Conscience transcends subject-object mentalism

[jufa]

Pincho states:

Well my post answered the opening post exactly as far as I can tell, I explained the imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic, and the causality of all sense attachment,, also I explained the cause and effect to "vision only", he cannot find the way to eliminate the innate tension he experiences by his belief that he, the subject, is separate from that, the object of his vision., and I also covered The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

So my post appeared to me to be the most important post in the thread, being as I am the only person that can explain the pre-thought which is dualism.

Your post is "the assumption of an external reality is the assumption that there is a real world that is external to our mind and senses, and that it exists whether or not we as observers exist, and whether or not we are observing it. This assumption cannot be proved because all of our perceptions, without exception, are mental images, and we have no means to go beyond our mental images. It is one we all commonly make without even thinking about it. We assume the office and the computer in it are there after we leave work at the end of the day and will be there when we arrive at work in the morning. When we head home at the end of the day, we assume that our house or apartment will be there when we arrive, and that it continued to be there in our absence after we left in the morning. We assume that our friends, relatives, and acquaintances are there whether we can see and talk to them or not, and whether or not we are thinking about them. We assume that our parents existed before we were born, and that many of the people we know will be alive after we die. So many of our everyday experiences repeatedly confirm this assumption that most of us hardly question it. It is an assumption that has enormous survival value: we know that a speeding car can kill us while we are crossing the street absorbed in our thoughts and unaware, that a stray bullet can instantly obliterate our consciousness without warning, or that we can die from an external agent such as a virus, bacterium, or poison.

The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world. Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images of our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.

In addition to the assumption of an external reality, we also make the assumption that this reality is objective. Objectivity means that observations, experiments, or measurements by one person can be made by another person, who will obtain the same or similar results. The second person will be able to confirm that the results are the same or similar by consultation with the first person. Hence, communication is essential to objectivity. In fact, an observation that is not communicated and agreed upon is not generally accepted as a valid observation of objective reality. Because agreement is required, objective reality is sometimes called consensus reality.

Questions: Is there any proof that anything exists if you are not observing it?
If you cite the reports of others, is there any proof that they exist if you are not observing them?
If you cite indirect evidence, is there any proof that that exists if you are not observing it?"


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[David Quinn]

David, it is only now that I read your essay on "Woman", dualism displayed in all its self-righteousness. What you write in this essay is no different than all prejudicial works that are based on the fragmented thoughts of the man who listens not to his conscience where thought is impersonal and unconditioned, but instead, takes thought to be personal to himself and presents it as if it is not. This is the subject-object mentalism which I reference in the title of this thread.

When Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his time for their misguided ways and spoke about how the path to the Kingdom of Heaven was narrow and that few find it, was he being prejudiced and self-righteous in his dualism?

Similarly, when Buddha articulated a lofty path that few can travel and stated that "only one person out of ten thousand attempt the path to enlightenment, and of those, only one in ten thousand actually reach enlightenment", was he being prejudiced and self-righteous in his dualism?

This fragmentation of good and evil relativity that you present in your essay on "Woman" is no different than all works of men who do not comprehend that thought has nothing to do with gender, race, color, shape or size. Belief that one's fragmented thoughts speak for the whole is the suffering of man laid bare.

You're confusing Truth (which is non-dual in nature) with the path to Truth (which is necessarily dualistic in nature).

While it is true that all creatures share the same buddha-nature, only a few of them ever become conscious of their buddha-nature.

The fact that a cow is a creature of God doesn't automatically mean that it is aware that it is a creature of God.

What you present is not to be at ease in duality, what you present is the manipulation of duality to serve one's own conditioned view of the sense world.

That particular work was written a long time ago, when I quite young, and I agree that it is infused with a fair degree of emotion. Its message is still right on the mark, though.

Thought has nothing to do with gender, except in the mind of the one who cannot see beyond his sense of self.

You're right that thought has nothing to do with gender. However, the act of using thought in a sustained manner to understand the nature of reality is an entirely different manner and lies in the province of masculine consciousness.

