GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:It seems to me that covers just one meaning. We had agreed that all things exist, but only the absolute is real, whereas the others are either actual or imaginary. The things I am talking about are the actual. If they are illusory, in what sense are they illusory. They exist, so wherein lies their illusion?

Everything exists, including the illusory. The “actual”, being the domain of knowledge belonging to absolute awareness (objective knowledge), is accessible to all awareness, including that which is embodied in the sentient being. The “imaginary”, being the domain of knowledge belonging to such awareness as is embodied in sentient beings (subjective knowledge), although it is accessible to absolute awareness, is not accessible to other sentient beings. Aside from this, there is no difference between the actual and the imaginary; for both are constituted in exactly the same manner, and neither is real.

Yes, this is just what I mean. It looks as though there is water ahead and there is no such thing. But there IS something - heat waves upon moisture in the air or what have you. The mirage appears to be something other than what it is.

Are you saying that if I stub my toe on a curb that there was nothing external to my body which caused the pain?

This is what I meant when I said that you were reluctant to follow the path of reason, for we had already agreed that things have no intrinsic causes, and thus it follows that they cannot be the true cause of any other thing, though it is certainly true that they “appear” to be the cause. This is no different that the fact that the cursor appears to be the cause of a menu item becoming highlighted when the cursor is brought into contact with it, but in actuality, the cursor and menu item are nothing more than visual representation of events that are taking place within the algorithms that are controlling the video display. Also, when in a dream we trip over something and hurt ourselves, the thing tripped over is not the true cause of our pain, is it?

What about your previous statement that people cannot tell the difference between what they perceive and what they imagine that they perceive. If your above statement is true, then there is no perception of anything at all.

No, perception exists, it simply is not real.

But how is it useful to define 'real' as that which is unchanging and immutable and then decide that all divisions within this totality are therefore not real? Suppose you are real, does that mean that your foot is not real because it couldn't have arisen by itself without an entire genetic blueprint for a human body?

I do see the difference between that which is causeless and unbounded versus the dependent items. I am getting used to expressing things as actual, rather than real. But you seem to be saying that all things are imaginary.

All things are dyadic (two-fold) in their nature, that is to say, they comprise elements that are actual (form and essence), and elements that are imaginary (embodiment, potency and function); nevertheless, none of these elements are real. All that is real is the field of cognizant awareness wherein a thing is made manifest. This is what is meant in the Upanishads by, “It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, this is the true reality (Brahman)”; and not what is generally assumed by men”.

Do you think it is always like that for everyone?

I cannot speak for everyone, but those who have experienced what the ancient called, “insight”, have generally described it in these or similar terms.

Jehu,

The “actual”, being the domain of knowledge belonging to absolute awareness (objective knowledge), is accessible to all awareness, including that which is embodied in the sentient being.

It is accessible to all awareness, one would suppose, because of its objectivity. In the example of stubbing the toe, you state the curb is not the true cause. I agree, but is it not the proximal (nearest) cause? To state that the curb is not the true cause does not address the objective existence of the curb.

If there is a true cause, then we must ask, a true cause of what? For you seem to say there is an objective reality experiencable by sentient beings which was caused by the absolute, but then you say that all perception is imaginary.

Also, when in a dream we trip over something and hurt ourselves, the thing tripped over is not the true cause of our pain, is it?

But are you saying that the objective world caused by the absolute is no more real than my own dreams?
And also, while I have fear in my dreams, and have felt a certain discomfort such as feeling pinned down or about to not breathe (possibly due to actual bodily sensations intruding on the dream) or feeling heavy and unable to move, I can't remember ever feeling pain in a dream. Or real tiredness.

The “actual”, being the domain of knowledge belonging to absolute awareness (objective knowledge), is accessible to all awareness, including that which is embodied in the sentient being.Aside from this, there is no difference between the actual and the imaginary; for both are constituted in exactly the same manner, and neither is real.

My feelings/memories of a bicycle are no different than the knowledge it took to create a cosmos, out of which the materials for it came from? They are constituted in the same way? If they are constituted in the same way, why is there a difference? Why am only I privy to my own knowledge?

No, perception exists, it simply is not real.

But I had asked about the difference between what people perceive, and what they imagine they perceive. By this I suppose you mean that people perceive essence and form, and the rest is imagination?

If this cosmos is the dream of the absolute, then what is the waking life of the absolute?

Iolaus wrote:It is accessible to all awareness, one would suppose, because of its objectivity. In the example of stubbing the toe, you state the curb is not the true cause. I agree, but is it not the proximal (nearest) cause? To state that the curb is not the true cause does not address the objective existence of the curb.

