GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:Why compassion and loving kindness?

Because loving kindness is the form or appearance of the awakened human being, and compassion is their essence.

I wonder if you have read Jed McKenna. Not because he mocks the compassion bit, (being supposedly enlightened) but also because I am puzzled about his take on mysticism.

No, I’m afraid I am not acquainted with his work.

But anyway, as to an intermediate, I was referring to something else entirely. I was saying that the person embodied probably has subtle bodies that are not visible. I do believe that science has already shown this. You ought to have more interest in this! because there is indication of an electric or electromagnetic "adult" form surrounding, for example, an embryo or young living thing.

What you are saying is that the physical body is not clearly delimited, and that it extends out into the environment in the form of energy fields. Yes, this is true, but this is merely a relative truth, and does not alter the fact that the body is ultimately of an illusory nature.

But yes, the purity, what you call awareness, is always unalterable.

Indeed, primal awareness is incorruptible.

The problem is that nothingness in English really does mean nothing. Non-existence. So the Japanese or Buddhist idea of no-thing should be perhaps rendered non-thing.

Yes, but we have abandoned the notion of non-existence, and so the term ‘nothing’ means simply ‘not a thing’; that is to say, that which is not reducible to something else, that which is not created, and so cannot be destroyed. In other words, that which is real.

When we speak of the way a bicycle or a constellation does not abide within its components, I agree entirely. It is the substance of the underlying reality that I am interested in. I can't understand what you mean that things lack substance. Nor what it means to say that the only substance is imagination. I suppose that one similarity between the manifest world and my dreams, is that they both can dissolve. But, dissolve back into what?

This is where meditation can be of immense value, for in meditation we are able to watch our thoughts arise, evolve and eventually dissolve back into the ground from which they came. Also, we can see how our thoughts give rise to sensations, perceptions, etc., and how insubstantial these elements of personality really are. We may talk of these things for as long as you like, but this will never have the impact of having realized these things for yourself.

Well, energy is latent in matter because that is what matter is made of. I'd say it is energy which gives rise to matter, and that matter could disappear back into the underlying field, call it the quantum field, or the A field, or the Force.

Is that the mind of God?
I can't imagine existence without energy.
Thought might precede it, and have the capacity to generate it.
Maybe energy does not change but only appears to, to us.
Tell me again the 5 elements.

The five elements which underlie the manifestation (appearance) of all things are: form (aether), essence (water), embodiment (earth), potency (fire) and function (air). However, as I have repeatedly said, these elements do not abide within the thing itself, but rather, it is the thing itself (form) which abide amidst its elements, as a pattern of distribution. The first two elements (form and essence), although they partake of only a relative existence, are ‘actual’, for they arise as a result of the interaction of perfect awareness and perfect knowledge – which manifest as ‘space’ and ‘time’ respectively. The remaining three elements (embodiment, potency and function), also partake of only a relative existence, however, given that they arise as a result of the interaction of imperfect awareness and imperfect knowledge, they are not actual, but only ‘imaginary’. These last three elements manifest as ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and ‘motion/change’ respectively.

Energy, as a concept, evolved as a means of explaining how it was possible that one thing was able to influence another thing, and so it was hypothesized that there abided within each thing a latent capacity to perform such activities as are appropriate to that given thing. However, such a concept is only necessary if we accept that things are real, that is to say, that they are possessed of their own intrinsic causes, and this we have shown to be erroneous. Things, their properties and their activities are nothing more than erroneous mental interpretations of what is perceived to be happening within that virtual transformation continuum that we call the objective universe. Now, this is not to say that these apparent entities are not evolving in accordance with an inviolable and universal law, and for this reason, we are able to study their apparent interactions, and to distil from those observations an approximate understanding of the law that governs those interactions. However, if we are to truly understand that governing law, we must first awaken to the fact that what we are studying are only appearance, and they are not real. Then, we will turn our attention away from the dream, and toward the dreamer.

Jehu,

Because loving kindness is the form or appearance of the awakened human being, and compassion is their essence.

It sounds idealistic, but why should it be true?

This is where meditation can be of immense value, for in meditation we are able to watch our thoughts arise, evolve and eventually dissolve back into the ground from which they came. Also, we can see how our thoughts give rise to sensations, perceptions, etc., and how insubstantial these elements of personality really are. We may talk of these things for as long as you like, but this will never have the impact of having realized these things for yourself.

Sometimes I ask a question and you don't answer; I assume you have some reason. I had asked a couple of times what you thought I ought to do.

The five elements which underlie the manifestation (appearance) of all things are: form (aether), essence (water), embodiment (earth), potency (fire) and function (air). However, as I have repeatedly said, these elements do not abide within the thing itself, but rather, it is the thing itself (form) which abide amidst its elements, as a pattern of distribution. The first two elements (form and essence), although they partake of only a relative existence, are ‘actual’, for they arise as a result of the interaction of perfect awareness and perfect knowledge – which manifest as ‘space’ and ‘time’ respectively. The remaining three elements (embodiment, potency and function), also partake of only a relative existence, however, given that they arise as a result of the interaction of imperfect awareness and imperfect knowledge, they are not actual, but only ‘imaginary’. These last three elements manifest as ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and ‘motion/change’ respectively.

OK, you say that the last three arise out of imperfect awareness and knowledge. That implies a sentient being. But sentient beings did not create matter, nor its functions, nor its energies.

Where do space and time fit in with a manifestation such as planet earth?

Energy, as a concept, evolved as a means of explaining how it was possible that one thing was able to influence another thing, and so it was hypothesized that there abided within each thing a latent capacity to perform such activities as are appropriate to that given thing. However, such a concept is only necessary if we accept that things are real, that is to say, that they are possessed of their own intrinsic causes, and this we have shown to be erroneous. Things, their properties and their activities are nothing more than erroneous mental interpretations of what is perceived to be happening within that virtual transformation continuum that we call the objective universe. Now, this is not to say that these apparent entities are not evolving in accordance with an inviolable and universal law, and for this reason, we are able to study their apparent interactions, and to distil from those observations an approximate understanding of the law that governs those interactions. However, if we are to truly understand that governing law, we must first awaken to the fact that what we are studying are only appearance, and they are not real. Then, we will turn our attention away from the dream, and toward the dreamer.

But I do not see how the need for energy means that things are self caused. Things arise and change like a kaleidoscope, that does not mean they caused themselves at all.

Iolaus wrote:It sounds idealistic, but why should it be true?

Because the Absolute, which is undefiled but such impurities as desire, anger or delusion, is incapable of any malevolent action; and the awaken one’s are merely conduits through which the absolute is able to act immediately within the objective world.

Sometimes I ask a question and you don't answer; I assume you have some reason. I had asked a couple of times what you thought I ought to do.

Sometimes I do not answer because the answer is not yet within your ability to comprehend, for we have not yet progressed sufficiently along the path. Other times, it is because I am not a Guru, and I will not advise you on what you should or should not do. However, I will tell you what has worked in the past, but it is you alone who must walk the path, and your path is not the same as anyone else’s.