To quote the Gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that he too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Thomas: 114

-

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho states:

Well my post answered the opening post exactly as far as I can tell, I explained the imagined beginning point of a thought or image envisioned within the mind of the interpreter of logic, and the causality of all sense attachment,, also I explained the cause and effect to "vision only", he cannot find the way to eliminate the innate tension he experiences by his belief that he, the subject, is separate from that, the object of his vision., and I also covered The wisdom that takes man beyond his human intellectual interpretation of dualism of Self, be it Self interpretation of vision-causality-logic or be it Self interpretation of passion-attachment-emotionalism, and into the wisdom of being moved by his conscience-of-Self and his conscience-of-Self alone?

So my post appeared to me to be the most important post in the thread, being as I am the only person that can explain the pre-thought which is dualism.

Your post is "the assumption of an external reality is the assumption that there is a real world that is external to our mind and senses, and that it exists whether or not we as observers exist, and whether or not we are observing it. This assumption cannot be proved because all of our perceptions, without exception, are mental images, and we have no means to go beyond our mental images. It is one we all commonly make without even thinking about it. We assume the office and the computer in it are there after we leave work at the end of the day and will be there when we arrive at work in the morning. When we head home at the end of the day, we assume that our house or apartment will be there when we arrive, and that it continued to be there in our absence after we left in the morning. We assume that our friends, relatives, and acquaintances are there whether we can see and talk to them or not, and whether or not we are thinking about them. We assume that our parents existed before we were born, and that many of the people we know will be alive after we die. So many of our everyday experiences repeatedly confirm this assumption that most of us hardly question it. It is an assumption that has enormous survival value: we know that a speeding car can kill us while we are crossing the street absorbed in our thoughts and unaware, that a stray bullet can instantly obliterate our consciousness without warning, or that we can die from an external agent such as a virus, bacterium, or poison.

The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world. Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images of our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.

In addition to the assumption of an external reality, we also make the assumption that this reality is objective. Objectivity means that observations, experiments, or measurements by one person can be made by another person, who will obtain the same or similar results. The second person will be able to confirm that the results are the same or similar by consultation with the first person. Hence, communication is essential to objectivity. In fact, an observation that is not communicated and agreed upon is not generally accepted as a valid observation of objective reality. Because agreement is required, objective reality is sometimes called consensus reality.

Questions: Is there any proof that anything exists if you are not observing it?
If you cite the reports of others, is there any proof that they exist if you are not observing them?
If you cite indirect evidence, is there any proof that that exists if you are not observing it?"


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

I gave you links to some evidence however, like spooky matter which has been confirmed. When the spin of one particle can spin another particle in the opposite direction from many miles away, it is the same as energy in the brain winding down to zero, and then activating the observer. Being as a wind down to zero requires no cause, because zero happens due to lack of cause, it happens because no events have happened to re-energise it, it is a spooky observer in a sense that is auto-activated. It is circular energy, therefore requires no magic, no God.

Also the two slit experiment which works differently with an observer, than without an observer.

I gave you links to all of the evidence.

Questions: Is there any proof that anything exists if you are not observing it?
If you cite the reports of others, is there any proof that they exist if you are not observing them?
If you cite indirect evidence, is there any proof that that exists if you are not observing it?"

There is some sort of proof. The light from stars billions of light years away has began its journey to Earth before any observers were born on Earth. Therefore that light did not require an observer to reach us.

[David Quinn]

Belief is at the very heart of dualistic thinking, for dualistic thinking arises because of the translation of one's reality as originating from a source that is external to, or is in opposition to, Pure Thought Awareness. The belief that thought awareness needs to be translated is the activity of believing.

You are here engaging in dualistic thinking yourself. Should I therefore be dismissing what you are saying as mere belief?

Who said anything about dismissing belief?

Do you regard the conclusions that you express on this issue as your own authentic knowledge or merely your personal belief?

All these different forms of consciousness consist of perceiving "things" within the Totality. They all involve a process of being aware of some aspect of the Totality to the exclusion of all else.

Without perception of things, there is no consciousness.

Even your perception (and experience) of "Pure Thought Awareness" boils down to being a perception/experience of a thing.

You are assuming that awareness/consciousness is dependent on the sense perception to exist. On what do you base this assumption?

By "perception", I mean any kind of perception, whether it be sense-based, conceptual, logical, mystical, psychic, whatever.

Pure Thought Awareness is infinite thought, therefore, Pure Thought Awareness cannot be perceived or experienced.

Then how do you know about it?

The very attempt to "transcend" something, whatever it might be, is dualistic in nature. All it achieves is shifting the mind from one dualistic realm to another. One still remains as trapped within the illusion of duality as ever.

