Dependent Origination

[Dennis Mahar]

You're trying to locate the source-of-form in the result of form BoI.
Form is empty.
that's it.
Quinn is a source-of-form guy.


can't you tell?

[Russell Parr]

This was the point of the entire answer to David. Remember my analogy of the CD and the singularity? Since we do think most believe they can 'only be' their thought. This is to fail to answer the question - who is thinking?

The thinker is thinking. The thinker is made of parts.. take all those parts away, and *poof* No more thinker.

How many objects are you aware of right now? If you stand outside, how many things appear in your field of awareness? We only think of one thing at a time and this leads most on this board to believe they are only one thought at a time. I just demonstrated that your field of awareness is only conscious of the "A" in your example. Thought however. breaks things into bits of ABC.

I don't think anyone here thinks that "they are only one thought at a time." But yes, thought breaks matters down into useful bits and pieces, but perceiving the whole of reality can be done only in abstract, not in any literal sense, due to the inherent limitations of consciousness.

Since David believes he cannot be aware of my monitor, it exists on the 'outside' of his consciousness. This is to not realize the very fact it appears as a thought, means it just appeared in the field of awareness.

An imaginative image of your monitor appears to his consciousness, which is quite distinct from the actual monitor.

The difference is the attachment to 'things' as material objects. I already explained that things are solid when they appear as constructs by our brain intentionally limiting the infinite energy of 'all things'. It is like a fish bumping his nose on a block of ice. He perceives the water to be a solid because the water has been slowed down or cooled. E=MC2 proves that all mass or material things are constructs of cooled or slowed down energy.

"Things" are not limited to material objects. I'm sure everyone would agree with this. Things are just parts of the all, and include imaginations, perceived material objects, consciousness, really anything that is not the All. This is simple logic.

No - your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses. You would be limited by thought, which is a subset of the mind.

Sure, if I lost the five senses, I would still be conscious to the degree that my brain is operational. But take away all parts of consciousness and you're left with...

No - that is how thought works. Consciousness never exhausts itself in experience, thought or momentum.

Thoughts and consciousness are one and the same in the end. You can't have one without the other. That is like saying if a there was a car going down the road, and parts of the car are taken away one by one, until there's nothing left, the "car's essence" is still running down the road. In other words, you ain't sayin' squat.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses

That would be easy to test, no need to theorize! Try it for a few hours or more and come back to tell about what you experienced. At best a taste of emptiness but more likely a whole lot of confusion. This "whole consciousness" you keep going on about is nothing but the sensation of self. It's everywhere, your own little god! But even gods die...

[Beingof1]

Dennis Mahar:

You're trying to locate the source-of-form in the result of form BoI.
Form is empty.

I can tell from this one statement, you are not paying attention at all to what is being said. You are reinterpreting what is being said and you think that is what I said. It is what you are thinking I said and I have never said that - not even close - can`t you tell?.

Quinn is a source-of-form guy
can't you tell?

Yes I can tell who is saying what but apparently I am in a minority.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

B1: This was the point of the entire answer to David. Remember my analogy of the CD and the singularity? Since we do think most believe they can 'only be' their thought. This is to fail to answer the question - who is thinking?


Russell: The thinker is thinking. The thinker is made of parts.. take all those parts away, and *poof* No more thinker.

Is consciousness a whole?
How many conscious perceptions do you have?
Have you ever had more than one awareness?

How many objects are you aware of right now? If you stand outside, how many things appear in your field of awareness? We only think of one thing at a time and this leads most on this board to believe they are only one thought at a time. I just demonstrated that your field of awareness is only conscious of the "A" in your example. Thought however. breaks things into bits of ABC.


I don't think anyone here thinks that "they are only one thought at a time." But yes, thought breaks matters down into useful bits and pieces, but perceiving the whole of reality can be done only in abstract, not in any literal sense, due to the inherent limitations of consciousness.