OK, you say that the last three arise out of imperfect awareness and knowledge. That implies a sentient being. But sentient beings did not create matter, nor its functions, nor its energies.

On the contrary, only form and essence partake of a ‘actual’ (objective) existence, and in the absence of any sentient being, the three ‘imaginary’ (subjective) elements would never arise.

Where do space and time fit in with a manifestation such as planet earth?

Nothing can manifest without that it occupies space, for space or emptiness is the appearance of the Absolute; and all things (relative entities) abide within the sphere of cognizant awareness. Time, is the appearance of the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity as it impels all things to perpetually alter their essential natures.

But I do not see how the need for energy means that things are self caused. Things arise and change like a kaleidoscope, that does not mean they caused

I am not clear as to what you are asking here. Let us consider the analogy of the computer, and see if it will shed some light on the question.

Imagine that you and I are two scientists who are studying the nature of some hypothetical entities which dwell within the computer monitor, and you are knowledgeable as to the inner workings of a computer, and I am totally ignorant. I, being ignorant of the true nature of the entities imagine them to real, and to be possessed of certain qualities which enable them to interact with one another, and with their environment. You, on the other hand, know that they are not real entities, but visual representations of what is actually nothing more than the manipulation of information within the computer’s memory banks, and that everything that was appearing on the screen was the result of a program (algorithm). I, with my imperfect knowledge, must explain how it is possible that these seemingly real entities interact in the way that they do, and so I hypothesize that each entity has some latent capacity to affect other things, and I call this latent capacity ‘energy’. You, with your true knowledge, recognize that there is no latent capacity with the entities themselves, for they are nothing more than the appearance of an entity, and so are devoid of any qualities or characteristics. The true latent capacity of the apparent entities lie, not in the entities themselves, but in the algorithm or program that govern their appearance, position, velocity, etc.

Jehu,

Because the Absolute, which is undefiled by such impurities as desire, anger or delusion, is incapable of any malevolent action; and the awakened one’s are merely conduits through which the absolute is able to act immediately within the objective world.

But wouldn't lovingkindness and compassion arise out of emotion also? Now, mind you, I had come to almost the identical conclusion as I mused in my mystical way about God, and the path to God rendering humans pure conduits of the divine. I even used the same word (conduit) that you did. But your concept of God isn't the same as mine. Not that I know what my own concept is. Basically, the point of confusion is the personhood of God.

Now Jed McKenna has written a couple of very good books on enlightenment and nonduality. He differentiates enlightenment from mysticism, which he says is still in the dream state. Also, that any emotion is a state of consciousness, and that all states of consciousness are of the dream state. The point is to wake up out of states of consciousness.

He says things like cosmic consciousness or mystic union are not related to what he calls 'abiding nondual awareness' which is enlightenment.
Of the mystic: He or she may be a divine avatar, or love incarnate or the superme godhead, but enlightenment is something else. One is in the dream and the other is not.

Sometimes I do not answer because the answer is not yet within your ability to comprehend, for we have not yet progressed sufficiently along the path.

What! I thought we had covered nearly everything. What percentage have we covered?

Other times, it is because I am not a Guru, and I will not advise you on what you should or should not do.

Don't worry, the Holy Spirit is my guru and I need no other. I hope I don't treat you as a guru, but I do instead treat you with respect. You had implied once or twice that I should not only discuss, but practice. I didn't want to appear to ignore those comments.

Me: OK, you say that the last three arise out of imperfect awareness and knowledge. That implies a sentient being. But sentient beings did not create matter, nor its functions, nor its energies.

Jehu: On the contrary, only form and essence partake of a ‘actual’ (objective) existence, and in the absence of any sentient being, the three ‘imaginary’ (subjective) elements would never arise.

OK, this is not making sense at all. You said:

The remaining three elements (embodiment, potency and function), also partake of only a relative existence, however, given that they arise as a result of the interaction of imperfect awareness and imperfect knowledge, they are not actual, but only ‘imaginary’. These last three elements manifest as ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and ‘motion/change’ respectively.

In what way are matter, energy and motion resulting from the imagination of sentient beings, and how are we to say that the absolute is the cause, and place the planet earth within space and time while simultaneously saying that the planet itself would not arise without sentient beings.

I am not clear as to what you are asking here.

You had said that we need not pospit that material objects have a latent capacity (energy) to effect things except that we also accept these material objects are real and self caused. I don't see this at all. Things are just temporaray agglomerations of atoms and molecules, and are not self-caused. But there is latent energy in all things.

Imagine that you and I are two scientists who are studying the nature of some hypothetical entities which dwell within the computer monitor,

The analogy is very good, but I must say that the latent energy is not so much in the algorithm as in the electricity supply to the computer. The computer is not a closed system, and requires energy input from outside.
At any rate, I do not disagree that the energy in things has its actual cause in the energies of God. But I cannot consider energy to be an imaginary and not real thing, when it seems to me the most real thing.

Iolaus wrote:But wouldn't loving kindness and compassion arise out of emotion also? Now, mind you, I had come to almost the identical conclusion as I mused in my mystical way about God, and the path to God rendering humans pure conduits of the divine. I even used the same word (conduit) that you did. But your concept of God isn't the same as mine. Not that I know what my own concept is. Basically, the point of confusion is the personhood of God.

Let us not confuse that God which created man in God’s own image (loving kindness), with that God which man created in his/her own image (personified). The God of which I speak is neither a he nor she, for God is not a person, and neither is God an it, for God is not a thing either. God simply exists, and whatever we imagine God to be, that is not God.

Now Jed McKenna has written a couple of very good books on enlightenment and non-duality. He differentiates enlightenment from mysticism, which he says is still in the dream state. Also, that any emotion is a state of consciousness, and that all states of consciousness are of the dream state. The point is to wake up out of states of consciousness.

He says things like cosmic consciousness or mystic union are not related to what he calls 'abiding non-dual awareness' which is enlightenment.
Of the mystic: He or she may be a divine avatar, or love incarnate or the supreme godhead, but enlightenment is something else. One is in the dream and the other is not.

As I said, I am not familiar with the author’s work, but I can find no fault in those statements which you have attributed to him.

What! I thought we had covered nearly everything. What percentage have we covered?

It is not the breadth of our enquiry that is inadequate, but its depth. You have yet to see the full implications of those logical points which you have agree to, and so you keep sliding back to the erroneous view.

Don't worry, the Holy Spirit is my guru and I need no other. I hope I don't treat you as a guru, but I do instead treat you with respect. You had implied once or twice that I should not only discuss, but practice. I didn't want to appear to ignore those comments.

Good, for we are enquiring together here, as equals, and so you must do your part, and not simply follow. With regard to philosophy, there are those who study philosophy, and there are those who do philosophy; the former being content merely to know the tenets of the various branches and doctrines, while the latter understands that a philosophy must be lived, if one is to receive its full benefits.

In what way are matter, energy and motion resulting from the imagination of sentient beings, and how are we to say that the absolute is the cause, and place the planet earth within space and time while simultaneously saying that the planet itself would not arise without sentient beings.