Transcending has nothing to do with shifting the mind. It is the mind that is to be transcended, from sense consciousness into spirit consciousness.

It is still a dualistic act, nonetheless.

Personally, I no longer make any distinction beween sense-consciousness and spirit-consciousness. To me, the whole world, and everything within it, is thoroughly spiritual. Nirvana and the world are one.

A dung-beatle is a giggle from God. A rotten smell is a giggle from God. A woman being raped is a giggle from God. A mystical experience of unity is a giggle from God. It is all the same giggle.

The root of the problem lies in believing that a particular dualistic realm (e.g. the realm of "pure thought awareness") is none other than Ultimate Reality, while other realms (e.g. the intellectual realm, the physical realm, etc) aren't. The end result is the constant pursuit of a dualistic phantom, which is a form of insanity.

There is a story in Zen which describes how a madman in the mountains used to desperately search for the source of piercing sounds that he regularly heard, not realizing they were echoes caused by his own shrieks. This is exactly how the deluded spiritual seeker behaves. He creates mirages of enlightenment with his dualistic thinking and then chases after them, not realizing they are merely illusions of his own making.

The enlightened sage is perfectly at home in all realms. He sees them all as equal expressions of Ultimate Reality. He doesn't have to strive to enter a particular realm in order to feel closer to God.

You have just revealed the difference between our wisdom in your last statement above. I am aware that it is not possible to "feel closer to God", for God is the very foundation of my conscious awareness. Where can God go that I need to "feel closer to Him/It?"

Evidentally, He still requires you to leave the realm of sense-perception behind and seek the realm of "spirit-consciousness" (or what I would a meditatively-induced altered state). Or rather, the insecurity of your own ego requires it.

As for quoting a story from Zen, it is meaningless to me, for that is someone else's story, not mine.

And yet you are happy enough to quote standard Christian and Hindu/New Age scripts as though they were your own.

Ideally, a person should be able to talk about God in countless different ways and be comfortable using Christian language, Buddhist language, Taoist language, atheistic language, psychological language and many others besides. If you let yourself become stuck in the one narrative, then your understanding will be limited needlessly by that narrative.

An expert can talk about his subject in many different ways with ease because he thoroughly understands the material. He no longer has to rely on training manuals.

True, nothing can ever originate at all. Not just thoughts, but all things. They all stretch back and become lost in the beginningless past.

Is not every thing, a thought?

Each thing is exactly what it is - no more, more less. This applies just as equally to apples as it does thoughts.

I can understand why you would want to imagine every thing to be a thought, as it helps the mind unify all things under the umbrella of God. But if you really want to understand God's nature, and experience His nature directly, then there will come a stage when you'll have to stop cloaking everything with this imagined garb and learn to experience things (including the things of the senses) more nakedly, as it were.

The dream is a lie (an illusion), as is every word that I give you, as is every word that you give me. Human words are lies, for they are fragments of the Infinity of God and have no exactness, no absoluteness in meaning.

So no one can ever speak the truth?

Man is responsible for his dreaming of Life in that he interprets Life to be divided into good and evil selves. When he realizes that Life is not good or evil, it is then his responsibility to being obedient to this awareness.

What about the division you like to make, say, between your own path (striving to reach pure thought awareness) and mine (dualistic, self-righteous, ignorant, prejudiced, etc). That's a case of dividing Life into good and evil, is it not?

I think I'll leave the rest of your post for now, as my response is becoming too long. We can discuss the other points another time.

-

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn:
When Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his time for their misguided ways and spoke about how the path to the Kingdom of Heaven was narrow and that few find it, was he being prejudiced and self-righteous in his dualism?

Similarly, when Buddha articulated a lofty path that few can travel and stated that "only one person out of ten thousand attempt the path to enlightenment, and of those, only one in ten thousand actually reach enlightenment", was he being prejudiced and self-righteous in his dualism?

When Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his time for their misguided ways, he was rebuking the self-righteous religious thought of the day that believed that God and money (money=materialism=sense worship) had anything to do with one another. His anger was righteous anger, a call to awaken to the truth that matters of the sense were man's matters, not God's. "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways, saith The Lord." Jesus was in the world, but not of the world, which is the path for all who are obedient to eliminate dualism within their consciousness.

