GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:I am trying to picture that things rely on what is outside of them. It seems to me they rely on entities both inside and outside. We can easily see that an apple relies on everything outside of itself, but it also relies on its own internal structure. If we take a thing apart down to the atoms and particles, that would seem like going inside of the thing. And if we keep taking it apart, eventually there is no apple at all. So if we say that all those things are outside of the apple, then there is no inside to anything and the term becomes meaningless. I guess I think of those interior things as constitutive causes, but not as exterior causes.

But as to the container, does not the absolute reside within me? It rather seems to me that the absolute permeates everything, and also contains everything. Is this not possible?

The problem seems to be that you are thinking about the absolute (container) and the relative (contents) as though they were the same sort of beings, such as is the case with a glass and the liquid which it contains – both of which are material things. However, in the case of the absolute and the relative, the container is not the same sort of being as that which it contains, but a complementary sort; and while the contents are the five kinds of things, the container is not a thing at all. Rather, the absolute may be thought of as a directing force which binds things together into a unique and distinct unit, and then takes this unit to be something new; but as the sage Solomon once said “… there is nothing new under the sun.”

Because the absolute entity is unbounded, and therefore, has no outside, it follows that all relative entities, being complementary, can have no inside; while from the standpoint of the one true entity “Being”, there is neither inside nor outside. You see, the one true entity is neither wholly real, nor wholly apparent, but necessarily comprises both. It is for this reason, that when we disassemble a thing, the thing itself is not to be found either among its disassembled parts, not apart from them. Our bicycle, for example, is only a bicycle so long as all of its essential components are present and are appropriately assembled. When we disassemble the bicycle, the bicycle ceases to be a bicycle, and reverts to being merely bicycle components. Likewise, when these components are disassembled, they too cease to be a wheel, peddle, gear assembly, etc., and revert to being subordinate components.

Yes, this is indeed the sticking point. Especially as I mentioned, how can the real be dependent upon the not-real?

I think that you may be neglecting an important aspect of the absolute, this being that the absolute exists in and of itself, and while its constitutive causes (knowledge) may not be real, there is another cause which is real - its opertive cause (awareness).

Are you saying it does not embody itself within the non-awakened persona? Or how does that work?

No, I am not saying that. By the “awakened persona”, I merely meant the actual sentient being, as apposed to the apparent sentient being who is the “dream persona”.

By the way, would you say that the purpose of understanding dependent origination and the nature of things, is to help the mind disengage from and cease to identify with physical things?

Yes, I would say that this is precisely its purpose; for it is the things with which we identify ourselves that make up the essence of the ego-personality.

Carl,



Hi Carl,

We do not know our Sun is not such a being. We do not know that the earth is not such a being. Why imagine it an "exceedingly" -- whatever that might mean -- small number? And why so exalt the power of reasoning? For all we know, the Sun may not need to reason, the Sun may already be enlightened.

Now, about the sun, did you just toss that out? Some people think, and I ponder, that there are indeed important loci of consciousness within stars, and most especially with the giant megastar which is our galactic center, or core. It may be the source of the light of our consciousness, and control the level of our consciousness. This seems to be part of the Hindu philosophy of the yugas, and current new age 2012 ideas. That is, not specifically the sun, but that we are going to be in alignment with the galactic core, and that this coincides with an increase in consciousness, such that our perceptions will be less dim, and we will see more clearly into reality, not just the crude aspects of mather, but electromagnetism, and consciousness itself. It might even have something to do with the odd way the evolution progresses, in spurts (saltation) and not in the slow, incremental way that scientists are trying so futilely to prove.

My understanding of the Hindu philosophy, from Yogananda's book, is that there is a natural cycle, closely approximating the precession of the equinoxes, in which human consciouness becomes more dim and then more bright. Frankly, it makes sense to me. If our brain is a perceiving apparatus, we might liken the directness of energy from the galactic core as a form of light. More light, better vision.

Jehu,

The problem seems to be that you are thinking about the absolute (container) and the relative (contents) as though they were the same sort of beings, such as is the case with a glass and the liquid which it contains – both of which are material things. However, in the case of the absolute and the relative, the container is not the same sort of being as that which it contains, but a complementary sort; and while the contents are the five kinds of things, the container is not a thing at all. Rather, the absolute may be thought of as a directing force which binds things together into a unique and distinct unit, and then takes this unit to be something new;

Yes, no doubt you are right, but then I am not sure how to think about it. It seems that on a topic that appeared simple, there are so many questions and difficulties.

Because the absolute entity is unbounded, and therefore, has no outside, it follows that all relative entities, being complementary, can have no inside;

This reminds me of a question I had earlier. Is every attribute of the one necessarily the opposite in the other?

You know, I have understood that the absolute or Totality cannot have an outside, but I am unable to really understand, or picture that. I see that it must be true, yet can't quite take my mind there.

while from the standpoint of the one true entity “Being”, there is neither inside nor outside. You see, the one true entity is neither wholly real, nor wholly apparent, but necessarily comprises both.

Neither inside nor outside? What then? We are just using these terms from necessity?
Is it illusory that my consciousness resides within me? It may not have any inherent characteristic of being contained here or there, but it certainly seems as if a sentient being keeps its fragment of awareness confined within the body, most of the time. But not always...

It is for this reason, that when we disassemble a thing, the thing itself is not to be found either among its disassembled parts, not apart from them.

Yes, that is so.

A thing has an inside, so long as its parts are together. But the inside cannot be found at any time...the inside is not anything specific, but is merely a conglomeration within a defined border.