It is just as I said in the analogy of the computer entities, for there are no actual entities, properties or activities, except in the mind of the cognizant observer; there is only the play of light (essence) and shapes (forms) – mere shadows.

You had said that we need not posit that material objects have a latent capacity (energy) to effect things except that we also accept these material objects are real and self caused. I don't see this at all. Things are just temporary agglomerations of atoms and molecules, and are not self-caused. But there is latent energy in all things.

If we did not believe that material things were real (i.e., possessed of their own intrinsic causes), then we would not posit to them the status of entity (embodiment), nor would we attribute to them either properties (potency) or activities (functions). Now, it is true that most people understand that even material things are put together from other things, but they also believe that there is a fundamental material particle from which all material things are ultimately constructed, and that this primitive particle is real (self-caused). However, we have shown that that which is real cannot be related to anything extrinsic, and so these particles would be incapable of influencing each other in any way; thus they would not be able to form amalgamations.

The analogy is very good, but I must say that the latent energy is not so much in the algorithm as in the electricity supply to the computer. The computer is not a closed system, and requires energy input from outside.

The point of the analogy was that the potency (energy) and functions (activities) of the virtual entities are not ‘properties’ of the entities themselves, but are properties of the computer program that generates their appearance on the screen.

At any rate, I do not disagree that the energy in things has its actual cause in the energies of God. But I cannot consider energy to be an imaginary and not real thing, when it seems to me the most real thing.

Perhaps the term ‘force’ would be more appropriate, for it does not carry the implication of abiding anywhere?

Jehu,

Let us not confuse that God which created man in God’s own image (loving kindness), with that God which man created in his/her own image (personified). The God of which I speak is neither a he nor she, for God is not a person, and neither is God an it, for God is not a thing either. God simply exists, and whatever we imagine God to be, that is not God.

A good point. But as to the lovingkindness, whence does it arise if the absolute has no impurities like desire or anger? How do you relate lovinginkindness to emotion, and for that matter, how should the absolute have the will to do anything, being desireless?

As I said, I am not familiar with the author’s work, but I can find no fault in those statements which you have attributed to him.

I am not so sure. What do you take mysticism to be? I take it to be an experience, and one that may or should alter the brain, rendering it more capable of further experience, and of perceiving and thinking differently. It may be an experience of one's true nature, or an experience of contact with a spiritual reality outside of one's own awareness fragment, that is, the knowledge that one's fragment is not entirely separate.

It is not the breadth of our enquiry that is inadequate, but its depth. You have yet to see the full implications of those logical points which you have agree to, and so you keep sliding back to the erroneous view.

The five elements are stumping me.

In what way are matter, energy and motion resulting from the imagination of sentient beings, and how are we to say that the absolute is the cause, and place the planet earth within space and time while simultaneously saying that the planet itself would not arise without sentient beings.

It is just as I said in the analogy of the computer entities, for there are no actual entities, properties or activities, except in the mind of the cognizant observer; there is only the play of light (essence) and shapes (forms) – mere shadows.

I'm afraid that doesn't begin to answer the question. The absolute causes the universe to manifest, no? This includes matter, no? And its organization into elements and the laws of nature, no? The absolute caused the stars and the galaxies and planets, right? To whose imagination do we attribute the potency and function and embodiment?

Now, it is true that most people understand that even material things are put together from other things, but they also believe that there is a fundamental material particle from which all material things are ultimately constructed, and that this primitive particle is real (self-caused).

Well, I don't know that most people have thought of a fundamental particle, but I suppose that most people consider matter itself a kind of given. But even there, I think most people think God brought matter into being from nothing, and that without such a cause, there couldn't be anything at all.

However, we have shown that that which is real cannot be related to anything extrinsic, and so these particles would be incapable of influencing each other in any way; thus they would not be able to form amalgamations.

This is an odd statement. I guess this would be true if the particles were separate from one another. But all of reality is all of a piece. There are movable parts, but one thing does not influence another alone. It's all one kaleidoscope.
The reason why the real can't relate to anything extrinsic, is because there isn't anything extrinsic.

What good does it do to say that it is just images and shadows if a mushroom cloud goes up? What can it mean to say that there is no latent energy? We may understand that the atoms did not cause themselves, but they certainly seem to have latent energy.

The point of the analogy was that the potency (energy) and functions (activities) of the virtual entities are not ‘properties’ of the entities themselves, but are properties of the computer program that generates their appearance on the screen.

Yes, but without energy, is there any game at all? Any existence whatsoever?

Perhaps the term ‘force’ would be more appropriate, for it does not carry the implication of abiding anywhere?

That's fine. I think of it as abiding everywhere and nowhere.

Iolaus wrote:A good point. But as to the lovingkindness, whence does it arise if the absolute has no impurities like desire or anger? How do you relate lovingkindness to emotion, and for that matter, how should the absolute have the will to do anything, being desireless?

Loving kindness has no need to arise, for it is inherent in our nature as human beings. When people act in an unkindly way, it is not because they do not possess loving kindness, but because that loving kindness which is always present is obscured by the desires of the ego-personality. Just as the absolute stands in a superior relationship to its relative counterpart, so to does love stand in a superior relationship to its counterpart. For this reason, there is no need to cultivate love, rather, one need only to remove the veil of ignorance, and hate will then dissolve in the presence of love, just a darkness dissolves in the presence of light.

I am not so sure. What do you take mysticism to be? I take it to be an experience, and one that may or should alter the brain, rendering it more capable of further experience, and of perceiving and thinking differently. It may be an experience of one's true nature, or an experience of contact with a spiritual reality outside of one's own awareness fragment, that is, the knowledge that one's fragment is not entirely separate.

Mysticism, for me, is that path of knowledge which relies upon personal experience as the true measure of the validity of one’s subjective knowledge, and so stands in opposition of rationalism, which takes logical consistency as its measure of validly. However, given that the sentient mind is capable of conjuring up all manner of ideas and experiences that are not valid, or even logically consistent, it seems to me that mysticism alone is an uncertain path at best, and at worst, a perilous one.

I'm afraid that doesn't begin to answer the question. The absolute causes the universe to manifest, no? This includes matter, no? And its organization into elements and the laws of nature, no? The absolute caused the stars and the galaxies and planets, right? To whose imagination do we attribute the potency and function and embodiment?

As I said, these notions are merely that – notions. In his treatise, ‘A Critic of Pure Reason’, Kant, who was a empirical realist, came reluctantly to accept an idealistic position, albeit a transcendental one; and although he continued to hold that there were things-in-themselves (noumena), he accepted that we could never know such things immediately, but only through the mediation of the phenomenal experience (form and essence). In other words, mentation (forms) and sensations (essences) are all that we can know for certain to actually exist; all else being mere supposition.

This is an odd statement. I guess this would be true if the particles were separate from one another. But all of reality is all of a piece. There are movable parts, but one thing does not influence another alone. It's all one kaleidoscope. The reason why the real can't relate to anything extrinsic, is because there isn't anything extrinsic.