I should think that it would be better to call it the “apparent cause”. Remember, it is other subordinate things (apparent entities) which comprise the “constitutive causes” of a thing, and although these are not the thing’s real cause, they are causes nevertheless.

If there is a true cause, then we must ask, a true cause of what? For you seem to say there is an objective reality experiencable by sentient beings which was caused by the absolute, but then you say that all perception is imaginary.

No, I do not claim that all perception is imaginary, only that it is not real (apparent).

But are you saying that the objective world caused by the absolute is no more real than my own dreams?

Either an entity is real, or it is not real – there being no intermediate alternative. [Law of Excluded Middle] Consequently, it is inappropriate to say that one thing is more or less real than another.

And also, while I have fear in my dreams, and have felt a certain discomfort such as feeling pinned down or about to not breathe (possibly due to actual bodily sensations intruding on the dream) or feeling heavy and unable to move, I can't remember ever feeling pain in a dream. Or real tiredness.

Fair enough, we do not all dream with the same degree of sensitivity.

My feelings/memories of a bicycle are no different than the knowledge it took to create a cosmos, out of which the materials for it came from? They are constituted in the same way? If they are constituted in the same way, why is there a difference? Why am only I privy to my own knowledge?

Remember, knowledge is merely in-form-ation, and since all knowledge (objective and subjective) lies within the domain of absolute awareness, it follows that it has access to all knowledge and so is omniscient.

The sentient being, on the other hand, has only a finite sphere of awareness, and so has access to only that objective knowledge which lies within its limit sphere of awareness, and to that subjective knowledge which lies within the internal structure of its own objective embodiment. The subjective knowledge of another sentient being is only accessible if it is embodied in some objective way; that is to say, it must first be translated into objective knowledge – which is the function of language.

But I had asked about the difference between what people perceive, and what they imagine they perceive. By this I suppose you mean that people perceive essence and form, and the rest is imagination?

Yes, this is exactly what I mean, but most people do not know where the objective perception ends, and the subjective perception comes into play.

If this cosmos is the dream of the absolute, then what is the waking life of the absolute?

The waking life of the absolute is one and the same with that which we call the enlightened being or Buddha.

Jehu,

What I was trying to ask in the previous post is the difference between the objective and the imaginary, and the difference between the dream of the absolute and my own dream.

If all perceptions are not real, then there is nothing real to perceive...

Now, you have said that each sentient being has direct access only to its own thoughts, and while that is true generally, there do seem to be instances of mental telepathy or ESP. I'm not sure that makes much of a difference to the discussion, though.

Iolaus wrote:What I was trying to ask in the previous post is the difference between the objective and the imaginary, and the difference between the dream of the absolute and my own dream.

Because there are two truths, there are two explications. From the perspective of the Absolute, there is no difference between the objective and the subjective (imaginary), for there is neither inside nor outside, and all knowledge is fully accessible. However, from the perspective of the Relative (sentient beings) there is both an outside and an inside, and although we have full access to our own internal knowledge (memory), we are severely restricted with respect to external knowledge; and especially, such knowledge as is internal to other beings. It is for this reason that science is only able to proceed by disassembling things.

If all perceptions are not real, then there is nothing real to perceive...

Yes, this is precisely what must be grasped if one is to understand the cognizant nature of Reality.

Now, you have said that each sentient being has direct access only to its own thoughts, and while that is true generally, there do seem to be instances of mental telepathy or ESP. I'm not sure that makes much of a difference to the discussion, though.

As I said earlier, Being is in reality, indivisible, and any appearance of separateness is merely that – apparent. Consequently, there is no reason why telepathy or ESP should not be possible; and there are many reports of enlightened beings exhibiting such supernormal abilities. However, I must warn you that the pursuit of such powers will make it impossible to achieve true enlightenment, for the desire for power is the greatest obstacle of all. For this reason, teacher do not normally talk about such aspects, though they may be logically deduced from the doctrine.

Jehu,

If all perceptions are not real, then there is nothing real to perceive...
Yes, this is precisely what must be grasped if one is to understand the cognizant nature of Reality.

1) Isn't that rather ghastly?
2) Yet it seems anticlimactic in light of the fact that the absolute depends upon this not-real for its own existence, and more importantly, for meaningful experience.

However, I must warn you that the pursuit of such powers will make it impossible to achieve true enlightenment, for the desire for power is the greatest obstacle of all.

It's odd you would assume there is a desire for power. I do think that deep down people sense their lack of psychic and spiritual powers, but I assume you meant power over others.