But if they have no inside, then how can they have an outside? And if neither inside nor outside, in what sense do they exist?

Why did you skip the question as to how things become actualized?

I think that you may be neglecting an important aspect of the absolute, this being that the absolute exists in and of itself, and while its constitutive causes (knowledge) may not be real, there is another cause which is real - its operative cause (awareness).

Yes, I had forgotten that. Do you differentiate awareness from existence itself? And why is knowledge not real? And how does knowledge sustain the absolute?

No, I am not saying that. By the “awakened persona”, I merely meant the actual sentient being, as apposed to the apparent sentient being who is the “dream persona”.

Are you saying that we sleepwalkers appear to be sentient beings, but are dreaming, or are dream characters?

By the way, what do you think of the question of free will versus determinism?

Iolaus wrote:Carl

We do not know our Sun is not such a being. We do not know that the earth is not such a being. Why imagine it an "exceedingly" -- whatever that might mean -- small number? And why so exalt the power of reasoning? For all we know, the Sun may not need to reason, the Sun may already be enlightened.

Now, about the sun, did you just toss that out?

No, it was a serious inquiry to Jehu, something to which I am still awaiting a response.

Some people think, and I ponder, that there are indeed important loci of consciousness within stars,

There may well be.

and most especially with the giant megastar which is our galactic center, or core.

Possibly so, although it is unclear whether the center of our galaxy is a star or a black hole. Vedic tradition indicates star, for instance, and modern scientific opinion leans towards black hole.

It may be the source of the light of our consciousness,

I'm not sure what you mean by the light of our consciousness. Perhaps you mean simply our consciousness, and perhaps you refer again to vedic thought, which indeed holds the view that 'souls' are 'born' through the galactic center. This is pretty speculative, of course, even if one subscribes to the source, the ancient seers who supposedly could astral travel about the universe.

In any case, this neither strengthens nor weakens the case for planetary consciousness, it is merely anecdote to the idea. My main point to Jehu is that it is pretty hard to ascertain such a matter, and thus wise not to "imagine that it (the percentage of sentient life to non sentient life) is exceedingly small."

and control the level of our consciousness.

I am not sure what you mean here, except maybe that the clockwork of cosmic body movements is part of the cause and effect of life on earth, to which I would agree. But this could be purely mechanical, it doesn't necessarily indicate cosmic body consciousness.

This seems to be part of the Hindu philosophy of the yugas, and current new age 2012 ideas. That is, not specifically the sun, but that we are going to be in alignment with the galactic core, and that this coincides with an increase in consciousness, such that our perceptions will be less dim, and we will see more clearly into reality, not just the crude aspects of mather, but electromagnetism, and consciousness itself. It might even have something to do with the odd way the evolution progresses, in spurts (saltation) and not in the slow, incremental way that scientists are trying so futilely to prove.

My understanding of the Hindu philosophy, from Yogananda's book, is that there is a natural cycle, closely approximating the precession of the equinoxes, in which human consciouness becomes more dim and then more bright. Frankly, it makes sense to me. If our brain is a perceiving apparatus, we might liken the directness of energy from the galactic core as a form of light. More light, better vision.

I don't see a good reason to pull 2012 concepts into a discussion about the extent of sentience in the Universe. The idea that the level of consciousness of a group as a whole may or may not be influenced by the movement of heavenly bodies is interesting in itself, but doesn't seem to fit.

Iolaus wrote:Yes, no doubt you are right, but then I am not sure how to think about it. It seems that on a topic that appeared simple, there are so many questions and difficulties.

Indeed, for if it were not so difficult, then there would be no shortage of enlightened beings in the world.

This reminds me of a question I had earlier. Is every attribute of the one necessarily the opposite in the other?

Because the two modes of being are merely the complementary aspects of the one Being, whatever can be predicated of the one mode, necessarily cannot be predicated of the other; save for one attribute: that both modes “exist” – though they do not exist in precisely the same way, but in complementary ways: the one being real, and the other being merely apparent.

You know, I have understood that the absolute or Totality cannot have an outside, but I am unable to really understand, or picture that. I see that it must be true, yet can't quite take my mind there.

Yes, I understand, but your mind will go there eventually, however, only when you have divested it of all traces of an ego-personality.

Neither inside nor outside? What then? We are just using these terms from necessity?
Is it illusory that my consciousness resides within me? It may not have any inherent characteristic of being contained here or there, but it certainly seems as if a sentient being keeps its fragment of awareness confined within the body, most of the time. But not always...

Inside and outside are relative terms, and as such, belong to the domain of the relative, and have evolved as a means of describing the relative world. However, with respect to the absolute, which is ineffable, all descriptive terms are inappropriate.

A thing has an inside, so long as its parts are together. But the inside cannot be found at any time...the inside is not anything specific, but is merely a conglomeration within a defined border.

I think it is important to draw a distinction between that which resides “within” a thing itself, and that which is a binding relationship “between” the thing’s constituent parts. For example, we think of people as residing within a building, but we do not think of the building’s structure as residing in the same way. The people, you see, may be said to reside within the confines of the building’s essence (i.e., walls, ceilings, floors, etc.), while the essence itself resides within the confines of the building’s structure – a relationship. The people are within the building (relatively speaking), but they do not constitute a part of the building, while the structure is a relationship residing between the building’s constituent parts, and is a vital component of the building. Further, the structure of a building is superior to its material essence, in that it matters little whether its walls are made of bricks, concrete, wood or glass; and so the thing-itself (building) lies not in its “essence” (building materials), but in its form (structure).

But if they have no inside, then how can they have an outside? And if neither inside nor outside, in what sense do they exist?

