The Fundamental Unity of Being

mikiel · Post by **mikiel** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:51 pm

Hey Iolaus,
Are you really going to walk away without even a word about the two elephants in the living room being totally ignored in this thread?
(Time vs Now and Jehu's obvious craziness about omniscience and omnipotence.)

Just another case of what a joke this forum is without a trace of "real" honest Q&A on the "sore spots."

(I've seen it often among "chelas" or worshipers of various gurus. A real challenge from the audience is treated as merely heckling and ignored. If one persists, as I have, he is ushered out by the "holy one's" protective goons... But merely his holiness' excommunication of mik (literally from direct communication with his excellence) will have to do here in cyberspace.

The Holy Trinity here has chosen to ignore me rather that ban me (to their credit) but my challenges to them still go unanswered.

Certainly not a serious "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment"... like I said, obviously just a joke.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:52 pm

Part two-

I would much prefer if we did not speak of my ego-personality here,

In fact I was more wondering about the context of some things. If you were American or Australian or some other.

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

[Sigh]
Most people would consider it a wonderful, helping profession. Unfortunately, I do not believe in what I am doing, and I do think there is harm, of basically two different types. I work on an oncology floor. The first sort of harm we do is giving treatments that are harmful. The second thing we do is not heal people, and not encourage healing in the many cheap and natural ways that exist.

It's my opinion, and I tend to have nonmainstream opinions on several different topics, that the medical system, lead by this country, is a bit of a scam, mostly geared toward profit and not toward healing. Therefore, true healing modalities are scoffed and and suppressed, and made invisible through lack of coverage.

In my opinion, chemotherapy does more harm than good. Even as a non-oncology nurse, many of the meds I give/gave are harmful, and I do not believe they help at all. Meds such as cholesterol lowering drugs have high side effects, and in my opinion, do nothing to increase health. I don't think most of the doctors know this, because the medical schools are controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and FDA and such. But I am sure that a few do know, or figure it out, at least as far as chemotherapy goes.

Jehu, it is not only that we live in a very strange world, in which reality is not as it appears, but there are those who deliberately deceive, and they have whole structures or edifices that they have slowly erected, to maintain their lies. They take advantage of the natural gullibility of people.

There is the chance to relieve suffering, to be kind to people, to take good care of them after surgery, to make sure they aren't in pain. But most of what is happening to them here is uneccessary if they cared for their health in a different way.

One way I justify it is that most of these people are not interested or even curious about a better way to live, and that information if readily available. It is not given by their doctor, but it is available. It may very well be that the patients are living their karma, and are not ready for something else. I support those few who are, but they are very, very few.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:17 pm

Mikiel,

You think Jehu has stopped talking because you challenge him. I don't think that is it. What he would do in the case that someone could not agree I am not sure. There was a guy who I thought very intelligent and knowledgeable way back, but again, his attitude was the problem.

I already answered you that so far as I can tell, you do not differ from him on the question of time and now.

As to omnipotence and omniscience, I have thought about it. There are a lot of things I "believe" but don't know. I just do the best I can to figure things out. I don't know about anyone walking around with true omniscience. Yet we do find that various people, and some more than others, are able to tap into knowledge. This knowledge may very well be the knowledge of the absolute. There was a spiritual leader (American) who I think was very great, and almost unknown. He took the name Vitvan. He started a small community, most of them are old now. They live in Nevada. At one time, and I forget the particulars, they were threatened physically with some disaster and he just stopped it. In the very same way as reported in the gospels that Jesus calmed the storm. It wasn't something he talked about, it wasn't something he dwelled on or did very often. But when he needed to he did it very matter of factly. On the other hand, he moved them from a good place to a desert place because he was worried about nuclear war in the fifties. He was wrong about that.

I am of the opinion that enlightenment is not the end of the road but the begining. We could theoretically grow into greater and greater power, but the enlightened ones on this planet are beginners, so far as I know. There could be others who lie low.

I have no need for a guru, and I have not ushered you out or protected Jehu. I have answered you because you have addressed me, or I answered you when I thought that he would not but that you didn't understand why.

mikiel · Post by **mikiel** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:20 pm

Iolaus:
"I already answered you that so far as I can tell, you do not differ from him on the question of time and now."

Yet again I will refresh your memory with a cut-n-paste from pg 18 above. I've edited it to include just the time vs now issue...

Omniscience still means all-knowing and omnipotence still means all-powerful. No individual is either! To claim otherwise is certifiably nuts... which Jehu clearly is, having endorsed the claim without retraction.

Iolaus,
Re: "It is indeed unclear to me that he truly disagrees with it as you recently expressed it."...
Let me refresh your memory:
J:
Quote:
"Logically, however, the concepts of past, present and future are completely untenable, for neither the past nor the future exist now, and in the instant that separates the two, there is no time for a present to exist either."

m:
Quote:
True, past is no longer real and present, and future is not yet real and present. That leaves us with the ongoing Present, not chopped up into little moments of '"time" but the perpetual NOW... always Present... whereas "time" is merely the concept of event duration, acording to whatever "period of time" an observer selects out of the ongoing NOW, for whatever reason... like to designate a nano-second or a millenium.

Quote:
Iolaus: "Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?"
Jehu:
"I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?"
...........
m: "Btw, I challenge you to respond intelligently to my reply to you above on time and the ongoing, unsegmented now."
.............

Next post:
Jehu:
"I do not wish to be a stickler, but Mikel’s present lies firmly within the field of time",...
m:
Quote:
"You totally misunderstand my usage of "the ongoing (perpetual, eternal) present.
Now is *not a very small span of time.* There is *no time* between past and future. Time is indeed merely the human observation/measurement/designation of "event duration", the common sense designation of segments of time, as I said, from a nano-second to a mellennium, etc. Now IS ALWAYS PRESENT... same present everywhere from cosmic perspective... the absolute omnipresent NOW transcending all relative, local perspectives and "designated events."

You jump easily to erroneous conclusions in areas about which you are ignorant... Like the Eternal NOW.

Again, you say:
(J:)
" Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past."

m(resuming):
I am not speaking of the present as a "span of time, no matter how minute..."
It IS an unsegmented constant undivided "flow" transcending the concept of event duration or "spans of time."

Your mind automatically creates these "spans of time" negating the True Present as an ever ongoing reality. Therefore your mind traps you in a misconception that there can be no True Now as ongoing Reality.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:42 am

But Mikiel, your argument is not with me. I merely gave my impression of it.

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:59 am

Iolaus wrote:We have to be careful here to clarify. Below, you seem to agree with QRS, but I think it is a mistake.

Each of the six senses – and I include the imagination here, for the imagination also presents a source of objects for the mind – produces its own unique sort of consciousness (sights, sounds, smells, etc.). However, these various consciousnesses can only arise if the appropriate sense organ (eye, ear, …, imagination) comes into contact with the appropriate sort of object; for to say that one is conscious of ‘nothing’, is equivalent to saying that one is not conscious at all. Now, as we have already demonstrated that an effect (e.g., consciousness) and its causes (e.g., sense organ and sense object) cannot exist independently, and so cannot arise successively, it follows that they must arise simultaneously; and so on this point, I cannot find fault with the QRS position – as you have stated it.