Whereas I think of ESP as a wonderful way of life and wish there were more of it. My daughter seems good at it. She communicated to me before her birth that she would be a girl, and she dreamed once about something I was extremely upset about. I often think when I am worried about my children's safety - as I often am - that if something really bad happened to her she would get through to my mind.

And I find it especially heartening when I have a sense of deeply penetrating into the being of another, which to be honest hardly ever happens except with my husand and with animals. I had a very memorable occasion of merging with a horse I was feeling sorry for, as it was exhausted from amusing humans in the sun all day.

Iolaus wrote:Isn't that rather ghastly?

If things were real, that would be ghastly indeed. If suffering were real, then there would be no end to suffering. If hatred were real, then there would be no escaping it. If death were real, then there would be no living; for it is because things are not real, that there is life at all. Life, you see, is the progression of change, and that which is real is incapable of change. Far from being ghastly, the doctrine of emptiness is a cause for rejoicing, for it puts an end to desire, and anger, and delusion. But most importantly, it puts and end to death and fear.

Yet it seems anticlimactic in light of the fact that the absolute depends upon this not-real for its own existence, and more importantly, for meaningful experience.

You must try to understand, that although the absolute is dependent upon the relative, this is not the same sort of relationship that a relative entity has with its constitutive causes. The relative world is the constitutive cause of that which is called Being, but it is not the only cause, nor is it the principle cause. Like all entities, Being must also have an operative cause, and this operative cause (awareness), being the greater cause, must be real; consequently, the complementary cause (relative world) must be unreal.

Jehu,

If things were real, that would be ghastly indeed.

Yes, I've realized that; perhaps my abhorrence is related to feelings about language - to be not real is to be silly, absurd, psychotic even. Inconsequential and thoroughly unimportant.

I think there is something more important going on than that.

The relative world is the constitutive cause of that which is called Being, but it is not the only cause, nor is it the principle cause.

If the principal cause is awareness, then what is the cause of awareness?

Is there really any way past imagining what one perceives? It's quite seamless, really.

Iolaus wrote:Yes, I've realized that; perhaps my abhorrence is related to feelings about language - to be not real is to be silly, absurd, psychotic even. Inconsequential and thoroughly unimportant.

I think there is something more important going on than that.

Indeed!

If the principal cause is awareness, then what is the cause of awareness?

Awareness (the operative cause), given that it is but an element of the one true entity (Being), does not partake of a separate existence, but exists only in conjunction with its complementary element – Knowledge (the constitutive cause). Awareness and Knowledge, although interdependent, are not technically causes of one another, but are the causes of Being. Being, like all entities, comprises both a relation (awareness) and a quality (knowledge), the relation (Principle of Identity/PIC) being absolute, independent and immutable; while the quality (Things) are relative, interdependent and subject to never-ending change.

Is there really any way past imagining what one perceives? It's quite seamless, really.

Yes, there is a way: one must learn to not think, accept where thinking is appropriate. For example, when someone is hungry, we do not need to think about it, we need only to feed them.

Jehu,

Yes, there is a way: one must learn to not think, accept where thinking is appropriate.

Ha, but my mind is like 100 monkeys. Subconsciously, I fear that if my mind stops, I'll die.
And then, too, it may be that women's brains are even more unruly and active than men's. At least men's brains are made up of discrete boxes which do not touch, whereas women's minds are a big ball of wire.

Doesn't this remedy indicate that animals are virtually free of delusion?

Iolaus wrote:Doesn't this remedy indicate that animals are virtually free of delusion?

Actually, all sentient beings are capable of imagining, and thinking is merely an extended form of imagining.

Ha, but my mind is like 100 monkeys. Subconsciously, I fear that if my mind stops, I'll die.
And then, too, it may be that women's brains are even more unruly and active than men's. At least men's brains are made up of discrete boxes which do not touch, whereas women's minds are a big ball of wire.

There is a path which leads to a tranquil mind – or have I already mentioned that?

Jehu,

Actually, all sentient beings are capable of imagining, and thinking is merely an extended form of imagining.

I consider an amoeba minimally sentient. Where does imagination start? Does it start as soon as I recognize a bicycle as a bicycle?

There is a path which leads to a tranquil mind – or have I already mentioned that?

Presuming it can work on a woman, yes you have - but you didn't tell me what it was!

Iolaus wrote:Where does imagination start? Does it start as soon as I recognize a bicycle as a bicycle?

It starts the moment you begin to interpret what has been immediately perceived by the senses.

Presuming it can work on a woman, yes you have - but you didn't tell me what it was!

Very well, but before we continue, would you first tell me where you now stand with regard to the essentially cognizant nature of reality? Have you given up the notion of an essentially substantive reality, or are you still undecided?

