GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu,

In the end, I'm afraid I'm lost in a labyrinth. I no longer know quite what we are discussing, nor its importance.

it is so embedded as to be inaccessible to all but the sentient being within who’s body it is confined. However, over time, the child is taught to associate certain sets of sensations and certain patterns of distribution (spatial or temporal), with specific designations – such as the Sun, and it is then that the notion of the entity arises, along with its properties and activities.

There's fairly good evidence that the sensations are rather similar for other entities as well. Or, if there is no entity, how is it that it has a brain which categorizes other entities?

And what, is it a mistake to recognize certain recurring patterns, such as the sun rising daily, and make note of it?

Clearly, this is how things appear, but given that things are not real, and so are not possessed of any intrinsic characteristics, it is not possible that they are able to exert any kind of influence upon one another.

Despite their not being real, and not having intrinsic characteristics, they do have consistent characteristics based upon what happens when a particular conglomeration of elements come together.

Despite that water is a relative entity, and requires the coming together of two other elements, which themselves are made up of who knows what, nonetheless, so long as those two elements come together just so, they will behave as water.
I'm not sure what it really means to say they have no influence on one another, but it is the absolute which does everything. Seems awfully boring for the Absolute. Trillions of times over, acting in exactly predictable ways. Why not set things up so that things do what they are supposed to do based upon their configuration, locked in with mathematical precision, known as laws of nature?

So water has no intrinsic characteristics because it doesn't inherently exist itself, it nonetheless has characteristics inherent to water.

And if it is the absolute doing everything, then itn't true that the absolute actually IS everything, inside out and outside in?


David,

The issue involves people misunderstanding their experiences and projecting onto them qualities which are not really there.

What sort of qualities?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Well, this:

The part I'm not getting or agreeing with, is about the form and essence being actual, while the properties and potencies require imagination. Perhaps we need some examples.

was really written for Jehu, but we are all discussing the same thing.

Iolaus wrote:In the end, I'm afraid I'm lost in a labyrinth. I no longer know quite what we are discussing, nor its importance.

I understand completely, it is not difficult to get turned around with such a subtle argument.

We were discussing the nature of the five fundamental elements which comprise the manifestation body of the relative entity, and why the elements of “embodiment” (material objects), “potency” (material properties) and “function” (material activities) do not partake of an actual existence, but merely an imaginary one. Consider the following:

Activities cannot be perceived immediately by the senses, for all motion or change is temporally extended, and so its perception requires the mediation of both the faculty of “memory”, as well as that interpretive mental process which we call the “imagination”.

Form and essence, on the other hand, require no such mediation, and so may even be recorded by a camera, for example, which has neither a memory nor an imagination. However, even in the case of that camera which is able to capture and store an entire succession of still images, it cannot capture motion or change; for the ideas of motion or change will arise only when the sequence of still images are viewed in logical succession by some sentient being.

Without the aid of memory, there would be no sense of continuity between the successive instances of our sensory perceptions, and without the imagination, no sense of our perceived sensations constituting any sort of distinct existent (entity). In other words, that which is denoted by such terms as “objects”, “properties” and “activities” are concepts, that is to say, mental structures within the sentient brain system – the repository of all subjective knowledge.

There's fairly good evidence that the sensations are rather similar for other entities as well.

Yes, of course, for there is ultimately but the one true entity (Being), and this one entity is the true origin of all sensation.

Or, if there is no entity, how is it that it has a brain which categorizes other entities?

Again, it is not the brain which categorizes things, for the brain is a relative entity and so is not the real cause of mentation – though it is the apparent cause. Just as in our dreams, the thoughts with seemingly belong to our dream persona appear to originate within our dream brain, but it is the dreaming mind that is the actual cause and origin of such thoughts.

And what, is it a mistake to recognize certain recurring patterns, such as the sun rising daily, and make note of it?

Certainly not, for our survival as sentient beings is dependent upon are being able to do just that. However, we can do this without falling into the error of thinking that these things have an existence apart from our own.

Despite their not being real, and not having intrinsic characteristics, they do have consistent characteristics based upon what happens when a particular conglomeration of elements come together. Despite that water is a relative entity, and requires the coming together of two other elements, which themselves are made up of who knows what, nonetheless, so long as those two elements come together just so, they will behave as water.

Yes, this is precisely so, for all apparent interactions evolve in accordance with the one inviolable law; and all identities (.e.g., water) are derived from that one law – the Law of Identity.

I'm not sure what it really means to say they have no influence on one another, but it is the absolute which does everything. Seems awfully boring for the Absolute. Trillions of times over, acting in exactly predictable ways. Why not set things up so that things do what they are supposed to do based upon their configuration, locked in with mathematical precision, known as laws of nature?

The nature of reality is not structured according to whim or preference, but is necessarily so; for it is only because Being is structured in precisely this way that it is possible to be. This is what it means to partake of a necessary existence, and what differentiates the absolute mode of being from the relative mode.

So water has no intrinsic characteristics because it doesn't inherently exist itself, it nonetheless has characteristics inherent to water.

Water appears to exhibits the characteristics that it does, because those are the precise characteristics which the Absolute associates with this particular combination of form and essence.

And if it is the absolute doing everything, then itn't true that the absolute actually IS everything, inside out and outside in?

If by the term “IS” you mean the “existential” aspect of everything, then it is correct to say that everything is the Absolute; for there is nothing beyond the Absolute; but it is not correct to say that the Absolute is anything, for to be something is to be a relative entity.

Jehu,

Thank you, your post has me back on track. The camera example is certainly good, for the camera is an inanimate piece of machinery. Still, it seems to me that the 3 imaginary elements are a natural outgrowth of the two actual ones. That our minds are an apparatus of interpretation, and in fact record things second hand as it were, does not mean that those events aren't really happening. It just means that our brains have to use things like memory and placement of vision inside of the head in order for us to perceive it.