Again, inside and outside are concepts that belong to the relative world, and as such, are merely apparent. In reality, inside and outside are one and the same, for all beings (things/entities/concepts) are fundamentally one and the same Being.

Why did you skip the question as to how things become actualized?

If you don’t mind, I should like to defer this question until such a time as I feel there is a better chance that you will understand the answer.

Do you differentiate awareness from existence itself?

No, not at all, for awareness is the operative cause of all that exists – whether the existent is absolute or only relative.

And why is knowledge not real?

First, knowledge is not real because it is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, but is wholly dependent upon extrinsic causes. Then, knowledge is not real because it must necessarily be so; for if knowledge were real, it would be immutable, and so there could be no change or motion.

And how does knowledge sustain the absolute?

Knowledge sustains awareness by providing a virtual experiential continuum wherein to embody itself. Without knowledge, awareness would have no objects, and neither would there be anything that might partake of change or motion, and so nothing would ever happen. Awareness, in such a case, would be aware of nothing, and to be aware of nothing is identical to being unaware.

Are you saying that we sleepwalkers appear to be sentient beings, but are dreaming, or are dream characters?

In a manner of speaking, yes, we are virtual characters abiding in a virtual world; however, there is an aspect of us that is real: our cognizant awareness, but this awareness is not our own, but merely appears that way.

By the way, what do you think of the question of free will versus determinism?

In truth, the world is neither wholly deterministic nor wholly non-deterministic, and this doctrine is called, “The Middle Way”. However, this much I can tell you for certain: one who is still caught up in the dream can have no free will, but rather, is a slave to habitual patterns of behaviour – for they cannot differentiate between what they actually perceive, and what they merely imagine they have perceived.

Carl wrote:We do not know our Sun is not such a being. We do not know that the earth is not such a being.

What sort of being are you alluding to here?

Why imagine it an "exceedingly" -- whatever that might mean -- small number?

Do you really not understand what is meant by “exceedingly tiny”, or what it means to “imagine”? I’m afraid I do not know quite how to respond to such a statement.

For all we know, the Sun may not need to reason, the Sun may already be enlightened.

Who ever claimed that the Sun needs to reason? And how can that which is without consciousness be enlightened?

Jehu wrote:

Carl wrote:We do not know our Sun is not such a being. We do not know that the earth is not such a being.

What sort of being are you alluding to here?

Sorry if I was not clear. Originally you wrote to Iolaus:

Just think about this for a moment: of all the awareness that is presently embodied within the objective universe, with its untold billions of galaxies, what percentage of that awareness is fortunate enough to be embodied in a sentient form, and what percentage of those sentient forms are fortunate enough to be capable of reasoning. No, we are fortunate indeed to have a human birth, and must not squander the opportunity it affords us to escape the endless cycle of becoming.

I took this to mean that you were implying that, Universe-wide, the percentage of sentient to non-sentient forms was low, and that the percentage of sentient forms which could reason compared to sentient forms which could not, was much lower than that.

I became curious as to what those ratios are, at least approximately, since you have until now self-admittedly regulated yourself to that which you believe you know with certainty. I said:

I would like to think about this. What are the percentages?

To this you replied:

I am certain that I do not know, but I would imagine that it is an exceedingly tiny number.

I was frankly surprised. I didn't think it was in your realm of expression to imagine -- i.e. venture a mere opinion -- about something so serious, nor to give such a vague opinion as "exceedingly tiny number". Especially following the gravity with which you introduced the idea.

I replied in the immediately following post, although without quoting you or referring to the first exchange -- and this is probably why the confusion began:

We do not know our Sun is not such a being. We do not know that the earth is not such a being. Why imagine it an "exceedingly" -- whatever that might mean -- small number? And why so exalt the power of reasoning? For all we know, the Sun may not need to reason, the Sun may already be enlightened.

I meant, we do not know our Sun is not a sentient being, nor the earth. And we do not know whether or not they can reason, or even need to (after all, does a fully enlightened man need to reason? I do not see why he would) therefore it is presumptuous to imagine that the number (of such beings) is "exceedingly small." That's all.

That is why I asked you:

Why imagine it an "exceedingly" -- whatever that might mean -- small number?

I still ask, why imagine?

You replied:

Do you really not understand what is meant by “exceedingly tiny”, or what it means to “imagine”? I’m afraid I do not know quite how to respond to such a statement.

You can tell me exactly what you mean by "exceedingly tiny" and tell me why you venture such a spurious-seeming and apparently entirely subjective opinion about the extent of consciousness in the beings of the Universe.

You also replied:

Who ever claimed that the Sun needs to reason? And how can that which is without consciousness be enlightened?

How do you know the Sun is without consciousness?

Do my questions and points make sense now?

Carl wrote:... I didn't think it was in your realm of expression to imagine -- i.e. venture a mere opinion -- about something so serious, nor to give such a vague opinion as "exceedingly tiny number". Especially following the gravity with which you introduced the idea.

The answer to such a question cannot be deduced from any first principles, but may only be inferred from empirical observation; and for this reason, I said that I “imagined” it to be exceedingly small.

I meant, we do not know our Sun is not a sentient being, nor the earth. And we do not know whether or not they can reason, or even need to (after all, does a fully enlightened man need to reason? I do not see why he would) therefore it is presumptuous to imagine that the number (of such beings) is "exceedingly small." That's all.

Clearly, you and I are not using the term “sentient being” in the same way, for only such beings as have evolved sufficient complexity as to be possessed of a mind system, along with its accompanying sense organs, may be rightfully deemed a sentient being.

