GENIUS FORUMS

mikiel wrote:You presume to state as a fact, invalidating the Truth as I know it:
" but this is simply not true; for as I have said repeatedly, 'consciousness' is a function of the sentient mind..."
(validated, I presume, by your own repetition of it.)

I’m afraid I do not know what you are going on about. When I said “but this is simply not true”, I meant so only with respect to your inference that I, like yourself, held the cosmos to be “consciousness-made-manifest”, which is indeed a fact, because I do not hold this to be the case. Now, whether it is in fact the case, I cannot say, but I have no reason to believe so, for I hold ‘consciousness’ to be a function of the sentient mind, and so unless I believe in some form of solipsism, which I do not, I cannot agree that the cosmos are dependent upon consciousness. However, if you can show how it is possible that there might be consciousness in the absence of any sentient being, I will happily reconsider the matter.

Jehu,

Just quickly--

You say that you do not believe in solipsism, but in the previous reply you said that all minds were one and the same mind.

You seem to posit a mind, awareness and knowledge, and the use of that knowledge by Mind. Yet you say consciousness is a sentient characteristic. I still don't quite see the difference.

Ioluas wrote:You say that you do not believe in solipsism, but in the previous reply you said that all minds were one and the same mind.

The mind, like all other things (relative entities), has its origin and cause in the one true entity – Being, however, this being, although cognizant, is not a mind. I have said that awareness is mind-like, but this was merely to facilitate an understanding of it, and not to say that this is what it is; for as I have said so often, we cannot say of the absolute ‘what it is’, but only ‘that it is’.

You seem to posit a mind, awareness and knowledge, and the use of that knowledge by Mind. Yet you say consciousness is a sentient characteristic. I still don't quite see the difference.

The best way to differentiate between ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ is to say that the former attends to the latter. For example, when you are intently watching something your attention (awareness) is focused entirely on the eye consciousness, and even though someone speaks your name, you do not hear them. Now, this does not mean that your ear is not conscious, for the ear is still functioning; you are simply not aware of its consciousness.

Jehu,

OK, I am back to your reply. On the mind question, however, would you please elaborate about what you mean when you say all minds are one mind, and yet they are not the absolute. That is, you seem to say: Being is undivided, mind is not Being, yet mind is undivided.

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that people think that they can imagine a world without any sentient observer, but in truth, they cannot. For example, in the absence of any sentient being whatsoever, the ‘objective world’ could not look like anything, feel like anything, taste, smell or sound like anything; and so how can one possibly imagine such a state; or say that such a state can constitute an existence of any sort?

Most likely you are right, and all I can say is that I am continuing to ponder this problem. I do often think of it and haven't forgotten.

I mean, if it were true, it would pretty much solve everything.

For example, when I say that I saw a wolf cut across the road this morning, what I really mean is that I think or imagine what I saw to be a wolf, however, the imaginary aspect of my experience only becomes evident when something happens to prove me wrong. So you see, the sentient experience is two-fold, the one aspect being what ‘actually’ happened, and the other, what we ‘imagined’ to have happened.++++ For example, we pass someone on the street whom would normal greet us, and because of something which is going on in their own life, they fail to acknowledge us, and we immediately imagine that it is because of something we have done – a result of the ego’s self-centralizing tendency.

OK, I have seen the difference to some extent between the actuality of essence/form, versus the other three more imaginary elements. But in the paragraph above, which I divided, I see two distinctly different aspects. In the first, barring you didn't see clearly or something, it should be that there was an actual wolf. And while we may say that the human sentient mind has identified the wolf with a name and perhaps other baggage, nonetheless, the wolf is actual. Whereas, the second example is a whole world of possibilities in which we deviate from reality by, as I call it, dreaming-awake, decreasing our consciousness and beginning to dream. In other words, when we begin to interpret reality in irrational and emotional ways due to threats to the ego, we are in a sense dreaming while awake. Just as in our dreams, if there is a loud knock on the door, you may incorporate this stimulus into your dream and come up with a dream interpretation.

Given that the two modes of being are complementary, it follows that they are mutually exclusive, and so if one of the modes is ‘aware’, and one of them must necessarily be, then the other is necessarily unaware.

What I am trying to ask is how we know a particular set of characteristics are to be divided between the two modes. There could be many characteristics in which they both belong to the relative mode. For example, cold and hot.

Yes, it might appear that way, but it is Yin (awareness) that is the active or operative cause, while Yang (knowledge) is the passive or constitutive cause. Interestingly, the Chinese held the Yin to be the female aspect, for although woman appear inferior (passive) to men, it is actually the woman that possesses the creative power.