As for what you have presented of the Buddha's words, it all depends on your understanding of what he means when he says "only one person out of ten thousand attempt the path to enlightenment, and of those, only one in ten thousand actually reach enlightenment." My understanding is that the Buddha was referring to attaining Nirvana, which is self-extinction. Which is my path to enlightenment. I am not there yet, but I am being obedient to attaining its goal of self-extinction. The Buddha's words here, by my understanding, are the same activity of being in the world, but not of the world. It is necessary for the obedient spirit to use words to go beyond words. The difference between the words used by Jesus and the Buddha, and hopefully myself, and the words used by a man who believes God's thoughts and man's thoughts are one and the same, is in the intent. It is the discipline and the obedience that makes the path of conscious dualism-elimination so narrow. How many people actually desire to be obedient to the righteousness of God's omnipresent, non-prejudicial, non-preferencial, impersonal thoughts?

While it is true that all creatures share the same buddha-nature, only a few of them ever become conscious of their buddha-nature.

The fact that a cow is a creature of God doesn't automatically mean that it is aware that it is a creature of God.

I agree with this statement. However, what the cow is aware of, is not of my concern. That it between God and/or Buddha-nature and the cow. What I am aware of is my self-righteous attitude when I am not being obedient to my Buddha-nature or my Christ-mind. I am man, not cow, and must be what man is, which is to be the conscience of God in this realm of sense.

What you present is not to be at ease in duality, what you present is the manipulation of duality to serve one's own conditioned view of the sense world.

That particular work was written a long time ago, when I quite young, and I agree that it is infused with a fair degree of emotion. Its message is still right on the mark, though.

Telling me that the message is right on the mark without telling me what the mark is, is of no help to me in the understanding of your definition of "enlightenment."

Thought has nothing to do with gender, except in the mind of the one who cannot see beyond his sense of self.

You're right that thought has nothing to do with gender. However, the act of using thought in a sustained manner to understand the nature of reality is an entirely different manner and lies in the province of masculine consciousness.

To quote the Gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that he too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Thomas: 114

Jesus spoke on many levels so as to awaken all who came into his awareness. Simon Peter was the same disciple who denied the Christ in Jesus three times. Being that he denied the Christ in Jesus, do you believe he understood what the Christ was? Which leads me to surmise that when Jesus spoke to Simon Peter, he spoke to him in a way he could catch a glimmer of the vision of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you note the difference in tone between Peter's words and Jesus' words you will see it is Peter who demonstrating ignorance and prejudice by rejecting Mary and saying she is not worthy. Jesus is not reflecting this prejudice back to Peter, instead, he is using metaphors of gender in order to hold his attention. If he had told Peter what he told Thomas in secret in the same Gospel, Peter would have garnered no understanding from his teaching. From the Gospel of Thomas (note Peter's response and Thomas' response, and that Jesus took Thomas aside and not Peter):

"Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

Devour you. See my thread entitled "Committing self-sense suicide."

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: Do you regard the conclusions that you express on this issue as your own authentic knowledge or merely your personal belief?

All that I present is what I have come to comprehend about the nature of thought. To be accepted or rejected.

Pure Thought Awareness is infinite thought, therefore, Pure Thought Awareness cannot be perceived or experienced.

Then how do you know about it?

By the prick in my conscience. I asked myself "who or what is pricking me, and why?" That is how I came to know of 'it.'

The very attempt to "transcend" something, whatever it might be, is dualistic in nature. All it achieves is shifting the mind from one dualistic realm to another. One still remains as trapped within the illusion of duality as ever.

Transcending has nothing to do with shifting the mind. It is the mind that is to be transcended, from sense consciousness into spirit consciousness.

It is still a dualistic act, nonetheless.

Personally, I no longer make any distinction beween sense-consciousness and spirit-consciousness. To me, the whole world, and everything within it, is thoroughly spiritual. Nirvana and the world are one.

A dung-beatle is a giggle from God. A rotten smell is a giggle from God. A woman being raped is a giggle from God. A mystical experience of unity is a giggle from God. It is all the same giggle.

No, it is not a dualistic act. It is an activity taking place while dualism remains within one's consciousness, but it is not of itself, an activity of dualism. It is all about intent.

Would you giggle if you were being sodomized? Would you giggle if your mother were being raped? If your answer is yes, then it is true, your God giggles when he is raping or being raped.

