GENIUS FORUMS

Jason,

DQ: It is true that the perception that appearances occur in the here and now is also an appearance, but it is also a truth which defines our very existence as conscious beings. An appearance, by its very nature, is something arises momentarily and falls away again. (I know you're itching to reduce this into an appearance and dismiss it, but I urge you to hear me out). Our life is comprised of appearances succeeding one another, each one replacing the next. It is only in the here and now that an appearance comes into being. Next moment, it is gone again. (I know this is an appearance as well, but again, hear me out.)

J: How could one know of something that has yet to appear, or something that no longer appears, ie. momentary appearance?

Through memory, of course.

It's contradictory, you cannot know of something that has no appearance.

A memory of a past event is not the same as the event itself as it once occured in the present.

It is through memory that we experience the appearance of time and everything that it entails - past, present and future.

DQ:You seem to be making the mistake of reducing everything down to a restricted array of appearances, and in the process, you are blocking out other kinds of appearances, such as the appearance of unpredictable phenemona and making mistakes in prediction.

J: At the start of this post you asked me to to hold back on reducing some things to appearance. Now you suggest I am restricting the array of possible appearances. What do you want?

I never said for you to hold back on reducing things to appearances. On the contrary, I fully agree with you that all existences and forms are appearances. But what I'm wanting from you is to take this insight all the way and not stop half-way.

There is clearly something wrong if your insight into appearances and formlessness is placing you at loggerheads with empirical reality. You shouldn't have to block out the realities of time, empirical uncertainty, empirical unpredictability, empirical causality, etc, in order to preserve your consciousness of formlessness. These empirical realities are real. They need to be fully integrated into one's understanding of formlessness, not seperated out from it.

Your insight into formlessness, Jason, is very lofty and rare. Hardly anyone in history has achieved what you have achieved. But I urge you to keep going and push on to the next level. You're only half-way there. You need to recognize that, ultimately, things are neither appearances nor real, that everything we experience in the world, including the realities of empirical uncertainty, is a valid manifestation of Nature. You need to go full circle and start embracing the empirical world again, albeit from the higher perspective of wisdom.

In Buddhism, the path to enlightenment is divided into (a) the form realms, (b) the formless realms and (c) enlightenment. The form realms refer to intellectual breakthroughs, mystical experiences and unrefined insights into the nature of Reality. The formless realms refer to the perfect intellectual insight into the fact that nothing really exists, that everything is an apprearance, that Nature is not anything at all. Enlightenment goes infinitely beyond both.

In Poison for the Heart, Kevin Solway outlines the progressive pitfalls of the spiritual path:

Progressive pitfalls

One: Complete attachment to name and form.

1 + 2 = 3

Two: The belief that things do not exist.

0 = 1, 1 = 0

Three: The belief that something exists, but there are no defined boundaries.

1 x 0 = 0, 100 x 0 = 0

Four: The belief that boundaries do exist, but that these are completely arbitrary and up to the individual.

1 + 2 = 3000, 100 x 1000 = 4

Beyond all these: Complete non-attachment

1 = 1, 0 = 0, 3 x 3 = 9

It is important to come full circle in one's spiritual development, to reaffirm, but in an infinitely different way, what one affirmed at the very beginning - namely, that mountains are indeed mounatins and trees are indeed trees.

There is the famous Zen story which are articulates the same point:

When a persons starts off on the path, he sees that empirical causal chains are empirical causal chains and that unpredictable phenomena are unpredictable phenomena. Then, when he travels along the path a bit, he sees that empirical causal chains aren't really empirical causal chains and that unpredictable phenomena aren't really unpredictable phenomena. But then, after he reaches the end and his understanding has fully matured, he sees that empirical causal chains are indeed empirical causal chains, after all, and that unpredictable phenomena are indeed unpredictable phenomena.

Somehow, Jason, you have to try and shake off that attachment to the idea that "all things are appearances" and embrace utterly everything that you experience and integrate it all into your vision of Reality. This means that you are going to have cease grasping at things altogether. It is going to require a leap of faith.

J: There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

DQ: It cannot relate to anything beyond appearance in a general sense, I agree. Nothing is ever beyond appearances. But it can, and does, relate to things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearance in the here and now.