I had decided that that which we call matter is completely passive. However, embodied within matter is knowledge...
Now, you have said that much of this ancient philosophy is poorly understood by herbalist types, but I am surprised because calling yin active is completely at odds with everything I have read. Of course, ancient people thought women possessed the creative power, but considering the quickening force of insemination, can we really say that? Or consider mentation and understanding of physical things, both of these seem the province of the male, at least in the human species.

I believe the Chinese also thought women had more sexual power, because they are less, shall I say, desperate.

To ask “how does it start” is to not grasp the nature of the absolute entity, for if its self-abiding causes (i.e., awareness (a relation) and knowledge (a quality)) do exist, then too must the entity itself exist.

It sounds like you are saying that the self-abiding causes of awareness and knowledge are nondifferent than matter. When I say matter, I do not necessarily mean in the sense of the stuff we think of as matter because we can easily apprehend it, but rather that it exists in any physical sort of way, as opposed to say a pure idea.

What I'm really wondering is, what is matter? I guess a lot of people are.

In truth however, nothing remains the same from one instant to the next, and so, for example, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that were the constitutive causes of a water molecule at the time that it came into being, are not the same atoms that appear to be released when the water molecule ceases to be, but are entirely new atoms – albeit, only apparent ones.

I would say that they are not the same but they are also not entirely new. the configuration is always moving, but it is probably the same electrons and protons as came together.

This is what I meant earlier, when I said that it was a ‘non-regressive’ process, and it is this non-regressive aspect of the cycle that gives time it apparent direction from the past through the present into the future – the so called ‘arrow of time’.

First of all, I notice that while the PIC both takes things apart and puts them together, nonetheless they both contribute to the impression of the arrow of time, and do not appear as a backwards and forwards motion. Is this what you mean by nonregressive?

Logically, however, the concepts of past, present and future are completely untenable, for neither the past nor the future exist now, and in the instant that separates the two, there is no time for a present to exist either.

Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?

Ioluas wrote:On the mind question, however, would you please elaborate about what you mean when you say all minds are one mind, and yet they are not the absolute. That is, you seem to say: Being is undivided, mind is not Being, yet mind is undivided.

Being is existentially indivisible, therefore, all beings (things), including minds, are fundamentally one; however, given that all things belong to the relative mode of being, they are not absolute. Further, the way in which all minds are essentially one and the same is the same way in which all chairs are essentially one and the same; that is to say, in that they all share the same set of ‘essential characteristics’.

OK, I have seen the difference to some extent between the actuality of essence/form, versus the other three more imaginary elements. But in the paragraph above, which I divided, I see two distinctly different aspects. In the first, barring you didn't see clearly or something, it should be that there was an actual wolf. And while we may say that the human sentient mind has identified the wolf with a name and perhaps other baggage, nonetheless, the wolf is actual. Whereas, the second example is a whole world of possibilities in which we deviate from reality by, as I call it, dreaming-awake, decreasing our consciousness and beginning to dream. In other words, when we begin to interpret reality in irrational and emotional ways due to threats to the ego, we are in a sense dreaming while awake. Just as in our dreams, if there is a loud knock on the door, you may incorporate this stimulus into your dream and come up with a dream interpretation.

Again, the phenomenal experience entails only form (mentation) and essence (sensations), and all else is a product of interpretive mental processes. As I said, we tend to forget about this interpretive process, and it is only when our interpretation is called into question that we see the imaginary quality of it. However, even if an entire group of sentient beings agree with respect to their interpretation of a given perception, this does not change the fact that they are all exercising their imaginations.

What I am trying to ask is how we know a particular set of characteristics are to be divided between the two modes. There could be many characteristics in which they both belong to the relative mode. For example, cold and hot.

Yes, I see what you mean. The only characteristics which may be rightfully applied to the absolute mode, are those which are themselves immutable; that is to say, those which are fixed for all time.

It sounds like you are saying that the self-abiding causes of awareness and knowledge are nondifferent than matter. When I say matter, I do not necessarily mean in the sense of the stuff we think of as matter because we can easily apprehend it, but rather that it exists in any physical sort of way, as opposed to say a pure idea.

What I'm really wondering is, what is matter? I guess a lot of people are.