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.

That entity which is self caused (Being), as we have already demonstrated, is necessarily a singular and continuous being, which is unbounded. Consequently, such an entity must contain within itself all that is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is, and given that there is nothing beyond it (no non-being), it follows that its nature (essential and operative causes) is ultimately immutable. Now, if this Being – call it the Absolute or God – is the cause of matter, and it is clear that it must be, then it follows that matter cannot be essentially different from that which caused it; and so must be immutable; but this is not the case. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, how is it possible that there can exist something that is constantly changing (mutable), if this something abides within that which is inherently unchangeable (immutable)? The only possible solution to this dilemma is that the something which is constantly changing is simply a form of ‘mentation’, and that which is unchanging is akin to what is called ‘mind’.

But surely we could think of examples in which the constitutive causes, when combined are greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, but this is possible only because there is also an operative cause at work, and it is the ‘operative cause’ that accounts for the thing’s being greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., it constitutive causes).

Also, did you not at one point state that even matter has some sort of awareness?

Yes, there is awareness associated with matter, but the matter is not itself possessed of awareness, for matter partakes of only a relative existence, and so has no ‘intrinsic characteristics’ (i.e., properties). Rather, the appearance of awareness is posited upon matter by that wherein the matter exists, and upon which its existence depends; that which to the sentient being has the appearance of space.

The primary cause is the absolute?
Karma includes the primary cause as well? Where does recompense fit in and what does it refer to?
You equate reason with the 10th, fundamental unity?

I understand how perplexing this must seem to you, but you must remember that the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ are merely two different aspects of the one true entity – Being, as is the inviolable law which both binds and partitions them. What causes it to become so confusing is that we tend to think of the three aspects as separate entities, like the parts of a bicycle; and this we cannot do. What we actually have is an immaterial container which is real (absolute), and a material content which is not real (relative), and a inviolable dynamic law (principle) which operates between the two. This principle, being that which connects the relative and the absolute, must enter into both aspects, thus it inherits its inviolability from the immutable absolute, and it dynamism from the perpetually changing relative.

Now, with respect to your questions, the ten elements represent the Buddhist phenomenology, and relate only to the relative or apparent world. Although the ‘primary cause’ is ultimately the ‘absolute’, this is not how it appears within the relative world; rather, it appears that there is a material origin and cause to everything. A tree, for example, appears to have its origin and cause in a seed (primary cause), and when this seed comes together with the appropriate conditions (e.g., sunlight, moisture, nutrients, etc.) there evolves a tree.

The term Karma refers to the way in which relative entities interact with one another, and specifically to the fact that a thing cannot function in the relative world without that it affects its environment. Further, any effect on the thing’s environment will ultimately have a consequence for the thing itself, for it is the thing’s environment which sustains it.

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?

The form of mind is space like or empty and so is generally left blank in the Buddhist formulation, and for this reason, it is said to have only four elements – which we have encountered already, in the formulation of the ego-personality, although their positions in the formulation have changed.

The essence of the sentient mind system is ‘consciousness’, that is to say, eye-consciousness, ear- consciousness, etc. The embodiment of the mind system is in ‘precepts’: eye-objects, ear-objects, etc. The potency of the mind system is in ‘preferences’: whether the precept elicits a feeling of pleasure, displeasure, or indifference. The function of the mind is ‘reaction’: a movement of the mind either toward the precept or away from it.

That which I am calling ‘awareness’ (and remember, this is merely what I am calling it, and not what it is; for we can predicate nothing of it beyond that it is) is that which makes consciousness possible, and is what gives continuity to that indefinite and continuous sequence of successive instances that comprise the phenomenal experience. Awareness is able to do this because it does not arise and cease anew each instant, but is immutable; and so it is not to be confused with consciousness which does arise and cease anew each instant. Awareness, unlike consciousness, does not depend upon any specific object for its existence, for it can take itself as its own object, as it does when we are in a state of deep sleep.

To understand how the whole illusion works, one must look closely at how the dream is constructed. First, we are in a state of deep sleep, and there is no consciousness at all. Then, awareness is roused and a dream-world begins to take shape. First, we become conscious of some sensation: some sight, sound, feeling, smell or taste; and then there arises the mind system with its interpretive processes which convert these sensations, along with their embodied forms (patterns of distribution), into things (ideas, emotions, objects, qualities and motions or changes). Then, as the fragmented awareness ventures forth into its newly created world, it unconsciously creates all that should logically be present in order that such a world can exist. If it sees an object, then it must have the organs required to do so, and if it can move about, then it must have the means to do so, etc. In other words, it inherently knows the great law upon which the objective world is founded, and instinctively follows that law in creating it own dream-world.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:57 am

Jehu,

However, these various consciousnesses can only arise if the appropriate sense organ (eye, ear, …, imagination) comes into contact with the appropriate sort of object;...it follows that they must arise simultaneously; and so on this point, I cannot find fault with the QRS position – as you have stated it.

I am not quite sure how you see the difference between the capabilities of awareness versus consciousness. You mention sense organs, and it certainly appears true that while the awareness is embodied it requires a functioning brain and sense organs through which to perceive. However, the many near-death experiences indicate that when the awareness/mind/soul or whatever it is leaves the body in certain circumstances, it is still able to hear and see and think. Now, the Hindus propose a few subtle bodies that exist, calling them the astral body, mental body and causal body. In the case of out of body experiences, it would be the astral body that is still able to perceive. I hope such ideas don't infringe on your philosophy.

As to QRS, while they admit that awareness is necessary to existence, they seem to be stumped on how it might work, because they have stated fairly clearly that they do not see any sort of consciousness or awareness (which I believe they use interchangeably) outside of an evolved brain. A few people have tried to pin them down on this, and no logical answer has been forthcoming. Whereas, your statement later in the post, that awareness can be its own object as in deep sleep, is a direct answer to the question.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, how is it possible that there can exist something that is constantly changing (mutable), if this something abides within that which is inherently unchangeable (immutable)? The only possible solution to this dilemma is that the something which is constantly changing is simply a form of ‘mentation’, and that which is unchanging is akin to what is called ‘mind’.

Well, I am not sure I see this problem accurately but it is possibly relevant that some postulate that the physical universe is a manifestation of information. What do you think?

But surely we could think of examples in which the constitutive causes, when combined are greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, but this is possible only because there is also an operative cause at work, and it is the ‘operative cause’ that accounts for the thing’s being greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., it constitutive causes).

The operative cause being the absolute? Can you explain how it is that the operative cause is what allows for things being greater than their sum of parts?

Yes, there is awareness associated with matter, but the matter is not itself possessed of awareness, for matter partakes of only a relative existence, and so has no ‘intrinsic characteristics’ (i.e., properties). Rather, the appearance of awareness is posited upon matter by that wherein the matter exists, and upon which its existence depends; that which to the sentient being has the appearance of space.

But most people do not sense that matter has awareness. I find that the difference between an animate and inanimate object is will/desire. Living things require the existence of matter so that the matter can be formed into entities to serve them. If matter had a will of its own, it would not be perfectly compliant. I do not really understand how matter can have awareness, unless we suppose that the all-pervading awareness that is everything, infuses it with awareness. This brings us to the problem of not-two, not-one.

