GENIUS FORUMS

Hey there Elizabeth, nice to see you around. OK I will revamp 11. There is infinite energy propelling all things. I think you are creating a false dichotomy. You are proposing that there is an "infinite energy" that is separate from all things, which somehow still leaves room for all thing...

When the experiencer ceases, so does experience. Things cease to exist. The only constant through this entire process is the permeation of Nature. That's your story, and it is just that until you provide a convincing argument for it being true. I've listed my objections to Diebert's argument above,...

Nature alone is the sovereign creator. It creates the experiencer, through which experience is had. Things now exist. When the experiencer ceases, so does experience. Things cease to exist. The only constant through this entire process is the permeation of Nature.

It seems as if you're all coming from overly complex and thus delusional contexts. (If you're serious about what you've been writing recently) The simplicity of causality permeates the infinite complexity of reality. Therefore complex thoughts and ideas does not necessarily equate to delusion. The ...

Russell: The Enlightened aren't constantly focused on anything in particular. Focusing on the All is for those that seek to overcome delusional thoughts and habits. As it was told, even the Buddha and Jesus fought such thoughts up until their passing from this earth. I've no doubts. It is said that...

Since the enlightened are ever focused on the All or the infinite rather than the finite, empirical logical ethics of good and evil and right and wrong do not apply. If they do, then the mind remains divided in understanding the totality of Self identity. Instead of the ethics of empirical attachme...

Ethics after Enlightenment is handled the same as with all instances of empiricism; to the best of one's abilities with the information available, with logic. As Enlightenment is the will to wisdom, and sentient beings are the vehicle for this will, the purpose of ethics is to determine the best way...

According to you, the act of identification and the object of identification are identical. I do not speak for Diebert, but this is not what is being conveyed. But it seems you are starkly determined to project this false belief onto him (and myself, I assume), and are thus interpreting our respons...

But we're not talking about colours. Whatever we perceive we call - if we are wise - aspects or parts of the whole of Causality. If the parts are unreal then so is the whole - this much is logically true for finite wholes. However, Causality is an infinite whole and the rules that apply to finite w...

My researches have led me to a fairly sound and solid ground: genetics and the structures of civilization is where I place my focus. How much do you actually study and pursue these subjects? It seems a bit odd that you spend so much time and energy here when 1)your interests greatly differs from ou...

You are either neglecting or failing to recognize that separation lies specifically where it appears to be, as determined by relative perception. Causality is infinite, and finites and separations are appearances. For example, if a sheet of paper with multiple colors are shown to two individuals, on...

Jupiviv, The very being of sentience is defined by the act of division, a drawing the lines of separations by way of sensations and conceptions. Causality, being infinite, includes all the senses and thoughts, the objects and products thereof, and all that is not sensed and absence of thought, and t...

An interesting situation: Alex is more or less correct about Russell's mentality in this post. Russell in the reply to me that Alex quoted was more or less correct about the mentality of attachments. Yet they are both incorrect, because their correctness does not suffuse them. They (and others here...

Interesting and helpful input. Thank you.

Moving , today I just so happen to come across the following while reading The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna , and perhaps you(or anyone) may have some thoughts to share, like if you can relate or if it seems impractical or exaggerated in any way? From pg. 326: "[...]If a man enters the world after...

That would be true from the only perspective that you can conceive. Which is my point. But the evolution of consciousness in our realm, the purpose and end of consciousness, and thus enlightenment and illumination, are not states or qualities or ends that you control by your limiting definitions. Y...

movingalways wrote:What do you mean by 'have spirituality?'

I mean one can still value and practice spirituality, and reap benefits as a result.

While it is true that attachments towards a woman (or a man) or children are delusional once they are in place they can be powerful fuel for awakening and non attachment as well as providing the means for awakening one's spouse and children to non attachment. It is the suffering that the attachment...

In my view such a statement indicates how profoundly one has become infected by rigid, reductionist views that literally dominate mind, intellect, and understanding. It is a radical inversion into and an investment in a closed loop of 'reasoning'. It can't be reasoned with since by its absoluteness...

Delusions are incomplete thoughts that cannot - by definition - reflect reality or create it. Wives and children are neither incomplete thoughts nor the products of them. All attachments, including towards a woman or children, are delusional, period. Again, if it is your fate to marry and reproduce...

You have no choice. I have my days. The absolute is the completion of the relative. The relative is complete within itself. The relative cannot, in any way, fulfill the absolute. It's you, not the attachments. Are attachments delusional or not? A casual remark made weeks ago on a different thread d...

Any consciousness is single-minded by nature. Since you want to separate the absolute from the relative, the meditation upon the absolute you propose is of the conventional, *Epicurean* type. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but you shouldn't consider it to be anything more. I said &qu...

No my point is that meditation in the conventional sense is a very insignificant (if that) part of enlightenment. This much is obvious. My original phrase was "meditate on the absolute," which is another way of saying "single minded focus on the absolute." The discussion regardi...

In a sense, any act of thinking is meditation. But if meditation refers to special techniques for calming or stimulating the mind then it is useless (for sustaining a rational state of mind) until one becomes enlightened. It seems you are describing enlightenment to mean a proper understanding with...

Meditation is useless without first *attaining* non-attachment. No, rather, meditation becomes useless and unnecessary upon the attainment of non-attachment. You see, you want to be *attached*, but you want to get rid of the actual *attachments* because you know they will perish in time. But if you...