Jehu,

It starts the moment you begin to interpret what has been immediately perceived by the senses.

Well, then, if that means what I think it does, then a certain amount of imagination is inevitable, and thus not to be completely avoided.

In fact, I am unsure about why we would call it imagination. That is, when we recognize a physical object, either living or not, as what it is, why are we calling that imagination?

Very well, but before we continue, would you first tell me where you now stand with regard to the essentially cognizant nature of reality? Have you given up the notion of an essentially substantive reality, or are you still undecided?

Oh, I am reading a couple of books which may help but that will take time. I just got one called "The Conscious Universe."

I expect that the nature of reality is probably cognizant, but I do not know it to be true.

Iolaus wrote:Well, then, if that means what I think it does, then a certain amount of imagination is inevitable, and thus not to be completely avoided.

Indeed, thinking is a vital function, but only where it is appropriate, and only when it does not distort (de-form) our sensual perception.

In fact, I am unsure about why we would call it imagination. That is, when we recognize a physical object, either living or not, as what it is, why are we calling that imagination?

When we recognize any given thing, we do so by bringing into play all that we have previously experienced with respect to that given thing, and so we tend to alter the immediate (actual) sensual experience, into something more or less than it truly is.

I expect that the nature of reality is probably cognizant, but I do not know it to be true.

Fair enough, but before I return to the matter of the path, let me offer this one last argument for your consideration. There is an ancient philosophical tenet which says that a thing cannot impart upon another thing that which it does not itself possess. Now, given that all things are devoid of any intrinsic causes or characteristics (properties), it follows that they cannot convey those characteristics upon any other thing, and so they cannot be a true (real) cause of any other thing.

Further, if we accept the atomistic (materialistic) view, wherein a finite number of “identical” fundamental particles constitute the real substratum from which all other things evolve, then it follows that each of these fundamental particles must already be possessed of all the characteristics which may possibly manifest in the entire universe; for no matter how many of these particles might be brought together, or how complex their relationship to one another, not a single new characteristic can come into being as a result of their amalgamation.

Jehu,

Further, if we accept the atomistic (materialistic) view, wherein a finite number of “identical” fundamental particles constitute the real substratum from which all other things evolve,

But - I do not think this is the materialist view. I do not know what the materialist view on this is, or whether it ever had come to a point of deciding this issue. String theory was meant to be a new idea. However, the reason I liked it, is that it accords with what I understand to be the Hindu view - which is that everything is God and made of God. A particular guru, for example, was relating that in her childhood she would meditate, and attempt to see God in everything. I felt rather cheated, I must say, that a small girl was given such a great instruction, whereas in my own case, it took 20 years of sincere effort to even understand the premise behind that instruction, due to the separatist western notions of God.

then it follows that each of these fundamental particles must already be possessed of all the characteristics which may possibly manifest in the entire universe; for no matter how many of these particles might be brought together, or how complex their relationship to one another, not a single new characteristic can come into being as a result of their amalgamation.

In potentia, I suppose so. Suppose, for example, you had a line, like a pencil line. But it is malleable. Just a simple line. However, from that line you can bend it into many different shapes and create an alphabet. And from that alphabet, infinite written works of every sort.

In the end, there is nothing but the simple line. And all the works in all libraries of the world, could be reduced back to that same simple line. In the same way, we can imagine that the whole material world could melt back into one simple thing, and may indeed do so in a periodic oscillation (of trillions of years or so).

But I am not entirely sure how this relates to whether or not consciousness must precede any manifestation. I hope I have been clear that all things are caused by God and are not self caused; the only way in which things may be self-caused is in that they arise some way from the One Cause which is merely appearing in the guise of things. A molecule of water is certainly not a self caused entity, but what if it is not a molecule of water at all, nor hydrogen nor oxygen, but just a temporary conglomeration of the one thing which is the only thing?

Not knowing what matter is, or what God is, or how things manifest, I can only guess. But you have said that awareness is synonymous with existence itself. But I dont know what existence is. It might be that existence is something utterly mysterious, and that awareness arises from it.

This is the reason why the gap between primal existence and the appearance of matter or energy is of such interest to me.

Iolaus wrote:But - I do not think this is the materialist view. I do not know what the materialist view on this is, or whether it ever had come to a point of deciding this issue. String theory was meant to be a new idea. However, the reason I liked it, is that it accords with what I understand to be the Hindu view - which is that everything is God and made of God.

There is nothing in this doctrine that does not fully accord with the metaphysical underpinnings of the Hindu religion, for all things are indeed in God (Being/Brahman), that is to say, they are intrinsic; however, God/Brahman is not substantial, but its complement – “insubstantial”: which the ancients called God/spirit/aether/form/emptiness.