J: Your initial declaration "NOTHING is ever beyond appearances", followed by "things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearances" leads to contradiction.

The table that is appearing to me at this very moment is beyond your own specific experience of appearances, but not beyond the realm of appearances altogether.

DQ: By definition, whatever happens in the future is not making an appearance in the here and now. That is what makes future events so uncertain and unpredictable.

J: What does not make an appearance in the here and now, is not uncertain: it is non-existent. There is a difference.

The uncertainty you seem to be speaking of here is the one that is created when one suspends certainty and enters into the faith-based perspective of an empirical reality. My goal, and I assume yours too, is to remove uncertainties. That is what moving into the perspective of all-is-appearance achieves.

Again, wisdom involves embracing all the uncertainties of life, as well as the certainties, and not shying away from either of them.

-

sue hindmarsh wrote:David wrote:

Disgust (of falseness) can be a good thing, because it can motivate you to distance yourself as far as possible from the falseness of the world and drive you intensely to seek truth. Disgust of falseness is, in effect, an expression of love of truth.

Leyla wrote:

Yes, in a sense, it is. I, too, think there can be a fine line. But there is a difference. One involved with the love of truth is involved with the truth directly as opposed to he who is involved with a love of truth through a disgust of falseness. The latter would be religiously and exclusively involved with the promotion and expression of truth as disgust of falseness.

Wouldn’t both be “religiously and exclusively involved with the promotion and expression of truth as disgust of falseness”?

Sue

I don't think so. Otherwise, any asshole with something nasty to say could be considered well on their way to enlightenment. I reckon, for example, a criminal has a disgust of falseness -- he just doesn't know it.

There are several different ways of expressing truth. Not all of them literally express it as disgust.

DQ: It is only in the here and now that an appearance comes into being. Next moment, it is gone again. (I know this is an appearance as well, but again, hear me out.)

J: How could one know of something that has yet to appear, or something that no longer appears, ie. momentary appearance?

DQ: Through memory, of course.

Of course memory is an appearance. Regarding momentary appearance you wrote "next moment, it is gone again." To me "gone" suggests a lack of appearance. We could continue to go around in circles discussing this, but let's finish it here. The truth is I was actually intentionally leading you on with my continuous negation of your replies. I just thought it was a useful technique to try to communicate with you at that time. I'm actually not attached to seeing everything as appearance. I've transcended that too....

DQ: There is clearly something wrong if your insight into appearances and formlessness is placing you at loggerheads with empirical reality. You shouldn't have to block out the realities of time, empirical uncertainty, empirical unpredictability, empirical causality, etc, in order to preserve your consciousness of formlessness. These empirical realities are real. They need to be fully integrated into one's understanding of formlessness, not seperated out from it.

I agree with all this. Again your comments here are actually addressing a lower perspective that I took merely for communications sake. I've transcended that perspective...

DQ: Your insight into formlessness, Jason, is very lofty and rare. Hardly anyone in history has achieved what you have achieved. But I urge you to keep going and push on to the next level. You're only half-way there. You need to recognize that, ultimately, things are neither appearances nor real, that everything we experience in the world, including the realities of empirical uncertainty, is a valid manifestation of Nature. You need to go full circle and start embracing the empirical world again, albeit from the higher perspective of wisdom.

DQ: It is important to come full circle in one's spiritual development, to reaffirm, but in an infinitely different way, what one affirmed at the very beginning - namely, that mountains are indeed mounatins and trees are indeed trees.

I have done all this, I accept empirical uncertainty is a valid manifestation of reality ect etc, I have pushed to the next level. I identify my current understanding as being "Mountains are mountains once again." However, and here is where I depart from you: I disagree with your idea that ego and suffering is inherently trancended with this understanding.

The reason I disagree is: ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature too. Of course trancending ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature also, I just don't see these valid manifestations as being an inherent or necessary outcome of my understanding of Reality.

DQ: Somehow, Jason, you have to try and shake off that attachment to the idea that "all things are appearances" and embrace utterly everything that you experience and integrate it all into your vision of Reality. This means that you are going to have cease grasping at things altogether. It is going to require a leap of faith.