When you ask ‘what is matter’ you are really asking what is ‘Knowledge’, and so I will tell you –utilizing the Five Elements. Its form or appearance is ‘mentation’, its essence is ‘sensations, its embodiment is ‘material objects’, its potency is ‘properties’ and its function is ‘activity’. These are the five classes of things which make up the relative mode of being: mentation, sensation, objects, properties and activities. So, to answer your question, matter is the embodiment of Knowledge.

I would say that they are not the same but they are also not entirely new. the configuration is always moving, but it is probably the same electrons and protons as came together.

Remember, the relative mode is the complement of the absolute mode, and therefore, given that the absolute is incapable of any change whatsoever, the relative mode must then be incapable of remaining the same. You see, there is but one true Being, and although we speak of the relative (things) as entities or beings, they are not, for they abide in a perpetual state of ‘becoming’; for just as the absolute cannot move/change, neither can the relative stop moving/changing.

First of all, I notice that while the PIC both takes things apart and puts them together, nonetheless they both contribute to the impression of the arrow of time, and do not appear as a backwards and forwards motion. Is this what you mean by nonregressive?

What I mean is that the cycling between awareness and knowledge is not like that of a pendulum, but like a great wheel that forever turns in the same direction, and can never turn back; for to do so, it must first come to a complete stop – and this it cannot do.

Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?

I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?

Jehu,

To say that all minds share essential characteristics, is not to say they are all one mind. Is that what you meant to say?

Again, the phenomenal experience entails only form (mentation) and essence (sensations), and all else is a product of interpretive mental processes.

Hmmm. You call form mentation, yet it is actual. The other three are interpretive...am I confusing the five classes of things with the five elements?

However, even if an entire group of sentient beings agree with respect to their interpretation of a given perception, this does not change the fact that they are all exercising their imaginations.

When perceiving actual things they are exercising their imaginations?

The only characteristics which may be rightfully applied to the absolute mode, are those which are themselves immutable; that is to say, those which are fixed for all time.

Have you got a list?

Why are you saying that form is a mentation when you have said that form and essence are the two actual elements?

When you ask ‘what is matter’ you are really asking what is ‘Knowledge’, and so I will tell you –utilizing the Five Elements. Its form or appearance is ‘mentation’, its essence is ‘sensations, its embodiment is ‘material objects’, its potency is ‘properties’ and its function is ‘activity’. These are the five classes of things which make up the relative mode of being: mentation, sensation, objects, properties and activities. So, to answer your question, matter is the embodiment of Knowledge.

Sigh. I suppose so, but just as in my conversation with Kelly, who tells me that the question of the origin of the Totality is a nonsense question, I find myself thinking that nonetheless, I have no idea what matter is, and how it can exist. matter is no doubt the embodiment of knowledge, and it no doubt has those five characteristics...I have no idea what it is.

Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?

I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?

Well, yes, a little. I imagine it as being like when you lose all sense of time, and have a very sharp and narrow focus on the moment. At any rate, you had said that past and future aren't real, and that there is no time for the present. So what is happening?

Ioluas wrote:To say that all minds share essential characteristics, is not to say they are all one mind. Is that what you meant to say?

If were to say “bring me a bicycle”, would you not be free to bring me any bicycle whatsoever, for are they not all identical in that they are all ‘bicycles’? And is this not true of all classes of things? It is only when we start to deal with particular instances of things that individuality comes into play. My bicycle, for example, may be purple or red, while the class of things we call ‘bicycles’ does not have a colour, make, model, serial number, worn tire, etc, etc, etc.

Hmmm. You call form mentation, yet it is actual. The other three are interpretive...am I confusing the five classes of things with the five elements?

Forms are intimately related to mentation in that forms are patterns of distribution which are embedded in the essence of a thing, which the mind is able to recognize. Squares are forms, circles are forms, and even bicycles are forms, but in truth, all forms are associated with concepts (mental structures), and this is why the mind is able to recognize them as some ‘thing’. However, until we name the thing, this association does not come into play, and so our perception remains unsullied by the faculty of imagination. But once a thing is named, then all of one's past experiences and predjudices with respect to the given thing come into play, and perception is thereafter altered.

The only characteristics which may be rightfully applied to the absolute mode, are those which are themselves immutable; that is to say, those which are fixed for all time.

Have you got a list?

Real, true, immutable, permanent, unbounded, etc.

I suppose so, but just as in my conversation with Kelly, who tells me that the question of the origin of the Totality is a nonsense question, I find myself thinking that nonetheless, I have no idea what matter is, and how it can exist. matter is no doubt the embodiment of knowledge, and it no doubt has those five characteristics...I have no idea what it is.