If you maintain that things are made up of some fundamental particle, and that this particle is real, then it follows that these particles (for there must be more than one) are separated by something else (which is also fundamental). However, if these two fundamentals are both real, then there can be no relationship between them; and if they are not both real, then one must be imaginary (apparent), and so the other (real) must be that which imagines.

What good does it do to say that it is just images and shadows if a mushroom cloud goes up? What can it mean to say that there is no latent energy? We may understand that the atoms did not cause themselves, but they certainly seem to have latent energy.

Yes, there is no question that things appear to be constituted in a certain way, but we must not bend to the illusion no matter how powerful it is. Rather, we must have an unshakable faith in our own innate ability to reason, and we must follow whatever path reason dictates, no matter how counter intuitive it might first seem. As to what good it does one to view the world in such a way, the answer is liberation; from fear, from desire, from anger, and ultimately, from death itself.

Yes, but without energy, is there any game at all? Any existence whatsoever?

The nature of Being is dynamic, as it has always been, for if it were not so, then neither your question, nor any other question would have ever arisen.

Deleted..

Iolaus wrote:The five elements are stumping me.

Yes, it is quite understandable, nevertheless, they will eventually become clear to you, and you will see them at play in all things.

Elements and Essences

Everything comprises a unique set of characteristics which are essential to that given thing’s being what it is. When speaking of a specific class of thing (universal) or an individual instance of thing (particular), then these ‘essential characteristics’ (elements) will entail all those subsidiary things which comprise the constitutive causes of the thing. The elements of a car, for example, would entail a car: chassis, engine, drive train, steering wheel, etc., and these elements are known collectively as the ‘essence’ of a car.

The Fundamental Elements

However, if we wish to speak of all things in general, then the elements cannot be things in themselves, but must be more ‘fundamental’; that is to say, they must be those interdependent and complementary aspects of which all things are comprised. These ‘fundamental elements’ may be classified as follows: form, essence, embodiment, potency, function, primary cause, secondary causes, effect, recompense, and fundamental unity.

Form (aether/space)

The first of these ten primitive elements (suchnesses) is called ‘form’, and denotes the identifiable quality of a thing – an appearance; for all apparent entities must have an appearance. A pot, for example, has a appearance, and this appearance is what enables us to recognize that that thing which we are perceiving is a ‘pot’, and not some other sort of thing. All things have a form, regardless of the type of thing in question; that is to say, whether the thing given is: mentation, sensation, object, property or activity.

Essence (water/time)

This form or appearance is nothing more than a pattern or mode of distribution which is embedded within the essence of the thing; that is to say, within that set of elements which comprise the constitutive causes of the thing; and so all things must has an ‘essence’ as well as a form. Further, as there are five types of things, it follows that there are five types of essences, for the essence of a thing must be of the same type as the thing itself.

Embodiment (earth/matter)

Given that of the five types of things, only the one (material objects) are immediately perceptible to the senses, it follows that the other four types of things must be embodied in a material object, if they are to be perceived at all. This ‘embodiment’ can be direct, as in the case of an emotion, which is embodied in a smile or a frown or some other overt bodily manifestation – depending upon the emotion at play; or indirectly, as a quality such as valour is embodied in an act of bravery. In any case, everything must have a material embodiment, else we would not be able to perceive or imagine it.

Potency (fire/energy)

A thing cannot be in the world without that it does something, even if that something is to merely resist being moved – like a stone does, and in order to do this something, the thing must possess the latent capacity to do so. This latent capacity or ‘potency’ is that aspect of the thing which determines what it is capable of doing. For example, the potency of suffering is ‘psychological pain’, for it is pain that is the motive factor behind our weeping and other lamentations.

Function (air/activity)

The ‘function’ of a thing is ‘what the thing does’, that is to say, what are its appropriate modes of activity whereby it fulfils it purpose. A knife, for example, cuts, and a knife that cuts well is a good knife, while a knife that cuts poorly is a poor knife. Likewise, a human being who relieves the suffering of other sentient beings is a good (humane) being, while those who cause suffering are poor (inhumane) beings.

These five then are the fundamental elements that constitute the manifestation body of a thing, and are present in all things. For this reason, anything may be defined in terms of these five elements, although it may take a great deal of contemplation in order to see the elements clearly.

Jehu,

It is distressing, but I had written a post yesterday, and it does not appear to be here. The only answer must be that I did not apply the submit button.
I'll try a few quick comments.

I agree by my own observation about lovingkindness, but how do you show it to be true? What is love and how does it relate to emotion? How does the absolute have will if no desire? Are they not all but synonymous?

Mysticism - one could also say that what good is understanding without experience, or indeed, can one really understand without experience? For me, at least, there has never been a need to divorce experience from logic. One's boat must have a sail and a rudder. Logic, too, is subject to danger, if only because people sincerely disagree as to the logical progression.

I am not certain the particles must be separate, nor am I certain they are real. Perhaps they are actual. Let us again define real, actual and imaginary. But that is why I have asked you about the five elements, which I will have to think about some more.

Yes, there is no question that things appear to be constituted in a certain way, but we must not bend to the illusion no matter how powerful it is.

Nor can we abandon it without very good cause.

Jehu,

Alright, note that this is my second post.

Part of my problem here is that there are several names for the same things.

We have function, which equals activities and motion.
Energy-potency-properties.
Embodiment-matter.

There are 5 elements (really 10) and 5 types of things. Would you please relist the 5 types of things?

The remaining three elements (embodiment, potency and function), also partake of only a relative existence, however, given that they arise as a result of the interaction of imperfect awareness and imperfect knowledge, they are not actual, but only ‘imaginary’. These last three elements manifest as ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and ‘motion/change’ respectively.

Let us go back to the planet Earth. You have said that the two actual elements are objective, and the other three subjective. You also said that the imaginary ones arise from the consciousness of sentient beings, who have imperfect knowledge. Is this imperfect knowledge the reason why we cannot know the thing in itself? Or would you say it is because there is no thing in itself?

I'll tell you right off the bat it makes no sense to say that form, even just the idea of a form, is real while that which gives it appearance in the first place - matter - is not actual but imaginary. Without that forms become embodied, they have no meaning or use.

Also, it is odd to call form as space, when it is form that occupies space, space which grants it room to appear.

So we have the planet. Its form is how it appears to us. The essence is the set of characteristics such as having a water system, a weather system, continents with dry land, revolving around a star.

What would you call the embodiment? Perhaps there are several. That it supports life? The life forms themselves? The matter of all the above set of essences?

Potency? See below.

Function? The storms, the spinning, the wind, the support of life forms?

They all seem to overlap. I think the main question is, why do you say that the matter is imaginary and wouldn't arise without a sentient being?

Iolaus wrote:Part of my problem here is that there are several names for the same things.
We have function, which equals activities and motion.
Energy-potency-properties.
Embodiment-matter.
There are 5 elements (really 10) and 5 types of things. Would you please relist the 5 types of things?