Perhaps I do see what you are driving at. I and a camera, even a video camera, can look at the same event and what I will understand will be vastly diferent than the camera.

Now, I am having trouble differentiating between essence and embodiment. There ought to be a reference book. How is essence not matter? And how is it that matter is imaginary, whereas form, which is an idea, is the real and not the imaginary? You have said that we can recognize an elephant in several different ways, whether a living elephant or a clay elephant. But that is only because we have the example of the living elephant.

Of course, it is possible that we could never have the living elephant without that consciousness had a blueprint in the realm of ideas, out of which to manifest it materially. In fact, I already think something like that.

I guess what's bothering me with regards to the camera, is that even though the camaera has no idea what it records, nonetheless the thing is what it is first, before the camera can record it. First, the thing is a flower, and then the camera takes its picture, uncomprehendingly.

Again, it is not the brain which categorizes things, for the brain is a relative entity and so is not the real cause of mentation – though it is the apparent cause. Just as in our dreams, the thoughts with seemingly belong to our dream persona appear to originate within our dream brain, but it is the dreaming mind that is the actual cause and origin of such thoughts.

This has caused in me a flicker of insight, although not for the first time but such things are fleeting - that what this discussion is about is taking a step back in our perceptions. For example, to sleep and dream, I take a step forward "into" the dream, and when I wake up, I take a step back, back into my waking mind. So that this discussion is about taking a step back into true Awareness. And if I do I will see that Brahma is the charioteer, Krishna the doer of all things...and it is for this very reason that the map is not the territory, that believing and understanding intellectually is not to be awake, but only to be awake is to be awake. It is an experience, an alteration into a new state, just as waking up from sleep is a real change from one mind state to another.

Dreaming that one has awoken, which I have done, and knowing that one is dreaming, which I have done, are still not the same as waking up.

And so this brings us to the old dilemma - you can teach and teach, but how to transmit this thing called waking up?

Well, at least I can say that dreaming one has awoken and lucid dreaming seem to occur in light sleep and precede awakening.

Iolaus wrote:Thank you, your post has me back on track. The camera example is certainly good, for the camera is an inanimate piece of machinery. Still, it seems to me that the 3 imaginary elements are a natural outgrowth of the two actual ones. That our minds are an apparatus of interpretation, and in fact record things second hand as it were, does not mean that those events aren't really happening. It just means that our brains have to use things like memory and placement of vision inside of the head in order for us to perceive it.

Perhaps I do see what you are driving at. I and a camera, even a video camera, can look at the same event and what I will understand will be vastly different than the camera.

Indeed, the brain is “an apparatus of interpretation”, and as such, it modifies our sensual perceptions in a highly significant way; depending upon the accuracy of one’s subjective knowledge. At times, the variation between two different people’s perception of the same event, are so disparate as to emote entirely opposite reactions. I am reminded of a story of a Sicilian immigrant who, having encountered a neighbour’s dog on the street, became so hysterical as to require medicating. It seems that in her region of rural Sicily, wild dogs are exceedingly dangerous, and as she had processed her latest perception of a dog through the filter of her own subjective knowledge, a knowledge that was out of step with what was actually happening now.

Now, I am having trouble differentiating between essence and embodiment. There ought to be a reference book. How is essence not matter?

The term “essence” signifies that set of “essential characteristics” (elements) which represent the constitutive causes of a thing. What these elements are is dependent upon the thing itself. The essence of a material object comprises other subordinate material objects, while the essence of a concept comprises other subordinate concepts, and an activity, other subordinate activities. The term “embodiment”, on the other hand, denotes that set of elements which render a thing perceptible to the senses. A quality such a valour, for example, although its essence entails other subordinate qualities, is embodied in some overt act or acts of bravery, and it is only through the mediation of these acts of bravery that the quality called valour is rendered perceptible. Now, the term “matter”, in its original Greek sense, denoted that aspect of an objective thing which stood in opposition to its form, but due to the erroneous influence of Aristotle has come to mean that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all things.

And how is it that matter is imaginary, whereas form, which is an idea, is the real and not the imaginary? You have said that we can recognize an elephant in several different ways, whether a living elephant or a clay elephant. But that is only because we have the example of the living elephant.

While there really is a form “elephant”, it is not the form that we perceive, for the forms that we perceive are all subject to change, while that which is real is immutable.

Of course, it is possible that we could never have the living elephant without that consciousness had a blueprint in the realm of ideas, out of which to manifest it materially. In fact, I already think something like that.

The reason that water arise with the coming together of hydrogen and oxygen, no matter where in the universe it may be, is not because water is somehow inherent within the hydrogen or oxygen atoms, but be cause the two complete one another in that higher universe of discourse which is called “water”. In other words, if water did not already exist, as a potential (latent or not yet manifest), then it would simply not arise.

I guess what's bothering me with regards to the camera, is that even though the camera has no idea what it records, nonetheless the thing is what it is first, before the camera can record it. First, the thing is a flower, and then the camera takes its picture, uncomprehendingly.

While there really is a form “flower”, it is not this form that we perceive, for the forms that we perceive are subject to change, while that which is real is immutable. This is why I have repeatedly said that forms and essences partake of only a relative existence – albeit the are actual, and not imaginary.

This has caused in me a flicker of insight, although not for the first time but such things are fleeting - that what this discussion is about is taking a step back in our perceptions. For example, to sleep and dream, I take a step forward "into" the dream, and when I wake up, I take a step back, back into my waking mind. So that this discussion is about taking a step back into true Awareness. And if I do I will see that Brahma is the charioteer, Krishna the doer of all things...and it is for this very reason that the map is not the territory, that believing and understanding intellectually is not to be awake, but only to be awake is to be awake. It is an experience, an alteration into a new state, just as waking up from sleep is a real change from one mind state to another.

Indeed! It is “realization”, or becoming real.