They would never say that but that is what is being argued " I am one thought at a time" - if you pay attention.

I keep asking for the limitations of consciousness and no one, not you, not David not Diebert no one - ever, tells us what those limitations are. Its just repeated, like a mantra; "I am limited, I am finite, I will end and be no more, I had a beginning and on and on with no relevance to actual experience.

Of course you can win the argument that you are limited because if you insist on your limitations, you will win the argument. Beingofone claps his hands.

Since David believes he cannot be aware of my monitor, it exists on the 'outside' of his consciousness. This is to not realize the very fact it appears as a thought, means it just appeared in the field of awareness.


An imaginative image of your monitor appears to his consciousness, which is quite distinct from the actual monitor.

Yes it is, I do not deny reality. What you are not seeing, like most of this board is that is the exact argument that is being made for the all/totality. His argument of not seeing the monitor is supposed to be proof that consciousness is limited and yet - *POOF* - like magic - he can see to the ends of infinity. Its ubsurd to claim you are limited and yet can determine the span of ultimate reality.

Snap out of it. It is an epic contradiction.

If you cover your eyes, does that mean you are no longer aware of the room you are in? The imprint is left on your memory and so awareness persists. Your awareness is on a different level but that is true of all experience. That does not mean your awareness of the room went *POOF*.

There are many levels of awareness but until you can get beyond the blind spot, you will never see that.

The difference is the attachment to 'things' as material objects. I already explained that things are solid when they appear as constructs by our brain intentionally limiting the infinite energy of 'all things'. It is like a fish bumping his nose on a block of ice. He perceives the water to be a solid because the water has been slowed down or cooled. E=MC2 proves that all mass or material things are constructs of cooled or slowed down energy.


"Things" are not limited to material objects. I'm sure everyone would agree with this. Things are just parts of the all, and include imaginations, perceived material objects, consciousness, really anything that is not the All. This is simple logic.

You just made my point.

No - that is how thought works. Consciousness never exhausts itself in experience, thought or momentum.


Thoughts and consciousness are one and the same in the end. You can't have one without the other.

Really? How many heartbeats are you having per minute? How many breaths per minute? What is your body temperature?

The absolute density of this delusion that thought = consciousness is almost as deep as the infinite.

That is like saying if a there was a car going down the road, and parts of the car are taken away one by one, until there's nothing left, the "car's essence" is still running down the road. In other words, you ain't sayin' squat.

Is there a space between each word in this sentence? If there is, there is a source of thought and it is squat - as in no thing.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses



That would be easy to test, no need to theorize! Try it for a few hours or more and come back to tell about what you experienced. At best a taste of emptiness but more likely a whole lot of confusion. This "whole consciousness" you keep going on about is nothing but the sensation of self. It's everywhere, your own little god! But even gods die...

All you are doing is closing your eyes and then claim; you see, I cannot see and therefore the room I am sitting in does not exist.

If consciousness is physical, it must be measurable. What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

[Pam Seeback]

And should it not be clear to you how much they are speaking untruth suggesting the end of existence at bodily dissolution. Why not address that core delusion shared seemingly by Jup, David, Dennis, Cahoot and Leyla.

Since what the Buddha taught is viewed by you to be truth (as it is by me) what is your understanding of his acknowledgment of the nature of The Tathagata, the term he used to describe himself: 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." (from The Khema Sutta).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses

That would be easy to test, no need to theorize! Try it for a few hours or more and come back to tell about what you experienced. At best a taste of emptiness but more likely a whole lot of confusion. This "whole consciousness" you keep going on about is nothing but the sensation of self. It's everywhere, your own little god! But even gods die...

All you are doing is closing your eyes and then claim; you see, I cannot see and therefore the room I am sitting in does not exist.