Yes, because there are five types of things, the five elements manifest as seemingly different things, however, if you try to see beyond the words themselves, you will see that they all point to the same quality. The five types of things are: 'mentation', 'sensations', 'objects' (actual or imagined), 'properties' and 'activities'. Now, the potency of a material object we call its ‘energy’, but the potency of a idea we call its ‘force’, and the potency behind an act of will we call its ‘motive’; however, all three of these terms denote a potency or latent capacity to do something.

Let us go back to the planet Earth. You have said that the two actual elements are objective, and the other three subjective. You also said that the imaginary ones arise from the consciousness of sentient beings, who have imperfect knowledge. Is this imperfect knowledge the reason why we cannot know the thing in itself? Or would you say it is because there is no thing in itself?

There is no thing in itself, for things exist only as relationships between other things, and have no existence apart from those other things. It is imperative that you understand that relative entities are nothing more than patterns (forms), and as such, there must be that which is able to interpret them (minds), if they are to manifest as entities. It is like the light source and the opaque object which, having come together in the perception of a sentient observer, gives rise to the idea of an entity (e.g., a rabbit) with its attendant properties and activities; whereas, there is in actuality only light and shadow.

I'll tell you right off the bat it makes no sense to say that form, even just the idea of a form, is real while that which gives it appearance in the first place - matter - is not actual but imaginary. Without that forms become embodied, they have no meaning or use.

Yes, this is true, but it does not alter the fact that it is the form (and not the essence) of a thing that we identify with the thing itself. When we see a clay plate, we do not say “There is a clay!”, we say “There is a plate”. Further, we recognize an elephant whether it is blood and tissue, or rendered in stone, bronze or wax.

Also, it is odd to call form as space, when it is form that occupies space, space which grants it room to appear.

Forms do not truly occupy space, they ‘are’ space; and they are occupied by their essences.

So we have the planet. Its form is how it appears to us. The essence is the set of characteristics such as having a water system, a weather system, continents with dry land, revolving around a star.

What would you call the embodiment? Perhaps there are several. That it supports life? The life forms themselves? The matter of all the above set of essences?

The Earth, with respect to its form and essence, is embodied in that perfect knowledge which we sentient beings perceive as the ‘objective universe’, as all things must be embodied, if they are to be perceptible. However, the notion that they (form and essence) constitute a distinct and separate existent (entity) which is the origin and cause of that form and essence is embodied in our imaginations. Its life forms, on the other hand, are not elements of the planet, for they are not essential characteristics, but only incidental.

They all seem to overlap. I think the main question is, why do you say that the matter is imaginary and wouldn't arise without a sentient being?

Imagine that you are a newborn baby who has just opened your eyes to the objective universe, what do you suppose that you would see? When we first encounter the world we perceive only sensations (colour and intensity) and the patterns (shapes) that are embodied within those sensations. Slowly, over time, we come to associate certain groups of sensations and their embedded patterns with a name or designation (e.g., Mom), and with certain activities such as feeding us or rocking us to sleep. In this way, we build up a mental structure or concept with which we associate the name; and it is this concept that is the thing itself. For example, when we hear the term ‘mother’ it is to our own mental representation of the term that our minds turn, and not to something external. Then, as our store of subjective knowledge grows, there arises the notion of I and other (separate entities), and the ego-personality begins to emerge.

In truth, however, there are (actually) only forms and sensations, and all else arises as a result on that interpretive mental process called imagination. This is why it is said that if we are to enter into the kingdom of heaven (nirvana), we must fist become as babes; and see the world as it truly is, neither adding to nor taking away from the pure perceptual experience. Only then will we be free to be true human beings.

Jehu,

Yes, because there are five types of things, the five elements manifest as seemingly different things, however, if you try to see beyond the words themselves, you will see that they all point to the same quality.

Do you mean that there is an element corresponding to each type of thing? But no, you are saying that each type of thing has the five elements to it, right?

There is no thing in itself, for things exist only as relationships between other things, and have no existence apart from those other things.

Which philosopher was it that talked of the problem of the thing in itself, and what conclusion did he come to, and did he come to it for the reason that you do, that there is no thing in itself?

It is imperative that you understand that relative entities are nothing more than patterns (forms), and as such, there must be that which is able to interpret them (minds), if they are to manifest as entities.

But what I have been trying to get at here is how did we humans or other life forms arise if the bedrock which supports us requires an imagination from a relative entity? It's circular. First the manifestation, then the interpretation, how could it be otherwise?

It is like the light source and the opaque object which, having come together in the perception of a sentient observer, gives rise to the idea of an entity (e.g., a rabbit) with its attendant properties and activities; whereas, there is in actuality only light and shadow.

I'm not sure what it means to say there is only light and shadow. A baby rabbit has no idea of itself, but it has properties and activities.

Yes, this is true, but it does not alter the fact that it is the form (and not the essence) of a thing that we identify with the thing itself. When we see a clay plate, we do not say “There is a clay!”, we say “There is a plate”. Further, we recognize an elephant whether it is blood and tissue, or rendered in stone, bronze or wax.

How does that make it more real? Because it is not subject to dissolution?

Forms do not truly occupy space, they ‘are’ space; and they are occupied by their essences.

But it is also the space, (which appears empty) between objects that allows there to be objects at all. If there were not the borders of the essences then all would be space, which is clearly not true. So if you say that forms are space, then how do you differentiate between space containing a form and space which does not?

Imagine that you are a newborn baby...

But the baby has nothing upon which to build his mental concepts of things unless those things are first there. It still makes no sense to me that matter requires a sentient being before its arisal. The body of the sentient being and its brain are matter, before any mentation and sensation occur.

In truth, however, there are (actually) only forms and sensations

Sensations about what?

Iolaus wrote:Do you mean that there is an element corresponding to each type of thing? But no, you are saying that each type of thing has the five elements to it, right?

Indeed! The five fundamental elements which constitute the manifestation body of a thing (i.e., form, essence, embodiment, potency and function) are present in all things, regardless of whether the thing in question is: mentation (e.g., a concept), an sensation (e.g., fear), an object (e.g., a chair), a property (e.g., liquidity) or an activity (e.g., running). Just as an object, such as a chair, may be broken down into subordinate things (e.g., back, seat, legs, etc.), so too can an activity, such as running, be broken down into subordinate activities (e.g., bending the knee, swinging of the arms, extension of the leg, etc.). Likewise, can a sensation be broken down into subordinate sensations, or a property, into subordinate properties. However, all of these sets of subordinates belong to that fundamental element which is called “essence”.

But what I have been trying to get at here is how did we humans or other life forms arise if the bedrock which supports us requires an imagination from a relative entity? It's circular. First the manifestation, then the interpretation, how could it be otherwise?

It seems circular only because you have not yet accepted the fact that things (beings) are not truly founded upon other subordinate things (bottom up), but upon the one true entity – Being. Awareness is not an epiphenomenal coincidence of a phenomenal world, as most scientists would have us believe, but quite the opposite: the arising of the appearance of a phenomenal world is wholly dependent upon the existence of cognizant awareness.

