Ioluas wrote:Another form of dualism is to think that the creation is not the creator.
Of course!
And what nature is that?
Why the nature of Being of course; cognizant awareness (the existential aspect) and knowledge (the essential aspect).
Perhaps these concepts are difficult because there is no language for them. You say that things exist but are not real, whereas that is actually a contradiction of terms. If we say something is an illusion, it either does not exist at all, or it is an existent thing which gives us the impression that it is something else, such as a mirage of water on the road.
The Law of Contradiction will not permit us to say that there is anything that does not exist, and so all things must partake of some manner or mode of existence. Then, given that there are only two possible modes of existence (absolute and relative), all existents must belong to one mode or the other. Now, you want to know why I insist on calling things illusory, and I will try to explain.
When we subject a given thing to analysis, we find that it breaks down into two or more components, such as is the case with our bicycle, and all that we are left with is a name. The same can be said if we subject the bicycle wheel to analysis, and of the components of the wheel as well. Even the metal that is used in the components may be broken down into more fundamental elements, atoms into sub-atomic particles, photons, quarks, etc. Consequently, in the final analysis, all that remains of the original thing is a sequence of names; for there is nothing substantive to be found anywhere within a thing. For this reason, I say that the thing does not really exist, but partakes of only the appearance of existence, and as an appearance, it is inferior to that existent within which its appearance is made manifest – cognizant awareness.
How can anything be separate from the Absolute? All things must arise out of the Absolute, and even if we were to call them just imagination, all the more that they are not separate from the absolute.
Indeed!
And yet I find myself wondering why I am arguing with you, considering the many, many fine points you have made over the course of this discussion, and how I can see that were things any other way, none of this wonderful experience would be possible, nor would freedom be possible.
Can I see the difference between my consciousness, indivisible and unchanging, and the universe of manifested, evolving things? Sure. What is it I object to then?
Perhaps I am unwilling to commit myself to that which my mind cannot apprehend. I consider this the one wisdom of woman, by the way.
This is the greatest wisdom of all! However, if you wish to apprehend the essence of your own mind, you cannot do so by looking at any sort of thing (object of mind), you must turn your attention on that which is not a thing, that of which there is no-thing that may be predicated.
The one thing that I seek insight into, is how matter is constructed. This is the key. Or at least I think it is. If we are not to be dualists, then all things must fold into one. This unity is a great mystery, because of the utter fundamental need for duality. And, I think that a key to this underlying unity is the way that one aspect of the interdependent complementarity is superior to the other.
Let us return to the matter of how a language is constructed, for language is the very embodiment of reality; and for the sake of ease, let us consider the written form only.
First, there must be two things that the sense organ can differentiate between, and so the two must have dissimilar essential characteristics, for example, black ink and white paper. Next, the ink, being the constitutive cause (essence) of the written language, must be fluid-like (water element) so that it can be redistributed into a finite number of fundamental elements (letters), from which more complex linguistic elements can be constructed. The letters are identifiable because each has its own unique “form” (mode of distribution within the ink), and although it is the ink that renders the letter perceptible to the mind, it is the form that the mind recognizes, and then associates with a particular element of human speech. For this reason, it is said that the letter is not possessed of its own identity, but an identity is posited upon it by the perceiving mind.
The letters then become the building material (substance) of words, each with its own distinctive “form” (mode of distribution within the letters), and which the mind associates with a particular mental construct or concept. For this reason, it is said that words are not possessed of any inherent meaning, but that a meaning is posited to the word by the perceiving mind.
I will not continue through the sentences, paragraphs, etc., for I think you will have gotten the point by now. All thing evolve in just this way, and that includes material things, but in the final analysis, there is only words.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
What do I mean by soul? Very likely, it too will one day disappear, but only at the cessation of the entire universe. The soul is the individual, without which, what would be the point? Isn't this creation a dance of the individual within the unity? Isn't the individual the source of meaningful experience? Not to mention the vehicle for mutual love and gratitude. The soul is the traveler, the wanderer, and it is an evolving thing. It is the close proximity of the experiencer and the awareness. Every soul also has the universal spirit (awareness), ever pure, and this is why every soul is safe and all will be enlightened, coming to the truth. Awareness without the individual soul is like the absolute without knowledge.
If we did not have a soul, there would be no reincarnation, and we would not be beings who could desire to incarnate again. The soul is the individual.
Being is because it necessarily is, suffering and pain arise as a result of ignorance. If there were an individual soul, and this soul partook of an absolute existence, then such an entity would be incapable of change, and what then would be the point of becoming? Being alone truly exists, but given its cognitive nature, it is never alone. You see, Being is neither one thing nor many, neither both nor neither. All such designations as these belong to the realm of the relative, and have no authority over the absolute.
But it is truly a mystery. A great favorire poem of mine by Rumi says,
What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.
If we say that the soul is that which can change and the awareness is that which can not, and even if the soul is dependent upon awareness, nonetheless, it seems disparaging to call it an illuion.
I think that when most people refer to their “soul” it is really their “self” that they are speaking of, and the wisdom traditions do not deny the existence of a real self, they merely deny that the real existence of a separate or independent self. What’s more, I do not mean to disparage things by calling them illusory, I mean only to differentiate between their modes of being, and that of the one true existent.
Certainly compassion is integral to Buddhism, but the human condition is such here on this planet that despite what a religion teaches, the masses seem impervious. Christianity is supposed to teach universal and impartial love for all. Sadly for me, the most horrifying examples of routine, deliberate cruelty to animals have come from the Asian countries, despite that Christianity is rather disparaging of animals and states they have no souls, whereas much of Buddhims considers them as fitting objects of compassion and perhaps that their souls are no different than ours.
I cannot deny that what you say is true, but we cannot let what others do concern us unduly; for it is what we do that is of the utmost importance. As Epictitus always taught, know what is the sphere of one’s own influence, and confine one’s action there.