What causes it to become so confusing is that we tend to think of the three aspects as separate entities,

Do you mean relative, absolute, and Being?

What we actually have is an immaterial container which is real...

It is very difficult for me to consider the term 'immaterial' In what sense can it differ from nothingness, and how is that real? I tend to think that everything has some sort of substance. This immaterial container is awareness, right? There must be something to differentiate awareness from nothingness.

Although the ‘primary cause’ is ultimately the ‘absolute’, this is not how it appears within the relative world;

How then, does this absolute relate to the karmic system? Is it not above the fray?

consciousness which does arise and cease anew each instant.

How is that possible when the instants themselves are merely mentations without reality? If consciousness arises and ceases each instant, then we must have a duration of said instant. If it is a physical phenomenon, then I suppose it is indeed possible. The second, for example, is apparently part of a galactic harmonic of time.

Now, as to the path itself, you made certain statements about not putting attention on the ego-personality. However, I've had the thought that most of the advice given to spiritual seekers is written by men and for men. On this forum, they have a strong vested interest in negating women, and considering them rather unfit for enlightenment. I intuit that they have different strengths and weaknesses, but haven't figured out how to understand and/or put it to practical use.

I certainly do think that men's and women's brains work differently, and this could affect things quite a lot. It has become PC to deny this, but now science is catching up. You might say, for example, that ego and its feeling of threat is the main impediment to enlightenment, and this is the same for men and women. Nonetheless, men are far less egoic in certain ways than women, and women less in other ways than men. But much spiritual advice is geared toward, for example, controlling lust and keeping one's eyes away from objects that will incite lust. Don't even look at women, they often say.

Men feel much more at ease in the world whereas women feel the need for a protective buffer. So that which sparks ego resistance would be different in men and women. More importantly, though, is that women's brains are supposed to have more connectivity, so that they do not focus as well, nor compartmentalize their thoughts and emotions, nor do they easily dwell in mental quiet. So it might take different techniques to break through women's mental chatter.

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:40 am

Iolaus wrote:I am not quite sure how you see the difference between the capabilities of awareness versus consciousness. You mention sense organs, and it certainly appears true that while the awareness is embodied it requires a functioning brain and sense organs through which to perceive. However, the many near-death experiences indicate that when the awareness/mind/soul or whatever it is leaves the body in certain circumstances, it is still able to hear and see and think. Now, the Hindus propose a few subtle bodies that exist, calling them the astral body, mental body and causal body. In the case of out of body experiences, it would be the astral body that is still able to perceive. I hope such ideas don't infringe on your philosophy.

It must be remembered that when we speak of an ‘embodied fragment of awareness’ we are speaking from a relative perspective only, and that ultimately, this fragment of awareness has never really been separated from the whole. For this reason, we cannot speak of its leaving the body upon death, or at any other time – for it never really inhabited the body, the body being merely apparent. Rather, we should say that when this fragment of awareness is deprived of its objective embodiment, because it is ignorant of its true nature, and because it craves for sensations, it seeks a new embodiment – of its own making.

Well, I am not sure I see this problem accurately but it is possibly relevant that some postulate that the physical universe is a manifestation of information. What do you think?

Yes, of course, all things consist in ‘in-formation’ (knowledge); for everything is divisible into other subsidiary things, each with its own unique ‘form’.

The operative cause being the absolute? Can you explain how it is that the operative cause is what allows for things being greater than their sum of parts?

Because it is the operative cause (awareness) which posits essential characteristics to a thing; and that in the end, all characteristics belong, not to the thing itself, but to that which is the true cause of all things.

But most people do not sense that matter has awareness. I find that the difference between an animate and inanimate object is will/desire. Living things require the existence of matter so that the matter can be formed into entities to serve them. If matter had a will of its own, it would not be perfectly compliant. I do not really understand how matter can have awareness, unless we suppose that the all-pervading awareness that is everything, infuses it with awareness. This brings us to the problem of not-two, not-one.

Again, matter does not possess awareness, matter ‘is’ awareness; that is to say, in its objectively embodied form.

Do you mean relative, absolute, and Being?

I mean the relative (Nirmanakaya), the absolute (Dharmakaya), and the principle which connects them (Samboghakaya).

It is very difficult for me to consider the term 'immaterial' In what sense can it differ from nothingness, and how is that real? I tend to think that everything has some sort of substance. This immaterial container is awareness, right? There must be something to differentiate awareness from nothingness.

As I have said from the beginning, there is nothing that may be predicated of the Absolute (Awareness), other than to say that it is; in other words, it is ineffable. For this reason, it appears to the sentient being as ‘no-thing-ness’, and so the Buddhists call it ‘The Void’ .

How then, does this absolute relate to the karmic system? Is it not above the fray?

The Law of Karma pertains only to the relative world – which unfolds exactly as it should, but the Absolute may chose to intervene by way of embodying itself within the relative world, in a form that has the appropriate functional capacity to perform its intended work – mankind.

Now, as to the path itself, you made certain statements about not putting attention on the ego-personality. However, I've had the thought that most of the advice given to spiritual seekers is written by men and for men. On this forum, they have a strong vested interest in negating women, and considering them rather unfit for enlightenment. I intuit that they have different strengths and weaknesses, but haven't figured out how to understand and/or put it to practical use.

I certainly do think that men's and women's brains work differently, and this could affect things quite a lot. It has become PC to deny this, but now science is catching up. You might say, for example, that ego and its feeling of threat is the main impediment to enlightenment, and this is the same for men and women. Nonetheless, men are far less egoic in certain ways than women, and women less in other ways than men. But much spiritual advice is geared toward, for example, controlling lust and keeping one's eyes away from objects that will incite lust. Don't even look at women, they often say.

Men feel much more at ease in the world whereas women feel the need for a protective buffer. So that which sparks ego resistance would be different in men and women. More importantly, though, is that women's brains are supposed to have more connectivity, so that they do not focus as well, nor compartmentalize their thoughts and emotions, nor do they easily dwell in mental quiet. So it might take different techniques to break through women's mental chatter

While it is true that different people require different techniques in order to dissolve their attachment to their ego-personalities, it is not really a question of whether they are male or female – unless one takes culture into account. Unfortunately, much of what has been recorded of the ancient wisdom traditions, can only be accurately interpreted in the light of their cultural practices. For example, the Buddha did not initially accept women into his community, however, this was not because he held that women were any less capable of awakening than men, but because he felt that women adepts would be subjected to undue hardships due to the cultural bias against them.

A similar situation was in place among the ancient Greeks, and although there was at least one female adept who became a master in her own school, she was subjected to continuous attacks by those who felt that a woman had no right to be a philosopher; and she eventually came to a violent end at the hands of a mob.

In fact, there is an ancient Buddhist text which states that one should rejoice that they were not born “mentally incompetent or a woman”, however, this was not because women were unable to awaken, but because to be born a woman would have meant that one would not have the opportunity to get an education, or to become the disciple of a master, or to move about freely. Instead, one would be forced into an arranged marriage, burdened with large numbers of children, and spend one’s every waking hour cooking or cleaning or serving their mother in law; hence there would be no opportunity to practice (hear, contemplate and meditate).