From my perspective I'd suggest you have to shake off your attachment to the idea of transcending ego and suffering. Ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature.

Jason wrote:Ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature.

They are, but they aren't found in the enlightened person.

Just as money is a valid manifestation of Nature, yet it isn't found in the pocket of a person who has no money.

Jason,

The truth is I was actually intentionally leading you on with my continuous negation of your replies. I just thought it was a useful technique to try to communicate with you at that time. I'm actually not attached to seeing everything as appearance. I've transcended that too....

Whatever.

I have done all this, I accept empirical uncertainty is a valid manifestation of reality ect etc, I have pushed to the next level. I identify my current understanding as being "Mountains are mountains once again." However, and here is where I depart from you: I disagree with your idea that ego and suffering is inherently trancended with this understanding.

The reason I disagree is: ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature too. Of course trancending ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature also, I just don't see these valid manifestations as being an inherent or necessary outcome of my understanding of Reality.

You certainly give the impression of suffering a lot, Jason, I'll grant you that. And now you are admitting that you enjoy it .....



-

J: The truth is I was actually intentionally leading you on with my continuous negation of your replies. I just thought it was a useful technique to try to communicate with you at that time. I'm actually not attached to seeing everything as appearance. I've transcended that too....

DQ: Whatever.

Don't you believe me? I was being absolutely and completely honest in that bit that you have quoted from me above .

J: I have done all this, I accept empirical uncertainty is a valid manifestation of reality ect etc, I have pushed to the next level. I identify my current understanding as being "Mountains are mountains once again." However, and here is where I depart from you: I disagree with your idea that ego and suffering is inherently trancended with this understanding.

J: The reason I disagree is: ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature too. Of course trancending ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature also, I just don't see these valid manifestations as being an inherent or necessary outcome of my understanding of Reality.

DQ: You certainly give the impression of suffering a lot, Jason, I'll grant you that. And now you are admitting that you enjoy it .....

Yes I suffer, no I'm not saying I enjoy it. David I'm getting the impression you have just gone off the deep end. That you've lost the plot. Are you alright?

Jason,

J: The truth is I was actually intentionally leading you on with my continuous negation of your replies. I just thought it was a useful technique to try to communicate with you at that time. I'm actually not attached to seeing everything as appearance. I've transcended that too....

DQ: Whatever.

J: Don't you believe me? I was being absolutely and completely honest in that bit that you have quoted from me above.

Does it matter whether I believe you or not?

As it happens, I'm not convinced that you have gone all the way with your thinking in the manner I outlined above. However, I will watch your behaviour in the coming weeks and months with interest.

J: I have done all this, I accept empirical uncertainty is a valid manifestation of reality ect etc, I have pushed to the next level. I identify my current understanding as being "Mountains are mountains once again." However, and here is where I depart from you: I disagree with your idea that ego and suffering is inherently trancended with this understanding.

The reason I disagree is: ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature too. Of course trancending ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature also, I just don't see these valid manifestations as being an inherent or necessary outcome of my understanding of Reality.

DQ: You certainly give the impression of suffering a lot, Jason, I'll grant you that. And now you are admitting that you enjoy it .....

J: Yes I suffer, no I'm not saying I enjoy it. David I'm getting the impression you have just gone off the deep end. That you've lost the plot. Are you alright?

I'm fine, thanks. Although it was a bit out of left field, I was making a serious point.

If you do suffer and you don't enjoy it, then doesn't that mean there are still flaws and shortcomings in your mental development?

Weren't you the fellow who said that he could do whatever he puts his mind to?


-

DQ: Whatever.
J: Don't you believe me? I was being absolutely and completely honest in that bit that you have quoted from me above.

DQ: Does it matter whether I believe you or not?

Yes it matters, in terms of us being able to communicate with meaning on this forum. I thought we were having a very relevant discussion on highly developed philosophical ideas, and you even said that you consider me to have lofty and rare insight. Then you suddenly dismiss me with "Whatever"!!?? I don't understand. That just seems plain weird, especially coming from you David. It only gets weirder because that is stereotypical Californian "valley girl" speak, which you were talking about in another thread.