Dreaming that one has awoken, which I have done, and knowing that one is dreaming, which I have done, are still not the same as waking up.

And so this brings us to the old dilemma - you can teach and teach, but how to transmit this thing called waking up?

There is nothing to be transmitted, nothing to attain, nothing to seek out; there remains only to turn about at the very core of your being – and to rest in the joy and tranquillity that is your true nature; your birthright.

Jehu,

At times, the variation between two different people’s perception of the same event, are so disparate as to emote entirely opposite reactions. I am reminded of a story of a Sicilian immigrant who, having encountered a neighbour’s dog on the street, became so hysterical as to require medicating. It seems that in her region of rural Sicily, wild dogs are exceedingly dangerous, and as she had processed her latest perception of a dog through the filter of her own subjective knowledge, a knowledge that was out of step with what was actually happening now.

Well, yes, and this story reminds me of a conversation I once had with my daughter on consciousness and the whole dream analogy. I was saying that while the events themselves are real, a person can begin dreaming, especially if they are of lower consciousness, when something about the situation triggers their fears or other emotions of the ego. So one person might interpret the words or behaviors of another person as highly threatening, when nothing of the sort was intended. I think a lot of misunderstandings happen this way. One person takes a sudden nose dive in consciousness and begins to dream (dream-awake) and the other person(s) don't realize this has happened.

But - you said that the matter, the street and the dog itself, are imaginary. However, I think that is not what you meant. First of all, a camera can take a picture of it. And secondly, you say that the essence of a material body consists of other, subordinate material objects. Very well. The essence of dog are teeth, fur, a tail - but these are still material. But you say the embodiment are those things which render it perceptible to the senses. Well, where is the difference?

Now, the term “matter”, in its original Greek sense, denoted that aspect of an objective thing which stood in opposition to its form, but due to the erroneous influence of Aristotle has come to mean that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all things.

I never did like Aristotle!
Now, what do you mean to stand in opposition to its form?

And how is it that matter is imaginary, whereas form, which is an idea, is the real and not the imaginary? You have said that we can recognize an elephant in several different ways, whether a living elephant or a clay elephant. But that is only because we have the example of the living elephant.

While there really is a form “elephant”, it is not the form that we perceive, for the forms that we perceive are all subject to change, while that which is real is immutable.

What and where is the immutable form of elephant, and did it not need to arise at a point in time?

there remains only to turn about at the very core of your being – and to rest in the joy and tranquillity that is your true nature; your birthright.

This again is an interesting phrase, for I have thought about how one could awaken oneself into enlightenment, knowing that one is dreaming. For example, I sometimes have bad dreams of being trapped so I can't free myself, or some other bad dream, and have forced myself awake and it feels sort of like I take ahold of myself inside and make a hard twisting movement internally, and then suddenly I am awake. So I wondered, could there be some technique like this?

Nonetheless, so far it seems "easier said than done."

Iolaus wrote:But - you said that the matter, the street and the dog itself, are imaginary. However, I think that is not what you meant. First of all, a camera can take a picture of it. And secondly, you say that the essence of a material body consists of other, subordinate material objects. Very well. The essence of dog are teeth, fur, a tail - but these are still material. But you say the embodiment are those things which render it perceptible to the senses. Well, where is the difference?

The essence of any object, be it actual or imaginary, may be ultimately reduced to bodily sensations, and it is only through the mediation of these bodily sensations that a sentient being is able to perceive a thing. Consequently, all things, be they mentation, sensations, objects, properties or activities, if they are to be perceived by another, must give rise to “bodily” sensations – and so this is called “embodiment”. Now, we perceive that another is grieving because their emotions are embodied in their facial expression, or in the act of weeping, or in the overall countenance of their body; however, these overt expressions of sorrow are not the “essence” of sorrow, but merely its “embodiment”.

I never did like Aristotle!
Now, what do you mean to stand in opposition to its form?

It is a common misconception among philosophers that such concepts as “form” and “matter” are “opposites”, when in truth they are “complements”. For example, you will hear some say that “good” stands in opposition to “evil”, but this is not the case; for good and evil complete one another in that universe of discourse that is called “human judgment”.

What and where is the immutable form of elephant, and did it not need to arise at a point in time?

The absolute form that we call an elephant exists in potential, and is inherent in the nature of the Law of Identity, and for this reason, must arise whenever the appropriate causes (operative and constitutive) come together, and it must persist, so long as its causes persist.

This again is an interesting phrase, for I have thought about how one could awaken oneself into enlightenment, knowing that one is dreaming. For example, I sometimes have bad dreams of being trapped so I can't free myself, or some other bad dream, and have forced myself awake and it feels sort of like I take a hold of myself inside and make a hard twisting movement internally, and then suddenly I am awake. So I wondered, could there be some technique like this?

Nonetheless, so far it seems "easier said than done."

Indeed, it is exceedingly hard to do. However, there is a path that is tried and true, but this path is straight and narrow, and takes great courage and determination to traverse.

Jehu,

however, these overt expressions of sorrow are not the “essence” of sorrow, but merely its “embodiment”.

Alright, let's do a dog. What is the essence and what the embodiment.

It is a common misconception among philosophers that such concepts as “form” and “matter” are “opposites”, when in truth they are “complements”.

OK, but how does it work with a material thing, how do they say that the matter of an elephant is in opposition to its form?

The absolute form that we call an elephant exists in potential, and is inherent in the nature of the Law of Identity, and for this reason, must arise whenever the appropriate causes (operative and constitutive) come together, and it must persist, so long as its causes persist.

I'm a bit confused here as to whether the form is absolute or immutable. I guess that it isn't actual, since it is in the realm of the pure idea.

Indeed, it is exceedingly hard to do. However, there is a path that is tried and true, but this path is straight and narrow, and takes great courage and determination to traverse.

What is it?

