GENIUS FORUMS

Ioluas wrote: Actually, I think that I have awakened within the dream, but just lightly, like an early morning dozing toward near consciousness, and then lapsing back into dreams...what am I missing?

The very beginning of awakening is the niggling suspicion that the world is not exactly as it appears, and the realization that no matter what we may accomplish, or how much we may accumulate, we are never satisfied for very long. Then, one sets about to discover the truth for one’s self; some through mysticism, some through religion, some through science, and others, such as yourself, through philosophy. However, regardless of which path one follows, the aim is the same: to purge one’s mind of erroneous knowledge, and replace it with perfect knowledge, in order that one might fully realize the true (cognizant) nature of reality. Realization however, entails more than mere belief in one theory or other, it entails a personal effort wherein the seeker discovers the truth first hand; and so can never be drawn back into confusion by those who still hold to erroneous views.

When we enter the sleep state, and the body’s sense organs begin to shut down, that fragment of awareness which is embodied therein may either return to the absolute, or it may create a dream world, and embody itself therein. For the un-awakened, the return to the absolute entails a feeling of groundlessness which manifest in the sensation that one is falling – hence the saying “falling asleep”. This sensation is so frightening to the un-awakened that it causes them either to wake up, or it triggers the onset of the dream state. The fully awaken, on the other hand, do not dream when in the sleep state, but simply rest in the perfect tranquility that is the absolute.

Now, as interesting as dreams may be, they are not pertinent to the process of awakening. What is pertinent is that we purge our minds of all erroneous concepts and ideas, and replace them with true knowledge.

Jehu,

Just as it is possible to train one’s mind to remain fully cognizant while entering into a dream state,

Now, as interesting as dreams may be, they are not pertinent to the process of awakening.

So are you saying that while lucid dreams have a lot in common with enlightenment, that lucid dreams themselves are unimportant? And what about training one's mind to remain fully cognizant while sleeping - how does this relate to enlightenment?

Just as it is possible to train one’s mind to remain fully cognizant while entering into a dream state, by not allowing the fragment of awareness that constitutes the persona to lapse into ignorance (unknowingness); it is also possible to train one’s mind to awaken within the greater dream that is being or existence.

You seem to be saying that both can be intentionally learned.

The very beginning of awakening is the niggling suspicion that the world is not exactly as it appears,

Yes, but I think there are others, such as a sudden sensation that comes over one of, "What - I am Anna? Really? How odd..."
Also, at one time I simply had the sensation of having awakened, (and saw others sleeping) just as I do when I awaken from sleep. You just know it.

and the realization that no matter what we may accomplish, or how much we may accumulate, we are never satisfied for very long.

I can't say that I feel a lot of dissatisfaction, in fact I find life pretty wonderful, but I don't look to that sort of thing for happiness.

Then, one sets about to discover the truth for one’s self; some through mysticism, some through religion, some through science, and others, such as yourself, through philosophy.

It wasn't from dissatisfaction that I began the search, but from that sensation of having awakened, and wanting to know what the heck had happened to me. I would say that I am a mystic, though, and that I did not really awaken, but there are a few different layers of lighter sleep, you know.

Realization however, entails more than mere belief in one theory or other,

Yes, that's the problem. You may convince me that reality is cognizant, and it may help, but enlightenment involves something else, I am not sure what. A change in consciousness.

You see, I quite understand what you mean when you say to awaken within the dream, and I can easily understand how it might mean I lose fear and can direct the flow of my life since that is what happens in a lucid dream and the parallels make perfect sense to me, but yet I have not awakened, have not broken out of the ego boundary, and I am afraid to die.

And what do you make of the enlightenment of QRS here? They speak also of purging our minds of erroneous concepts, but that does not seem to me like enough. Although I will say that I did make quite a lot of progress in that direction, partially through the influence of this site.

Because of that, I see that people are sort of buying into a story, more or less a group story, and also that they are kind of dreaming-awake, meaning that as they go through the events of their day, they add a kind of dream reality of their own subjective reactions to it. It often seems pretty absurd and I shake my head in wonder, as it really does appear that the people I work with, for example, really do believe in what's going on. Whereas, to me, it could all change to another time and another culture and a totally opposed set of concepts - what would be the difference?

Ioluas wrote:So are you saying that while lucid dreams have a lot in common with enlightenment, that lucid dreams themselves are unimportant? And what about training one's mind to remain fully cognizant while sleeping - how does this relate to enlightenment?

Training such as this is important only because it allows us the opportunity to see how our mind works, and what it is capable of. Then, if we have the capacity, we begin to question all of the things that we identify with; that is to say, all of those things that we take to be who and what we are.

Yes, that's the problem. You may convince me that reality is cognizant, and it may help, but enlightenment involves something else, I am not sure what. A change in consciousness.

Awakening, although it may begin with a flash of insight, is a gradual process, for the purging of erroneous knowledge entails a total restructuring of the brain; the brain being where one’s personal knowledge is embodied. This restructuring may be accompanied by mental fatigue, for it takes great deal of intellectual effort to overcome our habitual modes of thinking – and acting. Nevertheless, as one progresses toward the truth, a personal transformation occurs wherein the apparent self (ego) begins to dissolve, and the true self emerges. Concurrent with the emergence of the true self, there arises a state of mental tranquility and well-being wherein one has access to a vast store of knowledge that is not one’s own; but is perfect and complete. But before any of this can take place, one must first realize the true nature of reality, for one’s metaphysical view sets the stage for how we will interpret our phenomenal experiences; and if it is erroneous, then too will the knowledge that arises out of our interpretive mental processes be erroneous.

You see, I quite understand what you mean when you say to awaken within the dream, and I can easily understand how it might mean I lose fear and can direct the flow of my life since that is what happens in a lucid dream and the parallels make perfect sense to me, but yet I have not awakened, have not broken out of the ego boundary, and I am afraid to die.

