GENIUS FORUMS

mikiel,

In the ultimate sense what does liberation mean?

Liberation is no liberation, just as merit is no merit, and being is no being.

"Here I hand you a jar of liberation."

It is no surprise that Buddha said that it is better to understand and explain 4 lines of his teaching than giving him all the jewels in the universe. You would gain merit from giving him jewels, certainly. But you would gain wisdom by interpreting his words properly. And which would you rather have?

David,

I think there is some real "truth" between human perspectives since we all have very similar ones presumably. So -- truths from the perspective standard to the human condition. I just want to deny that they hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

We just disagree on this small point, and then everything else is built on this.

You keep seeing hypocrisy because you look at it from an objective viewpoint. I look at it from an entirely subjective perspective and see nothing wrong with "logical contradictions" in areas where we must doubt the validity of both logic and the other concepts we are manipulating with it.

A question for you -- Could you define "Totality" or "causality" using only words that point to actual, empirical objects? (We agree that our concepts are ultimately derived from the empirical world.)

Neil Melnyk wrote:I just want to deny that they hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

In that case, this very denial of yours doesn't hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

Neil: for someone so insistent on the value of sticking to the empirical world, you could use a few more examples to support your argument. You are a fish out of water when you try to argue definitions.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:I just want to deny that they hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

In that case, this very denial of yours doesn't hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

No need to worry since as far as we know there is no beyond, and if there is humans are not cognizant of it.

Neil,

No need to worry since as far as we know there is no beyond, and if there is humans are not cognizant of it.

Well, making a statement like this, you should certainly agree that it's possible for humans to be aware of transcendent features of reality, if not ones that go outside of it. Otherwise you'd have no way to say where human reason stops.

Neil Melnyk wrote:David,

I think there is some real "truth" between human perspectives since we all have very similar ones presumably. So -- truths from the perspective standard to the human condition. I just want to deny that they hold beyond planet earth and the empirical world.

We just disagree on this small point, and then everything else is built on this.

You keep seeing hypocrisy because you look at it from an objective viewpoint. I look at it from an entirely subjective perspective and see nothing wrong with "logical contradictions" in areas where we must doubt the validity of both logic and the other concepts we are manipulating with it.

The mere fact that you are looking at it from a subjective perspective doesn't change the reality that you are adhering to facts considered to be objective. What you happen to subjectively believe doesn't matter in the face of this.

It is literally impossible to doubt the validity of anything at all, let alone logic, without relying on facts considered to be objectively true. The very basis of a doubt is an acceptance of something else which is believed to be objectively true.

In your case here, for example, you are adhering to the belief that concepts are ultimately derived from the empirical world. It is from your acceptance that this belief is objectively true that the rest of your arguments follow. But since the intention is to reach the conclusion that nothing objectively true can ever be discovered, you are immediately entrapping yourself in a contradiction of your own making.

Instead of facing this contradiction head on and dealing with it, you instead want everyone else to act violently against their own minds and block out all reference to objective truth. You want everyone else to stick their heads in the sand, just like you. That is how you are trying to make the contradiction disappear.

A question for you -- Could you define "Totality" or "causality" using only words that point to actual, empirical objects? (We agree that our concepts are ultimately derived from the empirical world.)

What is an "actual empirical object", exactly?

It is an abstraction, a metaphysical entity.

A "tree" is just as much an abstraction as a "thing" is. A "thing" is just as empirical and actual as a "tree" is.

So when I say, for example, that the Totality comprises all things, this is just as actual and empirical as saying that a tree is comprised of roots, trunk, branches and leaves.

-

Neil wrote:

No need to worry since as far as we know there is no beyond, and if there is humans are not cognizant of it.

To be consistent with your objective belief that you are operating in an entirely subjective perspective, the above should be amended to: "No need to worry since as far as I know there is no beyond, and if there is I am not cognizant of it."

-

David Quinn wrote:Neil wrote:

No need to worry since as far as we know there is no beyond, and if there is humans are not cognizant of it.

To be consistent with your objective belief that you are operating in an entirely subjective perspective, the above should be amended to: "No need to worry since as far as I know there is no beyond, and if there is I am not cognizant of it."

Technically, yes, and practically speaking, not really. In the same way that I presume you have a mind as I do, I presume that you have a similar perspective on the world as to what I have.

Neil Melnyk wrote:"Afterwards still peaceful bliss but also integration of the transcendental and the manifest in conscious unity, beyond the former illusory duality."