If consciousness is physical, it must be measurable. What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

You claimed consciousness would happily run on without any senses, without actual signals to process, brother. All I do is questioning that claim. And you are suggesting consciousness is hanging somewhere in the universe in some disembodied, uncaused state? Some inherent being? Or that's what it sounds like. Why is it so important for you to have something absolutely existing in the first place? It sounds like a religious version of ego worship to me.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

Since what the Buddha taught is viewed by you to be truth (as it is by me) what is your understanding of his acknowledgment of the nature of The Tathagata, the term he used to describe himself: 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." (from The Khema Sutta).

It means the Buddha is a figment of your imagination.
existence-theorising.
grasping.
sucker for a story.

[Leyla Shen]

My existence began 30 years ago, but I can't remember it, and I know death is the end of my existence- having never experienced it, but I know this end is coming and cannot escape it- the impending unfathomable non-existence.

L: Thirty? Nah, I reckon maybe a year—tops.

L: I have a delicate but completely indulgent palate, which comes with an appreciation for the finest aged whiskey. You’ve a way to go yet before you can make a claim to 30 years of full-bodied life, rather than an episode of confused and distorted drunkenness from drinking cheap wine.

L: Non-existence is not unfathomable to those who have fathomed existence. How could it be? Escaping it is, however, even harder than living for 30 whole years!

L: You’d have to become immortal to survive body death, like a Nietzsche; and even then, like all gods, even you would still be subject to decay.

Then:

Leyla you say non-existence is unfathomable (1), so why is it you assert that it follows death? You, by your own word, don't even know what it is that you're asserting will happen (2).

(1) No, as you can see from above, I (you know, me) did not say that.

(2) Except that, unlike you (despite it being clearly stated), I do know what it is I asserted will happen, and furthermore, I expressed an example of it for all and sundry to see. The problem is, something is missing in it for you; it somehow leaves you wanting—looking for something else; for what, I wonder...?

[Cahoot]

... your consciousness would not be limited if you lost all five senses. You still experience a whole consciousness no matter the five senses

That would be easy to test, no need to theorize! Try it for a few hours or more and come back to tell about what you experienced. At best a taste of emptiness but more likely a whole lot of confusion. This "whole consciousness" you keep going on about is nothing but the sensation of self. It's everywhere, your own little god! But even gods die...

Thoughts and consciousness are one and the same in the end. You can't have one without the other. That is like saying if a there was a car going down the road, and parts of the car are taken away one by one, until there's nothing left, the "car's essence" is still running down the road. In other words, you ain't sayin' squat.

Thoughts and consciousness are distinct in that consciousness is separable from thought, but thought is not separable from consciousness.

Consciousness without thought expands awareness in ways that do not require thought or gross sensory input. After a spontaneous first occurrence it happens more often, and during anytime throughout the day night cycle during what was the often unawakened spaces of no-thought between thought. Consciousness is more subtle than thought and inclusive of thought, and thought easily crowds out consciousness for attention, the way an illuminated road sign crowds out the shades of darkness beyond, even in memory.

But in the absence of thoughts, with attention of awareness upon subtle consciousness, in varying situations, reality is apparent prior to conceptualization. For instance, during the formal yoga meditation of pratyahara – dharana - dhyana – samadhi, with attention disconnected from the senses and disconnected from functioning in the world of form, and afterwards when formed as jnana, reality is apparent prior to conceptualization.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,

Since what the Buddha taught is viewed by you to be truth (as it is by me) what is your understanding of his acknowledgment of the nature of The Tathagata, the term he used to describe himself: 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." (from The Khema Sutta).

It means the Buddha is a figment of your imagination.
existence-theorising.l
grasping.
sucker for a story.

Dependent origination is the mess/mass of mental fabrications, including those meant to awaken one to this truth. Every one of the commentaries on Genius (including mine) are evidence of this mess of "wisdom concept confusion." There is no philosopher-truth/wisdom seeker alive or dead who has ever produced an absolute definition of any (mental) thing - this is, to me, is the truth being revealed by the Buddha in his words above. It does indeed come down to blah, blah, blah, everyone is talking shit.

