GENIUS FORUMS

I came across this interesting point of view on spiritual teachers. The full url is:
http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2005/07/s ... chers.html

I wonder how can one know for sure if enlightenment is a delusion or not? Personally experiencing enlightenment will hardly settle the matter? Any ideas or comments on this issue?

The Post

Spiritual teachers

To each his own (spiritual teacher).

There are spiritual teachers who are genuinely deluded (i.e. who are enlightened) and there are those who wear a mask of wisdom.

In the first category come the great sages like the Buddha, Nanak, Christ, and (more recently) Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharishi, Krishnamurti and Osho.

They are not after building a following, or for amassing wealth.
They genuinely believe that they have a message for the benighted humanity and spend their whole lives in guiding seekers to the illusory kingdom of heaven.

In the second category there is a multitude: all the priests and preachers, money-minded saints and the fraudsters, tricksters, molesters and the political saints. Some of these are very suave and intelligent.

Current examples: Sai Baba, Asaram Bapu, Sudhanshu ji Maharaj, Maa Amritananda Mayi, Deepak Chopra, Benny Hinn, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Kanchi Sankaracharya, the Pope, and so on...

There is a third category: of deluded egoist folks who think they are quite evolved and many people indeed take them to be enlightened but they fall short of the highest standards in this sphere.

Examples are Swami Vivekananda, UG Krishnamurti, John de Ruiter, Adi da Samraj, Srila Prabhupada, S N Goenka etc.

Most non-serious seekers fall into the trap of the tricksters. Most serious seekers get stuck in the third category. The lucky few find a first category teacher.

It is comparatively easy to break free of a second or third category teacher, one can find the truth about them soon enough and get tired of them, but it is extremely difficult to break free of a first category teacher because he truly believes himself to be God (or a messenger of God).

The first category teachers inspire generations of seekers to give up everything in their search for truth.

As people get disenchanted with the material pursuits and the associated stresses, spiritual salvation seems the only alternative. It takes many years for one to traverse the terrain. The rare few who become enlightened or think they have evolved enough become evangelists or teachers themselves.

The others, who cannot break through, either become bitter or resigned to their lot. Some of them think that maybe in the next life they will achieve the breakthrough.

It takes a lot of energy to go on a quest about life. Repeated failures drain one's energy. But one must not give up. Even if it means dumping spirituality as a whole into the dustbin and starting afresh.

The author doesn't explain why he thinks enlightenment is a delusion or why anyone who claims to be enlightened is automatically deluded. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

If a person understands the truth with perfect clarity and has eliminated all delusion about the nature of existence from his mind, then, by defnition, he isn't deluded.

-

Faust wrote:

I myself personally seek 'Self-actualisation', which is a more, secular, physchological clinical term than 'enligntenment'.

Whether you wish to call it "enlightenment" or "self-actualization" doesn't really matter, as long as it is concerned with ridding the mind of all delusion and realizing one's true nature.

One can't actualize the self without knowing what the self is in the first place, and one can't know the self without being enlightened.

A truth is not as objective as a fact, truths vary on subjective whim. One man's truth is another's fallacy.

People's beliefs may vary, but truth itself never changes.

For example, the truth that 1+1 equals 2 will always remain true, regardless of what people may want to believe.

Truth is relative, I wouldn't take Buddha's word for it that 'his way is the truth', nor the post-humous idealisation of Jesus as Christ.

I wouldn't either. Truth can only be found through one's own thinking. It can't be found second-hand through the teachings of others.

This is not to say that other people's thoughts and teachings can't be stimulating, but one shouldn't rely on them to be the arbiters of truth. One's own reason should always be the final judge.

-

Hey Ankit,

I noticed that you're on the "Actual Freedom" email list and I was wondering what you think of that "system"? Richard used to write to our own email forum (Genius-L) some years back.

For those who don't know what I'm referring to: Actual Freedom

Dan Rowden

I found the actual freedom site, about 3 months ago, what is appealing about the site is that it provides a scientific explanation of the human psychological conflict in terms of neurological studies. This explanation was very satisfactory as I am a scientist myself. Since then I realized that there are many books on the same subject. I could not fathom their method though, what they teach seems eerily similar to choiceless awareness or mindful meditation, with lot of nitpicking over words and dictionary definitions on the site and the mailing lists :-).