What suffering life on earth are you trying to run away from that you need this? Unfortunately it doesn't exist, but if it comforts you to think it does and to experience the tranquility after 25 years of harsh life then so be it.

You are full of false asumtions about me, stated as facts as if you know more about my life than I do. I was not suffering from anything more than the usual desires that lead to universal suffering... attachments to cultural programs... That which awakening is liberation from. And If you consider meditative transcendence "trying to run away from that" you are obviously unaquainted with the long history of mystic transcendence which leads to true liberation. "Head in the sand" syndrome. It really fits you.

Your assumptions are just as myopic and unfounded as the old saw, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!"

"It" what doesn't exist? Suffering or transcendence of suffering? My answer is both, but suffering happens after awakening with no sufferer...
There is only the "movie" and consciousness which is aware of it all.
Show me a "self" in this besides the egocentric illusion, me, me, me!

I had no "25 years of harsh life." Looks like you are so full of your own stuff that all you can do is project it onto others.

Whaterver you think "doesn't exist" which you say I "comfort" myself by believeing it does ???... You epitomize arrogance.
Where did you get the "harsh life" picture anyway. I enjoyed an hour a day of peaceful transcendence for that 25 year pre-awakening period amid a relatively peaceful, creative/productive, and loving life.
Looks like you fabricate this this crap spontaneously out of nothing.

I will not be responding much more to this level of mindless attack.

mikiel

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:mikiel,

In the ultimate sense what does liberation mean?

Liberation is no liberation, just as merit is no merit, and being is no being.

"Here I hand you a jar of liberation."

It is no surprise that Buddha said that it is better to understand and explain 4 lines of his teaching than giving him all the jewels in the universe. You would gain merit from giving him jewels, certainly. But you would gain wisdom by interpreting his words properly. And which would you rather have?

If you consider that people are programed from birth by parents, culture and all kinds of institutions... programed to strive for stuff, material and immaterial, and to be unhappy in that the degree of achievement of all these goals always falls short of expectation...
(a picture here of humans as robots with totally programed bio-computer brains)...
Then you have a meaningful context for liberation, beyond just cute, ironic mind games.
It's all just baggage, and once one lets go of it.... completely... one is indeed free.
mikiel

mikiel,

Then you have a meaningful context for liberation, beyond just cute, ironic mind games.

I do not doubt the fact of liberation. It is important to recognize, however, that even the concept of liberation needs to be dropped. It is delusion to try to liberate all beings from suffering; it is a temptation that is often the most harmful of all.

mikiel,

In the ultimate sense what does liberation mean?


Liberation is no liberation, just as merit is no merit, and being is no being.

Yes. "Liberation" is not an attainment. It is simply what is left when false ideas are dropped - that being the direct experience of what is, unmediated by an egotistical attachment to conceptualization. Such a psychology needs to be divorced from salvationism, which is something different but far more popular. There is no "salvation" in this world, and the knowledge of no-salvation is not salvation, either.

Liberation is from false concepts. Everything is as it always was, but without an overlay of attachment to ideas, thoughts, concepts, and other ephemera. This overlay of attachment, based on the false concept that there is an inherently existing self, is sometimes referred to as "ego." The main idea of "spiritual" philosophy or psychology is liberate oneself from slavery to this ego. Any other "benefits" or consequences of "liberation" are actually artifacts of religious salvationism, which is something one might want to become liberated from.

But nobody should take it from me, when better sources figured it millenia ago. One can always check out the Taoist and Zen literature, which cover all of this much more capably.

mikiel,

Looks like you fabricate this this crap spontaneously out of nothing.

I will not be responding much more to this level of mindless attack.

I hope Neil doesn't put you off this forum. He is like a little child hiding behind the skirts of Nietzsche and firing off his barbs in a clumsy fashion. I think it's because he gets all tangled up in Nietzsche's skirts and can't aim properly.

Also, like a kid, he seems to have a need to turn everyone into cartoon figures before he can deal with them.

But that's his karma. It is where he is currently at. No need to get upset by it.

You wrote originally:

In the ultimate sense what does liberation mean?
Freedom from the illusion of self!
We spend our lives creating our personal identity from the fabric of all our experiences, And we call this identity "I, myself."

Liberation is the ultimate breakthrough from this container of "myself" Into true selflessness.
Consciousness is omnipresent! When we finally, or even temporarily break through the illusory boundary of the "separate I",
We emerge into that Consciousness which is infinite.We are no longer identified with the former finite "self".This is true liberation.The irony is that there is truly no "I" to be liberated from.
It was an illusory, fabricated identity all along.