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:02 pm

Jehu,

It must be remembered that when we speak of an ‘embodied fragment of awareness’ we are speaking from a relative perspective only, and that ultimately, this fragment of awareness has never really been separated from the whole. For this reason, we cannot speak of its leaving the body upon death, or at any other time – for it never really inhabited the body, the body being merely apparent. Rather, we should say that when this fragment of awareness is deprived of its objective embodiment, because it is ignorant of its true nature, and because it craves for sensations, it seeks a new embodiment – of its own making.

Certainly my own experience is that of being inside this body, and I would like to get out but can't. It's inconsistent to say that the fragment was never separated (I believe it both is and isn't at the same time) and then speak of the fragment seeking a new embodiment. But my point was whether bodily sense organs are the only way for the fragment to have perceptions.

Yes, of course, all things consist in ‘in-formation’ (knowledge); for everything is divisible into other subsidiary things, each with its own unique ‘form’.

There must be a bottom to this, the division can't go on forever.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, how is it possible that there can exist something that is constantly changing (mutable), if this something abides within that which is inherently unchangeable (immutable)?

I'm not sure why this is a problem.

Again, matter does not possess awareness, matter ‘is’ awareness; that is to say, in its objectively embodied form.

Hmmm. Perhaps you are saying that matter is the result of awareness?

I mean the relative (Nirmanakaya), the absolute (Dharmakaya), and the principle which connects them (Samboghakaya).

The PIC?

As I have said from the beginning, there is nothing that may be predicated of the Absolute (Awareness), other than to say that it is; in other words, it is ineffable. For this reason, it appears to the sentient being as ‘no-thing-ness’, and so the Buddhists call it ‘The Void’ .

It does not appear to be no-thing-ness to me.

While it is true that different people require different techniques in order to dissolve their attachment to their ego-personalities, it is not really a question of whether they are male or female – unless one takes culture into account.

Well, I am not so sure of that. Much of what a person assumes is "their" personality, which belongs to them and is them, is a matter of hormones and brain configuration and chemistry. For example, on a thread called testosterone, in the worldy matters forum, they interview two people. One is a man who lost all testosterone production, and the other a woman who wanted a sex change operation and took huge testosterone shots. The altered feelings and perceptions were profound.

Here though, is a real clue - when you take this thinking far enough, you realize that you are ultimately to be stripped of all attributes, for what else is an ego-personality but its attributes? And, stripped of all attributes, what are you but a fragment of awareness, identical to all others?

Which is, essentially, to be no one at all.

So it seems to me wise to hang onto a small wisp of personality, so as to have an identity, or what's the point of anything, if one has no identity and isn't an entity after all?

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:39 am

Certainly my own experience is that of being inside this body, and I would like to get out but can't. It's inconsistent to say that the fragment was never separated (I believe it both is and isn't at the same time) and then speak of the fragment seeking a new embodiment. But my point was whether bodily sense organs are the only way for the fragment to have perceptions.

Yes, this is the case, for without the coming together of a sense organ and its object, there is no consciousness (actual or imagined).

There must be a bottom to this, the division can't go on forever.

There is no ‘bottom’, for things are not constructed from the bottom up, but from the top down, and the degree to which we can discern further subsidiary forms is finite, only because of the inherently limited range of our human perception.

I'm not sure why this is a problem.

Since the essence of a thing is that which is necessary and sufficient to the thing’s being the sort of thing that it is, it follows that if the essence of a thing changes, so too must the thing itself change; that is to say, it must become something else. However, we know that the thing itself (the absolute) cannot change, and so there appears to be a violation of the law of contradiction. To avoid this logical inconsistency, we are forced to accept that the essence does not really change, but merely appears to change – just as the coming and going of various mentation does not alter the nature of the mind in which they abide.

Hmmm. Perhaps you are saying that matter is the result of awareness?

Yes, matter, like all things, arises as a result of awareness.

The PIC?

Precisely!

It does not appear to be no-thing-ness to me.

Remember, the Absolute is not a ‘thing’, for it is not put together by time. Consequently, it cannot be analyzed (taken apart), and so we cannot say ‘what’ it is. Neither can we see, hear, smell, taste or touch it.

Here though, is a real clue - when you take this thinking far enough, you realize that you are ultimately to be stripped of all attributes, for what else is an ego-personality but its attributes? And, stripped of all attributes, what are you but a fragment of awareness, identical to all others?

Which is, essentially, to be no one at all.

So it seems to me wise to hang onto a small wisp of personality, so as to have an identity, or what's the point of anything, if one has no identity and isn't an entity after all?

When one has completely relinquished one’s false identity, then one’s true identity will come to the forefront, and then all fear and stress will cease, and one will function in accordance with one’s true purpose – as a human being.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:28 pm

Jehu,

Yes, this is the case, for without the coming together of a sense organ and its object, there is no consciousness (actual or imagined).

But what I'm saying is that these sense organs cannot be only the bodily sort with which we are most familiar but include much more subtle sense organs of, say, the astral or mental body, because the evidence is that there is consciousness which survives the death of the body, and furthermore, if you say that the fragment of awareness seeks a new body because it craves sensations, then this indicates consciousness.

There is no ‘bottom’, for things are not constructed from the bottom up, but from the top down, and the degree to which we can discern further subsidiary forms is finite, only because of the inherently limited range of our human perception.

I don't think this is true, and the why of it relates to your next comment, so I will get to it there.

Hopefully, this question and the one above, while important, are not crucial to the process of this endeavor.

Since the essence of a thing is that which is necessary and sufficient to the thing’s being the sort of thing that it is, it follows that if the essence of a thing changes, so too must the thing itself change; that is to say, it must become something else. However, we know that the thing itself (the absolute) cannot change, and so there appears to be a violation of the law of contradiction. To avoid this logical inconsistency, we are forced to accept that the essence does not really change, but merely appears to change – just as the coming and going of various mentation does not alter the nature of the mind in which they abide.

So you are saying here that the relative is the "essence" of the absolute?

Now, I had already come to the conclusion, based largely on my reading of science and Hindu spiritual ideas, that things only appear to be different and are all made up of one substance. I tried to delve into this at one point, but you didn't seem to agree or it wasn't pertinent at the time. But as to the previous question, about things being built from the top down: nonetheless they cannot be divided into constituent parts indefinitely, and not because human perception cannot go but so far. It's more of a logical necessity, that things do not have an infinite regress of consitutent parts. And, if things only appear to change, then they also only appear to differ from one another in their characterstics. Not differing, they are therefore the same. Thus the consituent parts of all things is the same substance, and this substance is the true bottom of all things.

Remember, the Absolute is not a ‘thing’, for it is not put together by time. Consequently, it cannot be analyzed (taken apart), and so we cannot say ‘what’ it is. Neither can we see, hear, smell, taste or touch it.

Yes, but it exists, which is astonishing, and not a nothing. I do see the point. I'm just saying that the nature or blunt fact of this Absolute occupies my mind with its perplexity.

When one has completely relinquished one’s false identity, then one’s true identity will come to the forefront, and then all fear and stress will cease, and one will function in accordance with one’s true purpose – as a human being.