To ask what is the origin of Being, is to ask what caused it, but Being is self-caused and so it is its own origin. Unfortunately, we sentient beings abide within the field of time, and so we view everything as being governed by something else – something which came before it. Being, however, does not abide within the field of time; but rather, time abides within the field of Being.

Well, yes, a little. I imagine it as being like when you lose all sense of time, and have a very sharp and narrow focus on the moment. At any rate, you had said that past and future aren't real, and that there is no time for the present. So what is happening?

Really, or apparently?

Jehu,

If were to say “bring me a bicycle”, would you not be free to bring me any bicycle whatsoever, for are they not all identical in that they are all ‘bicycles’? And is this not true of all classes of things? It is only when we start to deal with particular instances of things that individuality comes into play. My bicycle, for example, may be purple or red, while the class of things we call ‘bicycles’ does not have a colour, make, model, serial number, worn tire, etc, etc, etc.

I was really just trying to understand in what sense you said all minds are one mind. So they share the same characteristics, but are individual.

But once a thing is named, then all of one's past experiences and prejudices with respect to the given thing come into play, and perception is thereafter altered.

So, although form and essence are real, they are also bound up with imagination.

Real, true, immutable, permanent, unbounded, etc.

But what I am trying to figure out is, whether awareness necessarily has a part in this list.

I suppose so, but just as in my conversation with Kelly, who tells me that the question of the origin of the Totality is a nonsense question, I find myself thinking that nonetheless, I have no idea what matter is, and how it can exist. matter is no doubt the embodiment of knowledge, and it no doubt has those five characteristics...I have no idea what it is.

To ask what is the origin of Being, is to ask what caused it, but Being is self-caused and so it is its own origin. Unfortunately, we sentient beings abide within the field of time, and so we view everything as being governed by something else – something which came before it. Being, however, does not abide within the field of time; but rather, time abides within the field of Being.

So you are equating matter with Being, that matter is part of Being?

Really, or apparently?

Well, both of course! But especially as relates to there being no past, no future and no present!

Iolaus wrote:

Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?

I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?

Well, yes, a little. I imagine it as being like when you lose all sense of time, and have a very sharp and narrow focus on the moment.

Sharp and narrow, but now is all there is! The narrower the vision, the more is seen?

Jehu,
What I was going on about was gnosis that Cosmos is One conscious Being denoted by the word "Kosmos."
Your denial of the above is based on a purely anthropomorphic definition of sentience without benefit of mystic Knowing by direct identification that "I Am" is the same Identity/Consciousness in all forms.
Your doctine misses this point which is central to enlightenment, the "Ultimate Reality" which this forum pretends to discuss withing the very limited scope of reason/logic alone.

As to your absurd statements about the present:

"Logically, however, the concepts of past, present and future are completely untenable, for neither the past nor the future exist now, and in the instant that separates the two, there is no time for a present to exist either."

True, past is no longer real and present, and future is not yet real and present. That leaves us with the ongoing Present, not chopped up into little moments of '"time" but the perpetual NOW... always Present... whereas "time" is merely the concept of event duration, acording to whatever "period of time" an observer selects out of the ongoing NOW, for whatever reason... like to designate a nano-second or a millenium.


Iolaus: "Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?"
Jehu:
"I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?"

Read Eckhart Tolle if you are interested in "The Power of Now" as a key to enlightenment. Very clear and intelligent.

I live in the Present. Are you lost in the conceptual world in your head to the extent you can neither "track time" as used in common sense or transcend time into the timeless now?

So, although form and essence are real, they are also bound up with imagination.

They can be, but it is not necessary, for it is only when we name a thing that the imagination comes into play. There is however, a state of perception wherein there is no mediating mentation, there is only pure awareness, and it is this state which is called tranquil mind.

But what I am trying to figure out is, whether awareness necessarily has a part in this list.

Yes, that aspect of Being which we have called ‘awareness’ belongs in this list.

So you are equating matter with Being, that matter is part of Being?

Yes, of course, for all things participate in Being – there being naught else.

Well, both of course! But especially as relates to there being no past, no future and no present!

From the perspective of the absolute there is no time, for there is no change. Being, which is the only true entity, does not abide within the fields of time or space, and so we cannot rightfully say that it has either a shape or a duration. Neither can we say that it is big or small, for this would imply that there is a greater sphere wherein Being abides. Time, belongs exclusively to the realm of the relative being (apparent entities), and as I said before, is nothing more than an illusion brought about because the relative world unfolds in accordance with an underlying law.