While I agree with the general thrust of this, I am wondering why are using the word "Consciousness" to describe this state of selflessness. In what way does this Consciousness resemble what we normally think of as human consciousness?

-

Neil Melnyk wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Neil wrote:

No need to worry since as far as we know there is no beyond, and if there is humans are not cognizant of it.

To be consistent with your objective belief that you are operating in an entirely subjective perspective, the above should be amended to: "No need to worry since as far as I know there is no beyond, and if there is I am not cognizant of it."

Technically, yes, and practically speaking, not really. In the same way that I presume you have a mind as I do, I presume that you have a similar perspective on the world as to what I have.

Yes, you can presume those things for practical matters, but when it comes to philosophically investigating the nature of reality, such presumptions aren't good enough. They aren't solid enough to build an entire philosophy on.

Indeed, ideally, you shouldn't be making any presumptions at all when it comes to philosophy.

Unless you consistently adhere to your claim that you operate out of an entirely subjective perspective and express yourself in a manner which reflects this, refraining at all times from projecting your own biases onto the rest of the human race, you will continue to be seen as a hypocrite.

-

David:
"While I agree with the general thrust of this, I am wondering why are using the word "Consciousness" to describe this state of selflessness. In what way does this Consciousness resemble what we normally think of as human consciousness? "

Transcending the illusion of "my consciousness" and "my identity", one is left with "the consciousness" which is omnipresent in all forms/individuals. This is atually the classical leap from the finite "me" into the infinite "I"... cosmic consciousness manifesting "locally" (omnipresently) as/through each ndividual, which is always Reality anyway. Realizing It is liberation.

PS Did I overestimate this site as a place of freedom of expression?
If Neil can Kick me out over my confronting him on his false assumptions about me, then I'm gladly out of here... if pumped up egocentrics can get offended over radical honesty and kick out the "offender."
mikiel

Unidian wrote:

mikiel,

In the ultimate sense what does liberation mean?


Liberation is no liberation, just as merit is no merit, and being is no being.

Yes. "Liberation" is not an attainment. It is simply what is left when false ideas are dropped - that being the direct experience of what is, unmediated by an egotistical attachment to conceptualization. Such a psychology needs to be divorced from salvationism, which is something different but far more popular. There is no "salvation" in this world, and the knowledge of no-salvation is not salvation, either.

Liberation is from false concepts. Everything is as it always was, but without an overlay of attachment to ideas, thoughts, concepts, and other ephemera. This overlay of attachment, based on the false concept that there is an inherently existing self, is sometimes referred to as "ego." The main idea of "spiritual" philosophy or psychology is liberate oneself from slavery to this ego. Any other "benefits" or consequences of "liberation" are actually artifacts of religious salvationism, which is something one might want to become liberated from.

But nobody should take it from me, when better sources figured it millenia ago. One can always check out the Taoist and Zen literature, which cover all of this much more capably.

Unidian,
I agree with your post. Did you get the irony in my intro piece that once liberation happens one realizes there was no personal identity to be liberated from? Always consciousness is already in One in all.
Liberation is to realize it. And once one does, the calling is to share it with whomever is ready to hear it... to inspire others to realize it for themselves... not as a doctrine but as universal truth.
Cosmic consciousness is omnipresent and manifests in everyone as Awareness Itself... transcending what we are aware of, including this concept of "me."
MIKIEL

David,

Yes, you can presume those things for practical matters, but when it comes to philosophically investigating the nature of reality, such presumptions aren't good enough. They aren't solid enough to build an entire philosophy on.

Nothing is solid enough for me to build a philosophy of truth and nature-of-reality on.

Indeed, ideally, you shouldn't be making any presumptions at all when it comes to philosophy.

Impossible, though all philosopher wish it was possible, including mikiel here.

Unless you consistently adhere to your claim that you operate out of an entirely subjective perspective and express yourself in a manner which reflects this, refraining at all times from projecting your own biases onto the rest of the human race, you will continue to be seen as a hypocrite.

I can operate under no other perspective. Is it a crime to suggest other human beings, who presumably have similar perspectives, should see similar conclusions as I do? Sue me. :)

As for mikiel, am I really wrong about him? Liberation = being free from uncertainly, imperfection, capriciousness, ignorance, becoming, whatever. It is clear that mikiel is with you guys (Dan at least) in looking for some completeness, absolutes, some refuge from the world we live in which is always changing and in which nothing is absolute. Those who look to take refuge in such a way are ones who need some refuge, who need to escape from it all, for whatever reasons. Thus they pine for "liberation" from whatever suffering lives they are trying to escape from.

