The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Dennis Mahar]

On the feeling-logic dichotomy.

At our Alanon group there are usually 12 of us.
3 men and 9 women.
Initially there is a reading on detachment or some other spiritual principle.
Then it goes around from person to person performing a speech act.
There is no cross talk.
The person talks till they are done.
In their talk each person is effectively giving up their projections on the alcoholic in their life.
At meetings end the women are weeping and hugging each other and talking about spirit touching spirit and renewed spirit.
The guys are standing back with hands in pockets watching the women go through this ritual.

I heard a radio interview about evolution of men and women.
When they lived in caves, men went off to hunt, women stayed at the cave.
Women experienced the 'unbearable absence of men' because they are more vulnerable.
In their anxiety the women would project disastrous fates on the men and finally settle their feelings among each other, spirit touching spirit.
When the men came back they would be talking about the reasons why a particular prey was able to escape capture, because of change of wind, untoward noise, poor weapon delivery etc..
For the most part women do feelings and men do reasons.
With regard to the masculine approach and alcoholism.
Unravelling the human genome has revealed a particular gene that is responsible for alcoholism and a vaccine is in the pipeline.

Finding the reasons for things liberates.

[Pam Seeback]

Finding the reasons for things liberates.

The human experience is the consciousness of infinite conditions; infinite conditions = infinite seeking for causes.

Rather than chase infinite causes for infinite conditions, why not discover the original cause for the human condition of all causes and dissolve, once and for all, this one original cause?

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil, you are playing the game of reasoning my own words with me, a game that can take us no where but back into the reasoning game. For me, any reasoning that is to be done with regards to another's words is one that is done in silence, for the sake of one's own salvation or liberation from belief in the reality of birth and death.

Yes, yes, you can't be bothered with games, I get all that. It's only a game if one cheats, or quits. If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss reason as a game, though. You just said: "Any reasoning that is to be done with regards to another's words is one that is done in silence..." But do you really act accordingly? If so, then I have to assume that when you are not silent with regards to another's words, that you have abandoned reason. Is that a fair interpretation of what you just said?

At some point, I readily admit, if something is not according to reason (rational, yes?) I tend to lose respect and/or interest. You ply on the words, but one look at some of them makes them meaningless. "For the sake of... liberation from belief in the reality of birth and death." Lots of important words in such a small space: liberation, reality, belief, birth, death... You truly seem highly intelligent, I have made this observation before, as I recall. Therefore, I can only conclude that you must see that you are writing something utterly meaningless. So why do you bother? If birth and death are in fact parts of reality, why would one want to be liberated from believing that birth and death are parts of reality? In other words, most people have not given any consideration to the true nature of either birth or death. Yet is the answer to be "liberated" from "believing" that they are part of reality?

I'm not sure what motivates the exchanges between you and Dennis. But if you are going to dismiss reason as a mere game, I fail to see why he would bother, either.

[Dennis Mahar]

why not discover the original cause for the human condition of all causes and dissolve, once and for all, this one original cause?

Why not?
and the answer is?
and please, no projections,
no dream weaving.

Nagarjuna wasn't providing an answer.
He was disclosing conventional reality.
He says conventional reality perceives phenomena as having independant existence, that each phenomena is separate, and is a thing in itself.
He refutes that.
He says all phenomena depends for its existence.
Is causes/conditions,
pieces/parts,
thought, which includes sensation, feeling.
that existence is a web of interconnectivity, relationships.
Nagarjuna points out ultimate reality.
there's no projection in it.
Its a radical transformation.
the process of life itself is radically transformed for human being after realising emptiness.
there is no separate self existing independantly.
case closed.

Nagarjuna points out that in conventional reality,
phenomena are not the same.
Ultimately,
they are not different.

[Pam Seeback]

Yes, yes, you can't be bothered with games, I get all that. It's only a game if one cheats, or quits. If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss reason as a game, though. You just said: "Any reasoning that is to be done with regards to another's words is one that is done in silence..." But do you really act accordingly? If so, then I have to assume that when you are not silent with regards to another's words, that you have abandoned reason. Is that a fair interpretation of what you just said?