For the awakened ones, all that is perceived or imagined is mere illusion, and so there is nothing to fear, nothing to be attained, nothing to worry about; there is only being, and so they are completely free to be what they are – human beings; and to function accordingly. Such beings do not resist what is, they accept it and work within the constraints that are imposed upon them. Neither do they wish it was otherwise. As I said before, everything has a function: an appropriate mode of activity whereby the thing fulfils it purpose. Human being too have a purpose, which is to relieve the suffering of other sentient beings, and the awakened ones fulfil their purpose in whatever manner they can.

Jehu,

Training such as this is important only because it allows us the opportunity to see how our mind works, and what it is capable of. Then, if we have the capacity, we begin to question all of the things that we identify with; that is to say, all of those things that we take to be who and what we are.

It might be a bit more than this. For one thing, if reality is cognizant, it lends credence to my idea (and others) that "it's all about consciousness." The sleep state gives access to the unconscious mind - but we are not conscious! Lucid dreams break that barrier.

In my lifetime of dreams, it has been an incredibly slow process of eventually arriving at a lucid dream. But it was the dreams themselves, specifically their recurrent nature, that finally got my dream persona to start thinking, within the dream state itself, about what was going on and what I could do about it. Rather than, you know, the unquestioning acceptance.

And now, it is the unquestioning acceptance of the waking dream that I note in most people.

In nature patterns seem to repeat themselves. The pattern of sleeping and lucid dreaming is repeated in the pattern of so-called waking life and then waking within the dream state. I also think of consciousness as something very big, and we get whatever portion we can handle. So deep dreamless sleep is an unconscious state, dream sleep is more conscious, and waking life is higher than dream sleep but is still not awake - much like my dreams in which I dreamed that I had just awoken. In other words, it is more than a metaphor - dreaming, waking, and enlightenment are stages of consciousness.

But I am not sure what to think of lucid dreaming, since in a way it is more of a breakthrough than simple waking life.

Awakening, although it may begin with a flash of insight, is a gradual process,

Oh, good. But what about all those people who say it is all or nothing?

But before any of this can take place, one must first realize the true nature of reality, for one’s metaphysical view sets the stage for how we will interpret our phenomenal experiences; and if it is erroneous, then too will the knowledge that arises out of our interpretive mental processes be erroneous.

Very well then! Let us proceed!

Jehu,
Backtracking, because of my usual long absences...

In your post of 8/19 you wrote:

With all due respect, if they are the fundamental elements of physics, then I can rightfully call them the “physical elements”; and this does not necessarily mean that each of them is itself physical. The fact is, that you simply did not understand what I meant by the term “physical elements” because, by your own admission, you have not been following the course of the enquiry; and not because I failed to precisely define the term.

Likewise respectfully, "physical elements" do not include space, time and motion, even though they are "fundamental elements of physics."
You can call them whatever you want if you are creating your own personal lexicon, but that just establishes the internal integrity of that lexicon. So you have "precisely defined" the abvoe three as "physical elements" though they are not in scientific consensus, and I have missed your background info, on all-of-the-above-according-to- Jehu." True.
Also on 8/19 you replied to my:
"The real world exists independently regardless of human "conceptual foundations" such as your elaborate edifice of concepts *about* reality. (This is denied by our web hosts here who insist on a special brand of idealism... 'Its all in our collective mind.')...
Saying:
"That might very well be, but until you can provide a logical demonstration as to why this is necessarily the case, I can see no reason to favour your metaphysical view over any other."

"That" what?... the first or parenthetical statement? If the former, there is nothing metaphysical about "the real world" as studied by empirical science. The metaphysics, in this case would be your hyperbole beyond the realm of science, by actual contrast.

Finally, on that date, in reply to my:

"But actually... unicorns and fairies do not exist but in human fantasy/imagination. "Merely apparent" in such imagination?

It would help to clarify the difference here between mere fantasy/imagination and the usual consensus on what objectively exists, specifically as defined by empirical science. If "its all in our minds" we are left with the absurdity of classical idealism... ultimately condensed to solipsism."...

You replied:
"I will not go into to all this again, for we have been through this enough already. If you are truly interested, I would suggest that you read through the thread carefully, and then if you have any specific objections, I will happily address them."

I will not read through your whole thread. If you care to respond to the specific criticisms of your above specific statements I have raised, I will welcome your replies. If not, this is not true dialogue.

(Like, If you wanna know what real enlightenment is, read my website:
http://www.consciousunity.org
'If you haven't read it you are unworthy of further correspondence with me.')

BTW, I have read your recent statements on this thread on enlightenment.
I will engage you on them in a future reply.

Ioluas,

I am not entirely certain as to how we may proceed, for apart from the occasional “OK”, you have given little indication as to which of my arguments you accept as valid, and which you find to be merely plausible. As I said earlier, it will serve no one if I merely lay out the doctrine in its entirety, for then it will be simply one more theory which you will either accept or reject, and even if you do accept it, it will not bring about the transformation that you are looking for. For this reason, I think it is better that we start at the very beginning, and proceed together – step by step. In this way, I will be able to address even the most trivial of your concerns, and in this way, permanently eliminate many of the erroneous concepts that our being indoctrinated into a fundamentally dualistic worldview has produced. How do you feel about starting anew?

Jehu,

When I say OK, it means I accept it. If I disagree, I say so.
I am still unable to understand the idea that there is needed a mind for matter to appear. I don't know if/how to get past that. And, I hope this is based on logic and not on modern particle physics or quantum mechanics. The reason being, that I do think that science has taken a wrong turn about a century ago, and they are building epicycles to prop up their errors.

The scientist who's work I am most familiar with and follow to the best of my very limited abilities, is Paul LaViolette.

If we start over, it will be the second time. You recently chanaged tactics with the dream analogy, and I thought it was working well. Did you not think so?

We have covered the intitial steps about being, the relative and the absolute, the self-existent and the contingent, interdependency and complementarity, also the five modes of existence. I have no disagreement with any of that.

We can do whatever you find necessary, but perhaps you could shorten or make summarized points in an orderly numbered fashion on one page. I think you'll see we have come pretty far.

Jehu?

By the way, when I said I didn't get the bit about needing a mind for matter to appear, I didn't mean that matter could pop into existence on its own. I have never thought that the universe could appear without a mind to generate/cause it.