Trevor:
"I do not doubt the fact of liberation. It is important to recognize, however, that even the concept of liberation needs to be dropped. It is delusion to try to liberate all beings from suffering; it is a temptation that is often the most harmful of all."

As below in response to Unidian... Yes, the concept of liberation is just another object *in* consciousness. I like Franklin Merrell-Wolff's treatment of "concepts" in his signature work, "The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object."
Awakening is realization that we are the awareness (used here as synonymous with consciousness), not *what we are aware of,* all "objects" including concepts like liberation, "my-SELF" etc.

Then there is no self-important, messianic mission to "liberate all beings from suffering," as you say. Still there is the natural intent to serve wherever one can to relieve suffering as it appears in front of you... just as I give comfort to my children and grandchildren when they are hurt... the natural response of love in all situations.

mikiel

Neil:
----------------
"As for mikiel, am I really wrong about him? Liberation = being free from uncertainly, imperfection, capriciousness, ignorance, becoming, whatever. It is clear that mikiel is with you guys (Dan at least) in looking for some completeness, absolutes, some refuge from the world we live in which is always changing and in which nothing is absolute. Those who look to take refuge in such a way are ones who need some refuge, who need to escape from it all, for whatever reasons. Thus they pine for "liberation" from whatever suffering lives they are trying to escape from."
-------------------

Neil,
You are not hearing me. I have said I'm not "pining" for anything.
Everyone is familiar with "Seeking", but only after "Finding" does one know its meaning... and that leaves you out.

You don't believe me. Fine. What could possibly motivate me to engage in further dialogue with you if you completely disregard what I've said already?
Everything changes in the manifest world/cosmos. Consciousness itself (cosmically omnipresent) never changes. It transcends all "experience." (Franklin Merrell-Wolff coined the term "imperience" for That which transcends manifest phenomena... awareness itself.) This is the absolute of which you have no such "imperience," transcendentally speaking, and so insist on denying.

I think that's all I have to say to you.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:Everything changes in the manifest world/cosmos. Consciousness itself (cosmically omnipresent) never changes.

This is extremely doubtful at best. My consciousness seems to change as I develop into an adult, every night when I go to sleep, and presumably after my brain dies. I have no reason to believe my consciousness won't change tomorrow or after some incident. I observe other human beings, and I am presumably "one of them", and it appears that their consciousness changes as well as mine.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

mikiel wrote:Everything changes in the manifest world/cosmos. Consciousness itself (cosmically omnipresent) never changes.

This is extremely doubtful at best. My consciousness seems to change as I develop into an adult, every night when I go to sleep, and presumably after my brain dies. I have no reason to believe my consciousness won't change tomorrow or after some incident. I observe other human beings, and I am presumably "one of them", and it appears that their consciousness changes as well as mine.

Again (still) you are totally missing the point of liberation.
It is transcendence of "my consciousness" (read: "what I am locally/personally aware of.") The *content* of individual awareness changes constantly. This is the limit of your understanding, and I am not speaking of *what we are aware of.* (Get it??)
Beyond "mine and yours" is the omnipresent consciousness, *transcending content.*
Is this totally beyond your comprehension? Of course it is if you are not familiar with the actual "imperience" of transcendence, and you are obviously not.
This concludes my willingness to try to explain it to you, because you clearly are not listening and have no transcendental context in your life to make sense of it anyway.
Genius Forum? I really don't believe you live up to it, Neil.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:Beyond "mine and yours" is the omnipresent consciousness, *transcending content.*

I don't understand why you want to talk about some "transcendental consciousness". Whether it exists or not is superstition.

mikiel wrote:Is this totally beyond your comprehension? Of course it is if you are not familiar with the actual "imperience" of transcendence, and you are obviously not.

In other words I am living in reality?

Neil is right this time. The "transcendental" is just that. It's oxymoronic to talk about something like "transcendental consciousness," because you're attaching a concept (consciousness) that which transcends conceptualization. For that reason, it becomes superstition, as Neil correctly points out.

It also keeps one trapped in duality, so it isn't much of a transcendence.

Indeed, the very attempt to transcend anything at all springs from the spell cast by duality.

-