Regards
Ankit

Quinn wrote:

I wouldn't either. Truth can only be found through one's own thinking. It can't be found second-hand through the teachings of others.

Yes, but Quinn isn’t it true that conditioning yourself with the work of others can be a necessary step in one’s initial search for truth.

For instance: I conditioned myself with the work of many philosophers and over time, actual realizations came in my own mind and then the teachings weren’t necessary anymore.

The teachings of others are like training wheels, but eventually they are no longer needed once one has developed a secure understanding.

And on another note:

its good to have you back Quinn…You’re blunt assertions definitely improve the quality of the board.

I was reading through the art thread and I came to a quick short statement under your name that said: “Art is a stimulant for dulled minds.”

I laughed my balls off when I read that.

What is funny about this thread is that many writers write these drawn out watery fluffy posts that don’t really say anything, but the clearer one’s mind the more one can say in less space. My post is kinda long isnt it? Oops...

I agree, I rarely listen to music and I’m unable to sit through many films because the work can never compare to actual reality. Once and a while I can sit down to watch an interesting documentary or some David Suzuki: I like the nature shots, but overall I find most art dreadful.

And to response to the author, the fact that you arranged the teachers in order of foolish to wisest proves that you believe that there is absolute truth and thus degrees of wisdom/understanding that one can attain.

Although one of the characters that I’m not sure of is UG Krishnamurti, it is difficult to know the truth with UG krishnamurti.

He was the classic trickster with those who couldn’t understand his views, but with serious inquiring minds he was able to go into issues very deeply.

It was almost as if he wasn’t seriousness and disciplined in relationships with those who were unable to learn because he would say anything around them, but when things became serious so did UG.

This is why I have always found it difficult to try to measure the degree of wisdom that UG attained.

Quinn, I read your critique of UG, but I don’t agree with the severity of your judgement of the man.

His work seems like a body of contradictions only because he had no body of work or teachings, he simply responded to people in the moment and his responses varied depending on the quality of the questioner.

For instance: someone may come to UG with some limited knowledge or enlighenment catch phrases and start repeating them and UG would say “there is nothing to understand there, you are a parrot!”

But on another occasion, someone would say an incomplete statement and he would say “No sir, you don’t understand, it works like this”

It sounds like a contradiction, but it is two totally difficult circumstances so one needs to understand how UG used language to understand UG.

Overall I believed he possessed some degree of wisdom, but it is difficult to say with certainty just how wise he was.

For someone who is beginning on the path to wisdom, this question is indeed pertinent.

The spiritual seeking takes much effort and pain. The words of the wise seem contrary and mysterious. It is doubly hard while living with others who do not share ones interests. Also with the profusion of conmen in this area as in the others, one wonders if the whole business is indeed a sham. Also he wonders if enlightenment is wishful thinking. Do the wise create imaginary worlds for themselves and immerse themselves in that, like say people suffering from bipolar disorder(maina) or schizophrenia. Some scientists says that meditation causes altered states of consciousness, which sounds suspiciously similar to the concept of living in a beautiful imaginary world. Whom can one trust indeed?

I have a hard time seeing what has secularly been called «Enlightenment» as anything other than this:
Maya adding yet another veil on the eyes of credulous,
gullible, hungry-ghost humans who invariably exclaim: I can
see now! It's suddenly all clear to me! etc...
I have said this before, enlightenment - if we wish to use that term - is probably the «non-event par excellence»...the most
prosaic of all mind states possible.

Pyrrho

A truth is not as objective as a fact, truths vary on subjective whim. One man's truth is another's fallacy.

People's beliefs may vary, but truth itself never changes.

For example, the truth that 1+1 equals 2 will always remain true, regardless of what people may want to believe.

Actually it seems that nothing can be said to be true, except in a formal mathematical system. Other things such as even laws of physics are rule of thumbs. Which means they are only approximately true. And of course such rules of thumbs are not subjective but can be arrived at and refined through empiricism.
For the same reason I am wary of statements about "absolute and perfect truth", which is claimed by so many gurus.
How about we say that the wise know better about the world since they have empirically tested and found facts, while other take dogmas imposed on them since childhood for granted. So does enlightenment have gradations, one person has more refined facts than the other(example compare newton's laws with galielio's observations, and then einstein's with newton's).