I just don't know about matter needing to be sort of watched all the time, or the lack of meaning to its blobs and balls, why that couldn't exist anyway, without meaning.

Ioluas,

First, let me say that everything that I have presented here is based upon reason, and not upon any theory – scientific or otherwise. Further, the material I am presenting is not of my own making, but represents a distillation of material found in the ancient wisdom traditions of: Greece, India, Tibet, China, Persia and Israel – to name but a few. Once this metaphysical doctrine is fully understood, one can readily recognize its presence at the core of nearly all of the major religions of the world, no matter how badly it has become distorted by those who call themselves teachers, but do not truly understand what it is they profess to teach.

Now, with respect to the apparent nature of matter, I am not sure of how to proceed, for you seem to be comfortable with all of the logical arguments that I have put forward, and so I must conclude that your opposition to the idea is not so much a rational one, but rather, a matter of being attached to the opposing idea. You seem to accept that matter is not real, but you do not seem to understand what it means to be ‘not real’. Therefore, let us consider the case of the relative entity once more, only this time, lets us come at it from the perspective of causality.

As we said before, the relative entity arises out of the coming together of at least two other things, and these other things may be called the ‘constitutive causes’ of the thing. In the case of our bicycle, for example, its constitutive causes would include its wheels, frame, handle bars, peddles, etc. But the nature of a bicycle is two-fold, for not only must its constitutive causes (essence) be present, they also must be bound together in the appropriate form; and that which causes them to be bound together as a thing may be called its ‘operative cause’.

In a real (absolute) entity, its constitutive and operative causes are both intrinsic to the entity itself, but in the case of the apparent (relative) entity, both types of causes are extrinsic. This is analogous to the case of a shadow, which arises as a result of the interaction of a light source and an opaque object; the variations in the intensity of the light being the constitutive causes of the shadow, and the opaque object, its operative cause. The operative cause is that which operates upon the constitutive causes, and in so doing, gives the thing its form or identifiable appearance; and it is this aspect of the thing which the mind recognizes to be some sort of thing.

Now, if we put aside the supposition that there is an external entity which is the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience, we are forced to admit that ultimately all essence (constitutive causes) may be reduced to bodily sensations (i.e., sights, sounds, smells, etc.), and that it is the mind itself which, by operating upon these sensation, gives rise to the notion of individual things (entities); and which assigns each individual thing an identity or name. Consequently, in the absence of any sentient being, there would be no essence whereby to say 'what a thing is', nor any mentation that may recognize its form, or to differentiate it from that which is its surrounding environment. In truth, it is impossible to imagine what it might mean to say that there exists anything in the absence of any sentient beings; and the fact that we can imagine it at all, is due to the fact that we are sentient beings. Is this not so?

Jehu,

Now, with respect to the apparent nature of matter, I am not sure of how to proceed, for you seem to be comfortable with all of the logical arguments that I have put forward, and so I must conclude that your opposition to the idea is not so much a rational one, but rather, a matter of being attached to the opposing idea.

It never seemed to me that the logical arguments, all of which stood alone just fine, crossed the gap such that matter would disappear without a sentient being to watch it. When you said that if all sentient beings suddenly died that the words on your computer screen would disappear - in what way would they disappear? How would they disappear? If there were one sentient being, would that be sufficient?

I am not sure if I am attached to the opposing idea, but I do tend to think that there is a divide between matter and living things, even though living things are but animated matter. A living thing has a consciousness, and a will. Even an amoeba has consciousness and a will. It seeks certain things and avoids others. Matter isn't like that. It has no will and no preferences. A human body just before death and right after death appears completely different. The one contains a living entity, the other is just matter.

So I am not able to understand why a rock lying there depends upon a mind for it to have form. What about all the matter that no one ever sees? Is it seen by the Absolute?

Now, if we put aside the supposition that there is an external entity which is the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience,

Do you mean the notion of an external God who has caused everything?

we are forced to admit that ultimately all essence (constitutive causes) may be reduced to bodily sensations (i.e., sights, sounds, smells, etc.), and that it is the mind itself which, by operating upon these sensations, gives rise to the notion of individual things (entities); and which assigns each individual thing an identity or name.

Well, yes, that is so - but isn't there something consistent out there which is the reason we all agree as to what it is that we see and feel?
Also, isn't this true regardless of whether or not there is an external entity?

In truth, it is impossible to imagine what it might mean to say that there exists anything in the absence of any sentient beings; and the fact that we can imagine it at all, is due to the fact that we are sentient beings. Is this not so?

Well that might be so. Certainly, there are things which exist only in the imagination.

At any rate, you are saying that the atheist universe, with no consciousness or sentience until the evolution of animals, is impossible.

Ioluas wrote:It never seemed to me that the logical arguments, all of which stood alone just fine, crossed the gap such that matter would disappear without a sentient being to watch it. When you said that if all sentient beings suddenly died that the words on your computer screen would disappear - in what way would they disappear? How would they disappear? If there were one sentient being, would that be sufficient?

It is not so much that matter would disappear if all sentience were to cease, but that it would simply be unable to appear; for there is no matter (essence) apart from its appearance (manifestation). Since the essence (matter) of a thing is that set of characteristics which are essential to its being what it is, and since all essential characteristics are sensations and so have their origin, not in the thing itself, but in the mind of the perceiver; it follows that in the absence of any possible perceiver (or imaginer), there can be no essence.

I am not sure if I am attached to the opposing idea, but I do tend to think that there is a divide between matter and living things, even though living things are but animated matter.

This is exactly the metaphysical view (dualism) that must be overcome: the notion that underlying the phenomenal experience there lies two independent principles. According to the ancient essentialists, these underlying principles are “non-dualistic”, for the two are interdependent and cannot exist without their complement; hence the Zen Koan “not one, not many”.

A living thing has a consciousness, and a will. Even an amoeba has consciousness and a will. It seeks certain things and avoids others. Matter isn't like that. It has no will and no preferences. A human body just before death and right after death appears completely different. The one contains a living entity, the other is just matter.