I can see relinquishing a false identity, but what sort of true identity is there?
How would one lose fear and stress, unless they didn't care if they lived or died?
What do you recommend I do?

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:08 pm

Iolaus wrote:But what I'm saying is that these sense organs cannot be only the bodily sort with which we are most familiar but include much more subtle sense organs of, say, the astral or mental body, because the evidence is that there is consciousness which survives the death of the body, and furthermore, if you say that the fragment of awareness seeks a new body because it craves sensations, then this indicates consciousness.

There are actual bodies and there are imaginary bodies.

So you are saying here that the relative is the "essence" of the absolute?

Yes, the relative is the essence or ‘constitutive causes’ of the Absolute.

Now, I had already come to the conclusion, based largely on my reading of science and Hindu spiritual ideas, that things only appear to be different and are all made up of one substance. I tried to delve into this at one point, but you didn't seem to agree or it wasn't pertinent at the time. But as to the previous question, about things being built from the top down: nonetheless they cannot be divided into constituent parts indefinitely, and not because human perception cannot go but so far. It's more of a logical necessity, that things do not have an infinite regress of constituent parts. And, if things only appear to change, then they also only appear to differ from one another in their characteristics. Not differing, they are therefore the same. Thus the constituent parts of all things is the same substance, and this substance is the true bottom of all things.

It is true that things, even if they were real, could not be comprised of an infinite number of constituents; for as we have already established, there cannot be an infinite number of anything. However, as things are merely apparent (not real), it makes no sense to ask what they are made out of, just as it make no sense to ask what dreams are made of.

The term ‘substance’ rightfully applies only to that which is ‘self-existing’ (Lat. substantivum), and so is equivalent to the term ‘reality’, which the Oxford dictionary defines as “what exists or is real; that which underlies appearances”. Therefore, if this is what you mean by the term, then it is true that there is but one ‘substance’. Nevertheless, it is not correct to say that things are made of this substance, but only that they arise as a result of this substance; just as we cannot say that thoughts or ideas are made of mind, but only that they arise as a result of mind.

Yes, but it exists, which is astonishing, and not a nothing. I do see the point. I'm just saying that the nature or blunt fact of this Absolute occupies my mind with its perplexity.

I understand completely!

I can see relinquishing a false identity, but what sort of true identity is there?
How would one lose fear and stress, unless they didn't care if they lived or died?
What do you recommend I do?

Equanimity is not indifference, the awakened ones care deeply about all things; however, because they understand the transitory nature of all things, they do not cling to things – not even other human beings. I know this is difficult to understand, but we simply cannot do what is right in a given situation so long as we are emotionally invested in what is happening.

I know that you will find this difficult to understand, but the awakened ones understand that whatever takes place in this illusory world, does so in accordance with the one great inviolable law, and so, whatever happens, they know that the universe is evolving exactly as it should, and so they are without stress. Also, because the know that birth and death are mere illusions, they have no fear. However, this is not to say that they see the universe as entirely deterministic, for what would be the point in such a world. Rather, they understand that they can only affect a change in the world if they change themselves; and that what takes place in the outer world is merely a projection of who we are inside.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:10 pm

Jehu,

There are actual bodies and there are imaginary bodies.

What? What are you saying? That the flesh body is the only actual body? But the astral is not less actual.

.Yes, the relative is the essence or ‘constitutive causes’ of the Absolute.

I cannot begin to understand this, and it makes no sense for the non real to be the essence and constitutive cause of the real, for the dependent to be the cause of the causeless, or for the causeless to have a cause!

It is true that things, even if they were real, could not be comprised of an infinite number of constituents; for as we have already established, there cannot be an infinite number of anything. However, as things are merely apparent (not real), it makes no sense to ask what they are made out of, just as it make no sense to ask what dreams are made of.

We have come full circle, for we have argued about this before.
Things may not be real but they are actual. The actual universe is highly consistent and predictable, and that is because there are basic elements that are made of knowledge. To say that we need not question what they are made of means we can stop the study of science, physics, biology. Perhaps this is your personal prejudice! What sort of scientific background do you have? Just wondering.

Nevertheless, it is not correct to say that things are made of this substance, but only that they arise as a result of this substance; just as we cannot say that thoughts or ideas are made of mind, but only that they arise as a result of mind.

This may or may not be true. The question seems to be whether the substance is real or actual. You seem to be saying it cannot be real, and if actual it is somehow not important. Any item, an actual item, must be able to be broken down into its constituent parts, and at the end, there cannot be more than one kind of constituent part.

they know that the universe is evolving exactly as it should,

Actually, I am often struck by a sense of perfection, and it seems to come to me as an intruding thought, a strange thought, for I certainly see the imperfection in the world, and the need for betterment, and yet I have these impressions which come unbidden; so I decided that it must mean things are both perfect and imperfect at the same time.
The perfect calls out to the imperfect until they come into alignment.

I sometimes fear it is selfish of me, to feel such bliss when I know others are suffering. What is true?

Edit:
No, that is not quite what I meant. I don't worry that it is selfish to be happy, but I worry that I am both crazy and disrespectful of the suffering when I get the thought that the world is perfect.

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:12 pm

Iolaus wrote:What? What are you saying? That the flesh body is the only actual body? But the astral is not less actual.

Just as there is but one reality, there is but one objective universe, and only such forms as are embodied within that objective universe may be called ‘actual’; all others being ‘imaginary’. However, this does not mean that the imaginary (subjective) partakes any less of an existence than does the actual (objective), for both are relative entities - mere appearances.

I cannot begin to understand this, and it makes no sense for the non real to be the essence and constitutive cause of the real, for the dependent to be the cause of the causeless, or for the causeless to have a cause!

let us go over this once more, and perhaps then you will get the true picture. There is only that which is, which we have agreed to call ‘Being”, and there is no non-being. This ‘Being’, which is the one true entity, comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects, one of which constitutes its operative cause, and the other, it constitutive causes.

Then, we have said that the operative cause partakes of an absolute existence, for it contains within itself all that is necessary and sufficient to its being, and so is dependent upon nothing external (beyond itself). The constitutive causes, on the other hand, partake of only a relative existence, for their existence is entirely dependent upon the coming together of external causes. These external causes are of two types: (1) the absolute aspect itself (their operative cause), and (2) the two or more other subsidiary things which comprise their essence (their constitutive causes).

Now, although the absolute and the relative aspects are mutually interdependent, they are not dependent in exactly the same way, for the relative aspect abides within the absolute as its (the absolute’s) intrinsic essence (constitutive causes), while the absolute (operative cause) is extrinsic with respect to relative aspect.

We have come full circle, for we have argued about this before.
Things may not be real but they are actual. The actual universe is highly consistent and predictable, and that is because there are basic elements that are made of knowledge. To say that we need not question what they are made of means we can stop the study of science, physics, biology.