Iolaus wrote:Alright, let's do a dog. What is the essence and what the embodiment.

The essence of a dog can be found in any current dictionary, for a definition is merely an expression of the essence of a thing. The embodiment of the dog, like all things, is ultimately in bodily sensations, however, the sentient mind has a tendency to refer sensory information (form and essence) to an external object as it cause. Therefore, I suppose one could rightfully say that the dog is embodied in the human imagination.

OK, but how does it work with a material thing, how do they say that the matter of an elephant is in opposition to its form?

As I said, the term “matter” merely denotes the essence of that type of thing that we call “objects”; and so “form” and “matter”(essence) stand in an interdependent and complementary relationship. Being complements, form and matter are mutually exclusive, and so are mistakenly taken to be opposing elements.

I'm a bit confused here as to whether the form is absolute or immutable. I guess that it isn't actual, since it is in the realm of the pure idea.

The form that is perceived is actual, but not real; for that which is real is a potential, and cannot be perceived. Further, that which is real is not an idea, for ideas are things, and have only a relative existence.

What is it?

First, it must be understood that the path and the one who travels it, are not different entities, but one and the same; and so in describing the path, we are actually describing the traveler. Also, it must be remembered that the relative world exists in a state of continuous flux, and so there is no standing still on the path. One is either moving toward enlightenment or away from it, and so one must be careful that every step taken is in the right direction; for although there is but one path, there are two ways to traverse it.

In just the same way that we recognize a thing by its form (appearance), so too can we recognize the right path by its form: this being “right view”. What is right view? It is the metaphysical view that all objects of perception are completely void of any inherent causes, and that it is perceiving awareness alone that is the true cause of all.

The essence of the path is “right resolve”: the logical analysis of all types of things into their constituent parts, so as to discover that there are no inherent causes present.

The embodiment of the path is “right language”: for it is our language which renders the right view perceptible to others, and whereby others are made aware of the view.

The potency of the path is in “right activity”: wholesome act of body, speech and mind.

The function of the path is “right livelihood”: where livelihood is not limited merely to how we earn our living, but includes our entire impact on the world.

These are the five elements that constitute the manifestation body of the right path.

Jehu,

Well, I am sorry to say that I am now again confused; I am sure that I have learned a bit from these concepts, but I am far from being able to incorporate them into my thoughts. I can't see the difference between matter and embodiment and essence. And I don't know what form is at all. It seems like it ought to be more than potential.

As to the path, I am taken aback. It is certainly not the anwer I expected. It sounds like the 8-fold path.

Is that it, or is that just the beginning of the explanation?

I already believe that all things lack inherent causes. At the same time, the inherent cause of all things is Awareness or God. It seems to me that your system is ultimately dualistic.

I am not sure to what extent we can analyze things into their constituent parts, since we don't know what they are made of.

What do you mean about right language, and why do you say this path takes courage?

Iolaus wrote:Well, I am sorry to say that I am now again confused; I am sure that I have learned a bit from these concepts, but I am far from being able to incorporate them into my thoughts. I can't see the difference between matter and embodiment and essence.

Let us say that there were no such thing as a bicycle, and I had the idea to bring together on a frame, two wheels, a seat, a drive chain, handle bars, etc. Now, thus far, the bicycle is only an idea (subjective knowledge), and so is not perceptible to anyone other than myself. In order that the idea be rendered perceptible to another, its essence (frame, wheels, peddles, etc.) must have an embodiment, that is to say, they must be translated from the realm of subjective knowledge into to the realm of objective knowledge. The embodiment of the bicycle can take on any number of forms: it can be embodied in a verbal or written definition, a drawing, a set of technical specifications, a model, or an actual full scale version of the thing itself. Ultimately, however, everything is embodied in bodily sensations, for sensations are the essence of all perceptual experiences – whether those experiences be given to the mind by the senses, or by the imagination.

And I don't know what form is at all. It seems like it ought to be more than potential.

Although that mutable form that we perceive as a pattern of distribution abiding within the ever changing essence of a thing, is a only relative entity, it is not imagined, but actual. The immutable form, which is real, and which is true cause of the manifest form, is not differentiable from all the other latent forms that comprise the absolute, until the are manifested.

As to the path, I am taken aback. It is certainly not the answer I expected. It sounds like the 8-fold path.

Is that it, or is that just the beginning of the explanation?

Yes, it is the “Noble Eight-fold Path”, for there is but one path to tranquility, and we have only just begun to explore it.

I already believe that all things lack inherent causes. At the same time, the inherent cause of all things is Awareness or God.

You may believe that all things lack inherent causes, but you have yet to grasp just what that means. I say this because you continue to cling to the notion that things ultimately comprise some sort of particles that are real, but this not the case. All things are, from beginning to end, mere appearance, and contain nothing real whatsoever.

It seems to me that your system is ultimately dualistic.

Philosophical dualism hold that there are two “independent” principles underlying the nature of all things (i.e., mind and matter); however, in this doctrine, the principles are “not two”; that is to say, they are two interdependent and complementary aspects of one and the same entity.

I am not sure to what extent we can analyze things into their constituent parts, since we don't know what they are made of.

This is why, in all the great wisdom traditions, it is the ego-personality that is normally taken as the object of analysis, for we are all in possession of a personality, and require no special tools with which to disassemble it.

What do you mean about right language, and why do you say this path takes courage?

Language is the embodiment of our thoughts and beliefs, and so our metaphysical view comes through in the language that we use. For example, if one is heard attributing blame to another for the way that they themselves feel at a given moment, this betrays the presence of wrong view.

To traverse the path requires enormous courage, because those who have not yet awakened will think you quite mad, or that you are a fool, or will fear the things that say, and try to silence you. You will be like the king who had not drank the maddening rain.