Here is the fundamental problem: awareness, like a perfect mirror, cannot be perceived immediately, but only through the mediation of that which is reflected. In the same way, a sentient mind (subject) cannot exist without that it has an object to reflect upon. Now, because we can conceive of a world in which there are no sentient beings whatsoever, we hold that existence is independent of mind, but this is merely slight of hand. In reality, we cannot imagine a world that is completely devoid of any sentient mind, for the very act of imagining requires that there be at least one mind present that can imagine such a world. However, just like the mirror, we cannot perceive the mind directly, and so we are apt to forget that it is present.

I'm not sure what it means to say there is only light and shadow. A baby rabbit has no idea of itself, but it has properties and activities.

I meant that when we see a rabbit, we are actually experiencing only forms (shapes) and sensations (colours and intensities).

How does that make it more real? Because it is not subject to dissolution?

Clearly, if there are necessarily two modes of being (i.e., absolute and relative), and the one is absolute, independent and immutable, while the other is subject to perpetual change, it is the former that must be real, for how can that which is subject to continuous change give rise to that which is forever unchanging?

But it is also the space, (which appears empty) between objects that allows there to be objects at all. If there were not the borders of the essences then all would be space, which is clearly not true. So if you say that forms are space, then how do you differentiate between space containing a form and space which does not?

But there are no true borders to essences, for we have shown that Being is a singular and continuous entity which is unbounded. Rather, there are only the appearance of borders, and permeating all of the apparent world is that which is real – space. Forms, as we said earlier, are patterns of distribution, that is to say, spatial extensions, which have embodied themselves in some essence; and in doing so, given rise to the appearance of an entity (thing). Empty space. On the other hand, is merely spatial extension which is not yet embodied, and so is not manifest.

But the baby has nothing upon which to build his mental concepts of things unless those things are first there. It still makes no sense to me that matter requires a sentient being before its arisal.

All sentient beings are born with three “a priori” (intuitive) concepts upon which to build, else it would be impossible for us to construct more complex concepts. These three are “entity”, “potency”(cause) and “function” (effect), and are inherent in that which is real.

Sensations about what?

Returning to the dream analogy, from where do the dreams sensation arise? They appear to arise out of the dream body, but do they really? Is the dream world constructed upon a substrate of dream sub-atomic particles, which form together to give rise to dream atoms, etc., etc., until they result in a dream body? And does the dream sensation arise out of that dream body, and then give rise to dream consciousness? Think this through very carefully, and you will discover that this is not the case at all. The very first thing to manifest in the dream world is the dream consciousness, with its sentient awareness and its sense objects. First there is the awareness some sensation, some sight or sound or smell etc., and then the sentient mind begins to construct a dream world, in accordance with the subjective knowledge of the dreamer and the force of inductive reasoning.

Jehu,

But what I have been trying to get at here is how did we humans or other life forms arise if the bedrock which supports us requires an imagination from a relative entity? It's circular. First the manifestation, then the interpretation, how could it be otherwise?

It seems circular only because you have not yet accepted the fact that things (beings) are not truly founded upon other subordinate things (bottom up), but upon the one true entity – Being.

But I see both as true. As far as I am concerned, there isn't anything but God. That's all there is. But this perfect knowledge you speak of, which was used to create the universe, or as some say that mathematics is the language of God, or that the world is the manifestation of information - all these things point to a consistency, and it is the consistency that tells me the world is built upon a reliable set of constructors. Also, you mention that all things are conglomerations of other things coming together. A bicycle is nothing more than the gathering together of various sorts of parts with a consistent function. How is this not a bottom up construction?
And furthermore yet, that which you call bottom up is to me a matter of from inside to outside, from the core outward. The core - that is God, or the fundamental particle of God, or it could be consciousness

and

Awareness is not an epiphenomenal coincidence of a phenomenal world, as most scientists would have us believe, but quite the opposite: the arising of the appearance of a phenomenal world is wholly dependent upon the existence of cognizant awareness.

But the problem I originally had here was that you said the world wouldn't arise without the imagination of a sentient being, and a sentient being is not the same as cognizant awareness. This is why I said it was circular. The sentient being depends upon the world arising first, before his body can be evolved/created.

Now, because we can conceive of a world in which there are no sentient beings whatsoever, we hold that existence is independent of mind, but this is merely slight of hand. In reality, we cannot imagine a world that is completely devoid of any sentient mind, for the very act of imagining requires that there be at least one mind present that can imagine such a world.

But of course the supposition is that there need not be such a mind. If there were a world without sentient beings, no would imagine anything.

I meant that when we see a rabbit, we are actually experiencing only forms (shapes) and sensations (colours and intensities).

Oh, well, I suppose that is true, but nonetheless we experience certain sensations due to the essences embodied within the thing.

But there are no true borders to essences, for we have shown that Being is a singular and continuous entity which is unbounded. Rather, there are only the appearance of borders, and permeating all of the apparent world is that which is real – space. Forms, as we said earlier, are patterns of distribution, that is to say, spatial extensions, which have embodied themselves in some essence; and in doing so, given rise to the appearance of an entity (thing). Empty space. On the other hand, is merely spatial extension which is not yet embodied, and so is not manifest.

I suppose this again goes to the paradoxical nature of reality. There are no borders and yet there are. There are, as you say, patterns of distribution, within the one amorphous mass, and those patterns of distribution are what make this whole dream.

But the baby has nothing upon which to build his mental concepts of things unless those things are first there. It still makes no sense to me that matter requires a sentient being before its arisal.

All sentient beings are born with three “a priori” (intuitive) concepts upon which to build, else it would be impossible for us to construct more complex concepts. These three are “entity”, “potency”(cause) and “function” (effect), and are inherent in that which is real.

But did you say that matter requires a sentient being in order to arise?

Is the dream world constructed upon a substrate of dream sub-atomic particles,

It is constructed of memory.

What I'm confused about here, you say there are only forms and sensations, yet the sensations arise out of the actuality of the entities. Without that the entities have certain properties (and might I remind you of their consistency) we would not experience the sensations. And were the properties/sensations not consistent, we would all go stark raving mad.

But the problem I originally had here was that you said the world wouldn't arise without the imagination of a sentient being, and a sentient being is not the same as cognizant awareness. This is why I said it was circular. The sentient being depends upon the world arising first, before his body can be evolved/created.

Yes, I see why you are confused. The dynamic evolution of that perfect knowledge which constitutes the virtual experiential continuum is not contingent upon the existence of any sentient being, for although it partakes of only a relative existence (is not real), it does exist in actuality, and is not imaginary. Nevertheless, this virtual experiential continuum would not entail any “thing”, for in the absence of a thinker (sentient being), the fundamental notions of “entity”, “property” and “activity” would simply never arise; and so there would be no “objective universe” with its “matter”, “energy” and “motion/change”; nor any other thing. This is analogous to the ancient Chinese Koan: “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one who might hear it, does it still make a sound?” You see, a sound is a sensation, and as such, implies that there must be a sentient observer present.

But I see both as true. As far as I am concerned, there isn't anything but God. That's all there is.