The root of the problem lies in believing that a particular dualistic realm (e.g. the realm of "pure thought awareness") is none other than Ultimate Reality, while other realms (e.g. the intellectual realm, the physical realm, etc) aren't. The end result is the constant pursuit of a dualistic phantom, which is a form of insanity.

There is a story in Zen which describes how a madman in the mountains used to desperately search for the source of piercing sounds that he regularly heard, not realizing they were echoes caused by his own shrieks. This is exactly how the deluded spiritual seeker behaves. He creates mirages of enlightenment with his dualistic thinking and then chases after them, not realizing they are merely illusions of his own making.

The enlightened sage is perfectly at home in all realms. He sees them all as equal expressions of Ultimate Reality. He doesn't have to strive to enter a particular realm in order to feel closer to God.

You have just revealed the difference between our wisdom in your last statement above. I am aware that it is not possible to "feel closer to God", for God is the very foundation of my conscious awareness. Where can God go that I need to "feel closer to Him/It?"

Evidentally, He still requires you to leave the realm of sense-perception behind and seek the realm of "spirit-consciousness" (or what I would a meditatively-induced altered state). Or rather, the insecurity of your own ego requires it.

I have never experienced "a meditatively-induced altered state." You cannot say what my ego requires or what it does not require? Why not stick to the thoughts presented and leave out your subjective-objective judgments of my state of being?

As for quoting a story from Zen, it is meaningless to me, for that is someone else's story, not mine.

And yet you are happy enough to quote standard Christian and Hindu/New Age scripts as though they were your own.

Scriptures that I used are incorporated into my thoughts as a part of my message. What I do not do, which is what you did, is to use a story or scripture to suggest to another that they are a deluded seeker.

True, nothing can ever originate at all. Not just thoughts, but all things. They all stretch back and become lost in the beginningless past.

Is not every thing, a thought?

Each thing is exactly what it is - no more, more less. This applies just as equally to apples as it does thoughts.

I can understand why you would want to imagine every thing to be a thought, as it helps the mind unify all things under the umbrella of God. But if you really want to understand God's nature, and experience His nature directly, then there will come a stage when you'll have to stop cloaking everything with this imagined garb and learn to experience things (including the things of the senses) more nakedly, as it were.

Are you saying then that consciousness, of which thought, applies only to man and not to God? How does God giggle if he is not of consciousness, of thought? Does giggling not arise out of a thought (of another thought?) What is the substance of a thing, if it is not thought?

The dream is a lie (an illusion), as is every word that I give you, as is every word that you give me. Human words are lies, for they are fragments of the Infinity of God and have no exactness, no absoluteness in meaning.

So no one can ever speak the truth?

No one can ever speak the truth, for the word is not the thing itself. Words are pointers, no more, no less.
One need go no further than this forum to give evidence of this.

Man is responsible for his dreaming of Life in that he interprets Life to be divided into good and evil selves. When he realizes that Life is not good or evil, it is then his responsibility to being obedient to this awareness.

What about the division you like to make, say, between your own path (striving to reach pure thought awareness) and mine (dualistic, self-righteous, ignorant, prejudiced, etc). That's a case of dividing Life into good and evil, is it not?

First of all, I did not say I was "striving to reach." I said I was being obedient. It is neither good or evil to be obedient to being purged of the dualism of good and evil. Obedience is obedience.

I am not dividing our paths, for the two paths are not divided of Source. One Source, two paths or directions. In the bible the two directions of the spirit of man are suggested by use of the metaphors "Son of Man" and "Son of God."

I think I'll leave the rest of your post for now, as my response is becoming too long. We can discuss the other points another time.

[/quote]

:)

[pointexter]

Since there can be nowhere where thought is not, yes, it is thought itself which unites subjective thought (feeling/desire) and objective thought (that).

Thought = measurement. It values (measures) itself (separates) to the point that it sees (projects) itself everywhere. Such projection can neither be verified nor falsified, hence meaningless thought circularity. From thought comes separation. From thought comes unity. Unity follows separation. Thought is neither subjective nor objective. It is reactive, working with inputs. The basis of the raw material appears external. Thought appears internal. There is no difference, no in here or out their. That is the illusion of Maya. Maya = measurement.

There is nothing to unify as there is nothing to separate. Totality is all, neither being unified nor separated. Thought is a useful way to navigate void.