If you check my statements in this thread, they are not statements of reasoning, but statements of my absoluteness. Which means, I have indeed, abandoned reason. I wasn't dismissing reasoning as a game, reasoning is absolutely necessary within the game of belief in the reality of causes, as it is to get one to the point of awakening to the truth that life is uncaused. Once belief in a caused reality has been dissolved, one steps out of the game of reasoning and into the living of the moment by moment truth of who they are.

At some point, I readily admit, if something is not according to reason (rational, yes?) I tend to lose respect and/or interest. You ply on the words, but one look at some of them makes them meaningless. "For the sake of... liberation from belief in the reality of birth and death." Lots of important words in such a small space: liberation, reality, belief, birth, death... You truly seem highly intelligent, I have made this observation before, as I recall.

You use words such as "important" and "small", feeling words of your reasoning that may have a subjective meaning to you, but are meaningless to me. This is what I mean by speaking from "my absoluteness." And I care not whether or not you believe me to be highly intelligent.

Therefore, I can only conclude that you must see that you are writing something utterly meaningless.

The above statement is one of "I think", not of "I know." You are projecting on me what you see, telling me I should see the same thing. Which is what was happening when you reasoned my signature. To be in subjective-objective union with one's thoughts, to be one with one's thinking, the thinking must be without conditions in the moment it expressed.

So why do you bother? If birth and death are in fact parts of reality, why would one want to be liberated from believing that birth and death are parts of reality? In other words, most people have not given any consideration to the true nature of either birth or death. Yet is the answer to be "liberated" from "believing" that they are part of reality?

It is true that most individuals have not given any consideration to the cause of belief in birth and death; ergo, they are of the continuum of the conditions of causality. A man who thinks he is caused, lives in the effects of this thought. A man who knows he is not caused, lives in the absoluteness of this thought.

I'm not sure what motivates the exchanges between you and Dennis.

Then why speak of them?

[Pam Seeback]

Why not?
and the answer is?
and please, no projections,
no dream weaving.

I am not dreaming me. I am the thoughts I think.

Nagarjuna wasn't providing an answer.
He was disclosing conventional reality.

Conventional reality? Reality is reality. Conventions are conventions, they are not real. A = A.

Nagarjuna points out that in conventional reality,
phenomena are not the same.
Ultimately,
they are not different.

When thoughts arise from one's absolute or spirit nature, it is true that form is absolutely equal. Why? Because there is no "thinking about", there is only "thinking." When one uses subjective feeling words, such as "astonishing" or "mystery", what happens is that a break occurs, or a darkness falls, in the thinking continuum. Pure, absolute movement of spirit consciousness has been halted by the feeling condition of "astonishing." Attention now must be directed toward removing the condition that has broken the free flowing movement of spirit. the activity of transcending the reasoning of the condition that was not necessary in the first place. Herein lies the experience of inequality, of falling out of the purity of the absoluteness of A = A.

I Am. No ifs, no ands, no buts. [The "I" is not belief in a self, it is a pointer referring to one's conscious awareness].

Reasoning is interpretation, the darkness of "about." Absoluteness is revelation, the light of I Am.

[cousinbasil]

If you check my statements in this thread, they are not statements of reasoning, but statements of my absoluteness.

Your statements in this thread, like your statements in other threads which I have read, are not statements of reason. We agree on something, from which I take heart.

Which means, I have indeed, abandoned reason.

You see then where some may have difficulty exchanging ideas with you.

I wasn't dismissing reasoning as a game, reasoning is absolutely necessary within the game of belief in the reality of causes, as it is to get one to the point of awakening to the truth that life is uncaused. Once belief in a caused reality has been dissolved, one steps out of the game of reasoning and into the living of the moment by moment truth of who they are.

Henceforth, I shall use the acronym NABS for New Age Bull Shit, since I have the feeling it may save a good deal of keystrokes.