What must be done to end the suffering that is the coagulated mess of dependent originated formations is to cease all mental fabrications, giving the resultant experience no name or form. Easy to see and say, VERY hard to put into practice. "Many are called, few are chosen." Can I choose the way here and now is my question to answer.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

A = A
19 ≠ 30

You on drugs cahoot? Never said I was 30.

Since what the Buddha taught is viewed by you to be truth (as it is by me) what is your understanding of his acknowledgment of the nature of The Tathagata, the term he used to describe himself: 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." (from The Khema Sutta).

It's relevant to say you could replace every word "after" with "before" and the quote still remains as valid.

Besides that, existence and non-existence are ultimately meaningless, some believing either will occur after death- believe in nothing and you are never confused. Or, in other words, there's no death, birth, waking, dreaming, dimensions, liberation, real/unreal, existence/non-existence, self /other, or external/internal. These discriminations are founded on attachment to names and signs, which are fine to use conventionally but don't apply to the nature of this.



Or as I've just read you put it:

It does indeed come down to blah, blah, blah, everyone is talking shit.

Example:

Consciousness without thought expands awareness in ways that do not require thought or gross sensory input. After a spontaneous first occurrence it happens more often, and during anytime throughout the day night cycle during what was the often unawakened spaces of no-thought between thought.

The ignorant and deluded practice no-thought.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

Can I choose the way here and now is my question to answer.

Private soliloquoy.

In order to?
For the sake of?

[Leyla Shen]

Or, in other words, there's no [death, birth, waking, dreaming, dimensions, liberation, real/unreal, existence/non-existence, self /other, or external/internal]*.

[*^aka, phenomena]

These discriminations are founded on attachment to names and signs, which are fine to use conventionally but don't apply to the nature of this.

[^aka, he who shall remain eternally nameless]

The ignorant eliminate phenomena but not thinking, while the wise eliminate thinking but not phenomena.

If you conceive of a buddha, you will be obstructed by a buddha!

[^x2 aka, Huang Po]

[David Quinn]

You tell me, what does "things can only exist as appearances to the mind" mean? What are the implications?

I wrote about this at length in Chapter 6 of Wisdom of the Infinite.

Yes I know, I have read your book - You believe that nothing appears 'out there' and that it instead appears 'in there' meaning the brain.

I go much further than that. For example, in Chapter 6:

• Another Look at the Totality
  
  It should be clear from the analysis I have presented that the concept of the Totality does not really refer to the three-dimensional physical universe imagined by most people to objectively exist. Rather, it refers to the totality of all appearances experienced by consciousness. Included in this larger totality is indeed the three-dimensional physical universe, but it is only one of countless other appearances. There is not a single appearance which can lay claim to being ultimate or objective reality. Whether it be an appearance of the physical universe itself, or an appearance of an inner mystical realm, each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist. Each appearance is but a charade of the moment and none of them ever reflect the true nature of Reality.
  
  The Totality, then, is entirely formless. Or if you like, its form embraces the infinity of appearances. Or even more accurately, its form is whatever happens to be perceived in any given moment. In the moment that I conclude that the Totality is formless, or the infinity of appearances, it too is nothing more than a momentary perception on my part. To project anything more onto this perception, or to cling to it as though it were the final truth, would be to fall into delusion. In the end, the Totality is simply what it is in any given moment - end of story.
  
  We can now go a step further and affirm that objective reality does indeed exist - in the moment of our perception of it. If, in any given moment, the observable universe appears to be objectively real, then that is exactly what it is. And if in the next moment, it no longer appears to be objectively real, then that too is exactly what it is. The observable universe is entirely a product of the moment and lacks any kind of form or existence outside of this.
  
  The same is true of what is "out there" beyond the mind, and indeed of the mind itself. Both the mind and what lies beyond the mind are only real to the degree that they exist as an appearance. Understanding this point is important because it enables one to transcend to an even higher perspective, taking one beyond consciousness, as it were, to the very threshold of enlightenment itself. One is now but a finger snap away from opening the wisdom eye and seeing directly into the secret of creation.

