of this Samsara, a single lifetime
constitutes only a vanishingly tiny fraction; hence, to be able to
comprehend the first noble truth, one must let one's gaze rest upon
the Samsara, upon this frightful chain of rebirths, and not merely
upon one single lifetime, which, of course, may be sometimes not
very painful.]
Which do you think is the more: the flood of tears, which weeping
and wailing you have shed upon this long way-hurrying and hastening
through this round of rebirths, united with the undesired, separated
from the desired this, or the waters of the four oceans?
Long time have you suffered the death of father and mother, of sons,
daughters, brothers, and sisters."


Only an idiot reads this and says "It means something entirely different to what it says, it's not literal".

Weird if its referring to one lifetime, the rents and siblings are still alive.


Actually, reading it again, Buddha may have been talking to a bunch of people who weep a lot, having lost all family members, silly me.

You are not the body, you do not have a body.

movingalways wrote:Infinite Mind = Eternal Causing of Things. I use the term things, not parts because of the latter term's implication of "being cut up" or "being separate-from."

So your point is that the infinite causes finite things, right? If yes, then I agree.

You wrote: I don't quite know what you mean by "non-attachment", but if it is a finite thing like a rational mind, then it isn't "veiled" by attachment being caused.

Veiled is another word for "ignorance of." Is ignorance not a caused thing?

Ignorance is caused, but so is awareness. And they may be caused at the same time, although not in the same place.

You wrote: If the mind is said to be infinite then it can't be conscious and thus can't experience anything, since there is nothing apart from it that it can experience.

There is never a moment when Mind-of-Infinite-Causing is apart from Itself and yet, consciousness exists, experience exists. Why? Because of the caused thing “breath.”

Consciousness exists, but it is not infinite. It is a finite thing like consciousness.

I did not say Infinite Mind causes just two experiences. What I am saying is that as long as body awareness is caused, awareness of suffering is also caused.

Not necessarily. There can be awareness of body without awareness of suffering. And the awareness suffering is not itself suffering.

In other words, enlightened Infinite Mind, upon causing the death of "this" suffering body (breath), has the power (wisdom) not to (continue to) cause body awareness.

The mind is not infinite, and the infinite is not conscious, so all of this is irrelevant.

Beingof1 wrote:If it requires the All to make up who and what you are, how long have you been around and when will you cease to be?

I began and will end whenever I'm caused to.

All finite things are machines, including the body and mind, since they are all caused.

In which context does the mind belong, the All or the finite?

It is a finite thing, and hence a part of the All.

I think I get it - sometimes its finite and other times its infinite depending on what you feel like that day?

It's only infinite in the sense that it is as much a part of the infinite as anything else. Dust to dust...

So let me see here - your mind is finite because it is caused but it can hold the infinite inside of it to determine what the infinite is?

That's not what I said. At all.

You might want to consider reading my posts before replying to them.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:A memory is a new experience/imagination arising in that moment, the same with any feelings of recognition, it is not an accurate reflection of any past.

Your memory is confined to a few flashing fading images, you can't even get those feeble imaginings for the first 4 years of your life, or all the time you've spent asleep, the many experiences that you can't recollect 10 seconds after awaking, did all of those never occur then?

One's degree of awareness has nothing to do with if those experiences existed or not.
Memory is tied to the ego, as soon as that sense of self changes the memory fades beyond reach.

Prove how there is a mind without memory.

(to David) wrote:You say ceasing to engage in life and death, while implying bodily birth is the beginning of, and death the end of, one's own experience, which is confusing indeed.

Ceasing to engage in life in death means to cease believing in life and death. It means to cease believing in all things, including mind, as all things are merely appearances of the moment.

Hi Beingof1, I don't have the time or inclination to exchange long posts. I would rather address one or two points at a time. Hope you understand.

Beingof1 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Greetings, Inquisitor.

Oh sure; I am the prosecutor of your faith because I ask questions?

Really - the drama is like a tragedy play. Are you being a victim?

Relax, it was a lighthearted response to your list of short, sharp questions.

Beingof1 wrote: Do you remember being in your mothers womb?
No? It did not happen then. Its just New Age woo woo that says you were born.

Do you remember the moment of your conception? Its all made up isn't it?

There is zero evidence, objective or subjective, that consciousness has a beginning. No one has ever, under any circumstances, witnessed the beginning of consciousness.

The same could be said of anything in this world. It is impossible to pin-point exactly where a cloud begins and ends, or to determine the precise moment when a cloud comes into being. However, it doesn’t follow from this that the cloud has been around forever.

Beingof1 wrote:

It means opening up to the truth that you were never born in the first place.

This is exactly the contradiction. Its called having your cake and eating it to. Its a logical fallacy and you need to see through it.

Look at a wave in the ocean. In one sense the wave has a beginning and an end and its form is distinct enough to enable us to apply the label “wave”. Yet in another sense the wave cannot be separated from the rest of the ocean. There is really no wave at all.

"If you students of the Way do not awaken to this Mind, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside of yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms."
-- Hang Po

Trying to equate mind with the universe is itself an overlaying of conceptual thought.

Look at what Huang Po says elsewhere:

This Dharma is Mind, beyond which there is no Dharma. And this Mind is the Dharma, beyond which there is no mind. Mind in itself is no mind, yet neither is it no-mind....

Ordinary people look to their surroundings, while followers of the Way look to Mind, but the true Dharma is to forget them both. The former is easy enough, the latter very difficult. Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall. They do not know that the Void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Why do you suppose you are unable to remember anything before your birth?

A memory is a new experience/imagination arising in that moment, the same with any feelings of recognition, it is not an accurate reflection of any past.

Your memory is confined to a few flashing fading images, you can't even get those feeble imaginings for the first 4 years of your life, or all the time you've spent asleep, the many experiences that you can't recollect 10 seconds after awaking, did all of those never occur then?

One's degree of awareness has nothing to do with if those experiences existed or not.
Memory is tied to the ego, as soon as that sense of self changes the memory fades beyond reach.

This implies, of course, that in the future you will lose all memory of this current life, that everything about your present incarnation will be totally forgotten. In effect, it will be someone else who takes possession of your everlasting consciousness, and everything about you in the here and now will have disappeared.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The point is, the body exists only as experience arising of the mind, there is nothing other than experience of the mind.

The mind itself is an experience arising in the infinite, and like the body it too passes.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Everything is like a dream or wavering vision, how could a show of passing form end one's existence?

You say ceasing to engage in life and death, while implying bodily birth is the beginning of, and death the end of, one's own experience, which is confusing indeed.

There’s no confusion once you see it. As Russell says, when someone engages in life and death it means that his consciousness is lost in the delusion of inherent existence and he therefore experiences the world in terms of gain and loss. A buddha sees through all that. His mind is no longer taken in by anything, which is the essence of nirvana. It has nothing to do with physically dying.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

Buddha even spoke of universal mind and how everything is like a dream, nothing existing besides the mind.

As a metaphor, yes. Life is *like* a dream. It isn’t literally a dream. Life is like a dream in the sense that there is no objective reality and all experiences are fleeting appearances.

At root, the infinite is nameless and cannot be described in any way at all. Words like “mind" and “God" and “Tao" are just labels for convenience, enabling us to talk and reason about it.