I still ask, why imagine?

Because I cannot possibly know for certain.

How do you know the Sun is without consciousness?

We have already dealt with the matter of consciousness, and if you were truly interested in participating in our enquiry, you would have done us the honour of first acquainting yourself with the arguments that have brought us to this point. Nevertheless, I have never said that such things as the Sun or the Earth are devoid of awareness, but only that they are not conscious, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind system and its sensory organs; that is to say, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tactile consciousness, etc.

Carl,

I have doubt about black holes at all. My favorite alternative science writer is Paul La Violette. He has a book called Earth Under Fire which deals a lot with the precession cycle, and the way that the ancients encoded knowledge of it in many of their myths and monuments. He believes the galactic core to be a megastar. It relates to 2012 because this is likely (if there is anything to it after all) that it is a prediction that we may be entering a certain part of this cycle.

I didn't know the vedic tradition spoke of the galactic core as a star, but I would go with them.

By light of our consciousness, which I thought I already enumerated a bit, I simply meant that Yogananda's guru taught that we respond to being in a different part of the galaxy, getting more or less direct energy from the core, and this cycle makes sense because all of nature tends to have cycles. We have figured out many cycles on earth. We have the seasons, the day and night, the moon, women's hormones, and so on. Why not expect more cycles out there in the galaxy and universe, ones that affect our solar system, which is obviously embedded within a larger matrix, and why should not our consciousness, which is mysterious and poorly understood, respond to those cycles, just as our eyesight responds to sunlight?

It does not directly address planetary consciousness, but planets are related to suns. Try googling Laviolette. He's got some sort of website and see if you like him. He is one of several very excellent scientists who does not accept big bang, and has an alternate view of matter generation, which he thinks are generated within stars, and to a lesser extent within planets.

Jehu,

Indeed, for if it were not so difficult, then there would be no shortage of enlightened beings in the world.

It seems odd, though, that the difficulty should be so much of an intellectual nature.

save for one attribute: that both modes “exist” – though they do not exist in precisely the same way, but in complementary ways: the one being real, and the other being merely apparent.

But what can it mean to be only apparent. If we analyze in the common way, to be only apparent could mean to appear to exist, but not really be there. However, we know it exists. Therefore, it must mean that it appears to be one thing, but is really another.

Yes, I understand, but your mind will go there eventually, however, only when you have divested it of all traces of an ego-personality.

I wonder how the ego interferes with something that is really abstract, spatial, and outside the realm of normal perception. An unbounded thing could only be perceived by a mind, certainly not by sight or earthly experience.

Inside and outside are relative terms, and as such, belong to the domain of the relative, and have evolved as a means of describing the relative world. However, with respect to the absolute, which is ineffable, all descriptive terms are inappropriate.

OK, but I am focusing on physical things. Yet we are discussing also, not only the inside and outside of physical things, but the absolute and relative as container and contained. Yet this expression belongs to the realm of the relative. I'm referring to your statement that the absolute cannot reside within things, but instead contains them. But the realm of being is continuous...

Again, inside and outside are concepts that belong to the relative world, and as such, are merely apparent. In reality, inside and outside are one and the same, for all beings (things/entities/concepts) are fundamentally one and the same Being.

Very well then, is this not more or less what I have argued for? And yet, I have difficulty with it, having come to the conclusion some years ago that all there is, is one thing, and that of course is none other than God or whatever you want to call it. But within this one thing, are many interrelated entities, which for all practical purposes here in relative land, do have boundaries and borders.The one is the many and the many is the one.

If you don’t mind, I should like to defer this question until such a time as I feel there is a better chance that you will understand the answer.

Well, the problem is that I find myself stumped at the juncture between awareness/absolute and actualization or materiality. I said there should be a fundamental substance, and you have said that such a substance would need to be relative and have at least two constitutive causes. So this is really our sticking point (the top-down model versus the bottom up) and perhaps it relates to our other sticking point, about the nature of reality being cognitive.

First, knowledge is not real because it is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, but is wholly dependent upon extrinsic causes.

I really apologize because I do believe I ask the same questions over again. If you had the textbook for this course, I would study the chapters and it would be easier for you.
Knowledge seems circular. Knowledge must be of a "what" and the what cannot come into existence without that there is knowledge to bring it forth.

for they cannot differentiate between what they actually perceive, and what they merely imagine they have perceived.

Goodness, what an interesting way of putting it. I will be thinking about this.

*****************************************
Regarding the conversation with Carl, your definition of a sentient being as requiring a sensory apparatus of flesh might not be right. It is the usual position of an atheist materialist. There is sufficient evidence that people in dying states whose bodily senses are not functioning, can leave their bodies with their awareness and continue to perceive, if not touch, then sight and hearing. It may be that there are subtle energy bodies that can do this, and that these bodies may also dissipate later, but at any rate they are not made of flesh. Memory and mind are also intact, and many people do not think that the mind resides only in a brain. In fact, no one has so far been able to locate memory in the brain either, although they have tried.

Also, I think that Carl has followed this conversation quite a lot.

I can't wait wait for 2012. I think I'll devote that entire year to jerking off, just for the ironic effect.

Iolaus wrote:There is sufficient evidence that people in dying states whose bodily senses are not functioning, can leave their bodies with their awareness and continue to perceive, if not touch, then sight and hearing.

Ah, so you've perused Fenwick, Morse, Parnia and Blackmore's work?

Iolaus wrote: It may be that there are subtle energy bodies that can do this, and that these bodies may also dissipate later, but at any rate they are not made of flesh.