Jehu:

From the perspective of the absolute there is no time, for there is no change. Being, which is the only true entity, does not abide within the fields of time or space, and so we cannot rightfully say that it has either a shape or a duration. Neither can we say that it is big or small, for this would imply that there is a greater sphere wherein Being abides. Time, belongs exclusively to the realm of the relative being (apparent entities), and as I said before, is nothing more than an illusion brought about because the relative world unfolds in accordance with an underlying law.

So, tho your signature is "not two" (non-dual) you deny the reality of manifest cosmos (which is always changing) and affirm the ideal of a frozen, static absolute reality.
I know that consciousness is eternally unchanging and transcendental. I also know that cosmos is an objectively real "creation" (if you will) of this Creator...
"Not two" is the affirmation of the reality of transcendental consciousness... the Absolute, and the manifest creation/cosmos...
both "real."
The One ('not two') is this Being with two aspects, unchanging absolute cosmic awareness (omnipresent) *and* the manifest cosmos... "It's body"...
Much the same on smaller scale with us humans. We are local manifestations of this One Consciousness. Our bodies die. Consciousness... the One Identity is eternally changeless.

So to what does your "not two" refer? One static absolute without the aspect of a real manifest creation?
Your denial of the reality of the cosmos labels you as delusional.
Is your physical body "real" even tho it is unquestionably temporary?
No? You deny the reality of physical existence altogether?
What is this absolute without a manifest body... cosmos?

Btw, I challenge you to respond intelligently to my reply to you above on time and the ongoing, unsegmented now.

I honestly think you are a deluded fool.

Jehu,

Well, then, you have said that there is not time, at least not from the absolute viewpoint. I think that there is then just a timeless state of awareness, and this is not really different than Mikiel's ongoing present. What do you mean that there is not time for the present?

Mikiel,

I have the Power of Now, read it a few years ago. I did like it a lot at that time.

I think it (life) could all come down to a constant choice between a perspective of unity and a perspective of ego (separateness).

We just choose which we want for any particular moment and suffer (enjoy) the consequences.

Then again... that opens up the whole debate of if 'choice' even exists.

www.mindweed.org

Ioluas wrote:Well, then, you have said that there is not time, at least not from the absolute viewpoint. I think that there is then just a timeless state of awareness, and this is not really different than Mikiel's ongoing present. What do you mean that there is not time for the present?

I do not wish to be a stickler, but Mikel’s present lies firmly within the field of time, and as the one true Being transcends both time and space, we cannot rightful say that it exists either here or now, but only that it exists. Further, although the notion of time is highly useful for we sentient beings, it is nonetheless, merely an idea. Remember, we said that relative entities are not real entities, and so they do not partake of true being (unchanging), but abide in a state of perpetual ‘becoming’ (ever changing). Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past. It is as though one were to divide a line by a single point, which is itself without spatial extension, and then claim that something might occupy this point. In the same way, we cannot claim that a thing might persist within the span of an instant, which itself has no temporal extension – but which merely delineates the past from the future.

Jehu,

I do not wish to be a stickler, but Mikel’s present lies firmly within the field of time,...

You totally misunderstand my usage of "the ongoing (perpetual, eternal) present.
Now is *not a very small span of time.* There is *no time* between past and future. Time is indeed merely the human observation/measurement/designation of "event duration", the common sense designation of segements of time, as I said, from a nano-second to a mellenium, etc. Now IS ALWAYS PRESENT... same present everywhere from cosmic perspective... the absolute omnipresent NOW transcending all relative, local perspectives and "designated events."

You jump easily to erroneous conclusions in areas about which you are ignorant... Like the Eternal NOW.

Again, you say:

Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past.

I am not speaking of the present as a "span of time, no matter how minute..."
It IS an unsegmented constant undivided "flow" transcending the concept of event duration or "spans of time."

Your mind automatically creates these "spans of time" negating the True Present as an ever ongoing reality. Therefore your mind traps you in a misconception that there can be no True Now as ongong Reality.
I suggest you contemplate the above and get over it.

Jehu,

Then I suppose I am back to the question I asked, which is, what is going on? And you said, really, or apparently? And I answered, both.

Remember, we said that relative entities are not real entities, and so they do not partake of true being (unchanging), but abide in a state of perpetual ‘becoming’ (ever changing). Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past. It is as though one were to divide a line by a single point, which is itself without spatial extension, and then claim that something might occupy this point. In the same way, we cannot claim that a thing might persist within the span of an instant, which itself has no temporal extension – but which merely delineates the past from the future.