If "belief in the reality" of causes is a game, then you are saying seeing the interplay of cause and effect in reality is some kind of mental exercise artificially imposed on that reality, in other words, a "game." I might agree with that if it didn't fall apart so easily. If you are saying reality is reality and does not require an observer, that is far from certain, regardless of how absolute you believe your statements to be. I am often under the impression that Consciousness (capital C) is primal, and the physical universe which we can observe, the external one, must spring from it. In that sense, I would agree that Life is uncaused - but only with the capital L which you did not use. I see a bunny on the road ahead of me. That bunny is very much alive. Oops! I thought they were supposed to be fast. Well, he's roadkill in my rear-view mirror now. Hmmm. I would say that "death" has just been caused. Am I to believe then that death can be caused but life cannot...? All without capital letters, that is?

One should be quite careful of stepping out of the game of reason and into the moment-by-moment "truth" of who one is. Who one is is immaterial, as God is no respecter of persons.

You use words such as "important" and "small", feeling words of your reasoning that may have a subjective meaning to you, but are meaningless to me. This is what I mean by speaking from "my absoluteness." And I care not whether or not you believe me to be highly intelligent

Well, let's examine this statement. If we have nothing else in common, we do have the fact that we post on a public forum in common. If I am to use words (images are not usually permitted here) then I try to use words that have meaning. You are free to disagree with them, of course. Just as free, I might add, to agree if the mood ever struck. But to say my words are different somehow because they are "subjective" and therefore can have no meaning for you, because you say only things that are "absolute"... NABS. Sorry.

And I didn't mean to imply you gave a rat's ass about whether or not you are seen as intelligent. If that mattered to you, you might not be so ready to "transcend" (or "abandon" which is even worse) reason. I was merely saying I find your posts interesting and well-worded enough to read and consider. I am telling you why I am taking the time.

The above statement is one of "I think", not of "I know." You are projecting on me what you see, telling me I should see the same thing. Which is what was happening when you reasoned my signature.

And I was careful to make it clear that what I was saying was something I "think" rather than something I "know." That is, a subjective reaction to what I see as the self-defeating quality of your signature. "Projecting onto you" is a bit much. I am naturally trying to get you to see my point - or else why would I be making it? Your signature appears in every post, like a mantra - it is fair game for the reactions of its readers.

To be in subjective-objective union with one's thoughts, to be one with one's thinking, the thinking must be without conditions in the moment it expressed.

Conditions like logical rigor, consistency, veracity, applicablity...? I see why you are a fan of jufa's!

It is true that most individuals have not given any consideration to the cause of belief in birth and death; ergo, they are of the continuum of the conditions of causality. A man who thinks he is caused, lives in the effects of this thought. A man who knows he is not caused, lives in the absoluteness of this thought.

Oddly, I tend to agree with this. But do you see that you are saying that if a man thinks he is caused, then he is caused? If nothing else, he is living in the effects of this thought - so this thought has caused him.

cousinbasil: I'm not sure what motivates the exchanges between you and Dennis...
movingalways:Then why speak of them?

Why not?

[Pam Seeback]

Pam wrote:
If you check my statements in this thread, they are not statements of reasoning, but statements of my absoluteness.

cousinbasil wrote: Your statements in this thread, like your statements in other threads which I have read, are not statements of reason. We agree on something, from which I take heart.

You see then where some may have difficulty exchanging ideas with you.

My purpose for being here at GF is not to exchange ideas with anyone. I am not a divided body that "exchanges". I am here to demonstrate my being moved of the absolute, which is the whole and complete me. Wholeness is not an idea; I am not an idea. The website address of this forum is "theabsolute.net;" I am the absolute Pam.

Quote Pam:
I wasn't dismissing reasoning as a game, reasoning is absolutely necessary within the game of belief in the reality of causes, as it is to get one to the point of awakening to the truth that life is uncaused. Once belief in a caused reality has been dissolved, one steps out of the game of reasoning and into the living of the moment by moment truth of who they are.

Quote cousinbasil: Henceforth, I shall use the acronym NABS for New Age Bull Shit, since I have the feeling it may save a good deal of keystrokes.

You have a feeling? You do not know? If you do not know, then who is throwing the Bull Shit?