While non-sentient beings are not possessed of a mind (consciousness), nevertheless, they partake of the same cognizant nature as do sentient beings. Where they do differ is in their functional capacity. Inanimate things are not able to perceive and interpret the world according to their own experience, and so are bound to function in strict accordance with their nature. Nevertheless, even the smallest sub-atomic particle partakes of the awareness and knowledge that are its true self, and so exhibits the ability to influence and be influenced by its environment. When a human being loses the capacity to function as a human being, then it is said to have died, but there is nothing that has left the body, it has simple ceased to function. As I said before, everything abides in a state of perpetual change, and so as long as those changes do not impair a things functional capacity, the thing will persist; however, eventually its essential elements will change to the point that they can no longer function, and then the entity itself ceases to function.

So I am not able to understand why a rock lying there depends upon a mind for it to have form. What about all the matter that no one ever sees? Is it seen by the Absolute?

Again, there is no rock without that there is a sentient being that either perceives or imagines it to be. While the absolute is fully aware of all things, it does not perceive them except through the mediation of a sentient being; just as the dreaming mind does not perceive the dream world, except through the sensory organs of the dream persona.

Do you mean the notion of an external God who has caused everything?

No, I meant the existence of a real entity (e.g., chair) that is extrinsic to the mind of the sentient observer, and which is the origin and cause of their perception of a thing.

Well, yes, that is so - but isn't there something consistent out there which is the reason we all agree as to what it is that we see and feel?

Yes, of course, the objective world entails perfect knowledge, and this perfect knowledge unfolds in accordance with a single inviolable law; and given that all sentient observers are in reality, one and the same, they share in one and the same experiential continuum – albeit a virtual one. This is analogous to thee various seemingly cognizant agents that appear in our dreams being privy to the same dream experience as does our dream persona.

Also, isn't this true regardless of whether or not there is an external entity?

Yes it is, however, the point is that there is no logical necessity that there be external entities, and the notion that there are is rife with logical inconsistencies.

At any rate, you are saying that the atheist universe, with no consciousness or sentience until the evolution of animals, is impossible

Indeed!

Jehu,

OK, well it looks like my problem is that I do believe there are external entities, or can't shake that perception. I recall coming across an essay about this which was quite good and perhaps I could search for it. Maybe it would help. Meanwhile, two of your replies on this seem inconsistent to me:

Since the essence (matter) of a thing is that set of characteristics which are essential to its being what it is, and since all essential characteristics are sensations and so have their origin, not in the thing itself, but in the mind of the perceiver

and

Well, yes, that is so - but isn't there something consistent out there which is the reason we all agree as to what it is that we see and feel?

and given that all sentient observers are in reality, one and the same, they share in one and the same experiential continuum – albeit a virtual one.

This comment, too, supports that reality is virtual and not physical, that there is nothing out there.

Yes, of course, the objective world entails perfect knowledge, and this perfect knowledge unfolds in accordance with a single inviolable law;

Cause and effect?
How does it work that the Absolute has perfect knowledge yet can't perceive without idiots like us? What kind of mind does the Absolute have then?

When a human being loses the capacity to function as a human being, then it is said to have died, but there is nothing that has left the body,

Whether or not something has left the body, the difference that I see is the nonfunction of a consciousness which had been there. As to nothing leaving the body, there is so much evidence that there is. And, you say all sentient beings are one being, so what does happen at death, in your view, to this sentience? Especially if, as you say, "While the absolute is fully aware of all things, it does not perceive them except through the mediation of a sentient being;" ?

Also, what is the difference here between awareness and perception?

Again, there is no rock without that there is a sentient being that either perceives or imagines it to be.

I'd like to know how this can work. We've got this universe of billions of galaxies full of stars and planets. I happen to think there is much life, but nonetheless, most of the 'stuff' like rocks, are never seen and quite possibly never imagined. If it takes advanced sentient beings like us to even imagine it, and if the absolute is aware but does not really perceive except through at least animals, who certainly don't imagine anything outside their local landscape...

How does it work that the Absolute has perfect knowledge yet can't perceive without idiots like us? What kind of mind does the Absolute have then?

The sentient mind, like all things, has only a relative existence, and acts as the portal though which the absolute (awareness) experiences its own intrinsic essence – the relative (knowledge); just as the dreaming mind look out upon the dream world through the apparent sense organs of a dream persona. The process whereby the absolute operates upon the relative (objective world), like the process whereby the dreaming mind manipulates all the various elements of the dream, is not a conscious process. It must be remembered that the elements of awareness and knowledge are not two separate things, and so there is no need for the absolute to actually perceive the relative in order to manipulate it; the objective universe simply unfolds in accordance with a single and inviolable law – the principle of interdependent complementarity.

Whether or not something has left the body, the difference that I see is the nonfunction of a consciousness which had been there. As to nothing leaving the body, there is so much evidence that there is. And, you say all sentient beings are one being, so what does happen at death, in your view, to this sentience? Especially if, as you say, "While the absolute is fully aware of all things, it does not perceive them except through the mediation of a sentient being;" ?

Your question is equivalent to asking where does an hallucination go when it is no longer apparent. The Buddha answered this same question through the analogy of the candle flame. When you see a candle flame, it is not the same flame that you saw the instant before, nor is the same flame that it will be in the next moment; and when it is finally extinguished, you do not ask where it has gone.

Also, what is the difference here between awareness and perception?

Awareness is that which makes perception possible. Consider the Upanishad which said “It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see – this it the true Reality (Brahman), and not that which men generally believe.”

I'd like to know how this can work. We've got this universe of billions of galaxies full of stars and planets. I happen to think there is much life, but nonetheless, most of the 'stuff' like rocks, are never seen and quite possibly never imagined. If it takes advanced sentient beings like us to even imagine it, and if the absolute is aware but does not really perceive except through at least animals, who certainly don't imagine anything outside their local landscape...

And I should like very much to help you see how it all works, but you must first let go of the idea that there is anything substantive that is real. Each of the five elements which describe the physical world: space, time, matter, energy and motion, are no more real than shadows; and once this is understood, you will find it no more mysterious or difficult to understand than the process whereby we dream.

