The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

In that case, it might be better to say that they achieve the true human state.

Yes, on might say that as well. In truth, we human beings, like all things, are mere approximations of the universal forms from which we derive our identities, and so are inexorably evolving toward that ideal form. Perhaps we should call it the ‘perfected’ human state.

Some great masters seem to possess omniscient abilities, others don't. I have wondered if or what the relation is between realization, and the ability to tap into the wisdom or knowledge of the universe.

Realization is the process whereby you come to see the truth, not by having heard it somewhere or read about it in a book, but by directly experiencing it. It is like when as children we are told that a stove is hot, and still we put our hand on it, for until we put our hand on the stove ‘hot’ is nothing more that a theory. Just as all that we have said here is only a theory until it is personally experienced. Realizing the true nature of reality is only the first step in our awakening, but realization leads to a state of mental tranquility (equanimity) which then opens the door to insight and vision, insight being the essence of wisdom, and vision, its form or appearance.

Consider the following formulation from the Buddhist tradition describing wisdom: form (vision), essence (insight), embodiment (discernment), potency (true knowledge), function (illumination), primary cause (tranquility), secondary causes (realizations), effect (enlightenment), recompense (liberation).

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Earlier you had said:

In order to accomplish this transformation, the being must completely transcend the five elements that comprise the relative (apparent) personality, and in so doing, permit the intention of the one true Being to take full control of the sentient body.

What are the five elements of the personality?
I have at times felt an inkling about that sort of surrender, but I find it a bit frightening.

Realization is the process whereby you come to see the truth, not by having heard it somewhere or read about it in a book, but by directly experiencing it.

Yes.
However, I was wondering what you had in mind about omniscience. Certain abilities, that have been called paranormal, come to mind. And as I said, some great masters seem to have them, and some don't. I consider that they should be available to all of us. Yet they are sporadic at best. And not necessarily equated with great spiritual advancement, or perhaps they are. What do you think?

Consider the following formulation from the Buddhist tradition describing wisdom: form (vision), essence (insight), embodiment (discernment), potency (true knowledge), function (illumination), primary cause (tranquility), secondary causes (realizations), effect (enlightenment), recompense (liberation).

That's nine.

[Iolaus]

Mikiel,

I had an answer to you yesterday, but mistakenly turned off my computer and lost it.

which, btw makes what is manifest now real tho when "it" disappears, it 'ain't real no more.

Well that is a different definition of real. The whole point of the philosophic definition is to define as real that which cannot disappear. However, see this previous exchange:

Me: In that case the cursor is quite similar in function to those light bulb displays. And while the movement is an illusion, it is not an illusion that there is a series of lightings and darkenings.

Jehu: Yes, this is so. From a relative perspective it is the object which is moving, however, from an absolute perspective it is only the mind that moves. This is why it is said that there are ‘two truths’.

Do you too believe that the manifest world/cosmos is not real?

I think its as real as it gets...I've had the thought that it is both real and unreal at the same time, which I think was a kind of intuition about the two truths, not clearly thought out (henids, you know).

"Actual" in my vocabulary is the contrast with "potential,"

Yes, I believe we have discussed that very thing. There is the actual and the potential. Jehu seems to consider the potential as real, but not the actual:

The manifestation of a thing necessarily entails two interdependent and complementary aspects, a form and an essence. If this ‘manifest form’ were real, then it would be absolute, independent and immutable, and so would be incapable of alteration or cessation. Clearly this is not the case, for as a thing ages its form changes, and especially as the thing decays. Nevertheless, there is transcendent form which is real, and does not change, but this form does not partake of a differentiated existence, but rather abides intrinsically within the PIC – as a potential. This ‘transcendent form’ (universal) is the mould for all manifestations of a given class or sort, and is the factor which governs which elements will amalgamate, and which will not.

*************************

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

Me: It seems to me that the importance of defining real as the immutable, and for emphasizing the point of the contingency (emptiness) of all relative things, is that our default mode is to not see that. We see only half of a whole reality, thus we are given to distortion and delusion.

Our default mode does not question the world or our existence, accepts it as a given, as do animals and children, and many adults as well. If we examine causation we come up with a conundrum: that there cannot be an infinite regress, nor can there be a cause in "time" yet there must be something capable of existence without cause.
If we want to understand reality on a deeper level, we make these distinctions such as defining the difference between that which is the source and that which is contingent.