Well, you've postulated a disembodied mind, so of course that postulate isn't made of flesh.

Iolaus wrote: Memory and mind are also intact, and many people do not think that the mind resides only in a brain. In fact, no one has so far been able to locate memory in the brain either, although they have tried.

Umm... no. That's incorrect. As was the first statement. The work on OBEs has been almost totally fruitless, if not for one of its main proponents, Susan Blackmore, awakening from her delusions as a result of her trying to prove OBEs. Reading through their work there are no consistent accounts of OBEs and many of their subjects denied they had an OBE. The researches themselves drew their own conclusions based on idealized goals. Blackmore says as much herself on many occasions.

If memory doesn't reside in the brain, explain why amyloid plaque build-up causes Alzheimer's disease. Explain why alcoholism causes retrograde and anterograde amnesia. Explain amnesia. The standard model of learning and memory is based on the Hebb's Law or Hebbian Plasticity. The theory is summarized as "cells that fire together wire together", a more in-depth explanation is available in Donald Olding Hebb's book "The Organization of Behaviour". Of course Ivan Pavlov hit on this with his dog and the knowledge in philosophical format has existed for eons. Although this is the general dynamic by which we learn and retain knowledge, individual percepts are distributed throughout the brain. Facial patterns are stored in the Fusiform Face Area, damage to this area renders a person incapable of recognizing faces.

Here are a few articles from scholarpedia.org (scholarpedia.org is a peer-reviewed encyclopedia of neuroscience founded by Larry Weiskrantz, the discoverer of "blindsight").

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Memory
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Donald_Olding_Hebb
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Amnesia

Doctors use Electroencephalography to monitor brain activity transcranially. When the EEG flat-lines the person is presumed dead, however even Depth (intracranial) EEG is incapable of monitoring all brain activity. EEG picks up the electrical signals which traverse the cranium and none that don't. In addition, doctors pronounce brain death according to inactivity in specific brain maps. So it is likely that the NDE-OBE patients were not actually dead.


Electroencephalography (Brain Death section on page 479)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tndqYGP ... lt#PPP1,M1


Ketamine has also been used as an anaesthetic. Sub-anaesthetic doses of ketamine can cause disembodied feelings in the absence of benzodiazepine. Ketamine is also used as a recreational drug known as "Special K" for this very effect.

I can't wait wait for 2012. I think I'll devote that entire year to jerking off, just for the ironic effect.

!!!LOL!!!That's fucking hilarious!!!LOL!!!

Jehu wrote:

Carl wrote:... I didn't think it was in your realm of expression to imagine -- i.e. venture a mere opinion -- about something so serious, nor to give such a vague opinion as "exceedingly tiny number". Especially following the gravity with which you introduced the idea.

The answer to such a question cannot be deduced from any first principles, but may only be inferred from empirical observation; and for this reason, I said that I “imagined” it to be exceedingly small.

What use is empirical observation when the question concerns the extent of sentience in the Universe. What is the scope of your observation? Surely you are not relying on the findings of the Hubble telescope. Why speculate, then, on this subject? Why publish your speculation as though it is known fact, you as a spiritual teacher, telling people how "exceedingly small" the number is, and how fortunate they are to be born in a human skin, using this as motivation that we "must not squander the opportunity it affords us to escape the endless cycle of becoming." How do we know that all life is not on a chain of becoming enlightened? This would exclude nothing; humans would be only a step in the process, and not the highest step at all.

I meant, we do not know our Sun is not a sentient being, nor the earth. And we do not know whether or not they can reason, or even need to (after all, does a fully enlightened man need to reason? I do not see why he would) therefore it is presumptuous to imagine that the number (of such beings) is "exceedingly small." That's all.

Clearly, you and I are not using the term “sentient being” in the same way, for only such beings as have evolved sufficient complexity as to be possessed of a mind system, along with its accompanying sense organs, may be rightfully deemed a sentient being.

No, we are using the "sentient being" in the same way precisely. Point stands, we do not know that the earth or sun are not sentient. Oh, you think that because we have not heretofore identified the mind system and sense organs that they cannot exist?

I still ask, why imagine?

Because I cannot possibly know for certain.

Exactly. So why speculate publicly, while implying vague truth -- i.e. exceedingly small.

How do you know the Sun is without consciousness?

We have already dealt with the matter of consciousness, and if you were truly interested in participating in our enquiry, you would have done us the honour of first acquainting yourself with the arguments that have brought us to this point.

How do you know I have not? You don't, you imagine, and speculate. In fact, I have followed along since the beginning, sometimes reading, more often skimming.

Nevertheless, I have never said that such things as the Sun or the Earth are devoid of awareness, but only that they are not conscious, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind system and its sensory organs; that is to say, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tactile consciousness, etc.

How do you know that they do not have these things.

Iolaus wrote:Carl,
I have doubt about black holes at all. My favorite alternative science writer is Paul La Violette. He has a book called Earth Under Fire which deals a lot with the precession cycle, and the way that the ancients encoded knowledge of it in many of their myths and monuments. He believes the galactic core to be a megastar. It relates to 2012 because this is likely (if there is anything to it after all) that it is a prediction that we may be entering a certain part of this cycle.

Thanks. I'm somewhat familiar with La Violette.

By light of our consciousness, which I thought I already enumerated a bit, I simply meant that Yogananda's guru taught that we respond to being in a different part of the galaxy, getting more or less direct energy from the core,

I'm still unclear. You orginally said:

It [the Galactic Center] may be the source of the light of our consciousness, and control the level of our consciousness.