Jehu,

Well, your explanations today regarding essences and so forth made good sense, perhaps we should leave it at that!
But seriously, part of the problem is losing the thread of these rather abstract and abstruse thoughts, what with the day or two between replies. A succinct study guide would be in order, and while you say that your set of understandings are not of any one tradition, it certainly seems to be mostly Buddhist.

I thought the only people getting enlightened with Buddhism were the zennies.

Yes, it is the “Noble Eight-fold Path”, for there is but one path to tranquility, and we have only just begun to explore it.

Oh, dear. So if I straighten up and fly right, I'll get enlightened? That seems doubtful. I can see where this system would indeed lighten the load of delusion, but waking up - you know I believe that enlightenment is about the brain, just as sleeping and waking are about the brain. The brain has at least 4 brain wave states, alpha, beta, delta and theta. Two sleeping, two waking.

You may believe that all things lack inherent causes, but you have yet to grasp just what that means. I say this because you continue to cling to the notion that things ultimately comprise some sort of particles that are real, but this not the case. All things are, from beginning to end, mere appearance, and contain nothing real whatsoever.

I don't know if the particles are real but I do think they are actual. If we use the philosophical 'real' then I suppose not, since they are ever changing. But, you see, I don't believe they really are ever changing. Rather, they appear to change while remaining always the same.

It seems to me that in a nondual system, ultimately everything is real. You have decided that the things themselves appear real but aren't, whereas I have decided that it is the real which appears to change but doesn't.

If there is nothing but God, how can it be otherwise?

Philosophical dualism hold that there are two “independent” principles underlying the nature of all things (i.e., mind and matter);

Impossible.

This is why, in all the great wisdom traditions, it is the ego-personality that is normally taken as the object of analysis, for we are all in possession of a personality, and require no special tools with which to disassemble it.

Huh, that's what you think. It might be easier to dissect an atom, than an ego-personality. Or maybe, equally futile. I've had no success with the question, "Who Am I"?
Are you familiar with it? I think it comes from Maharishi. Supposed to be a short path to enlightenment.
Although, I think the question should be phrased: What am I? Never mind the who, which is more personal, when I don't even have a category. You might say human, but what the hell is that, and I don't think that whatever I am must be human.

One is either moving toward enlightenment or away from it, and so one must be careful that every step taken is in the right direction; for although there is but one path, there are two ways to traverse it.

Here is something from your previous post I didn't like. But first, what do you mean that there are two ways to traverse it?

What I didn't like was the implied threat. I have noted certain patterns in human behaviors that aren't useful, and in religions there are certain negativities. I don't know if it comes from demonic entities or our own minds, but in each religion I have found them. The threat of hell, or one guy who abandoned Buddhism stated that people who meditate on merging with the void could succeed and be forever lost, or I have read Buddhist stuff about how difficult it is to get enlightened such that a human lifetime comes about like a bird who flies over a certain rock in the ocean and brushes it with its feathers once every hundred years, and when the rock is worn down you get another human birth - of which very few result in enlightenment. Stuff like that I regard as crap that people make up to scare each other.
It may not be possible or necessary to never take a step that doesn't go forward.

To traverse the path requires enormous courage, because those who have not yet awakened will think you quite mad, or that you are a fool, or will fear the things you say, and try to silence you. You will be like the king who had not drank the maddening rain.

I already am and they already do. But my family will be OK. My husband was given to me by the universe to serve me. And, I do know a couple of people who are pretty far out.

Iolaus wrote:But seriously, part of the problem is losing the thread of these rather abstract and abstruse thoughts, what with the day or two between replies. A succinct study guide would be in order, and while you say that your set of understandings are not of any one tradition, it certainly seems to be mostly Buddhist.

This is because Buddhism, of all the ancient wisdom traditions, has come down to us the most fully intact. All the others are so fragmentary as to be incapable of providing a comprehensive and coherent picture. Nevertheless, what fragments we do have fit perfectly within the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. Consider, for example, the musings of the Hebrew sage Solomon, in Ecclesiastics.

Oh, dear. So if I straighten up and fly right, I'll get enlightened? That seems doubtful. I can see where this system would indeed lighten the load of delusion, but waking up - you know I believe that enlightenment is about the brain, just as sleeping and waking are about the brain. The brain has at least 4 brain wave states, alpha, beta, delta and theta. Two sleeping, two waking.

What you may not realize is that the brain is malleable, and changes form under the influence of our thoughts; thoughts being the operative cause, and neural networks merely the constitutive causes. So in this sense you are correct, enlightenment is about the brain: it is about bring the internal structures of the brain (concepts) into full accord with objective structure of the world. This is “right knowledge”, and this is the potency of that mental quality which is called “wisdom”. Now, as the function of wisdom is “illumination”, it is essential that we cultivate right knowledge; for the effect of wisdom is “enlightenment, and its recompense is “liberation”.

I don't know if the particles are real but I do think they are actual. If we use the philosophical 'real' then I suppose not, since they are ever changing. But, you see, I don't believe they really are ever changing. Rather, they appear to change while remaining always the same.

Here then is the critical question: how is it possible for that which is always the same, to appear to undergo changes? Clearly it cannot really undergo changes, for then it would not be always the same [law of contradiction].

It seems to me that in a nondual system, ultimately everything is real. You have decided that the things themselves appear real but aren't, whereas I have decided that it is the real which appears to change but doesn't.

If there is nothing but God, how can it be otherwise?

Indeed, everything has its origin and cause in that which is real, but given that that which is real is incapable of any alteration, it follows that whatever appears to undergo alteration cannot be real.

Impossible.

Clearly, it is impossible, but nevertheless, this is what the dualist believes.

Huh, that's what you think. It might be easier to dissect an atom, than an ego-personality. Or maybe, equally futile. I've had no success with the question, "Who Am I"?