Ankit,

Actually it seems that nothing can be said to be true, except in a formal mathematical system.

What makes mathematics true?

A formal mathematical system is defined by a few axioms. These axioms are supposed to be true within the system. Now within this framework you can prove that a certain theorem is true. For example 1+1=2 is true in the number theoretic framework.

Ankit,

A formal mathematical system is defined by a few axioms.

Would you allow for other systems with defined terms? One which does not use numbers, for instance, but words. Would it be possible for these systems also to produce truth?

Indeed we can allow logical systems with words. But you can see that we would have to start with axioms, and these axioms would have to be absolutely true. Now we cannot locate such absolute truths in the first place(in reality). In mathematics the truth is contingent upon the axioms, the truth of the axioms is granted a priori. One can say that in mathematics deductions from certain infallible truths(in their fictional world) are made.

When the world is finally rid of humans, 2+2 gets it's freedom
back...and that goes for A=A as well...That is, until something,
someone, somewhere reaches that evolutionary plateau where beings naturally (?) gravitate towards the search for structures
and meaning - that's the slippery slope! - to, essentially, what
IS...Being

Pyrrho

Ankit,

But you can see that we would have to start with axioms, and these axioms would have to be absolutely true.

That is correct.

Now we cannot locate such absolute truths in the first place(in reality).

What about something like "it is impossible for invisible pink unicorns to exist." Can I not consider that absolutely true?

What about "reality is not nothing whatsoever"?

Ankit wrote:

But you can see that we would have to start with axioms, and these axioms would have to be absolutely true. Now we cannot locate such absolute truths in the first place(in reality). In mathematics the truth is contingent upon the axioms, the truth of the axioms is granted a priori. One can say that in mathematics deductions from certain infallible truths(in their fictional world) are made.

As far as understanding the nature of Reality is concerned, all that a philosopher needs is the axiom of A=A (which forms the basis of all logic and is beyond question) and an array of skillfully-created definitions. He doesn't need anything else. He doesn't need to make assumptions, indulge in articles of faith, or otherwise engage in any kind of leaps of faith. It all boils down to skillfull, intelligent philosophy - which, admittedly, very few people seem capable of.

Those who can practice skillfull, intelligent philosophy are able to uncover truths which are just as certain and watertight as those found in maths, and yet infinitely more meaningful and profound.

But you can see that we would have to start with axioms, and these axioms would have to be absolutely true. Now we cannot locate such absolute truths in the first place(in reality).

Definitions are already absolutely true (i.e. beyond question) to begin with, so it's really just a matter of selecting those particular definitions which are perfectly suited to the task of understanding Reality.

For example, when I started off on my philosophic career, I liked to define Reality as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things". I knew that it would be impossible to come up with a greater definition of Reality than this, given my purposes as a philosopher.

-

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

DQ: Truth can only be found through one's own thinking. It can't be found second-hand through the teachings of others.

CP: Yes, but Quinn isn’t it true that conditioning yourself with the work of others can be a necessary step in one’s initial search for truth.

For instance: I conditioned myself with the work of many philosophers and over time, actual realizations came in my own mind and then the teachings weren’t necessary anymore.

The teachings of others are like training wheels, but eventually they are no longer needed once one has developed a secure understanding.

That's a good way of looking at it.

I was reading through the art thread and I came to a quick short statement under your name that said: “Art is a stimulant for dulled minds.”

I laughed my balls off when I read that.

What is funny about this thread is that many writers write these drawn out watery fluffy posts that don’t really say anything, but the clearer one’s mind the more one can say in less space. My post is kinda long isnt it? Oops...

I agree, I rarely listen to music and I’m unable to sit through many films because the work can never compare to actual reality. Once and a while I can sit down to watch an interesting documentary or some David Suzuki: I like the nature shots, but overall I find most art dreadful.

We can think of art as another form of training wheels. It can stimulate and enrich people in the beginning stages of their development, but it does become rather superfluous after a while. There is very little that I can learn from art these days, for example - a situation not helped by the fact that nearly all artists are extremely pretentious and juvenile in their thinking.