In potentia, I suppose so. Suppose, for example, you had a line, like a pencil line. But it is malleable. Just a simple line. However, from that line you can bend it into many different shapes and create an alphabet. And from that alphabet, infinite written works of every sort.

In the end, there is nothing but the simple line. And all the works in all libraries of the world, could be reduced back to that same simple line. In the same way, we can imagine that the whole material world could melt back into one simple thing, and may indeed do so in a periodic oscillation (of trillions of years or so).

An excellent example, but what you have overlooked is the fact that it is not the line itself that is the principle cause of all that follows, but the sentient mind wherein the various symbols (forms) are both created and interpreted, and which posits to each its own unique meaning. Thus, the potential here does not lie in the line itself, but in the awareness of the sentient mind.

But I am not entirely sure how this relates to whether or not consciousness must precede any manifestation. I hope I have been clear that all things are caused by God and are not self caused; the only way in which things may be self-caused is in that they arise some way from the One Cause which is merely appearing in the guise of things.

But if it is the one true cause that is appearing in the guise of the objects of perception, what then it is that perceives these objects, for the perceiver and the perceived, being complementary, cannot both be real.

A molecule of water is certainly not a self caused entity, but what if it is not a molecule of water at all, nor hydrogen nor oxygen, but just a temporary conglomeration of the one thing which is the only thing?

But that would require that the “one thing” be more than one thing, that is to say, a particulate; and this would violate the law of contradiction, for the same thing cannot both be one and many; lest one of these (oneness or manyness) be merely apparent.

Not knowing what matter is, or what God is, or how things manifest, I can only guess. But you have said that awareness is synonymous with existence itself. But I dont know what existence is. It might be that existence is something utterly mysterious, and that awareness arises from it.

It is not anything mysterious, it is simply your own cognizant awareness.

This is the reason why the gap between primal existence and the appearance of matter or energy is of such interest to me.

What is this gap you are speaking of?

Jehu,

however, God/Brahman is not substantial, but its complement – “insubstantial”: which the ancients called God/spirit/aether/form/emptiness.

But, we now know that the aether is not empty at all, and I wonder what it means to be insubstantial. It seems to me we either have nothingness, which is absolutely synonymous with nonexistence, or we have somethingness, existence.

I had come to the conclusion that the term nonmaterial as applied to spirit is a misunderstanding that naturally arises due to the fact that our senses cannot apprehend things of a very subtle nature. Now that we know about the electromagnetic spectrum, and things like deadly gamma rays which we can in no way sense, you see what I mean.

An excellent example, but what you have overlooked is the fact that it is not the line itself that is the principle cause of all that follows, but the sentient mind wherein the various symbols (forms) are both created and interpreted, and which posits to each its own unique meaning. Thus, the potential here does not lie in the line itself, but in the awareness of the sentient mind.

Yes, that is so. But it can show a way to imagine that all things can actually be constructed of exactly one type of building block.

But if it is the one true cause that is appearing in the guise of the objects of perception, what then it is that perceives these objects, for the perceiver and the perceived, being complementary, cannot both be real.

Is there no escape from dualism?
Perhaps this view is a way out of dualism, for in this view the objects of perception are 'not real' because they are ever changing, but it is their appearance which is changing while their true form actually is not. But it is not their true form we see.
So they are, at the same time, both mutable and not mutable. Mutabilty being the illusion.
I don't insist that this is the way things work, but that has been my understanding.
Even with your view, we still have the question, "Of what is stuff made?" It can only arise in some way from the one source.

But that would require that the “one thing” be more than one thing, that is to say, a particulate; and this would violate the law of contradiction, for the same thing cannot both be one and many; lest one of these (oneness or manyness) be merely apparent.

Actually, that is exactly what I had thought, that the one and the many were the same. Isn't there a Buddhist understanding of both/and, neither/nor?

The one contains the many. There is one ocean, many molecules of water. The many would be the apparent.

The bigger problem is in having both awareness and particles. That seems like two things. But if the Absolute can fragment its awareness and give me a piece, perhaps it can also fragment its awareness into an energy, which is what matter is made of.

It is not anything mysterious, it is simply your own cognizant awareness.

I know nothing about my cognizant awareness and can't imagine how it exists. If we weren't here, I would never believe it could happen!

What is this gap you are speaking of?

Well I've been discussing it all through this post. The gap between mind and energy/materiality. How things manifest.

Iolaus wrote:It seems to me we either have nothingness, which is absolutely synonymous with nonexistence, or we have somethingness, existence.