DQ: As it happens, I'm not convinced that you have gone all the way with your thinking in the manner I outlined above. However, I will watch your behaviour in the coming weeks and months with interest.

Ok, but I also want to discuss my ideas with you David, not just have my behaviour observed.

J: Yes I suffer, no I'm not saying I enjoy it. David I'm getting the impression you have just gone off the deep end. That you've lost the plot. Are you alright?
DQ: I'm fine, thanks. Although it was a bit out of left field, I was making a serious point.

DQ: If you do suffer and you don't enjoy it, then doesn't that mean there are still flaws and shortcomings in your mental development?

Reread what I said: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature. My points clearly show why suffering can still exist after realization of Nature. Just simplistically replying that I must have flaws in understanding because suffering still exists is not an argument David. Only when you can meaningfully address my specific points will you have any chance of covincing me of any flaws I may have in my understanding.

ksolway wrote:

Jason wrote:Ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature.

They are, but they aren't found in the enlightened person.

Just as money is a valid manifestation of Nature, yet it isn't found in the pocket of a person who has no money.

I mean no offence by this, but that's not an argument, it's laughable. I have a detailed understanding of these issues, you are going to have to do MUCH better than that to convince me Kevin. Using simplistic analogies to try to get your point across is only going to convince me that you have no real argument. I mean I could just respond in kind :

"Ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Naure. Thus they can be found in the enlightened person. Just as candy bars are are a valid manifestation of Nature, so candy bars can be found in the pockets of a person who has a sweet tooth."

It's worthless.

Jason,

Reread what I said: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature. My points clearly show why suffering can still exist after realization of Nature. Just simplistically replying that I must have flaws in understanding because suffering still exists is not an argument David. Only when you can meaningfully address my specific points will you have any chance of covincing me of any flaws I may have in my understanding.

I agree with you that ego and suffering can still exist after realization, since the bad habits of a lifetime of ignorance are still in operation. It takes time to alter these habits with the help of one's newly-realized mind. But what about the attainment of perfection, Jason? Do you think that a perfect Buddha still has an ego and continues to experience suffering?

In answering this, you might want to define what ego and suffering is - and for that matter, realization and perfection.

-

J:Reread what I said: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature. My points clearly show why suffering can still exist after realization of Nature. Just simplistically replying that I must have flaws in understanding because suffering still exists is not an argument David. Only when you can meaningfully address my specific points will you have any chance of covincing me of any flaws I may have in my understanding.

DQ:I agree with you that ego and suffering can still exist after realization, since the bad habits of a lifetime of ignorance are still in operation. It takes time to alter these habits with the help of one's newly-realized mind.

You are still not addressing the fundamental point I have made. I'm not saying that ego and suffering still exist because past bad habits persist. I'll say it once again: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature(aka "Reality"). That is why they can still exist in a person who comes to perfectly realize the nature of Reality.

DQ:But what about the attainment of perfection, Jason?

Attainment of perfection is what I believe I have achieved, in the sense that I perfectly understand the nature of Reality.

DQ: Do you think that a perfect Buddha still has an ego and continues to experience suffering? In answering this, you might want to define what ego and suffering is - and for that matter, realization and perfection.

"Perfect Buddha" sounds like a possible appeal to authority David. I don't care what characteristics someone else or some text says a perfect Buddha would have. I'm using my own reasoning mind to analyze my existence, not making uncertain guesses based on some impossible to verify perfect Buddha. So I'm not going to use that word, I'll just use realization.

Someone who has realized a perfect understanding of the nature of Reality could either continue experiencing ego and suffering, or not continue experiencing ego and suffering. Realization has no inherent outcome with regard to either the continuance or ending of these experiences. This is due to the fact that continuing or ending the experience of ego and suffering are both valid manifestations of Reality. Just as mountains are mountains once again: ego is ego once again and suffering is suffering one again. Everything is a valid manifestation of Reality.

Definitions: "Realization" is a perfect understanding of the nature of Reality. "Perfect understanding of the nature Reality" is the application of analysis, reasoning and logic to existence until all uncertainty is removed. "Reality" is literally everything. "Ego" is the belief that a real persisting self exists. "Suffering" is a negative feeling/emotion that the self experiences.