So to you "light" means level, as in level of consciousness?

and this cycle makes sense because all of nature tends to have cycles. We have figured out many cycles on earth. We have the seasons, the day and night, the moon, women's hormones, and so on. Why not expect more cycles out there in the galaxy and universe, ones that affect our solar system, which is obviously embedded within a larger matrix, and why should not our consciousness, which is mysterious and poorly understood, respond to those cycles, just as our eyesight responds to sunlight?

I have no problem with cycles. It's just that my points are not about cycles, but rather about how much we know about the extent of sentience in the Universe.

It does not directly address planetary consciousness, but planets are related to suns. Try googling Laviolette. He's got some sort of website and see if you like him. He is one of several very excellent scientists who does not accept big bang, and has an alternate view of matter generation, which he thinks are generated within stars, and to a lesser extent within planets.

I did, and it seems he does not presently have a personal website. From another site, this bio gives highlights of his research, but does not indicate any view on the idea of star consciousness.

Iolaus wrote:But what can it mean to be only apparent. If we analyze in the common way, to be only apparent could mean to appear to exist, but not really be there. However, we know it exists. Therefore, it must mean that it appears to be one thing, but is really another.

Yes, we know that it exists, but we also know that it does not “really” exist, but only appears so. That thing which is manifest is not real, but if the thing did not exist in potential, then it would not be possible for it to manifest at all.

I wonder how the ego interferes with something that is really abstract, spatial, and outside the realm of normal perception. An unbounded thing could only be perceived by a mind, certainly not by sight or earthly experience.

The absolute can only be experienced by the act of atonement, that is to say, by become one with it; and this cannot be accomplished so long as there is even a shred of personhood remaining.

OK, but I am focusing on physical things. Yet we are discussing also, not only the inside and outside of physical things, but the absolute and relative as container and contained. Yet this expression belongs to the realm of the relative. I'm referring to your statement that the absolute cannot reside within things, but instead contains them. But the realm of being is continuous...

Yes, but by continuous I mean unbroken, I do not mean that there is any spatial extension. Being, as I said, abides neither in time nor space, but quite the opposite.

Very well then, is this not more or less what I have argued for? And yet, I have difficulty with it, having come to the conclusion some years ago that all there is, is one thing, and that of course is none other than God or whatever you want to call it. But within this one thing, are many interrelated entities, which for all practical purposes here in relative land, do have boundaries and borders. The one is the many and the many is the one.

Yes, but these interrelated entities do not really exist, for they persist for no more than an instant, and so they cannot rightfully be said to partake of “being”, but only of “becoming”. It is cognizant awareness alone that gives this succession of perceptual instances both continuity and identity.

Well, the problem is that I find myself stumped at the juncture between awareness/absolute and actualization or materiality. I said there should be a fundamental substance, and you have said that such a substance would need to be relative and have at least two constitutive causes. So this is really our sticking point (the top-down model versus the bottom up) and perhaps it relates to our other sticking point, about the nature of reality being cognitive.

I should think that, had you the appropriate faith in your ability to reason, that it would be evident by now that it is Awareness that is the substance you are seeking, for Awareness is all that really exists, and is that which underlies the appearance of all things. What bothers you the most, I suspect, is the fact that you cannot say “what” this Awareness is, for it is beyond the power of words to describe, and so must be experienced – first hand.

Knowledge must be of a "what" and the what cannot come into existence without that there is knowledge to bring it forth.

Yes, knowledge constitutes the “whatness” of a thing, while awareness is it “thatness”, to borrow the terms from Heidegger’s “The End of Philosophy”.

Regarding the conversation with Carl, your definition of a sentient being as requiring a sensory apparatus of flesh might not be right. It is the usual position of an atheist materialist.

I am neither an atheist nor a materialist, I simple use such terms as they are conventionally prescribed: “sentient/ having the power of perception by the senses.” [Oxford] Neither do I see how it will aid the cause of communication by the arbitrary redefining of a term.

There is sufficient evidence that people in dying states whose bodily senses are not functioning, can leave their bodies with their awareness and continue to perceive, if not touch, then sight and hearing. It may be that there are subtle energy bodies that can do this, and that these bodies may also dissipate later, but at any rate they are not made of flesh. Memory and mind are also intact, and many people do not think that the mind resides only in a brain. In fact, no one has so far been able to locate memory in the brain either, although they have tried.

Are we to return again to speculation, or shall we continue our enquiry?

Also, I think that Carl has followed this conversation quite a lot.

Perhaps.

Dan Rowden wrote:I can't wait wait for 2012. I think I'll devote that entire year to jerking off, just for the ironic effect.

Dan did you read something here, or the news, that make you say this?
Are you experiencing problem or weak spirit, dont need tell us or whole world but dont be shy to reach to your brothers if you need a hand.
Maybe you find they experience same, but about 2012 this please tell us meaning,
best regards
M

Jehu,

I'm trying, yet again, to understand what it means to say that the one mode of existence is merely apparent. The problem may be one of language, and concepts. It is difficult to eradicate. If not real, one feels that it is more or less nonexistent. Yet, we have said that all is existent. So that means the part I am asking about is what you call the actual.

I have the feeling that we go back and forth between dismissing the actualized world as a complete farce, and then deciding that all is inextricably interconnected. Since they depend upon one another, this would be the case. And this leaves me scratching my head, wondering just what the problem is.

That thing which is manifest is not real, but if the thing did not exist in potential, then it would not be possible for it to manifest at all.

Is this what you mean by form?

The absolute can only be experienced by the act of atonement, that is to say, by becoming one with it; and this cannot be accomplished so long as there is even a shred of personhood remaining.