This means either that nothing exists at all, which is not possible, or that this existence, albeit that it is a constant state of becoming, does exist, but that time is misunderstood or unimportant as it relates to existence. To say that entities are in a perpetual state of becoming is to say that something is happening and that the entities are, in some sense, persisting and existing. And to then say that their persistence/existence cannot be pinned down to any instant of time no matter how small, is to say that time is not the correct way to measure existence. Otherwise, your statements would have to be contradictory.

Ioluas wrote:Then I suppose I am back to the question I asked, which is, what is going on? And you said, really, or apparently? And I answered, both.

What is going on is that the one true entity (Being), given that it partakes of a cognizant nature, imagines there to be a objective world, and then embodies itself within that virtual world; just as the sleeping mind is capable of imagining there to be a dream world, and then embodying itself (awareness) within that virtual dream world. Then, having fallen into a state akin to ignorance (imperfect knowledge), this embodied awareness erroneously takes its own embodiment (physical body), along with the other physical objects it perceives to have the same characteristic (reality) as does the true entity – of which it is but a fragment, and from which it is separated by imperfect knowledge (ignorance) and false reasoning (induction).

This means either that nothing exists at all, which is not possible, or that this existence, albeit that it is a constant state of becoming, does exist, but that time is misunderstood or unimportant as it relates to existence. To say that entities are in a perpetual state of becoming is to say that something is happening and that the entities are, in some sense, persisting and existing. And to then say that their persistence/existence cannot be pinned down to any instant of time no matter how small, is to say that time is not the correct way to measure existence. Otherwise, your statements would have to be contradictory.

Though essence (the relative) abides in a state of continuous and uninterrupted change, there is embodied within this essence, that which has gives rise to the appearance of stability, and this aspect is what is called ‘form’. For example, an automobile begins to deteriorate immediately that it rolls of the assembly line, but since its components are bound together by a recognizable form (e.g., a Toyota Corolla), the thing (relative entity) has the appearance of persisting from one instant to the next; while in truth, every single component, right down to the sub-atomic level, has undergone some sort of change. However, as each component continues to deteriorate (change), there comes a stage where they (the components) will no longer hold together, and at this point, the thing (form) ceases to be – for it no longer has the capacity to function – and all things are functional entities; that is to say, a thing is what it does.

Time, as a measurement of the duration of existence, is purely comparative, for we can measure the duration of one thing only in terms of the duration of something else. However, given that all things partake of a contingent existence, and so are dependent upon ‘conditions’ as well as causes; and given that these conditions will vary from one situation to another – which is the reason that a relative entity may either exist or not, there is no ‘absolute standard’ whereby to measure time. This is of course precisely what one should expect, given that time is only an illusion, and so is dependent upon a sentient observer.

Jehu,

Alright, but are you not saying then that the true situation for Being is one of timelessness? Is your objection to such phrases as eternal now or ongoing present because you think the proponents are imagining tiny increments of frozen time? I do not think that is the case. So, when I ask what is going on, I am specifically focusing on how you would describe this existence in relation to the illusion of time.

Now, as to the embodied awarenesses living in ignorance, do you think there is any transcendent aspect to Being, any part that knows the truth?

Ioluas wrote:Alright, but are you not saying then that the true situation for Being is one of timelessness? Is your objection to such phrases as eternal now or ongoing present because you think the proponents are imagining tiny increments of frozen time? I do not think that is the case.

My objection is that the proponents appear to believe that Being abides within the field of time, for the present (now) is one of the three times, and so must be subject to time; when in truth, there is no ‘eternal present’, there is only an ‘enduring presence’ – Awareness.

So, when I ask what is going on, I am specifically focusing on how you would describe this existence in relation to the illusion of time.

The phenomenal experience falls squarely within the fields of time and space – the ‘here and now’; however space and time, although actual, have only a relative existence, and are not real. By this I mean that the chain of apparent causes and effects (beings) is bound by both time and space, and must unfold in accordance with the one inviolable law; but Being is bound by neither space nor time.

Now, as to the embodied awarenesses living in ignorance, do you think there is any transcendent aspect to Being, any part that knows the truth?

Yes, of course, for all ignorance has an intentional component. All sentient beings, and especially human beings, have a niggling suspicion that things are not quite as they seem; however, we tend to turn a blind eye to anything that might interfere with our fulfilling our desires.

Jehu,

My objection is that the proponents appear to believe that Being abides within the field of time, for the present (now) is one of the three times, and so must be subject to time; when in truth, there is no ‘eternal present’, there is only an ‘enduring presence’ – Awareness.