Again, you cling to the notion that things may continue to exist in the absence of any cognizant agent, simply because you can imagine it to be so; and so long as you continue to imagine it to be so, in some sense it is so – but it is not 'really' so.

Jehu,

The process whereby the absolute operates upon the relative (objective world), like the process whereby the dreaming mind manipulates all the various elements of the dream, is not a conscious process.

I hardly know what to make of this. I had not thought of the Aabsolute as possessing a conscious and unconscious like we do. Perhaps you are saying that it is all unconscious...

It must be remembered that the elements of awareness and knowledge are not two separate things, and so there is no need for the absolute to actually perceive the relative in order to manipulate it; the objective universe simply unfolds in accordance with a single and inviolable law – the principle of interdependent complementarity.

How does this help this complexity unfold?

Your question is equivalent to asking where does an hallucination go when it is no longer apparent. The Buddha answered this same question through the analogy of the candle flame. When you see a candle flame, it is not the same flame that you saw the instant before, nor is the same flame that it will be in the next moment; and when it is finally extinguished, you do not ask where it has gone.

Yes, I read that exhange, and it made little sense. Especially since the questioner was, like me, worried about annhilation, and Buddha gave this horrifying speech to comfort him and allay his fears.

Certainly I hope that you are wrong.

are no more real than shadows;

But the shadow exists because of two real things.

jehu wrote:

For the awakened ones, all that is perceived or imagined is mere illusion, and so there is nothing to fear, nothing to be attained, nothing to worry about;

Wait, how do you jump from all is illusion to nothing to fear? No matter how real or unreal anything is we are still vulnerable to great pain, also pleasure of course.

Im sure there can no one alive who could honestly say if faced him with the most intense endless physical pain that he "no, I not worried that my suffering may never end. My excruciating pain is only illusion so nothing to fear!"

Certainly you can see how crazy this is, Jehu.

Ioluas wrote:I hardly know what to make of this. I had not thought of the Absolute as possessing a conscious and unconscious like we do. Perhaps you are saying that it is all unconscious...

Remember, the two possible modes of being (absolute and relative) are complementary, and therefore, mutually exclusive. By this I mean that if the absolute is ‘aware’, then the relative is necessarily ‘not aware’; thus the absolute is possessed of both awareness and unawareness (knowledge), and these two manifest in all things as ‘form’ and ‘essence’ respectively.

How does this help this complexity unfold?

You must abandon the view that there is an real substantive universe which is somehow being manipulated, either from without or within, in which case the controlling agent must be constantly aware of each individual thing, right down to the smallest imaginable sub-atomic particle. This is not how it is at all. There is only the absolute (awareness) , which may be likened to mind, and the relative (knowledge), which may be likened to thoughts or ideas. These two primitive elements are locked in a uninterrupted creative cycle which give rise to ‘space’ (the sphere of awareness) and ‘time’ (the flow of phenomenal experience); the interaction of which gives rise to all manner of relative entities, along with there apparent properties and activities.
These relative entities are the embodiment of objective knowledge (information), each of which is transformed with every successive cycle, in accordance with the law of identity, so that it become something else – however subtle that change may be. Thus everything is born anew with each cycle, and there is nothing that is carried forward except that information which is embodied in the thing’s new form. For this reason, relative being is often described as ‘becoming’; for it does not remain the same for more than a single instant. Now, the reason that such a situation is possible is due to the fact that the process of becoming takes place beyond the fields of time and space.

Yes, I read that exchange, and it made little sense. Especially since the questioner was, like me, worried about annihilation, and Buddha gave this horrifying speech to comfort him and allay his fears.

Certainly I hope that you are wrong.

Then let me explain, for there is no reason why this analogy should cause one anything but joy. What the Buddha was trying to convey here is the fact that there is no real entity which is born, exists for a time, and then dies, there is only the appearance of such. Why should this bring us joy? Because that aspect of the sentient being which experiences the objective world (awareness) is real, and so is not born and cannot therefore die; and given that it never abided within the sentient being, it need not go anywhere upon the death of that being. Just as the awareness that appears to inhabit the dream persona reunites with the dreamer upon awakening, so too does the awareness of the sentient being reunite with the absolute upon the death of its relative aspect – the body.

But the shadow exists because of two real things.

Although the light source and the opaque object are ‘actual’, they are ‘not real’ (relative); for each is subject to change, and that which is ‘real’ (absolute) is immutable.

Mansman,
The awakened ones know that there is nothing which is endless (does not change), and that pain is nothing more than a sensation – an idea. Further, given enough pain, the brain simply stops registering it, and given that the sort of bodily damage that results from the infliction of pain will eventually kill one, there is still nothing to fear.

For the awakened ones, all that is perceived or imagined is mere illusion, and so there is nothing to fear, nothing to be attained, nothing to worry about;

Where was this? I didn't see it.

By this I mean that if the absolute is ‘aware’, then the relative is necessarily ‘not aware’; thus the absolute is possessed of both awareness and unawareness (knowledge), and these two manifest in all things as ‘form’ and ‘essence’ respectively.

You know, there are quite a few new concepts in this thread, and when you say the above, my mind naturally remembers a couple of previous posts and tries to piece them together for better understanding. So I repeat again what I think has been asked before - have you ever thought it good to make a kind of essay in which these posts are put together coherently, so that one might read, perhaps print them up, and try to work them into the mind a bit better.

Next week I have some days off, and perhaps I should do it myself, with this actual discussion.

You must abandon the view that there is an real substantive universe which is somehow being manipulated, either from without or within, in which case the controlling agent must be constantly aware of each individual thing, right down to the smallest imaginable sub-atomic particle.

As you have used the term real versus actual, then let us use actual. When I speak of a universe out there beyond our bodily senses, I am referring to the actual. So when you say that the essence of a thing is no more than bodily sensations, then I say yes, from our perspective, but isn't our bodily sense apparatus an actual thing designed to interact with other actual things?
And why, if this mind is omnipotent and contains everything, shouldn't it be aware of everything, since it IS everything? But as to a need to always control - no that should happen in this natural unfolding that you mention - albeit I don't quite understand the unfolding. But I have long thought something (a henid of course!) like this is what is going on, and with evolution of species as well. They unfold, but certainly not without intent or purpose or mind.