Jason wrote:ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature(aka "Reality"). That is why they can still exist in a person who comes to perfectly realize the nature of Reality.

Literally all things are expressions of Nature. It doesn't mean anything to say that they are "valid".

A person might realize the nature of Reality for one second. But that is not enough to entirely get rid of their ego, all emotional suffering, all delusional thinking.

A perfectly enlightened person fully realizes the nature of Reality every single moment, effortlessly. By definition, ego and emotional suffering cannot exist in this state.

Jason: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature(aka "Reality"). That is why they can still exist in a person who comes to perfectly realize the nature of Reality.

Kevin: Literally all things are expressions of Nature. It doesn't mean anything to say that they are "valid".

Kevin, I hope this does not keep dragging on with defining what “valid” means? Again.

It is quite simple actually. He is not talking about the "validity" of ego and sufferings itself, but from the same perspective you mentioned, that ‘all things are an expression of Nature’, albeit, now that he knows what they and all things really are, they become valid expressions of Nature. For there could be no thing that is not Reality, hence a valid expression of it. This says nothing about things itself. In a similar manner, delusions, reasoning, emotions, you name it, are a valid expression of Nature, but that does not say anything about the validity of these things itself.

Look at it this way. Can you imagine what it means if you said that ego and sufferings are a Non-valid expressions of Nature?

Why does a person stop reading after one sentence?

To me, Kevin explains his position with his comments following the sentence you quoted, Sapius.

What was it that caused you to give no attention to the whole but instead pick out the first sentence alone and address that?

Jason,

J:Reread what I said: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature. My points clearly show why suffering can still exist after realization of Nature. Just simplistically replying that I must have flaws in understanding because suffering still exists is not an argument David. Only when you can meaningfully address my specific points will you have any chance of covincing me of any flaws I may have in my understanding.

DQ:I agree with you that ego and suffering can still exist after realization, since the bad habits of a lifetime of ignorance are still in operation. It takes time to alter these habits with the help of one's newly-realized mind.

J: You are still not addressing the fundamental point I have made. I'm not saying that ego and suffering still exist because past bad habits persist. I'll say it once again: ego and suffering are valid expressions of Nature(aka "Reality"). That is why they can still exist in a person who comes to perfectly realize the nature of Reality.

What about spiritual ignorance? Does spiritual ignorance continue to exist for the perfectly-realized person?

DQ: Do you think that a perfect Buddha still has an ego and continues to experience suffering? In answering this, you might want to define what ego and suffering is - and for that matter, realization and perfection.

J: "Perfect Buddha" sounds like a possible appeal to authority David. I don't care what characteristics someone else or some text says a perfect Buddha would have.

No need to react to the label. I meant, of course, the perfectly-enlightened sage. Someone who is beyond all delusion.

Someone who has realized a perfect understanding of the nature of Reality could either continue experiencing ego and suffering, or not continue experiencing ego and suffering. Realization has no inherent outcome with regard to either the continuance or ending of these experiences. This is due to the fact that continuing or ending the experience of ego and suffering are both valid manifestations of Reality. Just as mountains are mountains once again: ego is ego once again and suffering is suffering one again. Everything is a valid manifestation of Reality.

While everything is a valid manifestation of Reality, they still require the right causal conditions to come into being. Rain, for example, is a valid manifestation of Nature, yet it cannot come into being when the sky is cloudless.

Likewise, although ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature, they cannot come into being when the mind is ignorant-less. However, the enlightened sage can still continue to experience these things in the behaviour of others.

Definitions: "Realization" is a perfect understanding of the nature of Reality. "Perfect understanding of the nature Reality" is the application of analysis, reasoning and logic to existence until all uncertainty is removed. "Reality" is literally everything. "Ego" is the belief that a real persisting self exists. "Suffering" is a negative feeling/emotion that the self experiences.

So even though a perfectly-enlightened person sees through the illusion of a real persisting self with perfect clarity, he still somehow falls victim to this illusion? And even though he perfectly understands the nature of Reality and realizes with perfect clarity that neither he nor anything else inherently exists, he still somehow manages to suffer at the hands of these non-existent things?

I don't quite see the logic of that, Jason.