I is really quite simple: examine closely all of the things that you hold to be “who you are”; for example, I am a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist; I am a Lawyer, a doctor, a plumber; I am a democrat, a republican, a communist; I am good looking, plain, ugly; I am a good mother, a loving wife, a doting daughter. Examine all these things and see if there is any one of them that does not abide in a stae of continuous flux; that is not born; that will never die. This is the very same message as was inscribed over the entry in the temple of Delphi : “Know Thy Self”.

Here is something from your previous post I didn't like. But first, what do you mean that there are two ways to traverse it?

Like any road, the path runs two ways: toward enlightenment or away from it – toward greater ignorance.

What I didn't like was the implied threat. I have noted certain patterns in human behaviors that aren't useful, and in religions there are certain negativities. I don't know if it comes from demonic entities or our own minds, but in each religion I have found them. The threat of hell, or one guy who abandoned Buddhism stated that people who meditate on merging with the void could succeed and be forever lost, or I have read Buddhist stuff about how difficult it is to get enlightened such that a human lifetime comes about like a bird who flies over a certain rock in the ocean and brushes it with its feathers once every hundred years, and when the rock is worn down you get another human birth - of which very few result in enlightenment. Stuff like that I regard as crap that people make up to scare each other.

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.

Jehu wrote: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.

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

Jehu,

This is because Buddhism, of all the ancient wisdom traditions, has come down to us the most fully intact. All the others are so fragmentary as to be incapable of providing a comprehensive and coherent picture. Nevertheless, what fragments we do have fit perfectly within the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. Consider, for example, the musings of the Hebrew sage Solomon, in Ecclesiastics.

Perhaps, but I have the highest opinion of Hinduism, among the religions. And then if you consider religions like Islam and Christianity, I am not sure they are in the same ballpark. They make take people to sanctity sometimes, but enlightenment is not encouraged. Perhaps the Sufis, some of whom have been exposed to Hinduism, are more knowledgeable.

What you may not realize is that the brain is malleable, and changes form under the influence of our thoughts; thoughts being the operative cause, and neural networks merely the constitutive causes. So in this sense you are correct, enlightenment is about the brain: it is about bring the internal structures of the brain (concepts) into full accord with objective structure of the world. This is “right knowledge”, and this is the potency of that mental quality which is called “wisdom”. Now, as the function of wisdom is “illumination”, it is essential that we cultivate right knowledge; for the effect of wisdom is “enlightenment, and its recompense is “liberation”.

I certainly know the brain is malleable. Not quite sure what it means to say that it changes form under the influence of thoughts. And thoughts also contain some emotion. I do believe that the thoughts and emotions interact with reality. But there is more going on to change the brain than thoughts. For example, during sleep, we have a sleep cycle, and this is driven partly by our physiology, and during deep sleep the person has retracted further from their bodily senses and may not dream, and then they naturally rise to the next stage of sleep and begin to dream. At some point the person wakes up, perhaps briefly, and goes to sleep again. Thoughts don't drive this process. And we can wonder whether it is really necessary to struggle to awaken to our true selves, or whether that is just for the impatient. We might awaken in due time anyway.

Here then is the critical question: how is it possible for that which is always the same, to appear to undergo changes? Clearly it cannot really undergo changes, for then it would not be always the same [law of contradiction].

No, it only appears to. Think of the structure of atoms. As I understand, an electron is an electron is an electron. I suppose that is also true of a proton or neutron. So the simplest element, hydrogen, contains one proton and one electron. If you add another electron, or proton (I cannot remember) you get the next element. And so on. Our whole world is built up of this. A piece of hydrogen is very different than a piece of iron, or so it seems, and yet, they are made of the same building blocks, configured differently or packed more densely.

I is really quite simple: examine closely all of the things that you hold to be “who you are”; for example, I am a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist; I am a Lawyer, a doctor, a plumber; I am a democrat, a republican, a communist; I am good looking, plain, ugly; I am a good mother, a loving wife, a doting daughter. Examine all these things and see if there is any one of them that does not abide in a stae of continuous flux; that is not born; that will never die.

I have already done this. Of course, I am fairly attached to the idea that I am a nice person, and would certainly not hit someone on the head with a bat. This has something to do with continuity of memory and experience, so that I have a sense of being someone. But it isn't set in stone, no, although I'd like to think I won't lose what I've gained, but I am not even sure of that.
But none of those things tells me what I am, and rejecting them does not tell me what I am either.

Like any road, the path runs two ways: toward enlightenment or away from it – toward greater ignorance.

Well, I could see that a person might take a path in life away from enlightenment, but you said that the path to enlightenment itself could be trod two ways.

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 see no reason to believe in a universe of scarcity. The awareness of an inanimate object, if it ever crosses the divide into the animate form, has many opportunities. There are quadrillions of tiny life forms on this planet, and there are quite likely billions of planets with life. There might be many billions more with only simple life. The amoeba isn't even ready to be a squirrel, and the squirrel isn't ready to be a human. I agree that a human being is a pretty stupendous thing, and rare compared to the rest of reality, but I doubt that there are long lines of humans wasting millions of boring years between births because there are insufficient bodies and planets for them to incarnate upon.

I just recalled that I had asked you a question some time back, in which you referred to the will of the absolute, and I asked how there can be a will without desire.

Iolaus,

I am hesitant to continue our enquiry as it is presently unfolding, for I feel that our discussion has become far to speculative and argumentative. I said, from the very beginning, that I was not a religious person, and I do not wish to become embroiled in discussions about religions or religious beliefs; beyond the metaphysics upon which they were originally founded. Neither do I wish to convince you that they should believe in any aspect of this doctrine, for as I said, belief alone will not advance you one step toward your goal. My one and only aim was to help guide you to a fuller understanding of the doctrine of the ancient wisdom traditions. Unfortunately, I am unable to see precisely where the obstacle lies, and so I do not know how to proceed.

Jehu,

Well, then, I have reread the 5 manifestation bodies of the path, and it seems good to me. Perhaps we should go back to there, and continue with the question, what is the path?