There is only the absolute (awareness) , which may be likened to mind, and the relative (knowledge), which may be likened to thoughts or ideas. These two primitive elements are locked in a uninterrupted creative cycle which give rise to ‘space’ (the sphere of awareness) and ‘time’ (the flow of phenomenal experience); the interaction of which gives rise to all manner of relative entities, along with there apparent properties and activities.

So then, we people are like a thought, and space and time are an existential step down from the more fundamental awareness/knowledge from which they arise.

Thus everything is born anew with each cycle, and there is nothing that is carried forward except that information which is embodied in the thing’s new form. For this reason, relative being is often described as ‘becoming’; for it does not remain the same for more than a single instant. Now, the reason that such a situation is possible is due to the fact that the process of becoming takes place beyond the fields of time and space.

I see no reason why this process, of carrying forward in time with information should not be included in a reincarnation cycle. For a number of reasons, this seems the most plausible scenario, furthermore, there is so much evidence from people that their consciousness is independent of their brain. If each lifetime is an isolated event, then it means that little of interest is going on in our becoming, mostly it would be a trite and pointless waste of time. The cycle of a human lifetime is miniscule, and I always think that smaller patterns fit within larger patterns.

OK, when you say beyond the fields of space and time, the next most thing would be awareness/knowledge, right?

Why should this bring us joy? Because that aspect of the sentient being which experiences the objective world (awareness) is real, and so is not born and cannot therefore die; and given that it never abided within the sentient being, it need not go anywhere upon the death of that being. Just as the awareness that appears to inhabit the dream persona reunites with the dreamer upon awakening, so too does the awareness of the sentient being reunite with the absolute upon the death of its relative aspect – the body.

I have toyed with similar ideas, but yet it seems there must be something more intermediate. What is the gain of enlightenment then, if once you die you'll be as if you never bothered with this rather intense learning place here! What of use can we bring back to the Absolute if we learn nothing, if our essence is not altered?

Also, your picture of the absolute's existence is so far murky, if not unexciting. Does it have self awareness?

Ioluas wrote:As you have used the term real versus actual, then let us use actual. When I speak of a universe out there beyond our bodily senses, I am referring to the actual. So when you say that the essence of a thing is no more than bodily sensations, then I say yes, from our perspective, but isn't our bodily sense apparatus an actual thing designed to interact with other actual things?

While it is true that the mentation and sensations – the interdependent and complementary elements of the phenomenal experience – of we sentient beings are actual, all that we posit to exist beyond these two are pure imagination – including the body. When a child is first born, for example, there is the presence of both mentation and sensations, however, that interpretive mental process whereby we, having brought into play our previous experiences, infer (inductively) the existence of an external object which the origin and cause of that phenomenal experience is yet to emerge; hence there is not yet the notion of “I” (subject) or “other” (object).

And why, if this mind is omnipotent and contains everything, shouldn't it be aware of everything, since it IS everything? But as to a need to always control - no that should happen in this natural unfolding that you mention - albeit I don't quite understand the unfolding. But I have long thought something (a henid of course!) like this is what is going on, and with evolution of species as well. They unfold, but certainly not without intent or purpose or mind.

The awareness of the dreaming mind is relatively omniscient, for it has access to all of the knowledge stored in the brain of the dreamer, and yet in its role as the dream persona, it is often completely unaware of its true identity. In a sense, the absolute is aware of everything, for it governs the evolution of all things, however, fragments this awareness abide in a mode whereby they are temporarily cut off from the omniscient whole – as essences or substances.

So then, we people are like a thought, and space and time are an existential step down from the more fundamental awareness/knowledge from which they arise.

Yes, space and time are how awareness and knowledge manifest themselves within the relative or objective world. You see space is nothing more than the sphere of cognizant awareness, and time, merely the indefinite and uninterrupted flow of phenomenal experience as it evolves in accordance with the one inviolable law. Because the evolution of everything is governed by the same law, there is an underlying order in the objective universe, and it is the influence of this underlying universal law that the mind interprets as time.

I see no reason why this process, of carrying forward in time with information should not be included in a reincarnation cycle. For a number of reasons, this seems the most plausible scenario, furthermore, there is so much evidence from people that their consciousness is independent of their brain. If each lifetime is an isolated event, then it means that little of interest is going on in our becoming, mostly it would be a trite and pointless waste of time. The cycle of a human lifetime is miniscule, and I always think that smaller patterns fit within larger patterns.

First, I should make it clear that human beings, like all things, have a function, and so long as they carry out this function, their lives are entirely meaningful. It is the function of a knife, for example, to cut, and a knife that cuts well is said to be a good knife, and a knife that does not cut well, is not a good knife; and the same is true of human beings. The function of a human being is to be “benevolent and compassionate” (the definition of ‘Humane”), and thereby relieve the fears and suffering of other sentient beings. You see, things such as fear and suffering are not the creation of the absolute, but are the work of sentient beings who are ignorant of their true nature and function.

OK, when you say beyond the fields of space and time, the next most thing would be awareness/knowledge, right?

Yes, but as I said earlier, ‘awareness’ and ‘knowledge’ are merely names, they are not what the elements really are.

I have toyed with similar ideas, but yet it seems there must be something more intermediate. What is the gain of enlightenment then, if once you die you'll be as if you never bothered with this rather intense learning place here! What of use can we bring back to the Absolute if we learn nothing, if our essence is not altered?

You have to understand, we are ‘beings’. Being is what we do. We do not have any choice in the matter. We cannot simply stop being. We may change our form, but we are ultimately unborn and so we cannot die. However, we do have choices, we can chose to be ignorant and cause great pain and suffering in the world, or we can chose to awaken and perform our allotted function.

Also, your picture of the absolute's existence is so far murky, if not unexciting. Does it have self awareness?

We’re working on it!