All my life I have had the gut feeling that there is God, but with logic I now know that there MUST be God, there is simply no other possibility.

[mikiel]

Iolaus,
OK, to focus on one point at a time: What is real?

m: "Do you too believe that the manifest world/cosmos is not real?"

I: "I think its as real as it gets...I've had the thought that it is both real and unreal at the same time, which I think was a kind of intuition about the two truths, not clearly thought out..."

In my lexicon, consciousness is absolute reality and all that is manifest is relative reality. It makes no sense to deny the reality of the world/cosmos just because it (parts and whole) is constantly changing form. Obviously our bodies are real while they last and then they die and disintegrate... no longer real. This is my meaning of relatively real.
Why deny this reality in the Now just because forms are not eternally unchanging, as is consciousness itself in its aspect as omnipresent and transcending content.

For further elaboration see my contribution to the "Dan's Birth" thread.
Meanwhile those two elephants are still standing in the living room being ignored... Time vs Now and Omniscience/omnipotence.

[Jehu]

What are the five elements of the personality?
I have at times felt an inkling about that sort of surrender, but I find it a bit frightening.

The five element that constitute the manifestation body of the personality are: form (corporeal body), essence (sensations), embodiment (perceptions), potency (reaction), and function (consciousness).

Just as the form or appearance of the dream-persona is the dream-body, so is the ‘corporeal body’ the form or appearance of the personality; however, it must be remembered that it is not the corporeal body itself that we are describing here, for having transcended the personality, the awakened ones still continue their embodied existence in the objective world. Rather, it is that which we imagine to be our ‘self-abiding self’ that is under examination here – the mental or psychological ‘I’.

The essence of the personality, like that of the dream-persona, consist of ‘sensations’, and especially those sensations as are normally classified as ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’; for it is our ‘personal preferences’ that give substance to the idea of a personality. This fact is readily evident if you observe young people who are newly acquainted, for it is through their preferences, for example, their favourite food, music, movie, video game, etc., that they reveal ‘who’ they are.

The embodiment of the personality is in our ‘perception’: in our own ‘personal’ way of perceiving the world, and our place in it. This particular ‘perception’ differs somewhat from pure sensual perception, which is as yet untarnished by that interpretive mental process we call the imagination. Because much of the subjective knowledge upon which the sentient mind operates is inaccurate or incomplete, the imagination tends to distort our view of a given thing, leading to judgments such as: the thing is good, bad or neutral, valuable or worthless, etc.

The potency of the personality lies in ‘reaction’, which is the mind’s tendency to be attracted to anything which elicits a pleasant sensation, and repelled by anything which bring forth an unpleasant sensation. This moving of the mind either toward or away from a thing is the foundation of both desire and aversion. In addition, the mind may find a thing neither pleasant nor unpleasant, in which case, it will be indifferent.

The function of the personality is the act of ‘consciousness’: a differentiated form of awareness wherein there arises both a subject (I) and any object (other), and dependent upon how one perceives the object, there arise an intention toward the object. This intention translates into some form of activity, be it something that is said, done or merely thought; but in any case, there is an effect, and there follows a recompense.

The Buddha put it this way: “If with an impure [ignorant] mind you speak or act, then suffering follows you as the cartwheel follows the hoof of the draft animal. If with a pure [awakened] mind you speak or act, then happiness follows you as a shadow that never departs.”

Yes.
However, I was wondering what you had in mind about omniscience. Certain abilities, that have been called paranormal, come to mind. And as I said, some great masters seem to have them, and some don't. I consider that they should be available to all of us. Yet they are sporadic at best. And not necessarily equated with great spiritual advancement, or perhaps they are. What do you think?

The fully awakened ones do have command of what we would deem to be supernormal powers, but these are seldom spoken of, and rarely used. Nevertheless, the potential for such powers is implicit in the doctrine, for we are all of the same nature, and so our reuniting with that nature implies that we will possess the same inherent characteristics. On the matter of those who may exhibit such powers sporadically, I suppose that they may inadvertently be connecting with the Absolute, though the do not consciously know that they are doing so.

That's nine.