[David Quinn]

Pure Thought Awareness is infinite thought, therefore, Pure Thought Awareness cannot be perceived or experienced.

Then how do you know about it?

By the prick in my conscience. I asked myself "who or what is pricking me, and why?" That is how I came to know of 'it.'

You came to perceive and/or experience this thing which cannot be perceved or experienced......?

Transcending has nothing to do with shifting the mind. It is the mind that is to be transcended, from sense consciousness into spirit consciousness.

It is still a dualistic act, nonetheless.

No, it is not a dualistic act. It is an activity taking place while dualism remains within one's consciousness, but it is not of itself, an activity of dualism. It is all about intent.

I'm sorry, but this is what your statement here sounds like to me:

"No, it is not a dualistic act. It is a dualistic act taking place while dualism remains within one's consciousness, but not of itself a dualistic act. It is all about what motivates you in performing this dualistic act (intent)."

It is difficult to know what you are trying to say.

Personally, I no longer make any distinction beween sense-consciousness and spirit-consciousness. To me, the whole world, and everything within it, is thoroughly spiritual. Nirvana and the world are one.

A dung-beatle is a giggle from God. A rotten smell is a giggle from God. A woman being raped is a giggle from God. A mystical experience of unity is a giggle from God. It is all the same giggle.

Would you giggle if you were being sodomized? Would you giggle if your mother were being raped? If your answer is yes, then it is true, your God giggles when he is raping or being raped.

Why are you dividing Life up into good and evil again? And why should you be disturbed by such activity if you know that neither the thoughts of the sodomizer nor the rapist originate from them, but come from the Infinite Thought of God?

I am aware that it is not possible to "feel closer to God", for God is the very foundation of my conscious awareness. Where can God go that I need to "feel closer to Him/It?"

Evidentally, He still requires you to leave the realm of sense-perception behind and seek the realm of "spirit-consciousness" (or what I would a meditatively-induced altered state). Or rather, the insecurity of your own ego requires it.

I have never experienced "a meditatively-induced altered state."

So you have never actually experienced the "ascension into Pure Spirit Consciousness" where "I and the Father are One (in Spirit)".

I can understand why you would want to imagine every thing to be a thought, as it helps the mind unify all things under the umbrella of God. But if you really want to understand God's nature, and experience His nature directly, then there will come a stage when you'll have to stop cloaking everything with this imagined garb and learn to experience things (including the things of the senses) more nakedly, as it were.

Are you saying then that consciousness, of which thought, applies only to man and not to God?

God is only becomes conscious through us, and other sentient beings.

How does God giggle if he is not of consciousness, of thought? Does giggling not arise out of a thought (of another thought?) What is the substance of a thing, if it is not thought?

What is it about modern people that they can no longer understand the use of metaphor?

The dream is a lie (an illusion), as is every word that I give you, as is every word that you give me. Human words are lies, for they are fragments of the Infinity of God and have no exactness, no absoluteness in meaning.

So no one can ever speak the truth?

No one can ever speak the truth, for the word is not the thing itself. Words are pointers, no more, no less.

I agree with that, but there can be pointing which is accurate and true, and also pointing which is false and misleading, no?

Should truthful pointing, done in the knowledge that words aren't the things themselves, really be classed as a lie?

Man is responsible for his dreaming of Life in that he interprets Life to be divided into good and evil selves. When he realizes that Life is not good or evil, it is then his responsibility to being obedient to this awareness.

What about the division you like to make, say, between your own path (striving to reach pure thought awareness) and mine (dualistic, self-righteous, ignorant, prejudiced, etc). That's a case of dividing Life into good and evil, is it not?

First of all, I did not say I was "striving to reach." I said I was being obedient.

Striving to be obedient ...?

It is neither good or evil to be obedient to being purged of the dualism of good and evil. Obedience is obedience.

But it is prejudiced and self-righteous not to be doing it?

I am not dividing our paths, for the two paths are not divided of Source. One Source, two paths or directions. In the bible the two directions of the spirit of man are suggested by use of the metaphors "Son of Man" and "Son of God."

And are both paths equally good?

--

[Pam Seeback]

David, I am saying that there is spirit wisdom beyond the sense wisdom of logic. There must be a wisdom higher than logic for the reality of logic to be.

The spirit of Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life." You have not presented the way and the truth and the life of logic. I am presenting the way, the truth and the life of Spirit.