If "belief in the reality" of causes is a game, then you are saying seeing the interplay of cause and effect in reality is some kind of mental exercise artificially imposed on that reality, in other words, a "game." I might agree with that if it didn't fall apart so easily. If you are saying reality is reality and does not require an observer, that is far from certain, regardless of how absolute you believe your statements to be. I am often under the impression that Consciousness (capital C) is primal, and the physical universe which we can observe, the external one, must spring from it. In that sense, I would agree that Life is uncaused - but only with the capital L which you did not use. I see a bunny on the road ahead of me. That bunny is very much alive. Oops! I thought they were supposed to be fast. Well, he's roadkill in my rear-view mirror now. Hmmm. I would say that "death" has just been caused. Am I to believe then that death can be caused but life cannot...? All without capital letters, that is?

One should be quite careful of stepping out of the game of reason and into the moment-by-moment "truth" of who one is. Who one is is immaterial, as God is no respecter of persons.

I am going to step back into reason in my response to you:

I am often under the impression that Consciousness (capital C) is primal, and the physical universe which we can observe, the external one, must spring from it.

You cannot step outside you, this is an absolute truth, therefore, there is no external you. Which means the truth of you is that you are the observer of you, however you want to interpret this observation.

In that sense, I would agree that Life is uncaused

Since I have given evidence that you cannot leave you, you therefore, cannot find a cause for you. Therefore, you are uncaused.

- but only with the capital L which you did not use.

You are the life of you, captialized or not.

I see a bunny on the road ahead of me. That bunny is very much alive. Oops! I thought they were supposed to be fast. Well, he's roadkill in my rear-view mirror now. Hmmm. I would say that "death" has just been caused. Am I to believe then that death can be caused but life cannot...? All without capital letters, that is?

Since you cannot leave you, you are the bunny of you, regardless of how you interpret "it."

Quote Pam:
You use words such as "important" and "small", feeling words of your reasoning that may have a subjective meaning to you, but are meaningless to me. This is what I mean by speaking from "my absoluteness." And I care not whether or not you believe me to be highly intelligent

Quote cousinbasil: Well, let's examine this statement. If we have nothing else in common, we do have the fact that we post on a public forum in common. If I am to use words (images are not usually permitted here) then I try to use words that have meaning. You are free to disagree with them, of course. Just as free, I might add, to agree if the mood ever struck. But to say my words are different somehow because they are "subjective" and therefore can have no meaning for you, because you say only things that are "absolute"... NABS. Sorry.

You are free to agree or disagree. I do not agree or disagree. I am.

And I didn't mean to imply you gave a rat's ass about whether or not you are seen as intelligent. If that mattered to you, you might not be so ready to "transcend" (or "abandon" which is even worse) reason. I was merely saying I find your posts interesting and well-worded enough to read and consider. I am telling you why I am taking the time.

It is irrelevant to becoming the absolute of one's thinking as to why one is "taking the time." Again, you are giving me causes, which, of the absolute consciousness of me, are not acknowledged.

Quote Pam:
The above statement is one of "I think", not of "I know." You are projecting on me what you see, telling me I should see the same thing. Which is what was happening when you reasoned my signature.

Quote cousinbasil: And I was careful to make it clear that what I was saying was something I "think" rather than something I "know." That is, a subjective reaction to what I see as the self-defeating quality of your signature. "Projecting onto you" is a bit much. I am naturally trying to get you to see my point - or else why would I be making it? Your signature appears in every post, like a mantra - it is fair game for the reactions of its readers.

My signature is a statement of the way out the mind of reason is to use the mind of reason. Once you reason yourself to the end of reason, you are now an 'open' vessel so that the absolute, or the spirit of life, can flow through you, as you.

Quote Pam:
To be in subjective-objective union with one's thoughts, to be one with one's thinking, the thinking must be without conditions in the moment it expressed.

Quote cousinbasil: Conditions like logical rigor, consistency, veracity, applicablity...?

A rose by any other name...

I see why you are a fan of jufa's!

You do not see why, the cause, for you cannot give me the cause.

Quote Pam:
It is true that most individuals have not given any consideration to the cause of belief in birth and death; ergo, they are of the continuum of the conditions of causality. A man who thinks he is caused, lives in the effects of this thought. A man who knows he is not caused, lives in the absoluteness of this thought.

Quote cousinbasil: Oddly, I tend to agree with this. But do you see that you are saying that if a man thinks he is caused, then he is caused? If nothing else, he is living in the effects of this thought - so this thought has caused him.