Again, we must be clear about whether we are speaking in terms of the relative or the absolute; that is to say, whether we are discussing how things appear to be, or how they are in reality. The sciences deal with the relative world, and in so far as they are attempting to gain knowledge of the underlying nature of the objective universe, there is nothing wrong with science. However, they are approaching the problem from an entirely erroneous metaphysical worldview, and as a result, lack the wisdom necessary to properly manage the power that scientific knowledge unleashes; and so have brought this particular world to the very brink of destruction. We, on the other hand, are dealing with the true nature of things, and not merely with how things appears.

This may or may not be true. The question seems to be whether the substance is real or actual. You seem to be saying it cannot be real, and if actual it is somehow not important. Any item, an actual item, must be able to be broken down into its constituent parts, and at the end, there cannot be more than one kind of constituent part.

Clearly, the term ‘substance’ is traditionally meant to denote that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all things. Unfortunately, the predominance of philosophical materialism these past two and a half millennia has distorted the meaning of the term, and it is now taken to be equivalent to the term ‘matter’, which the materialists hold to be that which is real. However, as we have already shown, nothing, not even the material kind, is possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

Actually, I am often struck by a sense of perfection, and it seems to come to me as an intruding thought, a strange thought, for I certainly see the imperfection in the world, and the need for betterment, and yet I have these impressions which come unbidden; so I decided that it must mean things are both perfect and imperfect at the same time.
The perfect calls out to the imperfect until they come into alignment.

This is exactly the case, for although suffering comes about as a result of the Absolute – for the Absolute is the true cause of all thing, it does not come from the Absolute, but belongs exclusively to the relative world, and so it need not be.

I sometimes fear it is selfish of me, to feel such bliss when I know others are suffering. What is true?

Edit:
No, that is not quite what I meant. I don't worry that it is selfish to be happy, but I worry that I am both crazy and disrespectful of the suffering when I get the thought that the world is perfect.

Please, do not misunderstand me, I did not say that the world is perfect, but only that it is unfolding as it should. By this I mean that the inviolable law which governs the evolution of the universe is itself perfect, and so incapable of doing other than what it should. If there is suffering in the world, then this is our doing, for we have acted out of self-interest (against our true nature), and so have upset the harmonic balance of the universe.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:07 pm

Jehu,

Just as there is but one reality, there is but one objective universe, and only such forms as are embodied within that objective universe may be called ‘actual’; all others being ‘imaginary’.

Obviously, if there is an astral body it isn't imaginary, and is as embodied as my hands and feet are - just not as visible to our particular sense organs. Would you say that gamma rays and xrays are not actual, just because your eyes aren't equipped to see them?

This ‘Being’, which is the one true entity, comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects, one of which constitutes its operative cause, and the other, it constitutive causes.

Relative things have an operative cause and constitutive causes - but must it be so that Being also does?

Then, we have said that the operative cause partakes of an absolute existence, for it contains within itself all that is necessary and sufficient to its being, and so is dependent upon nothing external (beyond itself).

Instead it depends upon that which is internal - which is odd unless, as you say, that the seemingly differing items contained within the absolute are only appearing to vary, but in fact are all one substance...

Again, we must be clear about whether we are speaking in terms of the relative or the absolute; that is to say, whether we are discussing how things appear to be, or how they are in reality. The sciences deal with the relative world, and in so far as they are attempting to gain knowledge of the underlying nature of the objective universe, there is nothing wrong with science. However, they are approaching the problem from an entirely erroneous metaphysical worldview,

I find myself a bit lost here, my head is spinning. On one hand the relative and absolute are distinct, at least for the sake of philosophical discussion, but they are also not-two. To study things is to study how and why they function as they do - with the caveat that we come up with many a false interpretation on the way. Until science comes to see that all things are one thing, then they have not seen truly, but neither is it correct to say that they are wrong. Rather, they have a partly true and partly false picture. But that does not invalidate the truth of the part that they do understand.
I just can't quite understand what you think is unreal or untrue about the actual world. The only untue thing is thinking that things are different at the core. But once you have the elements, and unless and until they are unraveled back to their prima materia, the study of it is not in the wrong paradigm, and should not be equated with dreams, at least not our dreams. For example, suppose science comes to the knowledge that all things are indeed permutations of one unvarying substance - what then? Should they throw up their hands and say, oh silly us! We thought that we could get somewhere by studying matter and motion, but it's all a farce for all things are one thing?

However, they are approaching the problem from an entirely erroneous metaphysical worldview, and as a result, lack the wisdom necessary to properly manage the power that scientific knowledge unleashes; and so have brought this particular world to the very brink of destruction. We, on the other hand, are dealing with the true nature of things, and not merely with how things appears.

The lack of wisdom is indeed a problem, but doesn't negate the power of studying how the actualized world works, which can include knowing the constituents of particular things.

You mentioned a balloon analogy a long time back, those noodle shaped balloons that you can twist into various shapes. You can twist it into a dog, or a house, but the balloons started out the same. Once you have twisted it, though, it takes on certain characteristics that are mathematically predictable. I think that proteins work this way. They have hundreds of building blocks, amino acids, and they work because they are configured into specific shapes. They do very specific and precise tasks based on those shapes, and yet if you take them apart their constituent pieces are identical.

Clearly, the term ‘substance’ is traditionally meant to denote that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all things.

Perhaps then we can say that the substance is indeed the real.

Unfortunately, the predominance of philosophical materialism these past two and a half millennia has distorted the meaning of the term, and it is now taken to be equivalent to the term ‘matter’, which the materialists hold to be that which is real. However, as we have already shown, nothing, not even the material kind, is possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

But we are not able to see matter as it truly is. We see the deceptive appearance. Although, it is plain to me, that matter as it appears is incapable of causing itself.

I did not say that the world is perfect, but only that it is unfolding as it should. By this I mean that the inviolable law which governs the evolution of the universe is itself perfect, and so incapable of doing other than what it should. If there is suffering in the world, then this is our doing, for we have acted out of self-interest (against our true nature), and so have upset the harmonic balance of the universe.

Yes, it is in the sense that all things are unfolding as they should and must which gives me the sensation of perfection. How do we reconcile an unbalanced world with an unfolding that occurs as it should? Will the perfection of the law bring all things back to balance?

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:04 am

Iolaus wrote:Obviously, if there is an astral body it isn't imaginary, and is as embodied as my hands and feet are - just not as visible to our particular sense organs. Would you say that gamma rays and xrays are not actual, just because your eyes aren't equipped to see them?

I’m afraid I do not see why you say this is necessary. As I pointed out earlier, only the elements of ‘form’ and ‘essence’ are actual, while the elements of ‘embodiment’ (matter), ‘potency’ (energy) and ‘function’(motion/change) are only imaginary. Why then would say that an ‘astral body’ is not imaginary, or x-rays for that matter?

Relative things have an operative cause and constitutive causes - but must it be so that Being also does?

A very important question! I do not wish to belabour the point, but it is vital that you recognize that a given ‘thing’ (relative entity) is essentially no more that the sum of its constituent elements, and that there is no thing apart from its constituents. For this reason, a thing cannot be possessed of any characteristic which is not already present in its constituents, and any characteristic which appears to arises anew (as an effect of the coming together of these constituents) must have another cause - for an effect cannot arise without a cause. For example, water exhibits qualities that are not characteristic of either oxygen or hydrogen, such as remaining in a liquid state at a normal room temperature. This other cause we have called the ‘operative cause’, and which may be thought of as a sort of ‘directive force’ which binds the element together as an entity or distinct existent – a ‘thing’.