But would such an experience necessarily help me to understand how it looks? In such a way as to understand how the absolute and relative fit together, to use words like contained and container.

Yes, but by continuous I mean unbroken, I do not mean that there is any spatial extension. Being, as I said, abides neither in time nor space, but quite the opposite.

I don't see the difference between being unbroken and being continuous in spatial extension. If Being abides not in time or space, then Being is elsewhere, and God is back on his throne somewhere.

Yes, but these interrelated entities do not really exist, for they persist for no more than an instant, and so they cannot rightfully be said to partake of “being”, but only of “becoming”. It is cognizant awareness alone that gives this succession of perceptual instances both continuity and identity.

But there is a relationship between each instance's arising and then next one?

If it is my awareness which imparts continuity, then in what sense am I to escape the wheel of becoming; i.e., I am already Being?

I should think that, had you the appropriate faith in your ability to reason, that it would be evident by now that it is Awareness that is the substance you are seeking, for Awareness is all that really exists, and is that which underlies the appearance of all things.

But you have said it is not the time to discuss how this awareness becomes manifest into matter. It's the root of matter that I am interested in.

What bothers you the most, I suspect, is the fact that you cannot say “what” this Awareness is, for it is beyond the power of words to describe, and so must be experienced – first hand.

Yes, it does bother me!

My prior remark about knowledge, was to express that we propose a perfect knowledge to bring forth the cosmos, yet the knowledge must be present before the cosmos can exist, and where does the knowledge in that case come from? Perfect reasoning?

Yes, I see that the word sentience relates to senses. Nonetheless, there may be other more subtle forms of senses that we know not of.

Are we to return again to speculation, or shall we continue our enquiry?

I didn't start it, I objected to it.

Iolaus wrote:I'm trying, yet again, to understand what it means to say that the one mode of existence is merely apparent. The problem may be one of language, and concepts. It is difficult to eradicate. If not real, one feels that it is more or less nonexistent. Yet, we have said that all is existent. So that means the part I am asking about is what you call the actual.

I have the feeling that we go back and forth between dismissing the actualized world as a complete farce, and then deciding that all is inextricably interconnected. Since they depend upon one another, this would be the case. And this leaves me scratching my head, wondering just what the problem is.

The problem is, it seems to me, that you are unwilling to follow the path of reason, for it appears to lead into the void; and you are not comfortable without that you have something tangible to hold onto.

Is this what you mean by form?

The thing-in-itself (potential), which is real, exists as a possibility which is inherent in that one absolute, independent and immutable law which is the cause of all things. Forms, as they manifest in actuality, or in the imagination, are mere approximations of these immutable potentials. Again, just as a given mathematical formula can only generate certain numbers, so too can the Law of Identity only generate certain forms; nevertheless, these forms (e.g., dogs) can manifest in endless varieties. It is for this reason that there are cats and dogs, but there are not an infinite succession of intermediate forms, ranging from cat-like dogs to dog-like cats.

But would such an experience necessarily help me to understand how it looks? In such a way as to understand how the absolute and relative fit together, to use words like contained and container.

Yes, of course, for with atonement there enters into the mind a knowledge that flashes like lightning, and leaves one exhausted by the vastness of it extent.

I don't see the difference between being unbroken and being continuous in spatial extension. If Being abides not in time or space, then Being is elsewhere, and God is back on his throne somewhere.

Being is not in the domain of time and space, time and space are in the domain of Being; that is to say, Being “is” time and space, and so is not elsewhere. When we imagine something, that which is imagined lies within the domain of the mind, and is not other than the mind.

But there is a relationship between each instance's arising and then next one?

Yes, there is a relationship: Awareness.

If it is my awareness which imparts continuity, then in what sense am I to escape the wheel of becoming; i.e., I am already Being?

Yes, we are all Being, but our ignorance of our true nature binds us to the cycle of becoming; and so we are trapped in the relative world, and unable to free ourselves.

But you have said it is not the time to discuss how this awareness becomes manifest into matter. It's the root of matter that I am interested in.

It is simply not possible to understand the manifestation process, until one fully understands the illusory nature of all essences.

My prior remark about knowledge, was to express that we propose a perfect knowledge to bring forth the cosmos, yet the knowledge must be present before the cosmos can exist, and where does the knowledge in that case come from? Perfect reasoning?

The “cosmos”, like all things, abides in a state of perpetual flux, an evolutionary process which is without beginning or end. Further, the process is non-regressive, and for this reason, can never be exactly the same twice. In other words, knowledge has existed since beginningless time, and though it is constantly changing, it is always present.

Yes, I see that the word sentience relates to senses. Nonetheless, there may be other more subtle forms of senses that we know not of.

Yes, and if there are these additional senses, then such beings as possess them would certainly qualify as sentient beings. However, let us not speculate in this way, for it adds little to the discussion, and can be very distractive.

Carl,

So to you "light" means level, as in level of consciousness?

I'm saying that there may be influences upon the consciousness of humans on this planet which come from the cosmos and are cyclic in nature.

I have no problem with cycles. It's just that my points are not about cycles, but rather about how much we know about the extent of sentience in the Universe.

Yes, it's a slightly different point.

Jehu,

The problem is, it seems to me, that you are unwilling to follow the path of reason, for it appears to lead into the void; and you are not comfortable without that you have something tangible to hold onto.

How have I not followed reason?
It's very dark in the void.
To me is seems that to abandon materiality is to abandon reason. What do you think the void is, and what do you mean about something tangible?