Although one of the characters that I’m not sure of is UG Krishnamurti, it is difficult to know the truth with UG krishnamurti.

He was the classic trickster with those who couldn’t understand his views, but with serious inquiring minds he was able to go into issues very deeply.

It was almost as if he wasn’t seriousness and disciplined in relationships with those who were unable to learn because he would say anything around them, but when things became serious so did UG.

I can relate to that.

Quinn, I read your critique of UG, but I don’t agree with the severity of your judgement of the man.

His work seems like a body of contradictions only because he had no body of work or teachings, he simply responded to people in the moment and his responses varied depending on the quality of the questioner.

For instance: someone may come to UG with some limited knowledge or enlighenment catch phrases and start repeating them and UG would say “there is nothing to understand there, you are a parrot!”

But on another occasion, someone would say an incomplete statement and he would say “No sir, you don’t understand, it works like this”

It sounds like a contradiction, but it is two totally difficult circumstances so one needs to understand how UG used language to understand UG.

Overall I believed he possessed some degree of wisdom, but it is difficult to say with certainty just how wise he was.

What you're saying is true enough. UG was essentially a Zen teacher, which was commendable and of great benefit to the world. However, I don't think he was as skillful at it as he could have been. He pandered far too much to the postmodernist mentality, remained far too attractive to the feminine-minded, allowed too many hooks for the mediocre types to attach and gorge themselves. So while he was definitely a standout human being, he was nonetheless a mediocre sage.

To my mind, he stands out because the current era is so mediocre. If he had been born in a previous era, it is likely we would never have heard of him.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote: For example, when I started off on my philosophic career, I liked to define Reality as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things". I knew that it would be impossible to come up with a greater definition of Reality than this, given my purposes as a philosopher.
-

So in essence you stated that reality is defined thus. And you set out to find out this reality. However something that changes, is that not reality too(maybe not a permanent reality but for the time being)? Is the earth real for example, because it changes all the time, and would likely one day not remain in existence? Also the definition of reality you start out with was really strange, since in the world around nothing seems to be unchanging and absolute. One wonders how one can even get motivated to start a spiritual quest when the entity being searched for looks like a chimera given the experience so far. In fact this definition of reality abounds in the spiritual world. Such tall claims are one of the reason that one tends to question whether the enlightened are deluded?

Ankit wrote:

DQ: For example, when I started off on my philosophic career, I liked to define Reality as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things". I knew that it would be impossible to come up with a greater definition of Reality than this, given my purposes as a philosopher.

AG: So in essence you stated that reality is defined thus. And you set out to find out this reality. However something that changes, is that not reality too(maybe not a permanent reality but for the time being)? Is the earth real for example, because it changes all the time, and would likely one day not remain in existence?

The earth is certainly a part of Reality - after all, Reality is defined to be everywhere and everywhen - but it doesn't constitute the whole of Reality itself. And while the parts of Reality are impermanent and always changing, Reality itself never changes. It can never turn into something else - such as, say, unreality.

If it were possible for Reality to change in any way, it would automatically disqualify itself as being Reality.

Also the definition of reality you start out with was really strange, since in the world around nothing seems to be unchanging and absolute. One wonders how one can even get motivated to start a spiritual quest when the entity being searched for looks like a chimera given the experience so far.

I wanted to find the ultimate nature of the world. I wanted to uncover the universal "substance" which underlies all the changing phenomena around us. In light of this, defining Reality, or Ultimate Reality, as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things" is perfectly sensible.

At this early stage of the proceedings, I didn't know whether the world possessed a fundamental nature or not. But I already had enough intuition to know that my whole life, and the entire world around me, could easily turn out to be an illusion, and I was confident in my philosophic abilities to burrow beyond the appearances and discover what was really there.

In fact this definition of reality abounds in the spiritual world. Such tall claims are one of the reason that one tends to question whether the enlightened are deluded?

Why do you automatically assume that all spiritually-minded people are deluded? How could you possibly know that?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote: The earth is certainly a part of Reality - after all, Reality is defined to be everywhere and everywhen - but it doesn't constitute the whole of Reality itself. And while the parts of Reality are impermanent and always changing, Reality itself never changes. It can never turn into something else - such as, say, unreality.