Agreement is not knowing. I know that if a man thinks he is caused, he is caused. My evidence is that nowhere can I find the cause of my awareness. This is also the evidence of my absoluteness.

cousinbasil: I'm not sure what motivates the exchanges between you and Dennis...
movingalways:Then why speak of them?
cousinbasil: Why not?

I was asking you why you want to settle for being in the dark of your uncertainty.

cousinbasil, it is a long road of reasoning the illusion of cause to arrive at the end of reasoning an illusory cause to begin the way of living the truth of one's uncaused life. I say begin the way, for although my goal is to live the absolute Pam in every moment, I have not yet attained this perfection of absoluteness. I get closer with every day that I am disciplined and obedient to attaining the goal; my discipline and obedience is manifested in my writings here on GF.

[cousinbasil]

You do not see why, the cause, for you cannot give me the cause.

Of course I cannnot give you the cause, since I never had it. You did. That doesn't mean I can't see it! You're so silly!

[Dennis Mahar]

The Pam phenomenon looks to me at this stage Pam and thanks to you and Basil for the conversation.

You've split it up into Absolute and relative.
Separate Domains.
The absolute is I Am.
Regarding I Am, certain thoughts about I Am may be permitted such as I Am infinite. I Am uncaused.

All other thoughts and feelings are put in to the relative domain.
Are concerned with relative existence.
deal with the temporary, changing existence.
Reasoning is a futile exercise because it deals with what's happening in the relative domain.

If Nagarjuna reasons,
a thought needs a thinker and an object.
these elements depend on each other for existence,
and together depend for their existence.

what you are saying,
as an answer to Nagarjuna,
what these dependencies depend on,
Is,
I Am,
I Am that.

I say begin the way, for although my goal is to live the absolute Pam in every moment, I have not yet attained this perfection of absoluteness. I get closer with every day that I am disciplined and obedient to attaining the goal; my discipline and obedience is manifested in my writings here on GF.

If a Worldhood is roles, practices, values.
The Worldhood of Pam,
is the role of organising thoughts into the domains,
practicing absolute thoughts,
valuing absolute over relative.

Doing a winning formula that gets a projected payoff.

Winning formulas exist in the relative domain,
depend for their existence,
on a thought, thinker, object.

[Blair]

Come on guys, get with the program..

Pam is devoid of personality and vigour..Pam is God.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam is God

That looks like her Absolute.


Nagarjuna refuted all that.
He found a middle way.
Steering away from nihilism on the one hand where life is held to be illusion, nothing, no redeeming feature. (ego point of view).
Steering away from the winning formulas that has Absolute (God) defeating Relative (Devil). ego point of view of personal salvation.

He found there is no separate self existing independently.
defeated ego in one fell swoop.
refreshing.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil, it is a long road of reasoning the illusion of cause to arrive at the end of reasoning an illusory cause to begin the way of living the truth of one's uncaused life. I say begin the way, for although my goal is to live the absolute Pam in every moment, I have not yet attained this perfection of absoluteness. I get closer with every day that I am disciplined and obedient to attaining the goal; my discipline and obedience is manifested in my writings here on GF.

It is quite generous of you to admit that you have not achieved perfection. Living the absolute Pam in every moment must be a lofty goal indeed - I personally have never attempted it.

What I notice immediately is that you are striving. Discipline and obedience entail trying to do some things, and avoid doing others. All this to attain the state of living this "uncaused" life of Pam? Why are you working to to cause something uncaused? Actually, my question should be: how can you cause something uncaused?

[David Quinn]

Why are you working to to cause something uncaused? Actually, my question should be: how can you cause something uncaused?

Reminds me of a Zen story:

Hyakujo's Fox

Once when Hyakujo delivered some Zen lectures an old man attended them, unseen by the monks. At the end of each talk when the monks left so did he. But one day he remained after they had gone, and Hyakujo asked him: "Who are you?"

The old man replied: "I am not a human being, but I was a human being when the Kashapa Buddha preached in this world. I was a Zen master and lived on this mountain. At that time one of my students asked me whether or not the enlightened man is subject to the law of causation. I answered him: 'The enlightened man is not subject to the law of causation.' For this answer evidencing a clinging to absoluteness I became a fox for five hundred rebirths, and I am still a fox. Will you save me from this condition with your Zen words and let me get out of a fox's body? Now may I ask you: Is the enlightened man subject to the law of causation?"