1- How can the mind perceiving this "larger set" known as the ALL be a subset of its own perception?
2- Could you tell us where the perceptual bubble ends?
3- Who is perceiving another entity as a set intersection?
4- How can a perception discover truth?

You have to learn to go beyond this whole perceiver/perception duality. Such a duality might be useful for practical purposes, but it breaks down when you look into the matter more deeply.

What we call the "perceiver" is really just an abstraction created by thought. It is a momentary add-on that the mind creates whenever it starts labeling its experiences as “perceptions" and attempts to analyze them in a metaphysical manner.

People easily fool themselves by the term “consciousness", and by the phrase “everyone is conscious”. It creates the illusion that consciousness is identically the same in everyone, that it is a kind of detached, unchanging, intangible field which is distinct from perceptions, that everyone possesses this unchanging, intangible field in equal measure. In reality, consciousness is continually changing as each experience arises. It differs moment-by-moment within the same individual, and it differs from individual to individual.

It is a bit like what happens when we switch on a light. It is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that “light" is an unchanging phenomenon which is the same wherever it is present, but in reality no two light bulbs are ever the same, no two photons are ever the same, and no two streams of photons (flowing from the lightbulb into the room) are ever the same. Every instance of light flowing into a room is unique to that moment. In the same way, every instance of consciousness is different and unique unto itself.

Just as there is no such thing as an detached, unchanging David Quinn who goes through life as a static object, likewise there is no such thing as a detached, unchanging consciousness.

And yet the fact remains, which you didn't deal with, the universe in which you inhabit exists outside my field of awareness, and always will.

I did explain. I will again and try not to let your mind be repulsive.

No one has ever seen light. All that one can see is a reflection or a bending of light. It is a common belief that when looking at the sun, the light from it is seen. Light can only be known by and through its effects and reflection.

If a person stares to long at an intense bright light the 'burn' sensation begins to become painful. This is the result of the vibration of higher velocity.

E=Mc2 - reverse the equation and we see that mass or matter is simply energy slowed down to a slower velocity. It is still all just energy - it is a vast ocean of energy beyond comprehension. If it were not slowed down, we could not experience reality as it is known.

If you freeze water into ice cubes they appear as separate entities. This is a good analogy as the ice is at a slower state of velocity than in liquid form. When the heat/light speeds up - the water returns to one substance as the separation no longer exists and is seen as the illusion that it was. It is all one water not several water cubes. At its highest state of velocity water is a gas ;)

Every conditioned thing in Nature reflects the vibrations of every other thing, to fulfill its desire to synchronize its vibrations with every other thing. It seeks union with purpose.

Your consciousness is energy and cannot be separated from the Ultimate Reality. The only way it can be separated is by the perception that one chunk of light/energy is separate from the whole - that is temporary space time thought in motion and it will pass into gas.

If you were to see me as a physical object you would not be animating your body with energy - its that simple. It does not mean you are confined to your body, it means your consciousness has created a chunk of material by reducing the original state of high energy spin.

And yet the fact remains that my universe will always be beyond your consciousness, and your universe will always be beyond mine. No amount of flowery discourse in pseudo-physics will ever change that fact.

Your consciousness is limited. Mine too. Why deny the obvious?

Since David believes he cannot be aware of my monitor, it exists on the 'outside' of his consciousness. This is to not realize the very fact it appears as a thought, means it just appeared in the field of awareness.

An imaginative image of your monitor appears to his consciousness, which is quite distinct from the actual monitor.

Yes it is, I do not deny reality. What you are not seeing, like most of this board is that is the exact argument that is being made for the all/totality. His argument of not seeing the monitor is supposed to be proof that consciousness is limited and yet - *POOF* - like magic - he can see to the ends of infinity. Its ubsurd to claim you are limited and yet can determine the span of ultimate reality.