If it were possible for Reality to change in any way, it would automatically disqualify itself as being Reality.

According to my understanding correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that if we eliminate time then the sum total of the universe is reality. Or in other words eliminating the perception of cause and effect and time the Universe as a whole view is reality.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:I wanted to find the ultimate nature of the world. I wanted to uncover the universal "substance" which underlies all the changing phenomena around us. In light of this, defining Reality, or Ultimate Reality, as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things" is perfectly sensible.

If my above understanding is correct then reality is a tautology, there is nothing to search for indeed. If indeed everything everywhere at all times is the reality, this is highly obvious what search is required? On the other hand what is the universal substance. Is it different from other material? Would that imply the other material is not reality. Further is the universal substance conscious?

Why do you automatically assume that all spiritually-minded people are deluded? How could you possibly know that?
-

No I did not say they were deluded. Only that it appears like many are due to the extraordinary claims involved?

Some of those teachers mentioned in the first post such as Sai Baba, Osho and La Di Da (what I call him, hard to keep track of all his divine names - started out at 'Free John') - are impeccable geniuses. Here I use the word 'genius' differently than it is used at this site. Whether they are con men or not, they seem to have conceived of a world with their incredible intellect and entered it. Others are of a mystical bent - such as myself. A world suddenly appeared to me THAT I COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED and I entered in - quite outside of any thinking. So, since I could not conceive of it, how would I teach it? So complete and satisfying is this world that I no long have ANY so-called spiritual/existential questions. They don't even appear in my mind.

Whether anyone wants to call this enlightenment or illusion makes no difference to me. I think all this stuff is a personal matter and 'enlightenment' always looks a little different from each perspective. It is even possible that there are different types OR levels to 'enlightenment' as there are levels of self awareness in animals. Look at those sages, they do not really act the same or say the same things, but it is interesting to read their thoughts.

So, to review: What will happen to you will be unique. Seek whatever you want. I think, personally, that enlightenment comes from past lives and pain and is a matter of evolution. If this is the case, there is nothing you can or can't do that will make any difference. Why not accept life now as you face it? Why reject parts of it? Why seek a state that may be fabrication? Just live your life and don't give a rat's ass to be something you are not. Seeking is not being. Be real.

Ankit wrote:

DQ: The earth is certainly a part of Reality - after all, Reality is defined to be everywhere and everywhen - but it doesn't constitute the whole of Reality itself. And while the parts of Reality are impermanent and always changing, Reality itself never changes. It can never turn into something else - such as, say, unreality.

If it were possible for Reality to change in any way, it would automatically disqualify itself as being Reality.

AG: According to my understanding correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that if we eliminate time then the sum total of the universe is reality. Or in other words eliminating the perception of cause and effect and time the Universe as a whole view is reality.

The definition necessarily includes time and every other form of existence and perception. It literally includes everything.

What we are seeing in each moment of time is Reality. And then, when we step back and view the Universe as a whole, that too is Reality. Or more accurately, in each case, what we observe is a manifestation of Reality.

DQ: I wanted to find the ultimate nature of the world. I wanted to uncover the universal "substance" which underlies all the changing phenomena around us. In light of this, defining Reality, or Ultimate Reality, as "that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, beyond life and death and responsible for the existence of all things" is perfectly sensible.

AG: If my above understanding is correct then reality is a tautology, there is nothing to search for indeed. If indeed everything everywhere at all times is the reality, this is highly obvious what search is required?

The search would involve changing my understanding and perception of what is already there before me - i.e. in eliminating whatever false perceptions I had concerning the nature of the world.

I'm sure you've experienced times where, say, you suddenly gained new insight into your own psychology, which resulted in seeing yourself in a totally new light. Even though this fresh, new Ankit you are now seeing had been there all along, you had hitherto been, because of ignorance and mental blocks, blind to it for the whole of your life.

On the other hand what is the universal substance. Is it different from other material?

No. If the universal substance, as implied in my definition of Reality, is "everywhere and everywhen", then it couldn't possibly be seperate from anything else in any way.