It may very well be that we have strayed too far into too many fragments that have become argumentative. But at the same time, I have the impression that unless I agree to every point, you will say we cannot continue.

I can see that understanding things lack inherent causes or characteristics is important, but I also think that there is an actual, consistent pathway whereby things are made manifest. And I am not sure that we have to agree as to the latter. That is, it may not be a crucial point for this process.

Iolaus wrote:It may very well be that we have strayed too far into too many fragments that have become argumentative. But at the same time, I have the impression that unless I agree to every point, you will say we cannot continue.

As I said in the beginning, a rational enquiry must proceed in a systematic fashion, where each step is based upon the certainty of the last. For this reason, we cannot simply drop a step because it is problematic, for then all certainty is lost, and we are back in the realm of suppositions and hypotheses.

I can see that understanding things lack inherent causes or characteristics is important, but I also think that there is an actual, consistent pathway whereby things are made manifest. And I am not sure that we have to agree as to the latter. That is, it may not be a crucial point for this process.

First, let me say that there is indeed a consistency to the manifestation of things, and this constancy originates within that one inviolable law which is both the first cause and reason of all things – the “Law of Identity” (Principle of Interdependent Complementarity).

Further, you are absolutely right when you say an understanding of nature of the relative entity is important, in truth, one might say that it is imperative. In fact, many ancient wisdom traditions have tried to convey this concept, the most notable occurrences being the Buddhist formulation known as “The Twelve Limbs of Dependent Origination” – “dependent origination” being the Buddhist term for relative beings, and Plato’s, “Allegory of the Cave”; from, “The Divided Line” – where he likens all things to shadows. Why this is so important, is that it is only when one realizes the dreamlike nature of the relative world, that one can begin to see how the entire system is structured, and why it must be precisely as it is. Therefore, I should like to return to the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity, and see if we cannot overcome this obstacle, and demonstrate that the absolute is necessarily cognizant. Is this agreeable?

Jehu,

Yes, of course it's agreeable. I do know that the steps are important and why, but it sometimes seems to me that a few of these points are not essential. Or, I am not sure which ones are. In the case of seeing the dependent origination, that is obvious.

But for example, in the case of whether or not there is a long waiting line to incarnate for humans, we don't really know the answer to that.

As for missing steps, perhaps it would be good for me to have an idea of the curriculum. I have no sense of it. We had started on what the path is, and I did not know how much of it you had explained.

Iolaus,

Unfortunately, it is not possible to offer a precise set of steps whereby to achieve an understanding of dependent origination, mainly because each subjective view of the world is quite unique, and each has its own set of obstacles. Consequently, it is often necessary to alter the direction of the discussion in accordance with the needs of each individual seeker.

In your particular case, the problem seems to be a tenacious attachment to the tenets of philosophical reductionism, a common trait in those associated with the sciences in general, and with the biosciences in particular. For this reason, I will attempt to undermine this attachment by providing a logical argument as to why reductionism is not tenable.

If I understand you correctly, you hold that there exist some number (more than one) of fundamental entities (particles) which are real (self-caused), and that it is the coming together of these fundamental particles – with their inherent properties and activities, that account for the appearance of all things.

First, we have agreed that there is only being, and that there is no non-being, and that this “Being” is a singular and continuous one.

Then, we agreed that there were only two possible ways in which an entity could be constituted, and that these two modes of being (absolute and relative) were merely the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the One Being.

Next, we agreed that given that the absolute entity partakes of a necessary, and not merely contingent existence, that it was this aspect of being that was “real”, while its complementary aspect, being mutually exclusive, must necessarily be “not real”.

Then, we demonstrated how the absolute entity, being self-contained, must encompass the relative entities, as one of its intrinsic causes, that is to say, its constitutive cause. Thus, we said that the absolute was akin to a “container”, and the relative, it “content”.

From this it follows that the container (absolute) is necessarily monistic, while the content (relative) is necessarily pluralistic; for all relative entities (content) must abide within the confines of the one absolute entity (container).

Now, given what has been stated above, must we not conclude that it is not possible that the absolute entity (the one) is able to really abide within the confines of the relative entity (the many); for the relative entity has no intrinsic causes, and therefore, no inherent properties or activities.

Carl G wrote:

Jehu wrote: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.

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

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

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.

Sunday? - lol

Jehu,

Unfortunately, it is not possible to offer a precise set of steps whereby to achieve an understanding of dependent origination, mainly because each subjective view of the world is quite unique, and each has its own set of obstacles. Consequently, it is often necessary to alter the direction of the discussion in accordance with the needs of each individual seeker.

Are you saying that the topic for this whole conversation is Dependent Origination?

In your particular case, the problem seems to be a tenacious attachment to the tenets of philosophical reductionism, a common trait in those associated with the sciences in general, and with the biosciences in particular. For this reason, I will attempt to undermine this attachment by providing a logical argument as to why reductionism is not tenable.

I like science, but I don't have any real education in it. I also read quite a lot of alternative science. I do not know what philosophical reductionism is, so this should be fun.

If I understand you correctly, you hold that there exist some number (more than one) of fundamental entities (particles) which are real (self-caused), and that it is the coming together of these fundamental particles – with their inherent properties and activities, that account for the appearance of all things.

I don't think the particles are self-caused though, although, not knowing what they are made of and in what way they relate to the absolute, I cannot exactly say. But, in general, I would say that the particles are not self-caused.

First, we have agreed that there is only being, and that there is no non-being, and that this “Being” is a singular and continuous one.

Then, we agreed that there were only two possible ways in which an entity could be constituted, and that these two modes of being (absolute and relative) were merely the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the One Being.

It is in considering this interdependent complementarity that I came to the idea that the particles might be in some way made up of the absolute. Because it seems like two sides of a coin.