The tenth element is the same for all things: ‘fundamental unity’; and so it is generally omitted in Buddhist formulations.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

The essence of the personality, like that of the dream-persona, consist of ‘sensations’, and especially those sensations as are normally classified as ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’; for it is our ‘personal preferences’ that give substance to the idea of a personality. This fact is readily evident if you observe young people who are newly acquainted, for it is through their preferences, for example, their favourite food, music, movie, video game, etc., that they reveal ‘who’ they are.

What country do you live in? You used the English spelling of favorite.

The embodiment of the personality is in our ‘perception’: in our own ‘personal’ way of perceiving the world, and our place in it. This particular ‘perception’ differs somewhat from pure sensual perception, which is as yet untarnished by that interpretive mental process we call the imagination. Because much of the subjective knowledge upon which the sentient mind operates is inaccurate or incomplete, the imagination tends to distort our view of a given thing, leading to judgments such as: the thing is good, bad or neutral, valuable or worthless, etc.

These two seem inextricably intertwined. Or, if you want to use pure sensation, it would not include likes and dislikes, but those would be categorized under the perception.

In my own case, it would seem that what I think about is what I would tell a new acquaintance for them to know who I am. Generally, of course, I do not reveal that.

This moving of the mind either toward or away from a thing is the foundation of both desire and aversion.

So we are, essentially, glorified amoebas.

Nevertheless, the potential for such powers is implicit in the doctrine, for we are all of the same nature, and so our reuniting with that nature implies that we will possess the same inherent characteristics.

All of the same nature as what?

So what is it like to transcend the 5 elements of the personality; some of them seem inescapable.

[Jehu]

These two seem inextricably intertwined. Or, if you want to use pure sensation, it would not include likes and dislikes, but those would be categorized under the perception.

Yes, there is sensual perception, which reflects the objective world, and then there is what might be called ‘subjective perception’, for it reflects the personal or subjective world. The transcendence of subjective perception was what the ancients called ‘clear seeing’.

So we are, essentially, glorified amoebas.

The human mind and the mind of the amoeba are separated only by the degree of functional complexity which they embody. Just as the function of a complex thing (e.g., bicycle) is nothing more than the sum of all the functions of it constituent elements (e.g., wheels, frame, peddles, etc.), so is the mind of a living entity merely the sum of the minds of all its constituents (e.g., cells).

All of the same nature as what?

All thing’s, in their true nature, are of the same nature as the one true Being – cognizant: awareness (form) and knowledge (essence).

So what is it like to transcend the 5 elements of the personality; some of them seem inescapable.

It is like being liberated. It is like have carried a heavy burden until you simply cannot carry it another step – and then you let it go. It is just like that!

[Iolaus]

Where do we go from here?

[Jehu]

Where do we go from here?

That depends upon whether you wish to experience enlightenment first hand, or whether you only want to know it in theory. If you are prepared to experience it for yourself, then we must talk about the path which leads to tranquil mind; for tranquility is the key that opens the door to profound insight, and insight is the very essence of wisdom. However, I must warn you, do not undertake the path lightly, for it will take great courage to persevere; and there will come a point where you will be unable to return to the dream – no matter how dearly wish to do so. This can be an exceedingly difficult experience, for you will have no one to turn to, and will have to rely entirely upon that awareness and knowledge that is your true nature.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I had mentioned earlier that I find surrendering to the will of God both frightening and attractive. Is that the sort of courage you are referring to?

[Jehu]

Jehu,

I had mentioned earlier that I find surrendering to the will of God both frightening and attractive. Is that the sort of courage you are referring to?

There is a story of an ancient king who, having been warned that there was a coming rain that would render anyone who drank of it mad, wisely decided to put aside enough clean water so that he at least would not go mad, and so would be able to continue caring for his subjects. However, after everyone had drank the infected water and become mad, they all began to wonder about the king’s apparently strange behaviour, and thinking that it was the king who had gone mad, they began to plot against him. Now, when the king got wind of what was happening he became frightened, and decide that it would be better if he were to drink the infected water as well, for he believed it was better to be mad and alive, than sane and dead.