I think you're trying to justify the existence of suffering and egotism in your own life in order to maintain the illusion that you have reached a level of perfection. It's one of those little sicknesses in the mind that Pye talks about.


-

Leyla,

Why does a person stop reading after one sentence?

Please, please do not assume that. Let me elaborate.

To me, Kevin explains his position with his comments following the sentence you quoted, Sapius.

What was it that caused you to give no attention to the whole but instead pick out the first sentence alone and address that?

To me it seems that the explanation that follows does not conform to the initial understanding of Nature that Kevin already is fully aware of. Either he keeps “forgetting” this, or his perspective keeps fluctuating due to temporarily accepting the delusion of “ego”. Now starting from the second statement of Kevin.

A person might realize the nature of Reality for one second.

This seems like magic to me! I simply cannot understand how can a logical understanding, painstakingly deciphered over the years to its core, “flashes” for a one second and than disappear? It is either fully realized or not. Which means, ingrained in him as an accepted logical fact, or he still has doubts. If doubts, then the truth has not been absorbed at all.

But that is not enough to entirely get rid of their ego, all emotional suffering, all delusional thinking.

All of the above is based in one single realization of Nature itself. So, now, what can I say about this? May be that is what Kevin has achieved in all these years of dedication, flashes, going in and out of this realization, which shouldn’t be the case if once actually realized.

A perfectly enlightened person fully realizes the nature of Reality every single moment, effortlessly.

Very possible, even without attaching the label of “perfection” or “enlightenment”. And how does he continuously stay in that frame of mind if not through persistently remaining A=A, i.e., consciousness, which actually has seen through logic what A=A really implies, thereby understanding its own nature, and at the same time knows that it is an expression of nature and not at all HIM. A “perfect” enlightenment would mean a “perfect” understanding, not some mystical permanent change of some kind. It would be a change, yes, but of perspective, permanent within the frame of his realizations, and this frame of mind would always remain, no matter what.

By definition, ego and emotional suffering cannot exist in this state.

I would agree to this statement as it is because I have agreed to Kevin’s definition of ego, but what would he call that thing that still realizes and experiences A=A even after this magical Buddha-hood? As far as emotions go, I would say that they remain, but are no longer considered as “sufferings”, now that you know the reality of it. You do need strong emotional drive to strive for Truth, and that wouldn’t go away either, but simply become second nature so to speak. Similarly emotions remain in the background now. In a sense they get cancelled out, so to speak, against your persistently remaining realization of what they actually are. You do not have to keep reminding yourself of that realization, if so, then what exactly is it that you have realized in the first place?

Sapius wrote:

KS wrote:A person might realize the nature of Reality for one second.

This seems like magic to me! I simply cannot understand how can a logical understanding, painstakingly deciphered over the years to its core, “flashes” for a one second and than disappear?

Firstly, the mere logical understanding of Reality is hardly any attainment at all. Sure, it is a big improvement on complete and total ignorance, but it can also be a long way from the experience of enlightenment, and it is certainly a million miles away from perfect, uninterrupted realization of reality.

The mere logical understanding of Reality does not qualify, in my opinion, as a proper "realization" at all. Rather, it is a micro-realization on the way to Truth.

Having a full and complete logical understanding of Reality lays the foundations for the experience of enlightenment, which happens, at first, in flashes. Only in a perfect Buddha (of which there may never have been one) does it happen permanently. All this time, however, the complete intellectual understanding of Reality never leaves one.

These various stages are discussed in detail in Stages of the Way (in "Poison for the Heart")

It is either fully realized or not

There's a huge divide between full intellectual realization, full realization, and perfect, uninterrupted realization.

Which means, ingrained in him as an accepted logical fact, or he still has doubts. If doubts, then the truth has not been absorbed at all.

Even when a person has no intellectual doubts at all, still delusions affect the way he lives - even if only subtly. For example, he might sometimes become slightly bored.

A “perfect” enlightenment would mean a “perfect” understanding

As I say, the "understanding" is only on the level of groundwork. All the serious advancement has yet to be made.

. . . this frame of mind would always remain, no matter what.

The understanding never leaves one, but that is not proper enlightenment.

. . . but what would he call that thing that still realizes and experiences A=A even after this magical Buddha-hood?