Hyakujo said: "The enlightened man is one with the law of causation."

At the words of Hyakujo the old man was enlightened....

Mumon's comment: "The enlightened man is not subject to causation." How can this answer make the monk a fox?

"The enlightened man is one with the law of causation." How can this answer make the fox emancipated?

To understand this clearly one has to have just one eye.

• Controlled or not controlled?
  The same dice shows two faces.
  Not controlled or controlled,
  Both are a grievous error.

-

[Sphere70]

David, would you say that your philosophical/religious view is of a pantheistic or panentheistic nature, or neither?

[David Quinn]

I had to look up what "panentheistic" meant. Hadn't heard the term before.

As always, it all depends on how we define the terms involved. If by "God" we mean utterly everything, the All, and if by "Universe" we also mean the All, then we are automatically pantheists.

On the other hand, if by "Universe" we mean a portion of the All, a portion of God, then we would be panentheists.

Ultimately, though, I fall into the camp of "neither", in the understanding that nothing really exists. Sometimes I think of God and the Universe as being one and the same, at other times I think of God extending beyond the Universe (due to conceiving these things differently), while yet at other times I don't use either term at all. It all depends on the circumstances - what I am thinking about, who I am talking to, what kind of delusions they have, etc.

At root, I view all these concepts as tools or platforms for launching the mind into the "Void" which is both beyond everything and is everything. Beyond all views and yet forms all views.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,
I do like your story, your courage and sincerity.
I picture your story as akin to the story of the cosmos, of matter.
Only your story is a picture of the thought universe.
where a thought would resemble a planet,
and a chain of thoughts would resemble a galaxy,
and all these things are inexorably drawn in to a black hole and disappear.
So, you ask why attach to the half-life, relative existence of such things,
these things that prove to be merely distraction, merely temporary appearance, and so thoroughly misguided the result is massive confusion.

The 'black hole' would constitute non-conceptual awareness.

Is non-conceptual awareness possible?

Is there always mind?
A thinker with a thought,
and a thought with an object.

I don't think it can be turned off.

Even when you are crushing irrelevant thoughts out of existence,
you are still,
a thinker with a thought,
and a thought with an object.

I don't think one can get out of the mind.
that there's a place where mind is shed totally,
to imagine such a place is still in the mind.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,
I do like your story, your courage and sincerity.

Thank-you.

I picture your story as akin to the story of the cosmos, of matter.
Only your story is a picture of the thought universe.
where a thought would resemble a planet,
and a chain of thoughts would resemble a galaxy,
and all these things are inexorably drawn in to a black hole and disappear.
So, you ask why attach to the half-life, relative existence of such things,
these things that prove to be merely distraction, merely temporary appearance, and so thoroughly misguided the result is massive confusion.

The 'black hole' would constitute non-conceptual awareness.

Is non-conceptual awareness possible?

The definition of concept as per wiki: "A concept (substantive term: conception) is a cognitive unit of meaning—an abstract idea or a mental symbol sometimes defined as a "unit of knowledge," built from other units which act as a concept's characteristics." So, yes, indeed, non-conceptual awareness is not only possible, it is absolutely necessary if one is to be united in spirit movement with one's objects. If one applies meaning to the object, then a concept is born. When a concept is born, the object is no longer purely revealed, but is covered with the "cloud" of abstraction/meaning. I explain further below.

Is there always mind?
A thinker with a thought,
and a thought with an object.

I don't think it can be turned off.

Even when you are crushing irrelevant thoughts out of existence,
you are still,
a thinker with a thought,
and a thought with an object.

I don't think one can get out of the mind.
that there's a place where mind is shed totally,
to imagine such a place is still in the mind.

You are right, there is always a thinker with an object. This is how consciousness expands or moves itself.

Dissolving or releasing conceptual thinking is not to turn off thinking.