Nothing means simply that which is not a thing (no-thing), and we have said that all things are composites in that they arise out of the coming together of other subordinate things. However, we have also agreed that that which is real (exists absolutely) is not put together, and so is indivisible, and therefore, may not be rightfully be called a thing. Further, given that that which is real is imperceptible, it is perceived only as the absence of any thing.

Yes, that is so. But it can show a way to imagine that all things can actually be constructed of exactly one type of building block.

I agree, such a case is not beyond our ability to imagine, however, neither is it logically supportable.

Perhaps this view is a way out of dualism, for in this view the objects of perception are 'not real' because they are ever changing, but it is their appearance which is changing while their true form actually is not. But it is not their true form we see. So they are, at the same time, both mutable and not mutable. Mutability being the illusion. I don't insist that this is the way things work, but that has been my understanding.

Yes, the objects of perception are not real, and this includes activities (changes), for if the nature of Being were to undergo a real change, it would not longer remain “Being”, but would become something else – and we know that there is naught else but Being.

Even with your view, we still have the question, "Of what is stuff made?" It can only arise in some way from the one source.

It is only appropriate to ask such a question of “things”, for things are composites, and as such, may be broken down or analyzed.

Actually, that is exactly what I had thought, that the one and the many were the same. Isn't there a Buddhist understanding of both/and, neither/nor?

The teaching goes like this: the nature of reality is not one, not many, not both, and not neither. Not one because if form and essence were identical, then there would be no basis on which to discriminate between them; not two because if form and essence were completely different (separate) then there could be no relationship between them; not both because this would violate the law of contradiction, and not neither because this would violate the law of excluded middle.

The one contains the many. There is one ocean, many molecules of water. The many would be the apparent.

Both the ocean and its molecules are mere appearance, for neither is possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

The bigger problem is in having both awareness and particles. That seems like two things. But if the Absolute can fragment its awareness and give me a piece, perhaps it can also fragment its awareness into an energy, which is what matter is made of.

The fragmentation of awareness is not a real fragmentation, but rather, a lapsing into unawareness, a sort of forgetfulness. However, these fragments are never truly separated from the whole, accept by their own ability to imagine themselves so.

I know nothing about my cognizant awareness and can't imagine how it exists. If we weren't here, I would never believe it could happen!

It is quite understandable that we sentient beings are unable to imagine that which is real, for how can the lesser (bound awareness) encompass the greater (unbounded awareness)?

Well I've been discussing it all through this post. The gap between mind and energy/materiality. How things manifest.

Do you still not understand, that whatever you imagine to be is only imaginary, and not real? If you truly wish to experience that which is real, then you must cease imagining, and simply be.

Jehu,

Nothing means simply that which is not a thing (no-thing), and we have said that all things are composites in that they arise out of the coming together of other subordinate things. However, we have also agreed that that which is real (exists absolutely) is not put together, and so is indivisible, and therefore, may not be rightfully be called a thing. Further, given that that which is real is imperceptible, it is perceived only as the absence of any thing.

Yes, but I carefully explained that by nothing I did not mean no-thing, but nothingness. I am contrasting this idea that God is not substantial with nothingness. In what sense can we call something nonsubstantial and still say that it exists? It's all well and good to use words like spirit but what does it mean to a creature who has limited senses? We really have no idea of what sort of substance it might be. Is that not so?

Yes, that is so. But it can show a way to imagine that all things can actually be constructed of exactly one type of building block.

I agree, such a case is not beyond our ability to imagine, however, neither is it logically supportable.

Why?

Even with your view, we still have the question, "Of what is stuff made?" It can only arise in some way from the one source.

It is only appropriate to ask such a question of “things”, for things are composites, and as such, may be broken down or analyzed.

Yes, it is things that I am asking about.

Not one because if form and essence were identical, then there would be no basis on which to discriminate between them;

Do we put form on the side of the absolute or the relative?

Both the ocean and its molecules are mere appearance, for neither is possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

Yes, but the analogy was merely to show how something could be both one and many at the same time.

The bigger problem is in having both awareness and particles. That seems like two things. But if the Absolute can fragment its awareness and give me a piece, perhaps it can also fragment its awareness into an energy, which is what matter is made of.

The fragmentation of awareness is not a real fragmentation, but rather, a lapsing into unawareness, a sort of forgetfulness. However, these fragments are never truly separated from the whole, accept by their own ability to imagine themselves so.

When you realize that you are not separate from the whole, will you cease to exist as an entity?

Do you still not understand, that whatever you imagine to be is only imaginary, and not real? If you truly wish to experience that which is real, then you must cease imagining, and simply be.