The reason that I have relayed this story is that although the awakened ones are the sanest of all beings, they do not necessarily appear that way to those who are still caught up in the dream, and like the king in the story, it is hard to gage exactly how they might react. To paraphrase a great wisdom teacher of the twentieth century, ‘Krisnamurti’, there are three ways that the unenlightened may react to an awakened one: (1) a few will be worshiped (e.g., Buddha), (2) a few will be destroyed (e.g., Jesus), but (3) the vast majority will be thought to be fools and simply ignored. Have you the courage for any one of these?

[Iolaus]

I wouldn't let them worship me.
I don't care if they think I'm crazy. And, my husband and kids would stick with me, anyway.
I'd rather they not kill me. But I worry about our fascist government anyway.

What about inner courage? That seems more of a hurdle.

[Jehu]

I wouldn't let them worship me.
I don't care if they think I'm crazy. And, my husband and kids would stick with me, anyway.
I'd rather they not kill me. But I worry about our fascist government anyway.

What about inner courage? That seems more of a hurdle.

Yes, this is courage of another kind, and is why those who travel the path are, in many wisdom traditions, called ‘warriors’. The path may be likened to weaving a sturdy rope whereby one can swing from one bank of a stream to the other. However, if we cling to tightly to the rope it will merely bring us back to the original shore. Rather, we must use the rope to cross the stream, but then we must have the courage to let go of the rope. Now, the rope of which I speak is woven out of rational arguments, and through reasoning one may bridge the stream, but once we have reached the limit of reasoning we must have the courage to let go of even that. This is the measure of true courage.

[Iolaus]

Yes, but it seems to me the problem is more one of being able to let go in the first place, then perhaps we could worry about courage to do so.

But it is true that I am not sure what it would be like, therefore how can I know if I want to do it? I fear loss of self, and frankly, fear that I won't care about the main thing I care about now, which is that I want to live on my land in WV, (and I am not living there now but will by spring).

[divine focus]

The reason that I have relayed this story is that although the awakened ones are the sanest of all beings, they do not necessarily appear that way to those who are still caught up in the dream, and like the king in the story, it is hard to gage exactly how they might react.

Not hard at all, really. The past is known intuitively, and your probable reaction then is similar to others' likely reactions now. Knowing yourself, you know people.

[Jehu]

Yes, but it seems to me the problem is more one of being able to let go in the first place, then perhaps we could worry about courage to do so.

Letting go is the function of a tranquil mind, and so it is a consequence of having followed the path, rather than something that is required in order to take up the path.

But it is true that I am not sure what it would be like, therefore how can I know if I want to do it? I fear loss of self, and frankly, fear that I won't care about the main thing I care about now, which is that I want to live on my land in WV, (and I am not living there now but will by spring).

There is nothing about that path that precludes us from living wherever we like, for it is not where we live that is important, but how we live. Neither need we fear the loss of self, for that which is lost is mere illusion, but that which is gained is real and enduring. It is said that whatever can be taken away from us was never truly ours to begin with.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Letting go is the function of a tranquil mind, and so it is a consequence of having followed the path, rather than something that is required in order to take up the path.

Now you will say I have to meditate.

There is nothing about that path that precludes us from living wherever we like, for it is not where we live that is important, but how we live. Neither need we fear the loss of self, for that which is lost is mere illusion, but that which is gained is real and enduring. It is said that whatever can be taken away from us was never truly ours to begin with.

I guess I worry that I won't care about anything, and also that I won't care if I live or die, although not fearing death or destruction would be a good thing.

[mansman]

Jehu, why you ignore question about your comment in thread "life(style) after death", please there are many curious of your beliefs, they just lack courage to say.

The question that you have posed is one that is not easily answered until one possesses a thorough understanding of the propagation of the relative entity. As I have already said, the relative entity is not a real entity at all, and so does not persist through either space or time. In truth, the relative entity is no sooner created when it is then destroyed, and there is no part of it that is transmitted forward to the next instance of the illusion. What does span the gap between each successive instance of a thing is that awareness which is embodied in the thing, and which gives the thing its form or identity. This form or identity is real, that is to say, it is absolute, independent and immutable, and as such, it is subject to neither birth nor death. Thus if one were to ask if Jehu will continue to exist after death, the answer is no, and if one were to ask will Jehu simply cease to exist after death, the answer is also no. Rather, it should be understood that there is an aspect of Jehu that is not real, and so will cease, not only at death, but each and every instant; and an aspect of Jehu that is real, and that is forever immutable.