It should be noted that I have been using the word "substance" in the loosest possible way. I wasn't necessarily refering to a physical substance, nor even a spiritual substance, nor any kind of objective substance or phenomenon at all. I was merely refering to my core goal of discovering what is constant amidst all the change. Ever since I started out, I wanted to know what was eternally unchanging within the process of change. For I knew that was the key to unlocking the fundamental nature of all things, if in fact such a nature existed.

And what I found was causation. The process of cause and effect is the one thing which remains constant amidst all the change. Even though it is the very thing which powers all change, it itself never changes.

Further is the universal substance conscious?

Cause and effect is not conscious, no. It doesn't have any desires, purposes or aims. It doesn't place value on anything. It cares not one whit for the human species, nor even its wise people. It is wholly indifferent to all things.

DQ: Why do you automatically assume that all spiritually-minded people are deluded? How could you possibly know that?

AG: No I did not say they were deluded. Only that it appears like many are due to the extraordinary claims involved?

I agree that most "spiritual people" are thoroughly deluded, but this doesn't say anything one way or the other about the validity of genuine spirituality - just as the existence of delusional Christian scientists says nothing one way or the other about the validity of genuine science.

-

[edited for spelling - DQ]

I never participate in a discussion where the phrase "spiritual substance" is used. Unless it's talk about "ghostbusters" the movie and being "slimed".

DavidQuinn000 wrote: The search would involve changing my understanding and perception of what is already there before me - i.e. in eliminating whatever false perceptions I had concerning the nature of the world.

I'm sure you've experienced times where, say, you suddenly gained new insight into your own psychology, which resulted in seeing yourself in a totally new light. Even though this fresh, new Ankit you are now seeing had been there all along, you had hitherto been, because of ignorance and mental blocks, blind to it for the whole of your life.

When one false perception is uncovered how is one to be sure that the new perception is also not false? Is elimination of mental conflict a good yardstick?

And what I found was causation. The process of cause and effect is the one thing which remains constant amidst all the change. Even though it is the very thing which powers all change, it itself never changes.

The law of cause and effect, is it not an artifact of the mind. All laws of physics are reversible, in time. Does the cause cause the effect or the effect, effects the cause. Could it be that the universe is constant and unfolded fully, and we are artifacts in time of this unfolding.

Ankit wrote:

DQ: The search would involve changing my understanding and perception of what is already there before me - i.e. in eliminating whatever false perceptions I had concerning the nature of the world.

I'm sure you've experienced times where, say, you suddenly gained new insight into your own psychology, which resulted in seeing yourself in a totally new light. Even though this fresh, new Ankit you are now seeing had been there all along, you had hitherto been, because of ignorance and mental blocks, blind to it for the whole of your life.

AG: When one false perception is uncovered how is one to be sure that the new perception is also not false? Is elimination of mental conflict a good yardstick?

Not really. The absence of mental conflict can come from a variety of sources - e.g. suppression, distraction, comforting beliefs, drugs, sleep, death, etc - which have nothing do with understanding Reality and becoming wise.

The only way to be sure that one has eliminated every false perception is by developing an intellectual understanding of Reality which is flawless and beyond all doubt. That means knowing how to get to the very core of all things and wiping away everything in one's mind that conflicts with it.

DQ: And what I found was causation. The process of cause and effect is the one thing which remains constant amidst all the change. Even though it is the very thing which powers all change, it itself never changes.

AG: The law of cause and effect, is it not an artifact of the mind.

It is, yes. But it is an artifact which is very effective in attacking and undermining all the other artifacts in one's mind. For example, one can use the artifact of cause and effect to attack the deep-rooted idea that things are independently or objectively existing, which would be a very significant thing to do.

All laws of physics are reversible, in time. Does the cause cause the effect or the effect, effects the cause.

Well, causes can only ever produce effects. It can never be the other way around, by definition. So if there is an instance in which a physical law goes into reverse, it would still be a case of causes produing effects, and nothing more. True, it would involve a causal process that we are not used to seeing, but it would still be just a causal process nonetheless.

Could it be that the universe is constant and unfolded fully, and we are artifacts in time of this unfolding.

That's a good way to look at it. All things are temporary artifacts within Nature's causal flow, including ourselves. No manifestation is real.

-