The "I".

Since this "I" doesn't have any delusions, it doesn't experience any emotions, even on a subtle, background level, since all emotions are based on delusions.

Kevin wrote:

There's a huge divide between full intellectual realization, full realization, and perfect, unterrupted realization.

I have read the Stages of the way, as for above, yes, it is necessarily an uninterrupted one which is what I mean in "fully" realized. Otherwise, it is nothing.

Even when a person has no intellectual doubts at all, still delusions affect the way he lives - even if only subtly. For example, he might sometimes become slightly bored.

The question of getting bored would never even arise. Bored of what exactly? How can such a person get bored of himself? Which in effect means he is getting bored of Cause and Effect, Nature, Reality, Truth? I mean, really Kevin, this coming from you? I ask you, what is actually there to get bored of, and what is actually there getting bored? I believe you are fully aware of the implications of this question. David too. And I believe, Jason too.

As I say, the "understanding" is only on the level of groundwork. All the serious advancement has yet to be made. The understanding never leaves one, but that is not proper enlightenment.

Well, I can’t argue on that since it is purely a matter of opinion, all I can say is, good luck to you then.

S: . . . but what would he call that thing that still realizes and experiences A=A even after this magical Buddha-hood?

K: The "I".

Since this "I" doesn't have any delusions, it doesn't experience any emotions, even on a subtle, background level, since all emotions are based on delusions.

Firstly, there is only one "I", in fact that is all I can thnk of as actual, there is no split as such. It is delusion that creates the split, and you know that. Now, even say the un-split "I", will definitely "experience" emotions, in fact may be a billion times more, but it is directed only, without any exceptions, towards Reality. It would be only from that perspective that he "experiences" any thing at all, not from the delusional "I". And “experiences” do not become “non-experiences”, that cannot be helped, as long as he is breathing, and sees that in all that there is. That is, everything full of "life", with no inherent meaning or existence in any "thing" at all. Not even an un-split "I". And yet, he would still remain a fully functional Human-Being, although with a different “operating system”. That’s all.

In essence, one is literally back to square one, but now every thing is absolutely solid, and inherently empty. Including Reality! I don’t know how else to say that. But really, it does not matter. I don’t pull my hair out for absolutely anything at all. Which is a give away that I have not gone bald as yet. :)

Knowing the Truth is certainly essential but perfection only has meaning in the experience of full realization, at which point knowing becomes Being.

DQ:What about spiritual ignorance? Does spiritual ignorance continue to exist for the perfectly-realized person?

The perfect understanding/realization of the nature of Reality guarantees an end to ignorance of the nature of Reality. That is simply due to the law of non-contradiction: you cannot have both a perfect understanding and an imperfect(ignorant) understanding of the nature of Reality. I would define a perfectly realized person as someone who always has a perfect understanding of the nature of Reality. That doesn't mean the perfect understanding is continuously stuck in the persons conscious mind. It just means that when the conscious mind steers towards thoughts of Reality only a perfect understanding arises. My realization is an understanding. A bunch of thoughts. It doesn't alter any fundamental aspects of my experience of reality. As far as I am concerned there is no further to go and there is no removal of ego or suffering.

DQ:While everything is a valid manifestation of Reality, they still require the right causal conditions to come into being. Rain, for example, is a valid manifestation of Nature, yet it cannot come into being when the sky is cloudless.

Incorrect. The existence of clouds has no bearing on the existence of rain. Causation doesn't imply that rain cannot exist when the sky is cloudless. The only "right" causal condition for the existence of rain is non-rain. You seem to have a habit of asserting that the existence of certain specific finite things is necessary for the existence of other specific finite things. This may be a pointer to a deeper error in your understanding I think.

DQ:Likewise, although ego and suffering are valid manifestations of Nature, they cannot come into being when the mind is ignorant-less.

I disagree. To address these issues properly I think we're going to have to backtrack to some of your ideas surrounding the illusion of an inherent self, and the idea that boundaries are creations of mind.

DQ:So even though a perfectly-enlightened person sees through the illusion of a real persisting self with perfect clarity, he still somehow falls victim to this illusion? And even though he perfectly understands the nature of Reality and realizes with perfect clarity that neither he nor anything else inherently exists, he still somehow manages to suffer at the hands of these non-existent things?