The Absolute, on the other hand, possesses only the one essential element – knowledge, and for this reason is incapable of arising, ceasing or undergoing any alteration whatsoever. However, since an absolute entity must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, there must be another aspect to the absolute entity wherein this single essential element is contained – awareness. And it is for this reason, that all relative entities reflect the ‘not-two’ nature of the Absolute entity. Being, because it comprise these two interdependent and complementary aspects, partakes of the characteristics of both. Existentially, it is absolute, independent and immutable, while essentially it is relative, interdependent and subject to continuous change.

Instead it depends upon that which is internal - which is odd unless, as you say, that the seemingly differing items contained within the absolute are only appearing to vary, but in fact are all one substance...
Perhaps then we can say that the substance is indeed the real.

Yes, I would agree that substance is indeed the real, but only so long as we agree not to say that things are possessed of substance – as you have implied in your first paragraph (above). Let us simply say that substance (reality) is that which underlies the appearance of things.

I find myself a bit lost here, my head is spinning. On one hand the relative and absolute are distinct, at least for the sake of philosophical discussion, but they are also not-two. To study things is to study how and why they function as they do - with the caveat that we come up with many a false interpretation on the way. Until science comes to see that all things are one thing, then they have not seen truly, but neither is it correct to say that they are wrong. Rather, they have a partly true and partly false picture. But that does not invalidate the truth of the part that they do understand.

Until science comes to see that all things are devoid of any substance whatsoever, then whatever knowledge they might infer from observing the apparent interaction of things will be, at best, merely an approximation of the truth. Does this render all imperial knowledge invalid, certainly not, but it remains inferior to the knowledge that is the purview of the awakened ones.

I just can't quite understand what you think is unreal or untrue about the actual world. The only untue thing is thinking that things are different at the core. But once you have the elements, and unless and until they are unraveled back to their prima materia, the study of it is not in the wrong paradigm, and should not be equated with dreams, at least not our dreams. For example, suppose science comes to the knowledge that all things are indeed permutations of one unvarying substance - what then? Should they throw up their hands and say, oh silly us! We thought that we could get somewhere by studying matter and motion, but it's all a farce for all things are one thing?

The problem does not lie primarily with the knowledge that the sciences uncover, but with how that knowledge is applied. Those who view the objective universe as being fundamentally inert, are more apt to use their knowledge in a manner that will create discord, than would those who know the true nature of the universe. What’s more, and this is the most important point, those holding a philosophically materialistic view of the universe are prone to think more in terms of what serves their own self-interests, as apposed to what is good for the whole; and this is the sort of thinking that has brought us to our present state.

Yes, it is in the sense that all things are unfolding as they should and must which gives me the sensation of perfection. How do we reconcile an unbalanced world with an unfolding that occurs as it should? Will the perfection of the law bring all things back to balance?

Yes, this is precisely the case. The relative world abides in a state of dynamic synchronization (all things being interrelated), and so long as each thing functions in accordance with its intended purpose, there is harmonic balance in the universe; however, when anything (including man) become dysfunctional, that harmonic balance is compromised, and a state of discord ensues.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:00 pm

Jrhu,

I’m afraid I do not see why you say this is necessary. As I pointed out earlier, only the elements of ‘form’ and ‘essence’ are actual, while the elements of ‘embodiment’ (matter), ‘potency’ (energy) and ‘function’(motion/change) are only imaginary. Why then would say that an ‘astral body’ is not imaginary, or x-rays for that matter?

Oh. It is because I forgot those definitions, and by imaginary I thought you meant in the same sense as a purple unicorn is imaginary. However, I am not sure whether I would include the astral body as lacking form and essence. I'd like to reread that bit, but I don't know where it is.

Being, because it comprise these two interdependent and complementary aspects, partakes of the characteristics of both. Existentially, it is absolute, independent and immutable, while essentially it is relative, interdependent and subject to continuous change.

OK

Yes, I would agree that substance is indeed the real, but only so long as we agree not to say that things are possessed of substance – as you have implied in your first paragraph (above). Let us simply say that substance (reality) is that which underlies the appearance of things.

I am not sure what it would mean to say that things are possessed of substance. I think that things are substance.

Until science comes to see that all things are devoid of any substance whatsoever,

How is it you say things are devoid of any substance whatever? How would this differentiate them from nothingness? Things, after all, according to you, are the very inner, essential nature of the absolute. Is there some sort of divide or gap between the real substance which underlies the things, and the things themselves?

Those who view the objective universe as being fundamentally inert,

What do you mean by this?

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:11 am

Iolaus wrote:Oh. It is because I forgot those definitions, and by imaginary I thought you meant in the same sense as a purple unicorn is imaginary. However, I am not sure whether I would include the astral body as lacking form and essence. I'd like to reread that bit, but I don't know where it is.

It is not that such a body lacks form and essence, for indeed all things must have both a form and an essence, but that some essences (those that entail material objects) are embodied within the objective world, an so are accessible to all sentient beings, while others are not. Nevertheless, all things are constituted in the same fashion (relatively), whether they be objective or subjective; and are not real.

I am not sure what it would mean to say that things are possessed of substance. I think that things are substance.

The which is ‘not real’ (things) cannot be possessed of that which is ‘real’ (substance). Consider the following analogy : the sentient mind gives rise to various sorts of mentation, and these mentation abide within the mind, as its content. Now we cannot perceive our own mind (cognitive subject) without that it contains some mentation (cognitive object), and so we might rightfully say that a mind and its mentation partake of an interdependent and complementary existence. Nevertheless, the mind is superior to its mentation, for although the two are co-dependent, it is the mind that creates the mentation, and while the mentation come and go and undergo all sort of modifications, this is not so of the mind. In fact, when we say that we have “changed our mind”, what we are really saying is that we have altered our thoughts concerning some subject, and so it is mentation (thought) that has undergone the change, and not our mind. However, since there can be no mind without mentation, it is easy to see how the two term may be considered to be equivalent.

How is it you say things are devoid of any substance whatever? How would this differentiate them from nothingness? Things, after all, according to you, are the very inner, essential nature of the absolute. Is there some sort of divide or gap between the real substance which underlies the things, and the things themselves?

If things were possessed of anything real (substantial) then they would be incapable of either arising or ceasing. Neither would there constituents be capable of forming relationships, for that which is real cannot be related to anything external.

No, there is no gap between things and that which underlies them, just as there is no gap between thoughts and the mind that supports them.

Those who view the objective universe as being fundamentally inert,
What do you mean by this?

Lifeless and unaware of what is happening to it.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:17 am

Jehu,

It is not that such a body lacks form and essence, for indeed all things must have both a form and an essence, but that some essences (those that entail material objects) are embodied within the objective world, an so are accessible to all sentient beings, while others are not. Nevertheless, all things are constituted in the same fashion (relatively), whether they be objective or subjective; and are not real.

Alright, but I am considering the astral body as something objective and material, as I would definitely consider an xray to be. It need not be accessible to our senses, on the other hand, the brain seems to have far more capability for perception when it is released from its default mode, as altered states can do.