What I am speaking of is not a inner world of not thinking, it is an inner world of union of the [silent] "I" and the object of the [silent] "I." To illustrate what I mean, let's look at your words "astonishing" and "mystery." Both thoughts are subjective feelings, not objects. You can be one with a chair - I need a chair, I image a chair, I buy or make the chair, I sit on the chair. I and the chair are one. You cannot, however, be in union with an "astonishing" chair or a chair of "mystery", because both words are concepts, and as stated above, a concept "is a cognitive unit of meaning—an abstract idea or a mental symbol sometimes defined as a "unit of knowledge," built from other units which act as a concept's characteristics." How can you be at one with "a unit of knowledge" or "other units which act as a concept's characteristics?" Not possible!

I'll expand a little on the above, because often there is the belief that if feelings for the chair/the meaning of the chair are absent that the person is a robot, or mechanical or a nihilist, or as Blair suggested, "without vigour." These beliefs are understandable but are completely without foundation. Here is where I am going to use "poetic" language, for I cannot see any other way to express what I want to say. When the subjective feelings for objects are absent, when one ceases applying meaning to things, one is the movement or expansion of the subject-object union. What is this experience of feeling-absent, perfect union "like?" Hard to describe, for it requires using subjective terms to suggest its "truth." The closet subjective words I know to describe the truth of the experience of subject-object union is bliss, joy, peace, balance, serenity, simplicity. This individual is as a beam of light of their thinking world, a world free of doubt, free of uncertainty, free of agreement, free of disagreement, free of the collective world of "humanity."

[Pam Seeback]

cousinbasil, it is a long road of reasoning the illusion of cause to arrive at the end of reasoning an illusory cause to begin the way of living the truth of one's uncaused life. I say begin the way, for although my goal is to live the absolute Pam in every moment, I have not yet attained this perfection of absoluteness. I get closer with every day that I am disciplined and obedient to attaining the goal; my discipline and obedience is manifested in my writings here on GF.

It is quite generous of you to admit that you have not achieved perfection. Living the absolute Pam in every moment must be a lofty goal indeed - I personally have never attempted it.

What I notice immediately is that you are striving. Discipline and obedience entail trying to do some things, and avoid doing others. All this to attain the state of living this "uncaused" life of Pam? Why are you working to to cause something uncaused? Actually, my question should be: how can you cause something uncaused?

I do not see it as a lofty goal, it is the only goal I know.

The activity of discipline and obedience is not a striving, an avoiding or a controlling. The wisdom of the way of absolute union has been absorbed into every "pore of my being;" I know who I am, and what I am to do - where is there striving in knowing?

Rather than striving or avoiding or controlling, which are things of the ego, the one who is disciplined and obedient to speaking only the truth of themselves is awake. Awake to what? To the nature of their thoughts. If the arising thought is of subjective feelings, of humanism, it is not responded to in a negative or harsh way, it is simply recognized as being divided [not subjectively-objectively united] and allowed to return to its source. It is rejected, but there is no emotion attached to the rejection.

To answer your question, I cannot cause anything, I am the cause and effect of all that I am, which is to be in perfect union with my objects, which nullifies or ends my awareness of cause and effect. My answer to your question is also my response to David's Zen story of Hyakujo's Fox.

[Dennis Mahar]

Brilliant posts Pam.

I say 'astonishing' because when I got it the way I got it I was 'startled'.
The experience of 'astonished'.
Did you?

As far as 'mystery' goes.
Refers to me not understanding beyond,
'there is no separate self existing independently.

that's the feeling-logic paradigm of where I'm at.
astonished=feeling.
mystery=logic

They are the logic-feeling 'meaning experience' that shows up for me as I look at the object we call existence.

I'll put it this way.
People as perceivers look at a tree.
A scientist can see a carbon sink/oxygen manufacturer.
A businessman can see a profit.
Lovers can see a place to chisel their names for declaring their love.
A home builder sees trusses and wallframes.
A furniture person sees tables and chairs.

I see causes/conditions, pieces/parts, dependently arising, me as perceiver.

[Pam Seeback]

I say 'astonishing' because when I got it the way I got it I was 'startled'.
The experience of 'astonished'.
Did you?

En route to realizing that I am that which I think I am, yes, I was astonished and startled. And frightened. And relieved. All of these emotions and more.