I'm confused here. For one, I differentiate between the actual and the imaginary, although I barely understand that. It is the actual that interests me, how does it come to be, by what method, of what is it made, how does it relate to the Absolute, to Being.

Iolaus wrote:Yes, but I carefully explained that by nothing I did not mean no-thing, but nothingness. I am contrasting this idea that God is not substantial with nothingness. In what sense can we call something nonsubstantial and still say that it exists? It's all well and good to use words like spirit but what does it mean to a creature who has limited senses? We really have no idea of what sort of substance it might be. Is that not so?

You must let go of the notion of substance, for all substance is illusory. That which is real simply is (exists), and there is nothing that may be rightfully predicated of it; for only relative entities have a definable essence (substance).

Why?

All substances, like your line, must be malleable (fluid), in order that they may be fashioned into various forms. To be malleable, substances must comprise loosely bound particles, and so they must have only a relative existence, and cannot be real.

Yes, it is things that I am asking about.

Things comprise other subordinate things, but there is not fundamental thing from which they are all fashioned, for this would require a multitude of absolute entities, which would then be incapable of interacting with one another; for to interact, two things must be related in some way, and an absolute entity is unrelated to any other entity.

Do we put form on the side of the absolute or the relative?

The forms that we perceive as embodied within the objective world are relative, for they are subject to arising, changing and dissolution. Nevertheless, there is a form which is absolute, independent and immutable, but this form cannot be perceived, for it exists as pure potential.

Yes, but the analogy was merely to show how something could be both one and many at the same time.

Nothing can be both one and many, at the same time, for the two are mutually exclusive. However, I understand your what you were trying to point out.

When you realize that you are not separate from the whole, will you cease to exist as an entity?

Not unless you willing chose to die, but dying is not the purpose of awakening.

I'm confused here. For one, I differentiate between the actual and the imaginary, although I barely understand that. It is the actual that interests me, how does it come to be, by what method, of what is it made, how does it relate to the Absolute, to Being.

The actual is what may be called “perfect knowledge” and it comes about as a result of the absolute (principle of identity), which is the operative cause of all things. However, to understand how the process works requires that you first realize that the nature of reality is essential cognizant, and then the process can be seen at work in the way that we sentient beings create our own dream worlds.

.
Jehu, I have been reading the thread for quite a while now since I got back from my unavoidable trips, (apologies for my abrupt absence), and I did also write up a response to your last post to me, but reading some of the recent exchanges I feel it would be futile to respond to the old post since you will be repeating the same tenets that you have been tirelessly repeating again and again; of course, I do understand, it is for the good of Iolaus, and the rest of the world of course.

In any case, just to understand your conclusions…

thinking is merely an extended form of imagining

So there is no escape from imagining, ultimately.

There is a path which leads to a tranquil mind

And of course, you must have achieved it, otherwise you will not be talking about it, but is this though, or conclusion, (or prefered path) a result of imagining or ….. ? What exactly?

It (imagining) starts the moment you begin to interpret what has been immediately perceived by the senses.

So that which is immediately perceived by the senses is ‘not imagining’ (I’m sorry, but what do we actually call that then?), but if we use words/language, basically our capabilities of abstract thought , or say think (that is to say; use extended form of imagining) to reach a conclusion, then that would be imagining, for that of course is not what we immediately perceive by the senses. Is that correct?

So what about ‘Existence’ then? (the entity called ‘Being’) Is that not imagining? And when exactly does the imagining stop? Once we stop thinking? Is that what you are suggesting?

Indeed, thinking is a vital function, but only where it is appropriate, and only when it does not distort (de-form) our sensual perception.

Sure, thinking does seem to be a vital function, but that is imagining however, isn’t it? Further more, firstly, how can thinking distort our immediate sensual perception itself? A wall is a wall and one cannot walk through it no matter how more or less real one might think/imagine it to be. Secondly, on the other hand, isn’t the above conclusion a resultant product of an extended form of imagining? What makes thinking a valid tool to justify thinking as a valid function anyways? That is to say, use imaginings to validate imaginings?!

The forms that we perceive as embodied within the objective world are relative, for they are subject to arising, changing and dissolution. Nevertheless, there is a form which is absolute, independent and immutable, but this form cannot be perceived, for it exists as pure potential.

Why does there have to necessarily be a form which is absolute (actually that would be Super-Absolute, since there is another "absolute" that stands agains "relative"), and that too - nevertheless?! Why?

The actual is what may be called “perfect knowledge” and it comes about as a result of the absolute (principle of identity), which is the operative cause of all things. However, to understand how the process works requires that you first realize that the nature of reality is essential cognizant, and then the process can be seen at work in the way that we sentient beings create our own dream worlds.