I quite agree!

But this perfect knowledge you speak of, which was used to create the universe, or as some say that mathematics is the language of God, or that the world is the manifestation of information - all these things point to a consistency, and it is the consistency that tells me the world is built upon a reliable set of constructors.

Indeed, there is a consistency, just as there is consistency in the output of a computer program; but this does not necessitate the actual existence of constructors, especially if the constructs are themselves only apparent.

Also, you mention that all things are conglomerations of other things coming together. A bicycle is nothing more than the gathering together of various sorts of parts with a consistent function. How is this not a bottom up construction?

As I have said before, there are two truths, one from the relative (apparent) view, and the other from the absolute (real). When I say that all things are different, I mean that this is how they appear be, by empirical observation. When I say that all things are one and the same (identical), I mean that this is how they are in reality.

And furthermore yet, that which you call bottom up is to me a matter of from inside to outside, from the core outward. The core - that is God, or the fundamental particle of God, or it could be consciousness

If all things abide within God, as they must, then how can God abide within a thing – at its core? Are not all things devoid of any self-inhering self? Are they not dependent upon other things?

But of course the supposition is that there need not be such a mind. If there were a world without sentient beings, no would imagine anything.

What then would it mean to say that such a world “exists”, if it is neither perceived nor imagined? It is simply not logically tenable, for the moment we imagine it, such a world comes into being, and we cannot then simply pretend that we were not there to imagine it.

Oh, well, I suppose that is true, but nonetheless we experience certain sensations due to the essences embodied within the thing.

This is mere supposition, and although it is based upon the way that things appear to be constituted, it does not hold up to logical scrutiny.

I suppose this again goes to the paradoxical nature of reality. There are no borders and yet there are. There are, as you say, patterns of distribution, within the one amorphous mass, and those patterns of distribution are what make this whole dream.

There are no real borders, there is only the appearance of such; that is to say, imaginary ones.

What I'm confused about here, you say there are only forms and sensations, yet the sensations arise out of the actuality of the entities. Without that the entities have certain properties (and might I remind you of their consistency) we would not experience the sensations. And were the properties/sensations not consistent, we would all go stark raving mad.

I have said that all things are amalgams of essential characteristics, but these characteristics cannot have their origin within the thing itself, for there is no “thing itself”. It is the awareness embodied within the sentient mind system that operates upon the forms and essences of the virtual experiential continuum, and by the force of its inductive reasoning, transforms them into things (entities), each with its own properties (qualities) and activities (relations).

Jehu,

Well, all I can say as to your first paragraph is, that we have apparently been talking about a koan. So we don't know. But somehow, what with reality being here, I suspect that there is indeed a step by step method which does not include magic. And as to the tree in the forest, my answer is yes, at least that the sensation requires that a sound wave get put out and that part gets done. If there is no ear to pick up the sound wave, does not alter the presence of the wave.

So you do not think that the One Being is capable of thought?

but this does not necessitate the actual existence of constructors, especially if the constructs are themselves only apparent.

Probably the constructors are actual.

As I have said before, there are two truths, one from the relative (apparent) view, and the other from the absolute (real). When I say that all things are different, I mean that this is how they appear be, by empirical observation. When I say that all things are one and the same (identical), I mean that this is how they are in reality.

When you said there were two truths, things began to make some sense. But in our definitions in this conversation, being not real does not mean the thing isn't real. It just means it isn't real in the sense of being unchanging. However, how can you agree with me that God is all that exists, and then say the constructors are only apparent. Obviously, everything is made somehow or other out of the One Thing, the Absolute, Being.

If all things abide within God, as they must, then how can God abide within a thing – at its core? Are not all things devoid of any self-inhering self? Are they not dependent upon other things?

I don't see a contradiction. The center is everywhere.

Here is a nice little paragraph that Carl wrote:

From Consciousness Matter arises. Behind (within) matter is consciousness. Matter is ultimately made of consciousness. Consciousness is the root of the Physical Universe. Consciousness precedes matter. Matter is consciousness. Consciousness is Spirit, the Mind of God.

It is simply not logically tenable, for the moment we imagine it, such a world comes into being, and we cannot then simply pretend that we were not there to imagine it.

Well, yes, but it is only coming into being in my imagination, as a pink unicorn might do. We have no way to know if it could actually exist.

... we experience certain sensations due to the essences embodied within the thing.

This is mere supposition, and although it is based upon the way that things appear to be constituted, it does not hold up to logical scrutiny.

So what is the reason that an unconscious or newborn animal or person will consistently withdraw from a pain stimulus, if not from the qualities inherent in the flesh and the pin?

There are no real borders, there is only the appearance of such; that is to say, imaginary ones.

I've had this argument with David Quinn and I never have fully agreed. I understand the idea of Totality, on some forums my signon is Onething. But nonetheless, I don't agree that the ten thousand things are imaginary, unless by imaginary we have a specific, philosophical definition that I am not aware of.

What do you think enlightenment is?

Iolaus wrote:I've had this argument with David Quinn and I never have fully agreed. I understand the idea of Totality, on some forums my signon is Onething. But nonetheless, I don't agree that the ten thousand things are imaginary, unless by imaginary we have a specific, philosophical definition that I am not aware of.

They are not purely imaginary as such, but our observing faculties do play a major role in creating the perception that things really exist and have set boundaries.

For example, from the perspective of an observer on earth a cloud in the sky appears to have a sharp boundary between it and the surrounding sky. Yet if we were to zoom up close, the sharp boundary would give way to a misty, fuzzy realm in which it would be impossible to tell where the cloud ends and the sky begins.

So does the cloud actually have a boundary or not? It depends on one's perspective. A matter of whim.

In light of this, the belief that a cloud really does have boundaries is purely imaginary, and a delusion to boot.

-

Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.
100% Unity, 100% Diversity.
Right?

Iolaus,

There appears to still be some confusion with respect to the terms: “real” vs. “apparent”, and “actual” vs. “imaginary”. First, let me reiterate that all things partake of that quality we call existence, for as we have agreed, there is no non-existence; and so when I say that things are “not real”, I do not mean that they do not exist.

Then, we agreed that a entity must be constituted in one of only two possible ways, either they are possessed of their own intrinsic causes (absolute entity), or they are dependent upon extrinsic causes (relative entities). Further, we agreed that all “things”, given that they are constituted in the amalgamation of other subordinate things, do not exist in-and-of-themselves (absolutely), but in the relationship between their constituent elements (relatively); and that they have no existence apart from those other things. These relative entities we then divided into two types, those things which are embodied in perfect (objective) knowledge, and those things which are embodied in that imperfect (subjective) knowledge. Those things which are embodied in objective knowledge (the universe) are said to be “actual”, while those that are embodied in subjective knowledge (the memory) are only “imaginary”. Nevertheless, the actual and the imaginary are both relative entities, and are so are not real, but only apparent.