As far as 'mystery' goes.
Refers to me not understanding beyond,
'there is no separate self existing independently.

that's the feeling-logic paradigm of where I'm at.
astonished=feeling.
mystery=logic

They are the logic-feeling 'meaning experience' that shows up for me as I look at the object we call existence.

Existence, or awareness/consciousness, is not an [sense] object. Existence emanates, or gives rise to, objects of sense. You are that existence that emanates your sense awareness of you.

Logic is the activity of comparing two things to arrive at a conclusion, the way of the intellect. Existence is the singular subject of infinite objects. The activity of existence, therefore, is not logic, of comparing, of concluding, but of thinking of the thing, and the thing IS. How can one compare and/or conclude the infinity of themselves, their isness?

Feeling is the activity of attachment, astonishment included. Again, since you are an individual expression of singular infinity, the all of the objects of you, do you not step into ignorance when you 'feel astonished' with yourself?

I'll put it this way.
People as perceivers look at a tree.
A scientist can see a carbon sink/oxygen manufacturer.
A businessman can see a profit.
Lovers can see a place to chisel their names for declaring their love.
A home builder sees trusses and wallframes.
A furniture person sees tables and chairs.

I see causes/conditions, pieces/parts, dependently arising, me as perceiver.

What I believe you are showing me here is your projection of existence as an object, rather than of being the existence, the Subject, of [your] infinite objects. Your view, although necessary as a way of expanding from one's egocentric view, i.e., I am a businessman who sees a profit and cannot see anyone else's view, is one of thinking of things that places conditions upon the free flowing movement of your singular infinity. These things you describe about the tree are not of the free-flowing movement of subjective-objective union, but instead, are attachments to things of your human memory-imagination. What is real then, is you in union with the tree, in the moment of realizing this union.

One can go even deeper than this realization of being the singular infinity of sense objects into the realization that infinity, by its very definition, is not bound to any one realm, in this case, that of sensed objects. When the appearance of sense objects, that which was, ends, does infinity, that which is, end, does IT die? No. Being open to this awareness of being 'more' than just the thinker of things that are born [appear] and die [disappear] is to be ever awake to infinite worlds yet waiting to be revealed.

[Dennis Mahar]

En route to realizing that I am that which I think I am, yes, I was astonished and startled. And frightened. And relieved. All of these emotions and more.

The ol' ego bounces off the walls in its rubber room when groundlessness gets recognised doesn't it?
It simply has to attach to a story to survive. Get some grounds for itself.
The ego scares the shit out of me.
It's truly crazy.
It's constantly in breakdown mode trying to get certitude of flow, get security for itself.
Laying out stepping stones (concepts) to build a pathway that's meant to be a stairway to heaven but only winds back on itself and collapses.
Its stark, raving mad,
and its there,
prowling,
always/already there to grab an advantage.

Even realising emptiness becomes ground for ego to shore itself up in and get around proclaiming, puffing its chest out arrogantly with its new found advantage.

Even that ego story just told has to be walked away from because ego will grab that for sufficient ground to have a stake for itself.
and so on adinfinitum.

Which is what you mean when you say:

Awake to what? To the nature of their thoughts.

What I believe you are showing me here is your projection of existence as an object, rather than of being the existence, the Subject, of [your] infinite objects

.

When we discuss, we objectify, don't we?
put it out before us to examine,
to look at,
compare findings,
like a game,
trying to put some ground in are we?

Its no wonder people prefer existence to be interpreted for them from cradle to grave,
hoping for flow,
getting breakdown,
dealing with that,
grabbing for a new story.
It looks like a mental trick.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, I have enjoyed our conversation in this thread immensely.

I'll close by saying that it is not a man's ability to reason wisely that is the fullness of his enlightenment, it is the lightness of the purity of his heart. When the eye is single, nothing else need be considered.

[Dennis Mahar]

Warmed through and through by your expression Pam.
Thankyou.
Reason and compassion (lightness of heart)

[Pam Seeback]

the poet Hafiz:

One day the sun admitted,

I am just a shadow.
I wish I could show you
The Infinite Incandescence

That has cast my brilliant image!

I wish I could show you,
When you are lonely or in darkness,

The astonishing Light

Of your own Being!

Astonishing beyond astonishing :-)