Jehu,

Jehu wrote:While it is true that the mentation and sensations – the interdependent and complementary elements of the phenomenal experience – of we sentient beings are actual, all that we posit to exist beyond these two are pure imagination – including the body. When a child is first born, for example, there is the presence of both mentation and sensations, however, that interpretive mental process whereby we, having brought into play our previous experiences, infer (inductively) the existence of an external object which the origin and cause of that phenomenal experience is yet to emerge; hence there is not yet the notion of “I” (subject) or “other” (object).

But you have said that the material world is not real, but is actual. That's its consistency is due to the perfect knowledge of the absolute. In what way then is a body or a planet pure imagination? What things do our senses pick up and why the consistency? When I walk across the room, is my body not moving in space against other objects? The baby may have no such notion, but how that necessary to the question whether or not things have an objective existence?

Jehu wrote:The awareness of the dreaming mind is relatively omniscient, for it has access to all of the knowledge stored in the brain of the dreamer, and yet in its role as the dream persona, it is often completely unaware of its true identity. In a sense, the absolute is aware of everything, for it governs the evolution of all things, however, fragments this awareness abide in a mode whereby they are temporarily cut off from the omniscient whole – as essences or substances.

Are you speaking of beings like as as the reason that fragments of awareness are cut off?

You see space is nothing more than the sphere of cognizant awareness,

You have said this before. It is an interesting comment.

Because the evolution of everything is governed by the same law, there is an underlying order in the objective universe,

You know, your inviolable law is not different than yin and yang, although I suppose that that is less descriptive.
But how does this lead to underlying order? I have a picture of why there is order but I can't describe it. Something to do with underlying unity and the controlled way things unfold, with no untoward deviations.

You see, things such as fear and suffering are not the creation of the absolute, but are the work of sentient beings who are ignorant of their true nature and function

Yes, I agree. But would you say that the possibility for there to be fear and suffering is a creation of the absolute, as the generator of all things?

You have to understand, we are ‘beings’. Being is what we do. We do not have any choice in the matter. We cannot simply stop being. We may change our form, but we are ultimately unborn and so we cannot die.

There should be some thread of continuity as we change form, for the thing to make sense, for us to have meaningful growth and learning processes. In addition to the human function of compassion, there is an innate craving for knowledge! Or is it just because I'm an aquarius? : )

And I thought you had indicated that at death we rejoined the absolute. In what way are we beings if we never abided in the sentient being?

Iolaus wrote:Does it have self awareness?

We’re working on it!

You and I? Or all of us?

Ioluas wrote:But you have said that the material world is not real, but is actual. That's its consistency is due to the perfect knowledge of the absolute. In what way then is a body or a planet pure imagination?

In the sense that either (the body or a planet) is an ‘entity’ (distinct existent); that is to say, that either partakes of a separate or independent existence. Consider the case of a motion picture. It is said that when the early arctic explorers show the Inuit film footage of basking seals, the hunters among them immediately ran off to get their harpoons, for they believed that the images on the screen were actual seals. However, in actuality, there is only the play of light and form, and in the absence of any sentient observer, the idea that there is an entity (actor or prop) present simply does not arise, for it is through that interpretive mental process we call ‘imagination’ that the idea of entity arises.

What things do our senses pick up and why the consistency? When I walk across the room, is my body not moving in space against other objects? The baby may have no such notion, but how that necessary to the question whether or not things have an objective existence?

Our bodily senses are no more attuned to something external that are the apparent sense organs of our dream personas; and the space through which the dream personas appear to move is indiscernible from the space in which the physical body appears to move. In truth, the very notion of a substantial entity moving about in space is, and has always been, fraught with logical inconsistencies. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the awareness that is associated with body of the sentient being, it looks for all the world as though there is an external substantive universe. Consider the following stanzas from Sankara’s “Ode to the South-facing Form”:

“Devotion to the South-facing Form, Infinite Guru, who, seeing the universe as if outside, though it arises within himself–through Maya [delusion], just as in a dream, or like a city being seen in the inner depths of a looking glass, in the awakening, discloses his own nature, as that than which there is no other.

… who, by dressing himself in space and time–produced by Maya, like a conjuror, or rather like a great yogi, opens up and spreads out this world, at first formless, like a sprout within a seed, and afterwards wonderful in its diversity.”

Are you speaking of beings like as the reason that fragments of awareness are cut off?

In a sense, one might say that all knowledge (essence) is merely a form of awareness that has been cut off from the whole through what the Indian tradition called “Maya” - a sort of delusory state.

You know, your inviolable law is not different than yin and yang, although I suppose that that is less descriptive.

Yes, and as I have said before, the ‘Tai Chi Tu’ is a brilliant symbolic representation of the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’.

But how does this lead to underlying order? I have a picture of why there is order but I can't describe it. Something to do with underlying unity and the controlled way things unfold, with no untoward deviations.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you were a virtual entity inhabiting a virtual world, and that that everything that happens in your world is controlled by a single algorithm running on a exceedingly powerful parallel processor. Then, imagine that there were other beings, who were not virtual, and who were controlling the speed at which the processor was operating. Now, the flow of time within your virtual world, like that in the objective world would be measured in terms of the rotation of your virtual planet, or some other such recurrent or cyclic event. However, given that every event is controlled by the same algorithm, and so entails a specific number of processing cycles, it follows that regardless of how fast or slow the processor runs, your experience of time would remain unaltered. This is how the operation of an inviolable law gives rise to the notion of time.

Yes, I agree. But would you say that the possibility for there to be fear and suffering is a creation of the absolute, as the generator of all things?

Yes, of course, but it is neither inherent nor necessary.

There should be some thread of continuity as we change form, for the thing to make sense, for us to have meaningful growth and learning processes. In addition to the human function of compassion, there is an innate craving for knowledge! Or is it just because I'm an aquarius?

I’m afraid I am quite ignorant with regard to the inherent qualities of those born under the various astrological signs, however, I am certain that every human being has an inkling that things are not as the appear; and given that they are able to remove themselves from worldly pursuits, even for an hour, then the age old questions will start to bubble up.