Can you tell me the WAY of logic? Please break it down, and show me how logic is the ultimate platform of thought.

[David Quinn]

David, I am saying that there is spirit wisdom beyond the sense wisdom of logic. There must be a wisdom higher than logic for the reality of logic to be.

What you say here is true enough (ignoring, for the moment, your habit of dualistically dividing reality into "sense" and "spirit"). There is indeed a wisdom which is higher than logic, but nonetheless it is a wisdom which can only be accessed via logic, through the logical dismantling of all the mind’s conceptual delusions.

Logic is only transcended when logic completes this dismantling process, and not before then. Logic consumes everything and then disappears of its own accord, a bit like how a fire disappears when it has consumed everything in its path.

Can you tell me the WAY of logic? Please break it down, and show me how logic is the ultimate platform of thought.

I’d like to show you, but first I would need you to acknowledge the role that logic has played in forming your own outlook on life. Without this acknowledgement, I will only be wasting our time, both yours and mine, in trying to show you the fundamental nature the logic.

So are you able to see that every conclusion you have made so far in regard to spiritual matters has been formed by logic? To be sure, you would have also called upon your meditational experiences, readings, intuitions, etc. But even here, in evaluating these things, you would have employed logic along every step of the way.

Again, you need to acknowledge this reality before we can start seriously discussing the nature of logic. Or if you don't want to acknowledge it, then you need to provide me with an example of where you haven't used logic in deciding these matters.

-

[Pam Seeback]

David, I am saying that there is spirit wisdom beyond the sense wisdom of logic. There must be a wisdom higher than logic for the reality of logic to be.

What you say here is true enough (ignoring, for the moment, your habit of dualistically dividing reality into "sense" and "spirit"). There is indeed a wisdom which is higher than logic, but nonetheless it is a wisdom which can only be accessed via logic, through the logical dismantling of all the mind’s conceptual delusions.

Logic is only transcended when logic completes this dismantling process, and not before then. Logic consumes everything and then disappears of its own accord, a bit like how a fire disappears when it has consumed everything in its path.

I do not divide reality into sense and spirit. I have stated consistently that sense awareness is a product of, an emanation of, or an expression of, spirit awareness. My comprehension is that spirit is the root/foundation for every thought, be it unconditioned to sense or conditioned to sense. There is no division between these two ways of thinking, only the metaphorical veil of ignorance or darkness that is man's belief that spirit awareness and sense awareness are separate realities.

movingalways wrote: Can you tell me the WAY of logic? Please break it down, and show me how logic is the ultimate platform of thought.

David Quinn wrote: I’d like to show you, but first I would need you to acknowledge the role that logic has played in forming your own outlook on life. Without this acknowledgement, I will only be wasting our time, both yours and mine, in trying to show you the fundamental nature the logic.

The use of logic brought me to the ceiling of my intellect, which is that metaphorical veil of darkness I speak of above, the same veil of darkness I have addressed in several of my previous posts.

David Quinn wrote: So are you able to see that every conclusion you have made so far in regard to spiritual matters has been formed by logic? To be sure, you would have also called upon your meditational experiences, readings, intuitions, etc. But even here, in evaluating these things, you would have employed logic along every step of the way.

Again, you need to acknowledge this reality before we can start seriously discussing the nature of logic. Or if you don't want to acknowledge it, then you need to provide me with an example of where you haven't used logic in deciding these matters.

The hitting of the ceiling of my intellect of comparative analysis and my deep desire to poke a hole in that ceiling was the very activity that opened my mind to Spirit. Not to spiritual matters, for matter is of the intellect, but to Spirit ITSELF. To my own Voice of Who I Am, What I Am, Where and When and How I Am. Both my pure awareness of me, and of my sense awareness of me. Note that I said BOTH.

Bottom line is that logic is a temporary function of the Law of the Breath of Spirit of Life. The use of logic serves its purpose to tame or calm the mind, but it cannot go beyond the mind so as to hear the whole, complete, perfect and pure Voice of the Law of the Spirit of Life, for logic is of the mind. If you need further expansion on what I have put forward in my answer to you, please see my recent post in my "self-sense suicide" thread.

Now that I have acknowledged the role of logic in my becoming aware of the root or foundation of logic, are you able to acknowledge the limitations of logic?