I think it is a semantic problem. If you think about it, this ongoing Now can't be in relation to a past and future, but only would be possible without them. Or perhaps, each person means it in whatever way they have pursued it thoughtwise, so it does need to be clarified.

Yes, of course, for all ignorance has an intentional component. All sentient beings, and especially human beings, have a niggling suspicion that things are not quite as they seem; however, we tend to turn a blind eye to anything that might interfere with our fulfilling our desires.

All ignorance has an intentional component? What about the ignorance of an animal? They have a piece of this awareness that you speak of, yet don't have the kind of brain we have for full understanding. And what of evolution? Do you think beings evolve into bodies with higher capacity through incarnations?
But i am more interested in what you think of a transcendent aspect of Being, or of the Absolute, not human sentience.
As to humans suspecting that things are not as they seem, in my youth I don't think such thoughts ever occurred to me at all, despite that in many ways I think childhood is a kind of enlightenment that we lose.

Ioluas wrote:I think it is a semantic problem. If you think about it, this ongoing Now can't be in relation to a past and future, but only would be possible without them. Or perhaps, each person means it in whatever way they have pursued it thoughtwise, so it does need to be clarified.

Yes, perhaps, but if we use a term in a way that does not conform with the conventionally prescribe meaning(s), we must qualify the term in advance – else we will cause confusion.

All ignorance has an intentional component? What about the ignorance of an animal? They have a piece of this awareness that you speak of, yet don't have the kind of brain we have for full understanding.

When I say that all ignorance has an intentional component, I mean that all awareness which embodies itself within the sentient world, be it as an animal or a human being, does so intentionally. However, as the human being has a greater capacity to imagine, the level of ignorance is generally much deeper in the human being.

And what of evolution? Do you think beings evolve into bodies with higher capacity through incarnations?

The more complex the relative entity, the greater is its functional capacity, and the human being is perhaps the most complex of all. However, with respect to the matter of evolution, again, the evolutionary chain is one of merely ‘apparent causation’, and is not the true cause of our being.

But i am more interested in what you think of a transcendent aspect of Being, or of the Absolute, not human sentience.

I’m afraid I do not fully understand what you are asking here by “transcendent aspect”. Are you asking if the absolute partakes of some sort of consciousness apart from that which it experiences through sentient forms? If so, the answer is no, however, it is fully aware of everything, for it is both omnipresent and omniscient. But, if one can achieve a full and perfect awakening, then one’s true self (the absolute) is made manifest, and the individual ego-personality is no more. Is this the transcendence of which you speak?

As to humans suspecting that things are not as they seem, in my youth I don't think such thoughts ever occurred to me at all, despite that in many ways I think childhood is a kind of enlightenment that we lose.

This is because as young children we have not yet developed an erroneous metaphysical worldview, and so we see the world as dreamlike, and unlimited in its potential. However, as we develop intellectually, we start to put together a theory of how the world really is, and as this theory evolves, the more solid and un-dreamlike the world becomes.

Jehu,

When I say that all ignorance has an intentional component, I mean that all awareness which embodies itself within the sentient world, be it as an animal or a human being, does so intentionally. However, as the human being has a greater capacity to imagine, the level of ignorance is generally much deeper in the human being.

Huh! Well, I suppose I see what you mean, since we fabricate so much, but what of our self-awareness? It seems to me that humans have much more knowledge and understanding than animals, although we could say that an animal is a pure experiencer with no baloney.

The more complex the relative entity, the greater is its functional capacity, and the human being is perhaps the most complex of all. However, with respect to the matter of evolution, again, the evolutionary chain is one of merely ‘apparent causation’, and is not the true cause of our being.

I wasn't really speaking of physical evolution, but the evolution of souls, or selves, or whatever it is that is happening. The awareness in an insect is quite impressive compared to an inanimate thing, yet much less than a higher mammal or a human. I wonder about some sort of progression.

I’m afraid I do not fully understand what you are asking here by “transcendent aspect”. Are you asking if the absolute partakes of some sort of consciousness apart from that which it experiences through sentient forms?

Yes.

If so, the answer is no, however, it is fully aware of everything, for it is both omnipresent and omniscient.

Well, this is a puzzle. Omniscient, aware, and with perfect knowledge as necessary to create this universe, which I think requires intelligence, nor do I believe in an unplanned and random physical evolution of life without any mind or knowledge to direct it. Yet you say that there is no consciousness apart from sentient beings. I don't see how this all adds up.