Next, we agreed that given that the absolute entity partakes of a necessary, and not merely contingent existence, that it was this aspect of being that was “real”, while its complementary aspect, being mutually exclusive, must necessarily be “not real”.

Then, we demonstrated how the absolute entity, being self-contained, must encompass the relative entities, as one of its intrinsic causes, that is to say, its constitutive cause. Thus, we said that the absolute was akin to a “container”, and the relative, it “content”.

But it is a separatist image I get from trying to follow this. As if that which is absolute contains things which are not part of it. I agree it encompasses all, and has no outside. But is there really such a thing as an inside and an outside to reality? And, if the necessary intrinsic causes to the real is the not-real, what sense does that make?

From this it follows that the container (absolute) is necessarily monistic, while the content (relative) is necessarily pluralistic; for all relative entities (content) must abide within the confines of the one absolute entity (container).

Well, here is where I said that the things appear to be made up of this or that element, but at root are all the One. If I were to think of things as you seem to, I might as well go back to being a Christian, who thinks God sits on a throne and is separate from his creation.

Now, given what has been stated above, must we not conclude that it is not possible that the absolute entity (the one) is able to really abide within the confines of the relative entity (the many); for the relative entity has no intrinsic causes, and therefore, no inherent properties or activities.

It certainly doesn't abide within any confines, but again, what can it mean to say that the relative entity does not contain the absolute? This would mean that there is a realm in which Being is not.

Iolaus wrote:Are you saying that the topic for this whole conversation is Dependent Origination?

Not entirely, but an understanding of the nature of the relative (apparent) is essential to an understanding of the absolute (real). In other words, before we can fully grasp the true nature of reality, we must first understand the true nature of things.

I don't think the particles are self-caused though, although, not knowing what they are made of and in what way they relate to the absolute, I cannot exactly say. But, in general, I would say that the particles are not self-caused.

If these particles are not self caused, then they must be dependent upon something other than themselves, and as a relative entity cannot arise without that it has at least two different constitutive causes, it follows that these constitutive causes must be more fundamental that the particle itself; and the same must be true of the causes themselves – ad infinitum.

It is in considering this interdependent complementarity that I came to the idea that the particles might be in some way made up of the absolute. Because it seems like two sides of a coin.

This is why I used the analogy of the container and its content, rather than that of the two sides of a coin.

But it is a separatist image I get from trying to follow this. As if that which is absolute contains things which are not part of it. I agree it encompasses all, and has no outside. But is there really such a thing as an inside and an outside to reality? And, if the necessary intrinsic causes to the real is the not-real, what sense does that make?

No, in reality, there is neither an inside nor an outside, however, from a relative perspective (and it must be remembered that we are relative beings dwelling in a relative world), the absolute may be viewed as a boundless container, and the relative, as a finite, but ever evolving content.

Well, here is where I said that the things appear to be made up of this or that element, but at root are all the One. If I were to think of things as you seem to, I might as well go back to being a Christian, who thinks God sits on a throne and is separate from his creation.

I did not say that the absolute was separate from the relative, I merely said that the absolute does not abide within the relative. I say this because the relative is not real, and so possesses no intrinsic properties – real or otherwise. Rather, it is the relative that abides within the absolute, for is not that which is intrinsic that the relative entity depends upon for its existence, but that which extrinsic. It is for this reason, that when we try to determine the apparent causes of a thing, that we become entangled in Indra’s Net, that is to say, a thing appears to ultimately be dependent upon all the other things in the universe.

It certainly doesn't abide within any confines, but again, what can it mean to say that the relative entity does not contain the absolute? This would mean that there is a realm in which Being is not.

This brings us to the main sticking point: what does it mean to be “not real”? We have shown that the absolute entity, being self-contained, is real, and the relative, being it complement, is necessarily not real, but what does this mean?

Returning to the analogy of the dream, we can see that the objects of our dreams, like the dream persona that perceives them, are somehow different from that which is their origin and cause, and we differentiate between the two aspects by saying that the one (dreamer) is actual, while the other (dream) is only imaginary. However, reason tells us that both the actual and the imaginary partake of the very same mode of being, and so the two are constituted in the very same manner. Now, if the dream is dependent upon a cognizant observer (the dreamer), and the observer is embodied in a dream persona, does it not follow that the awakened world is also dependent upon a cognizant observer (the absolute being), and that this observer also embodies itself within an awakened persona (a sentient being)?

Jehu,

If these particles are not self caused, then they must be dependent upon something other than themselves, and as a relative entity cannot arise without that it has at least two different constitutive causes, it follows that these constitutive causes must be more fundamental that the particle itself; and the same must be true of the causes themselves – ad infinitum.

Alright, let's go over how you think things become actualized, and remind me again of your interpretation of the passage in Tao Te Ching in which the Tao becomes one, the one becomes two, and the two becomes three. (42)

This is why I used the analogy of the container and its content, rather than that of the two sides of a coin.

I did not say that the absolute was separate from the relative, I merely said that the absolute does not abide within the relative. I say this because the relative is not real, and so possesses no intrinsic properties – real or otherwise. Rather, it is the relative that abides within the absolute, for is not that which is intrinsic that the relative entity depends upon for its existence, but that which extrinsic. It is for this reason, that when we try to determine the apparent causes of a thing, that we become entangled in Indra’s Net, that is to say, a thing appears to ultimately be dependent upon all the other things in the universe.

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?

This brings us to the main sticking point: what does it mean to be “not real”? We have shown that the absolute entity, being self-contained, is real, and the relative, being it complement, is necessarily not real, but what does this mean?

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

Now, if the dream is dependent upon a cognizant observer (the dreamer), and the observer is embodied in a dream persona, does it not follow that the awakened world is also dependent upon a cognizant observer (the absolute being), and that this observer also embodies itself within an awakened persona (a sentient being)?

Yes, it does!

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

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?