Oh, that kind of death. Because i was not following discussion i did misunderstand.
Your just saying enlightened people have choice to tune out of the regular world and tune into nirvana, right?
Thats been said many times before, nothing new.
Better to write plane and simple the fancy words and expression will be confusing.

M

[mansman]

Jehu,

Letting go is the function of a tranquil mind, and so it is a consequence of having followed the path, rather than something that is required in order to take up the path.

Now you will say I have to meditate.

There is nothing about that path that precludes us from living wherever we like, for it is not where we live that is important, but how we live. Neither need we fear the loss of self, for that which is lost is mere illusion, but that which is gained is real and enduring. It is said that whatever can be taken away from us was never truly ours to begin with.

I guess I worry that I won't care about anything, and also that I won't care if I live or die, although not fearing death or destruction would be a good thing.

How can be nothing to care about, whatever came and push old cares away replace them, then you have new cares. If you follow him your family will think your crazy and reject you more and more. Thats the point. Probably you end up alone. Study all life philosophy, become simple person, how sounds to you? If sounds like sucks then why bother ask so many questions.
Oh, i forgot, to give friend Jehu place to speak his mind!

M

[Jehu]

Now you will say I have to meditate.

Meditation is a tried and proven method, however, there are many different ways to meditate, aside from simply sitting on a cushion. In fact, any sort of activity where one is not required to think will suffice, such as walking, chopping wood, doing the dishes, etc.; the important thing is that one remains alert.

I guess I worry that I won't care about anything, and also that I won't care if I live or die, although not fearing death or destruction would be a good thing.

On the contrary, the awakened ones care deeply about all things, and though they do not fear death, neither do they long for it.

[Iolaus]

I was thinking today that I have not mastered the various concepts you've brought forth regarding the 5 and the 10 different sorts of things. Also, I still do not see the absolute necessity of awareness being primary. It is odd, though, that QRS have made the argument that consciousness and objects must arise together, and then state that consciousness is an artifact of complex brains.

Not that their opinion matters all that much but they do seem to agree on that basic point.

So it sounds like you propose something like the Thich Nhat Hanh mindfulness stuff.

Alright then, what do you propose?

What country do you live in?

[Iolaus]

Will I be able to hold onto my job?

[Jehu]

I was thinking today that I have not mastered the various concepts you've brought forth regarding the 5 and the 10 different sorts of things. Also, I still do not see the absolute necessity of awareness being primary.

Have we not demonstrated, by means of the dream analogy, how the mind (form) is able to give rise to at least the appearance of matter, while in the two millennia since Aristotle proclaimed the primacy of matter, his followers have been unable to demonstrate how matter can possibly give rise to mind? Remember, nothing can arise without a cause, and so an effect must be fully accounted for within its causes. Therefore, given that matter is held to be devoid of awareness, how then can awareness arise out of matter, its properties or its activities?

Regarding the ten fundamental characteristics of all things, they are: form, essence, embodiment, potency, function, primary cause, secondary causes, effect, recompense, and fundamental unity. The first five constitute what is called the ‘Manifestation Body’ of a the thing, and are generally referred to as ‘The Five Elements’ in most wisdom traditions. The five manifestation elements also correlate directly to the five kinds of things (entities): mentation (form), sensations (essence), objects (embodiment), properties (potency) and activities (function); as well as to the five elements that comprise the physical entity: space (form), time (essence), matter/mass (embodiment), energy (potency) and motion/change (function).

The next four constitute the ‘Recompense Body’ and are an expression of the law of causality wherein the ‘primary cause’ is the operative cause, and the ‘secondary causes’, the constitutive causes of the thing. The Buddhist also refer to this group as ‘Karma’. And finally, the last characteristic, which is the subject of this thread, is called the ‘Law Body’, the term ‘law’ here meaning ‘governing principle’, which is ‘reason’.

It is odd, though, that QRS have made the argument that consciousness and objects must arise together, and then state that consciousness is an artefact of complex brains.

Yes, consciousness is function of the sentient mind system, and as such, is dependent upon the other elements of mind, including the brain (body).