Enlightenment involves seeing into the true nature of everything, which is the same everywhere. This is a fantastic spiritual attainment and can be considered a form of omniscience, but it doesn’t involve becoming aware of every single detail of everything that exists.

In other words, while I already understand the fundamental nature of your monitor, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to come over to your house and observe your monitor directly. Not that it matters to my enlightenment either way.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist.

This here is enlightenment. Perfect, exact, unrecognised by the mind caught up with notions of inherent existence.

Not surprisingly, one could say the same for any imagination/fantasy. Hence why the metaphor is well-used - it is all like a fantasy in which you experience being hunted, that you are an animal, that you are attending an event, that you are dying, etc, only to discover nothing of that really exists(save for the appearance) or is self-effecting.

Leyla, how do you interpret the above quote?

[Leyla Shen]

Exactly in its broader context.

Viz; as a refutation of the notion that the objective and subjective are mutually exclusive/exist independently of each other.

And you?

[Kunga]

David Quinn wrote:each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist.

This here is enlightenment. Perfect, exact, unrecognised by the mind caught up with notions of inherent existence.

No.

You can't perceive all the millions of bacteria or parasites living off your body....they don't cease to exist just because of your lack of perception.

Trees don't stop existing in the Rainforest, just because you can't see them now.
Suffering all over the world doesn't cease...just because you have no perception of these individuals suffering....

Dependent Origination wouldn't exist if there was nothing to be perceived .
Everything is dependent on perceptions, but not everything is perceived .
So just because you have no perception of your heart beating and the blood flowing through your veins, your life will not cease .
Causes and conditions are Dependent Origination....but you can't perceive all the causes and conditions of each and every action taking place for millions of years.

[jupiviv]

each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist.

This here is enlightenment. Perfect, exact, unrecognised by the mind caught up with notions of inherent existence.

Actually what David said can be reversed and it would mean the same thing - each act of perception exists only when there is an appearance that it perceives. As soon as the appearance is destroyed, so is the perception of it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Kunga, in terms of the "suffering all over the world", others are perceiving that or there wouldn't be suffering.

As for the rest, (trees, parasites), these words are references to appearances, (otherwise you wouldn't be referring to them) and they all exist, as appearances, but not externally.

Viz; as a refutation of the notion that the objective and subjective are mutually exclusive/exist independently of each other.

And you?

:) Huang Po couldn't have said it better himself: "A perception (experience),that subject and object are one, will lead to a deeply mysterious wordless understanding."

[Kunga]

they all exist, as appearances, but not externally.

How can an appearance exist ...if not external ? You mean they exist internally ?
If "they all exist", what does it matter if they are external or internal ?
To exist means to exist !

[SeekerOfWisdom]

External/internal is the problem. In what? Outside what?

"they don't cease to exist just because of your lack of perception"

Appearances cease to exist whenever they aren't appearing, hence the name.

It seems you are implying that the various things we experience exist independently- that they would continue to exist without any appearance/experience.

[Kunga]

It seems you are implying that the various things we experience exist independently- that they would continue to exist without any appearance/experience.

No, I said everything depends on causes/conditions [Dependent Origination].
Just because there is no perception of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because there is no one in the forest perceiving the trees, doesn't mean the trees aren't existing and growing there.
Just because you can't see a black hole, or the other side of the moon, or the air you breathe, doesn't mean they don't exist.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Just because there is no one in the forest perceiving the trees, doesn't mean the trees aren't existing and growing there.

You keep saying "there", they are "out there" growing.

No doubt you believe there to be an infinitely wide universe "out there", not recognizing the infinite is a reference to that which you experience and know each day -the passing of appearances arising and fading from the void, beside which nothing exists.

"Tree" =reference to an impermanent wavering appearance, similar to a dream or imagination, arising momentarily.

Every experiment, every natural scenic route, every friend, all wavering appearances arising in 'fields of awareness', as some like to call it.