Now, in the objective universe, everything is (or appears to be) connected to everything else, and so we cannot say that there are any true entities, for an entity is that which has a distinct or independent existence. In truth, the objective universe abides in a state of eternal flux, a state of perpetual “becoming”, and so we cannot say that there truly is any “thing”. It is the differentiating mind of the sentient being that gives rise to the notion of an entity, and which gives continuity to what is truly nothing more that a logical succession of instantaneous states of evolving information (knowledge). Thus, to address your question regarding the “ten thousand things”, things are not entirely imaginary, for everything must have a “form” and an “essence” (actual or conceptual), both of which partake of an actual existence. Nevertheless, there is no aspect of a things which is “real”, rather, it is the subjective awareness of the sentient observer that is real, for it is within the field of awareness that all things come into being.

1otherS wrote:Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.
100% Unity, 100% Diversity.
Right?

That's right. You can't have one without the other.

It is only due to the fact that nothing really exists that experiences can arise at all.

-

Hi David,

They are not purely imaginary as such, but our observing faculties do play a major role in creating the perception that things really exist and have set boundaries.

For example, from the perspective of an observer on earth a cloud in the sky appears to have a sharp boundary between it and the surrounding sky. Yet if we were to zoom up close, the sharp boundary would give way to a misty, fuzzy realm in which it would be impossible to tell where the cloud ends and the sky begins.

So does the cloud actually have a boundary or not? It depends on one's perspective. A matter of whim.

In light of this, the belief that a cloud really does have boundaries is purely imaginary, and a delusion to boot.

This is true, and no doubt true of other things as well, for example a cell membrane. But there are different sorts of delusions. The cloud system is fairly simple and there are few rules at the boundaries; furthermore it is partly an optical illusion based upon the distance that we normally are in relation to the placement of the cloud which gives us the false impression of a sharp boundary.

Now, if we take that cell membrane, in some sense it is fully engaged in the matrix of all of reality. But at the same time, there are these organizations happening, without which none of this set of experiences we are all having would be possible. The membrane is semipermeable, but it has many rules, and generally is able to enforce them. If it could not, the cell would die, and if a lot of cells couldn't, the organism would die.

We could think of examples all day long. It bugs me to call something delusional when it is really more a matter of relativity. Or paradox. Neither/nor, both/and.

There is this huge process going on. The warfare in heaven is entropy against organization. If it were all entropy, there would be no cloud to talk about. Now, I happen to be the one that believes that the physical world is most likely made up of one thing, one particle or one energy, that only appears to morph into the 92 elements.

So yeah, they are all temporary, all relative and lack a thing in itself. But so long as these things hold their formation, they do have properties, and they have very consistent and predictable effects. 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.
__________________________________
1otherS,

Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.
100% Unity, 100% Diversity.

Yeah. I think that is what I said.
_____________________________
Jehu,

Those things which are embodied in objective knowledge (the universe) are said to be “actual”, while those that are embodied in subjective knowledge (the memory) are only “imaginary”. Nevertheless, the actual and the imaginary are both relative entities, and are so are not real, but only apparent.

OK, but you seem to be differentiating in some strange way. You are calling the appearance of a sun or planet actual, yet say it has no characteristics, which belong to imagination of the sentient mind.

It is the differentiating mind of the sentient being that gives rise to the notion of an entity,

This simply cannot be true.
All things are connected but also organized in such a way to constantly struggle to resist amalgamation or sometimes to gravitate toward amalgamation.

David Quinn wrote:It is only due to the fact that nothing really exists that experiences can arise at all.

Yes, it is precisely so! If things really existed, then they could not participate in any sort of change whatsoever; and hence there could be no experiential continuum - no "being".

Iolaus wrote:OK, but you seem to be differentiating in some strange way. You are calling the appearance of a sun or planet actual, yet say it has no characteristics, which belong to imagination of the sentient mind.

As I said earlier, all essences are ultimately reducible to sensations – visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile. For this reason, when we perceive something, such as the Sun, its form (shape) is embodied in some combination of these sensation – brightness, warmth, etc. This experience is actual, and immediate, and accessible to even a newborn baby – though they have no notion of it being something separate from themselves. For the newborn, the experience of the Sun is simply that – an experience, and they do not think about it. Because they do not think about it, the do not differentiate between it and its environment – themselves included, for they have not yet develop the concepts of I and other, this and that.

Concepts, you see, belong to that which we have called subjective knowledge, and although it is embedded in the objective world (i.e., within the neural structures of the brain), 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.

This simply cannot be true.

All things are connected but also organized in such a way to constantly struggle to resist amalgamation or sometimes to gravitate toward amalgamation.

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 influent upon one another. Rather, it is the absolute which exerts its influence upon those things that exist in actuality (form and essence), while it is the awareness of the sentient mind that exerts its influence over that which have only an imaginary existence (entity, properties and activities). Just as there is but one real (absolute) entity, and a multitude of relative (apparent) entities, there is but one objective (actual) world, and a multitude of subjective (imaginary) worlds.

Iolaus wrote:Hi David,

They are not purely imaginary as such, but our observing faculties do play a major role in creating the perception that things really exist and have set boundaries.

For example, from the perspective of an observer on earth a cloud in the sky appears to have a sharp boundary between it and the surrounding sky. Yet if we were to zoom up close, the sharp boundary would give way to a misty, fuzzy realm in which it would be impossible to tell where the cloud ends and the sky begins.

So does the cloud actually have a boundary or not? It depends on one's perspective. A matter of whim.

In light of this, the belief that a cloud really does have boundaries is purely imaginary, and a delusion to boot.

This is true, and no doubt true of other things as well, for example a cell membrane. But there are different sorts of delusions. The cloud system is fairly simple and there are few rules at the boundaries; furthermore it is partly an optical illusion based upon the distance that we normally are in relation to the placement of the cloud which gives us the false impression of a sharp boundary.

Yes, it is all a matter of perspective. This applies to utterly everything we experience, not just clouds.

Now, if we take that cell membrane, in some sense it is fully engaged in the matrix of all of reality. But at the same time, there are these organizations happening, without which none of this set of experiences we are all having would be possible. The membrane is semipermeable, but it has many rules, and generally is able to enforce them. If it could not, the cell would die, and if a lot of cells couldn't, the organism would die.

Just as a cloud wouldn't be able to produce rain if it didn't have the form it has. Our experience of forms in each moment is very real - that is not in question. The issue involves people misunderstanding their experiences and projecting onto them qualities which are not really there. Most people live in a world of phantoms.

We could think of examples all day long. It bugs me to call something delusional when it is really more a matter of relativity. Or paradox. Neither/nor, both/and.

The delusion occurs when one believes that it is more than a matter of relativity.

There is this huge process going on. The warfare in heaven is entropy against organization. If it were all entropy, there would be no cloud to talk about. Now, I happen to be the one that believes that the physical world is most likely made up of one thing, one particle or one energy, that only appears to morph into the 92 elements.

So yeah, they are all temporary, all relative and lack a thing in itself. But so long as these things hold their formation, they do have properties, and they have very consistent and predictable effects. 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.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Everything that we experience is actual - whether it be form or properties. Imagination comes into play the moment we misinterpret our experiences.

-