BO1:You are holding two completely contradictory positions
They're not. you didn't read it.
Then please explain what you mean by these two statements:
1)physical events modify and transform mental events without transforming into them.
mental events modify and transform physical events without transforming into them.
2)what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.
what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
Thoughts, feelings, senses enable ego.
They are the ego experience.
without them ego is impossible.
to be egocentric is to have thoughts, feelings, senses.
they are of a finite nature.
my point was thoughts/feelings are invisible not physical.
invisible affects visible but doesn't become visible.
they are still phenomena.
the correct view is that everything that exists (phenomena) lacks an intrinsic nature or identity.
how do they exist?
all entities are viewed as dependently related events and none bears independent existence.
you are saying consciousness is some kind of machinery based on photons, energy, etc..
that means it depends for its existence.
Still not answering questions huh?
BO1: In the end, the desire to be able to conceive of the totality is the desire to feel in control. I can assure you, you will never conceive your consciousness , nature, or the all.
This is the wandering in samsara of which the Buddha spoke.
The Buddha is mentioned often on this forum, but rarely is his Dhamma of nibbana mentioned. I can understand why, because nibbana is the total release of "trying to understand", which obviously includes the agent by which we "try to understand", that of the agent of consciousness. From The Nibbana Sutta, Total Unbinding, source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka
It cannot be understood, it can only be revealed.
" Of my own self I can do nothing."
There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress.
By the Buddha's definition of nibbana, the true genius is one who is on the path of extinguishing Inquiry. How many men and women who worship consciousness, especially those who worship the mental fabrication of IQ, want to hear about the genius of being able to be without support of a mental "finite" object?
I would not say on the path to extinguish inquiry, even though one understands that all is revealed. But on the path because one has understood that all one can now know is the details and this is the point of expansion.
David: Describe the object that is currently sitting on my table to the left of the computer.
BO1: I will describe it - it is beside your computer and therefore exists in Davids consciousness.
But I will tell you what I see - illumination and a cup.
David: Sorry, it's not a cup. Fail.
Now this is something. Thomas thought I guessed by going through all the archives and he found a statement by you, a year ago, saying there was a cup.
Now you respond a couple of days later and I can tell by what you have written in this post you are shaken. But you decide to plunge ahead anyway after talking it over huh.
You are crossing a river you will never be able to return from David and it breaks my heart but so be it.
The answer I gave was also a koan and you did not see it either. In fact, because you believe in blindness as a universal, it will take you by surprise.
I think you need to let go of consciousness, just as a child eventually needs to let go of its blanket. You don't need it and it is holding you back.
I think you need a dose of humility.
BO1: Are you aware of this object? Since you must be, therefore consciousness is aware of this object. There is no object outside David, especially since you are containing it in your field of awareness.
David;If "David" means Nature itself (the ALL), then yes, an object never be outside of David. If instead you mean my awareness, which at root is the only awareness that I know about, then even the immediate environment just beyond my window is outside of David.
You are aware of an environment outside of your awareness?
BO1: You think consciousness, as I am describing it, is to 'be conscious'. I am talking about the source of thought not thought itself.
David;So we have gone from talking about the experience of consciousness to a theory about the all-pervasiveness of consciousness and now to something other than consciousness.
No - and you know better. Now you are playing word chess and acting like you do not understand.When someone pretends they do not understand something they clearly do, they are hiding something. What could David be hiding? I wonder, hmmm?
BO1: You cannot - under any circumstances - conceive of The All.
David: I don't have any problems doing it. I can conceive of the ALL just as easily as I can conceive of a cup. I can even have conversations about it with other people who are also conceiving of the ALL (even if they are in denial about it!).
Now this is a mystery. Your finite consciousness can conceive of the infinite? How does that work? Do the string of numbers ever stop? Does the edge appear? Can you imagine every particles position and velocity in the universe?
Not even God can conceive of the infinite. If you were to ask God "when did you begin"? He would reply " I cannot remember."
Whenever someone pretends to be able to do something they clearly cannot do, they are hiding something. I wonder what it could be - hmmmm.
BO1: It cannot be, nor will it ever be, a concept.
David:So stop conceiving of it.
This is what I mean - you are clearly shaken David.
See above and below.
Bo1: A concept is a model, at its very best. The totality cannot be conceptualized, neither can consciousness. Not now - not ever.
It can only be experienced. It, the all, defies all definitions; and by the way, so does your consciousness.
David: I don't need to conceive of a cup in a thoroughly accurate or detailed manner in order to drink out of it. I just need enough conception of it to enable me to find where it is.
You have used the example of a cup twice in this post to compare it to the Totality. Why, I wonder, would you choose a cup to compare the Totality to?
If a cup is the Totality, then it can be conceived, is that what you are saying?
If you can find out where the Totality is, could you point it out for us all?
Bo1: The moment you think you have conceptualized it - it just expanded beyond the horizon.
David:Impossible. We don't believe in horizons, do we?
Yes, and so does the Totality. It is the point of expansion. And a point, has no limit - meaning infinite.