So it sounds like you propose something like the Thich Nhat Hanh mindfulness stuff.

Alright then, what do you propose?

I am not proposing anything, I simply want to know if you wish to go into the matter of the path, or are you satisfied with what we have already covered?

What country do you live in?

I would much prefer if we did not speak of my ego-personality here, for I do not wish to colour what is said here with such trivial details as who Jehu is, or where Jehu lives. You see, if I say that Jehu is a woman, then there will be men who turn away from the thread, and if I say the opposite, then there may be women who turn away. If I say am an occidental, then there will be some who will think ‘what can s/he possibly know about Eastern traditions?’, and they will put no stock in what I say; on the other hand, if I say that I am an oriental, then there will be others who think ‘Jehu must surely know of what s/he speaks’, and so will think no further for themselves. In the end, I would hope that everyone who reads this thread judges what I have said here strictly on the basis of its logical merit, and not on who, what or where Jehu is.

[Jehu]

Will I be able to hold onto my job?

That would depend upon the job. Does your job cause harm to anything, either directly or indirectly?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Have we not demonstrated, by means of the dream analogy, how the mind (form) is able to give rise to at least the appearance of matter, while in the two millennia since Aristotle proclaimed the primacy of matter, his followers have been unable to demonstrate how matter can possibly give rise to mind?

We have to be careful here to clarify. Below, you seem to agree with QRS, but I think it is a mistake. Now, I will say that I find no stronger argument for the existence of God (about whom I insist upon almost no attributes at all other than the ability to exist uncaused than the inexplicaable existence of matter and so I am mostly in agreement anyway, with your premise that matter cannot exist without mind. However, my reasons for thinking so are slightly different than yours. You think that matter is an appearance, and therefore must appear to a mind. But I simply think matter cannot cause itself, and an entity sufficient to cause matter must be fundamentally different than anything else that is a thing, and ultimately deserves the title God, or Absolute.

From what I have read about the studies into the 'hard problem' of consciousness, as they call it, you are right, that they cannot pin mind down to matter.

Remember, nothing can arise without a cause, and so an effect must be fully accounted for within its causes. Therefore, given that matter is held to be devoid of awareness, how then can awareness arise out of matter, its properties or its activities?

But surely we could think of examples in which the constitutive causes, when combined are greater than the sum of its parts. Also, did you not at one point state that even matter has some sortof awareness?

Regarding the ten fundamental characteristics of all things, they are: form, essence, embodiment, potency, function, primary cause, secondary causes, effect, recompense, and fundamental unity. The first five constitute what is called the ‘Manifestation Body’ of a the thing, and are generally referred to as ‘The Five Elements’ in most wisdom traditions. The five manifestation elements also correlate directly to the five kinds of things (entities): mentation (form), sensations (essence), objects (embodiment), properties (potency) and activities (function); as well as to the five elements that comprise the physical entity: space (form), time (essence), matter/mass (embodiment), energy (potency) and motion/change (function).

OK, this is a good paragraph because it puts it concisely in one spot, and also shows me why I have felt confused, what with all the overlap.

The next four constitute the ‘Recompense Body’ and are an expression of the law of causality wherein the ‘primary cause’ is the operative cause, and the ‘secondary causes’, the constitutive causes of the thing.

The primary cause is the absolute?

The Buddhist also refer to this group as ‘Karma’.

Karma includes the primary cause as well? Where does recompense fit in and what does it refer to?

And finally, the last characteristic, which is the subject of this thread, is called the ‘Law Body’, the term ‘law’ here meaning ‘governing principle’, which is ‘reason’

You equate reason with the 10th, fundamental unity?

It is odd, though, that QRS have made the argument that consciousness and objects must arise together, and then state that consciousness is an artefact of complex brains.

Yes, consciousness is function of the sentient mind system, and as such, is dependent upon the other elements of mind, including the brain (body).

But so far as I know, they do not include an awareness which precedes brains. As to mind, perhaps you should define it, for I am confused as to what you mean. How do you see the relation between awareness, mind, consciousness and brain?

I am not proposing anything, I simply want to know if you wish to go into the matter of the path, or are you satisfied with what we have already covered?

It's been a great journey and fruitful conversation, but of course I am not satisfied.

Gotta take a small break - end of part 1