There is no illusion. A perfect realization shows that ultimately everything is real. Pay close attention to this: I'm not saying ego or suffering will or will not continue after realization. I'm saying that the issue of either continuing or ending ego and suffering has no inherent link with perfect realization. (Sometimes I'm not sure if we are actually disagreeing on some issues or we are simply negating each others finite statements in an attempt to point to the infinite.)

DQ:I don't quite see the logic of that, Jason. I think you're trying to justify the existence of suffering and egotism in your own life in order to maintain the illusion that you have reached a level of perfection. It's one of those little sicknesses in the mind that Pye talks about.

Maybe. Then again maybe it is you who is trying to protect your deep attachment to a state of non-suffering. At the moment my current understanding tells me that it is you who lacks full understanding of the nature of Reality. I think the best way forward from here is for me to pick out some choice passages from "Wisdom of the Infinite" and show where and why I disagree.

Sapius wrote:

Even when a person has no intellectual doubts at all, still delusions affect the way he lives - even if only subtly. For example, he might sometimes become slightly bored.

The question of getting bored would never even arise. Bored of what exactly? How can such a person get bored of himself?

Through subtle delusions that continue in the deeply worn pathways of the brain. It takes time for those pathways to grow-over.

Just because a person works out that things don't have inherent existence, it doesn't mean that he will never experience, say, feelings of love or affection, ever again. The human mind cannot change that quickly.

S: . . . but what would he call that thing that still realizes and experiences A=A even after this magical Buddha-hood?

The "I".

Since this "I" doesn't have any delusions, it doesn't experience any emotions, even on a subtle, background level, since all emotions are based on delusions.

Firstly, there is only one "I"

Yes.

in fact that is all I can thnk of as actual, there is no split as such. It is delusion that creates the split, and you know that. Now, even say the un-split "I", will definitely "experience" emotions

No.

The unenlightened person knows nothing about the "I", since they are, by definition, in darkness. They do not have an "I". They do not experience reality. Since they have no "I", they experience emotions.

Their state of existence is what Dave Sim calls "The Merged Void" - which is the world of delusion and emotions, and lack of "I-ness".

Weininger would say they lack individuality. They are dictated to by society and by the opinions and needs of others. Weininger says that women "are nothing" for the very same reason.

And yet, he would still remain a fully functional Human-Being, although with a different “operating system”. That’s all.

The perfectly enlightened person is a fully functioning human being, yes, but he doesn't experience emotions. They would detract from his humanness. They would make him more "merged", like an animal.

Can I get several hard-copies of that book? Do you offer quantity discounts?

Jason, my beliefs are either correct or mistaken, right? For instance, I might believe I do not truely exist, "I" being a persistent entity in time and space. Now that belief is either right or it is wrong. Likewise, I may believe that every apparent thing also does not exist, which implies that no thing can cease to exist either. Now, am i right to conclude you are ok with this but with the additional thought that things are nevertheless "real"? If so, do you maintain their reality is independent of space and/or time?
For myself, I see little value in regarding things that do not persist over time as being "real" in any significant way.
What am i missing?

Well Kevin, if so many great people, including yourself, have said such profound things, then who am I to argue. I think then we better keep working on it. Right? :)

Lenny wrote:

Knowing the Truth is certainly essential but perfection only has meaning in the experience of full realization, at which point knowing becomes Being.

Actually nothing applies, not even "perfect", when speaking of Reality, because perfect implies something imperfect, and neither apply to Reality, Nature, Totality, etc., etc. Once one sees the big picture, absolutely nothing essentially holds inherent meaning. "Perfect" understanding only applies where there exist Imperfection, and the one who would see the big picture, neither would actually apply to anything he experiences.

My English is not good, hence I may not be able to express, but that doesn’t really matter either, for everyone is but a bubble in this sea of cause and effect, all on his own.

Fair enough, but i think you mean to suggest the potential for imperfection exists with/when perfection exists, and not necessarily imperfection itself, is that right?
Note that it's possible for perfection to completely replace imperfection, however unlikely the possibility is.