And I thought you had indicated that at death we rejoined the absolute. In what way are we beings if we never abided in the sentient being?

In a manner of speaking, those who are fully awakened to their true nature, at the time of death, may either return to that nature, or chose to take a new life. On the other hand, those who remain ignorant of their real selves, will cling to all manner of sensations, and so will be drawn to take a new birth. Ultimately, however, neither the awakened nor the ignorant are ever separated from the absolute by so much as a hair’s breadth.

You and I? Or all of us?

We are all of us simply trying to get home; only to find out that we have realy never left.

Jehu,

However, in actuality, there is only the play of light and form, and in the absence of any sentient observer, the idea that there is an entity (actor or prop) present simply does not arise, for it is through that interpretive mental process we call ‘imagination’ that the idea of entity arises.

Even if it is true that without imagination we cannot have entities, this does not mean that all things are therefore only imagination, and that our senses are not responding to anything. Or, to put it another way, what is the difference between real and actual? If it is all imagination, why is perfect knowledge and deductive reasoning needed to produce it?

Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to --
Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.

Our bodily senses are no more attuned to something external that are the apparent sense organs of our dream personas;

But our dreaming and waking life are markedly different. Why should we assign to them the same actuality?

Consider the following stanzas from Sankara’s “Ode to the South-facing Form”:

Sankara was a monist, like me.

“Devotion to the South-facing Form, Infinite Guru, who, seeing the universe as if outside, though it arises within himself–through Maya [delusion], just as in a dream, or like a city being seen in the inner depths of a looking glass, in the awakening, discloses his own nature, as that than which there is no other.

… who, by dressing himself in space and time–produced by Maya, like a conjuror, or rather like a great yogi, opens up and spreads out this world, at first formless, like a sprout within a seed, and afterwards wonderful in its diversity.”

Hmmm

You know, your inviolable law is not different than yin and yang, although I suppose that that is less descriptive.

Yes, and as I have said before, the ‘Tai Chi Tu’ is a brilliant symbolic representation of the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’.

We agree then!

I’m afraid I am quite ignorant with regard to the inherent qualities of those born under the various astrological signs, however, I am certain that every human being has an inkling that things are not as the appear; and given that they are able to remove themselves from worldly pursuits, even for an hour, then the age old questions will start to bubble up.

Well, it was a joke, but the point was, that I want a meaningful process to be going on, including learning, but your next paragraph seems to point in that direction, after all.

In a manner of speaking, those who are fully awakened to their true nature, at the time of death, may either return to that nature, or chose to take a new life. On the other hand, those who remain ignorant of their real selves, will cling to all manner of sensations, and so will be drawn to take a new birth. Ultimately, however, neither the awakened nor the ignorant are ever separated from the absolute by so much as a hair’s breadth.

But then why speak of a candle flame that when it is extinguished is gone and has no relation to the next lighting?
And in what way are we beings on our own rather than existing only as a fantasy?

And what of the awakened ones who incarnate - might they forget themselves again?

We are all of us simply trying to get home; only to find out that we have really never left.

Yes, but the question was as to the self awareness of the absolute.

Ioluas wrote:Even if it is true that without imagination we cannot have entities, this does not mean that all things are therefore only imagination, and that our senses are not responding to anything. Or, to put it another way, what is the difference between real and actual? If it is all imagination, why is perfect knowledge and deductive reasoning needed to produce it?

I have never said that things were completely the result of our imagination, only the last three elements: embodiment, potency and function. Form and essence are actual, however they differ from that which is real in that they are composite, and are subject to continuous alteration.

But our dreaming and waking life are markedly different. Why should we assign to them the same actuality?

As I said earlier, there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted, and both the actual and the imaginary are constituted in the same way. Remember, all things are composite, they are put together by time, which is evidenced by the fact that the term ‘thing’ has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or ‘gather together’. All ‘things’ (actual or imaginary) arise as a result of the coming together of other things, and so partake of only a ‘contingent existence’, while that which is ‘real’, must have a ‘necessary existence’.

Sankara was a monist, like me.

In Sankara’s doctrine, the nature of being is ‘existentially monistic’, but ‘essentially pluralistic’, and so it accords perfectly with the Buddhist’s assertion that the nature of reality is ‘non-dualistic’ or “Not-Two”; that is to say, the nature of reality comprises two ‘interdependent and complementary elements’, and so is neither entirely monistic, nor entirely pluralistic.

We agree then!

Yes, we are agreed, however, this does no mean that I ascribe to any of the current interpretations of the symbol which abound within the modern Taoist community.

But then why speak of a candle flame that when it is extinguished is gone and has no relation to the next lighting?

This is not so, for whenever and wherever the causes and conditions are right, the candle flame will manifest once again; for it does no come from anywhere nor does it go anywhere. All things manifest as a result of the coming together of their causes and conditions, and so long as their causes and conditions persist, the things persist.

And in what way are we beings on our own rather than existing only as a fantasy?

The nature of the phenomenal (apparent ) experience is two-fold, and comprises two interdependent and complementary elements. The one element (knowledge) has only a ‘relative existence’ and so is dependent upon two extrinsic causes: (1) pre-existing knowledge, which also partakes relative existence and (2) cognizant awareness, which partake of an absolute existence’ and so is dependent only upon its own intrinsic cause – knowledge.

And what of the awakened ones who incarnate - might they forget themselves again?

There is a stage of awakening wherein there is no falling back; but to attain such a stage requires that one fully realize the their true nature, and not merely believe it to be so.

Yes, but the question was as to the self awareness of the absolute.

If so much as one sentient being becomes aware their true nature, then it follows that there must be self-awareness of the absolute; for there is no other.

Jehu,
My intent to get back to you on the subject of enlightenment is now manifesting.
It's a shame we have developed a disrespectful relationship... mostly my "fault" I think, as a have an abrasive "style"... especially so (the "shame") because my whole website www.consciousunity.org is an affirmation of the title of your thread here.

As a peace offering, here is the link to my page: "What Is Enlightenment?"
http://www.consciousunity.org/PAGE5.html