But, if one can achieve a full and perfect awakening, then one’s true self (the absolute) is made manifest, and the individual ego-personality is no more. Is this the transcendence of which you speak?

They say the individual is no more, yet the enlightened person still speaks, still answers to their name, still puts on a sweater when cold, etc. Although I have heard of cases, maybe in India, in which a person becomes completely impervious to these things, and would expire without that their loved ones care for them until they recover, which they generally do after some months.

But perhaps you are saying that we can aspire to achieve being a kind of perfect window of the absolute, with the lack of ego boundary yet the self-aware sentience?

But no, it was not the transcendence of which I spoke. There is the sense that there is an Other.

This is because as young children we have not yet developed an erroneous metaphysical worldview, and so we see the world as dreamlike, and unlimited in its potential. However, as we develop intellectually, we start to put together a theory of how the world really is, and as this theory evolves, the more solid and un-dreamlike the world becomes.

Also, they are in the moment, in a way which the eastern religions constantly try to teach but it is rarely achieved I think, to the effortless degree that children experience it every day.

Ioluas wrote: Omniscient, aware, and with perfect knowledge as necessary to create this universe, which I think requires intelligence, nor do I believe in an unplanned and random physical evolution of life without any mind or knowledge to direct it. Yet you say that there is no consciousness apart from sentient beings. I don't see how this all adds up.

When in a dream state, is the dreaming mind conscious of the fact that it has created a dream world? When you awaken from a dream, do you have any memory of having created or manipulated the vast array of interrelated objects which appear to inhabited your dream world? Do you remember having caused your dream body to move whenever you dream-persona seemingly intended it to do so, or of making an object fall to the floor because your dream-persona let go of it? And yet, it is clear that your mind accomplished all of this and more; a feat which it could not have done were it completely unaware of the goings on in your dream; or if it did not know precisely how each thing was supposed to react in response to the other things in its environment. So you see, awareness and consciousness are not one and the same, although they are related, for awareness is that which makes consciousness possible.

They say the individual is no more, yet the enlightened person still speaks, still answers to their name, still puts on a sweater when cold, etc. Although I have heard of cases, maybe in India, in which a person becomes completely impervious to these things, and would expire without that their loved ones care for them until they recover, which they generally do after some months.
But perhaps you are saying that we can aspire to achieve being a kind of perfect window of the absolute, with the lack of ego boundary yet the self-aware sentience?

But no, it was not the transcendence of which I spoke. There is the sense that there is an Other.

What we are aspiring to is not a window into the Absolute, but a state of ‘atonement’ (at-one-ment) with the Absolute – for there is no Other. The cessation of the ego-personality does not mean that one loses the will to live, or that one no longer takes care of the body, but only that one surrenders to the will of the Absolute, and in so doing, becomes a conduit whereby the Absolute can manifest itself directly in the world. In other words, an awakened one becomes an ‘authentic’ human being – the worldly embodiment of the Absolute.

Iolaus:

I have the Power of Now, read it a few years ago. I did like it a lot at that time.

I suggest you share with His Highness, Jehu, the essence of it, as it might broaden his comprehension of the NOW as the total transcendence of time, which it is. (He is not speaking to me. Radical honesty is clearly too harsh for his delicate condition... philosopical myopia in conjunction with delusions of grandeur... to handle.)

Here is a bump of what he is avoiding re: my presentation of Now.
J:

I do not wish to be a stickler, but Mikel’s present lies firmly within the field of time,...

m:

You totally misunderstand my usage of "the ongoing (perpetual, eternal) present.
Now is *not a very small span of time.* There is *no time* between past and future. Time is indeed merely the human observation/measurement/designation of "event duration", the common sense designation of segements of time, as I said, from a nano-second to a mellenium, etc. Now IS ALWAYS PRESENT... same present everywhere from cosmic perspective... the absolute omnipresent NOW transcending all relative, local perspectives and "designated events."

You jump easily to erroneous conclusions in areas about which you are ignorant... Like the Eternal NOW.

J:

Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past.

m:

I am not speaking of the present as a "span of time, no matter how minute..."
It IS an unsegmented constant undivided "flow" transcending the concept of event duration or "spans of time."

Your mind automatically creates these "spans of time" negating the True Present as an ever ongoing reality. Therefore your mind traps you in a misconception that there can be no True Now as ongong Reality.
I suggest you contemplate the above and get over it.

If you can not respond intelligently to the above, you are on automatic program here with your Jehu Doctrine.