But you have said earlier that babies do not follow the principle of identity (the absolute), which you mention above as being the operative cause of ALL THINGS; so what makes you think/imagine that babies do not/cannot differentiate? And how can one be absolutely sure that one is not creating ones own dream world, and that ones conclusions are not relative to ones own mind/thinking/imagining?

BTW, is it not also true that all that has been said here is not real? That is to say, merely apparent?

That which is real simply is (exists), and there is nothing that may be rightfully predicated of it;

I would like to know how exactly do we know that that which is real simply is (exists)? Through imagining?

Sapius wrote:So there is no escape from imagining, ultimately.

Apparently, you skimmed over the part where I explained that the imaginings of sentient beings were generally constructed upon imperfect (erroneous) knowledge, and in accordance with an imperfect law (induction). Then, I also explained that by purging one’s mind of this erroneous knowledge, and basing one’s reasoning upon deductive reasoning alone, one’s imaginings could then be brought into full accord with that perfect knowledge which manifests as the actual (objective) world.

And of course, you must have achieved it, otherwise you will not be talking about it, but is this though, or conclusion, (or prefered path) a result of imagining or ….. ? What exactly?

It is neither a thought nor a conclusion, but a state of awareness which is brought about as a result of proper effort, mindfulness and concentration.

So that which is immediately perceived by the senses is ‘not imagining’ (I’m sorry, but what do we actually call that then?), but if we use words/language, basically our capabilities of abstract thought , or say think (that is to say; use extended form of imagining) to reach a conclusion, then that would be imagining, for that of course is not what we immediately perceive by the senses. Is that correct?

So what about ‘Existence’ then? (the entity called ‘Being’) Is that not imagining? And when exactly does the imagining stop? Once we stop thinking? Is that what you are suggesting?

I believe that I have stated this emphatically, so why do you imply that I have merely suggested it? In an essentially cognizant reality, all things are imagined, either by that absolute awareness which imagines the objective world, or by our own sentient awareness which imagines its own subjective world.

Sure, thinking does seem to be a vital function, but that is imagining however, isn’t it? Further more, firstly, how can thinking distort our immediate sensual perception itself? A wall is a wall and one cannot walk through it no matter how more or less real one might think/imagine it to be.

That thinking distorts our perceptions is evidenced by the fact that we all have our own particular relationship with a given thing, and so to one person a wall represent safety and security, while to another it means confinement and isolation.

Secondly, on the other hand, isn’t the above conclusion a resultant product of an extended form of imagining? What makes thinking a valid tool to justify thinking as a valid function anyways? That is to say, use imaginings to validate imaginings?!

We covered all this back in the early stages of the enquiry; and to be quite honest, I really don’t know how to respond to such a statement as “What makes thinking a valid tool to justify thinking as a valid function anyways?”; for if you truly do not recognize the primacy of deductive reasoning, why then do you ask me the “reason” why I do; and what possible reason could I have to answer such a question?

Why does there have to necessarily be a form which is absolute (actually that would be Super-Absolute, since there is another "absolute" that stands agains "relative"), and that too - nevertheless?! Why?

Because, there is nothing that can become manifest without that the potential is not already present within the Absolute; the Absolute being the true cause of all.

But you have said earlier that babies do not follow the principle of identity (the absolute), which you mention above as being the operative cause of ALL THINGS; so what makes you think/imagine that babies do not/cannot differentiate? And how can one be absolutely sure that one is not creating ones own dream world, and that ones conclusions are not relative to ones own mind/thinking/imagining?

I have never said that babies do not follow the principle of identity, for the principle of identity in an inviolable law. I have said only that babies are not yet able to interpret their perceptions, having not yet formed a basis of subjective knowledge upon which to infer.

BTW, is it not also true that all that has been said here is not real? That is to say, merely apparent?

What I have said here is true (real), however, the things wherein that truth was embodied (words) are only apparent.

I would like to know how exactly do we know that that which is real simply is (exists)? Through imagining?

Again, we have cover this in great detail. We have determined this to be so through the force of deductive reasoning, and have begun with no assumptions, save the principle of identity – without which we cannot reason at all.

Now, having answered all your questions, I have a question for you: are you sincerely interested in participating in this enquiry, or is you aim simply to derail it. You see, I sense that you are more interested in a good quarrel, than in seeking the truth, and I have little time for that sort of nonsense, for it leads nowhere and serves no one – save one’s ego.

Is this thread ever going to go away? It's like having to watch Dumb and Dumber on endless replay.

prince wrote:Is this thread ever going to go away? It's like having to watch Dumb and Dumber on endless replay.

Well, you do know that you have a choice not to watch it... don't you? :D