Again, just as a given mathematical formula can only generate certain numbers, so too can the Law of Identity only generate certain forms; nevertheless, these forms (e.g., dogs) can manifest in endless varieties. It is for this reason that there are cats and dogs, but there are not an infinite succession of intermediate forms, ranging from cat-like dogs to dog-like cats.

It is a very interesting idea, which I don't think I've heard before, and it does not surprise me, but it surprises me that you would espouse it, as it seems anti-evolutionary to me. Whereas, I don't believe in accidental evolution, which requires innumerable intermediary forms. But I thought perhaps you did.

Yes, we are all Being, but our ignorance of our true nature binds us to the cycle of becoming; and so we are trapped in the relative world, and unable to free ourselves.

Just because of how we perceive?

It is simply not possible to understand the manifestation process, until one fully understands the illusory nature of all essences.

Well, here I have the difficulty I mentioned yesterday, in pinning down just what all this means.
If things are not real, it can mean they don't really exist, or it can mean that they do, but that their appearance is deceptive.

Perhaps we stop for a while here, and lay some groundwork for the illusory nature of essences.

Iolaus wrote:deleted due to double post appearing for some strange reason

Did you know that one can delete one's entire double or any other post? Yes, if it is the last in line in a thread there appears an "x" next to the "!" icon used to report a post, in the lower right of the text box.

Once someone else posts in the thread this feature disappears.

Jehu wrote:

Iolaus wrote:Yes, I see that the word sentience relates to senses. Nonetheless, there may be other more subtle forms of senses that we know not of.

Yes, and if there are these additional senses, then such beings as possess them would certainly qualify as sentient beings. However, let us not speculate in this way, for it adds little to the discussion, and can be very distractive.

Jehu chides Iolaus for opining on the possible sentience of entities not commonly thought of as sentient, yet Jehu speculates about this, too:

Carl: For all we know, the Sun may not need to reason, the Sun may already be enlightened.

Jehu: Who ever claimed that the Sun needs to reason? And how can that which is without consciousness be enlightened?

And:

I have never said that such things as the Sun or the Earth are devoid of awareness, but only that they are not conscious, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind system and its sensory organs; that is to say, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tactile consciousness, etc.

It appears Jehu does not want to continue to discuss with me this apparent gap in his/her reasoning, but curiously, just since I began suggesting Jehu was speculating about the extent of sentience in the Universe, Jehu has been using that very word in reply to some of Iolaus' postings:

Are we to return again to speculation, or shall we continue our enquiry?

However, let us not speculate in this way, for it adds little to the discussion, and can be very distractive.

Iolaus wrote:If things are not real, it can mean they don't really exist, or it can mean that they do, but that their appearance is deceptive.

Yes, but the nature of things accord with both of these meanings, for they are not real (don’t really exist), but appear as though they were real (are deceptive).

Perhaps we stop for a while here, and lay some groundwork for the illusory nature of essences.

Yes, this is a very good idea. By apparent, I mean not real; that is to say, that which merely seems to be real. For example, when we experience a mirage, and there seems to be an oasis where there is actually none. Or, in the case of material objects, were there seems to be an external origin and cause behind our sensual experience. I portray all things as having only an apparent existence, for while that which we perceive may not be real, we do nevertheless imagine it as such.

Consider the case of the material object, for example, and how its primary essence (matter) is ultimately reducible to a quality (mass) and a relation (extension), neither of which can exist independently – and so are not real. That which is spatially extended (mass) cannot be real, for that which is real (absolute) is unbounded, while that which is extended in space is necessarily finite – being bounded by space. Likewise, all sub-atomic particle exhibit this same interdependent and complementary nature; the so called “wave-particle duality”.

Jehu,

If things are not real, it can mean they don't really exist, or it can mean that they do, but that their appearance is deceptive.
Yes, but the nature of things accord with both of these meanings, for they are not real (don’t really exist), but appear as though they were real (are deceptive).

It seems to me that covers just one meaning. We had agreed that all things exist, but only the absolute is real, whereas the others are either actual or imaginary. The things I am talking about are the actual. If they are illusory, in what sense are they illusory. They exist, so wherein lies their illusion?

By apparent, I mean not real; that is to say, that which merely seems to be real. For example, when we experience a mirage, and there seems to be an oasis where there is actually none.

Yes, this is just what I mean. It looks as though there is water ahead and there is no such thing. But there IS something - heat waves upon moisture in the air or what have you. The mirage appears to be something other than what it is.

Or, in the case of material objects, where there seems to be an external origin and cause behind our sensual experience.

Are you saying that if I stub my toe on a curb that there was nothing external to my body which caused the pain?

I portray all things as having only an apparent existence, for while that which we perceive may not be real, we do nevertheless imagine it as such.

What about your previous statement that people cannot tell the difference between what they perceive and what they imagine that they perceive. If your above statement is true, then there is no perception of anything at all.

Consider the case of the material object, for example, and how its primary essence (matter) is ultimately reducible to a quality (mass) and a relation (extension), neither of which can exist independently – and so are not real.

But how is it useful to define 'real' as that which is unchanging and immutable and then decide that all divisions within this totality are therefore not real? Suppose you are real, does that mean that your foot is not real because it couldn't have arisen by itself without an entire genetic blueprint for a human body?

I do see the difference between that which is causeless and unbounded versus the dependent items. I am getting used to expressing things as actual, rather than real. But you seem to be saying that all things are imaginary.

Yes, of course, for with atonement there enters into the mind a knowledge that flashes like lightning, and leaves one exhausted by the vastness of it extent.

Do you think it is always like that for everyone?