The which is ‘not real’ (things) cannot be possessed of that which is ‘real’ (substance). Consider the following analogy : the sentient mind gives rise to various sorts of mentations, and these mentations abide within the mind, as its content. Now we cannot perceive our own mind (cognitive subject) without that it contains some mentation (cognitive object), and so we might rightfully say that a mind and its mentation partake of an interdependent and complementary existence. Nevertheless, the mind is superior to its mentation, for although the two are co-dependent, it is the mind that creates the mentation, and while the mentations come and go and undergo all sort of modifications, this is not so of the mind. In fact, when we say that we have “changed our mind”, what we are really saying is that we have altered our thoughts concerning some subject, and so it is mentation (thought) that has undergone the change, and not our mind. However, since there can be no mind without mentation, it is easy to see how the two terms may be considered to be equivalent.

Again I am wondering about the mind versus awareness. You say that the mind cannot exist without mentation, but you said that awareness can take itself as its object, as in deep sleep.
Now, when you say that the mind has not changed but only the thoughts, in the case that a person changes their mind, this indicates that you equate the mind with unchanging awareness. And the puzzle that this remark brings to me is, if the mind does not change, and the thoughts are created by the mind, then just who initiates the decision to change the thought stream?
And thirdly, this sort of brings to mind the question that comes from somewhere, perhaps a children's movie "What stuff are dreams made of?"

If things were possessed of anything real (substantial) then they would be incapable of either arising or ceasing. Neither would there constituents be capable of forming relationships, for that which is real cannot be related to anything external.

But the stuff that they are made of does not change! The change is only apparent. I think I first came to this idea/understanding when reading some Hindu stuff in which, first of all you are supposed to learn to see God everywhere and in everything, and the explanation for how this is so is to imagine a world made all of gold. A goldsmith could make a little diorama, a scene, out of gold. You'd have a little gold man and a little gold house with a little gold tree and little gold children, golden mangoes to eat, and so forth. It looks like all these different things but its really all one substance. And this is why I liked string theory, at least the bit which supposes that vibrating strings of energy are all alike at the bottom of the material world (whether the strings are material who knows) and the different vibrations cause changes, which allow the elements to form and so forth. This makes perfect sense to me on a spiritual-intuitive-logical level.

It is you who said that the only solution to a particular logical dilemma is to assume that the changes are only apparent, and not real. Logically, that is sound, but I always like to know how. How does it work?

No, there is no gap between things and that which underlies them, just as there is no gap between thoughts and the mind that supports them.

Well then, if there is no gap between the relative and the absolute, we must answer how it is that there appear to be different entities and different relationships between them, when in fact there are none. And if there is no gap, then how can we say that things lack substance? Rather we must figure out how the substance of God is everything and everywhere.

Two or one? What a dilemma!

Lifeless and unaware of what is happening to it.

Oh, OK.

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:09 pm

Iolaus wrote:Alright, but I am considering the astral body as something objective and material, as I would definitely consider an xray to be. It need not be accessible to our senses, on the other hand, the brain seems to have far more capability for perception when it is released from its default mode, as altered states can do.

You may well be right, for I have never encountered an ‘astral body’, and so I cannot say what its nature might be.

Again I am wondering about the mind versus awareness. You say that the mind cannot exist without mentation, but you said that awareness can take itself as its object, as in deep sleep.

Yes, this is correct, the Absolute is self-aware – for there is only its own essence (knowledge) that it might take as its object.

Now, when you say that the mind has not changed but only the thoughts, in the case that a person changes their mind, this indicates that you equate the mind with unchanging awareness. And the puzzle that this remark brings to me is, if the mind does not change, and the thoughts are created by the mind, then just who initiates the decision to change the thought stream?

The mind is not awareness itself, but a only a reflection of awareness within the relative world – as are all forms. Although awareness cannot be perceived directly, it can be perceived indirectly, but that which is perceived in this manner is but a single expression of that which is truly existent.

And thirdly, this sort of brings to mind the question that comes from somewhere, perhaps a children's movie "What stuff are dreams made of?"

I believe it was Shakespeare who wrote “We are the stuff such as dreams are made of, and our little lives are rounded with a sleep.”

But the stuff that they are made of does not change! The change is only apparent. I think I first came to this idea/understanding when reading some Hindu stuff in which, first of all you are supposed to learn to see God everywhere and in everything, and the explanation for how this is so is to imagine a world made all of gold. A goldsmith could make a little diorama, a scene, out of gold. You'd have a little gold man and a little gold house with a little gold tree and little gold children, golden mangoes to eat, and so forth. It looks like all these different things but its really all one substance. And this is why I liked string theory, at least the bit which supposes that vibrating strings of energy are all alike at the bottom of the material world (whether the strings are material who knows) and the different vibrations cause changes, which allow the elements to form and so forth. This makes perfect sense to me on a spiritual-intuitive-logical level.

Maybe so, but it is no more tenable logically than is the idea of a fundamental particle. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there are such strings, and that they constitute the fundamental building blocks of matter. Given that they (the strings) are separate entities, it follows that there must be something else which separates them one from another, and this other thing must also exist; for we have agreed that there is not non-being. Then, either these two things (strings and that which separates them) are one and the same sort of thing, or they are two different sorts of things. If they are completely different sorts of things, then the cannot be related, for to be related is to enter into one another – through some element held in common. If they are related in some way, then there must be an element which they hold in common, and this element, being that it abides in both things, must be more fundamental than either.

It is you who said that the only solution to a particular logical dilemma is to assume that the changes are only apparent, and not real. Logically, that is sound, but I always like to know how. How does it work?

Yes, I understand, but as I said before, reasoning will act as a rope upon which you can swing from one bank to the other, but in order to achieve the other shore, you must let go of the rope at the appropriate time.

Well then, if there is no gap between the relative and the absolute, we must answer how it is that there appear to be different entities and different relationships between them, when in fact there are none. And if there is no gap, then how can we say that things lack substance? Rather we must figure out how the substance of God is everything and everywhere.
Two or one? What a dilemma!

That which separates the absolute from the relative is the same as that which binds them together –The Principle of Interdependent Complementarity (not-two, not-one, not-both, not-neither) .

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:57 pm

Jehu,

You may well be right, for I have never encountered an ‘astral body’, and so I cannot say what its nature might be.

You have stated that we are beings, timeless beings, and that we will continue to be so. That we might find ourselves in such-and-such a type of lifetime. So, in that case, when the body dies, what do you suppose happens to the piece of awareness? Obviously it must leave the body, and you had mentioned such an awareness craving sensation and not knowing it true nature. Yet this awareness is not identical with, in the sense of being undifferentiated from, other awarenesses or the awareness of the absolute. For if it was, then upon death, this awareness would not have the ability to continue living a separate life. Therefore, we must posit some sort of subtle vehicle for this awareness, as the body is a grosser vehicle.

The mind is not awareness itself, but a only a reflection of awareness within the relative world – as are all forms.

But you had said that the mind is not affected by the thoughts. That sounds like awareness.
Most people discuss the mind as something different from the brain, arguing over whether there is really a transcendent mind. I am not sure if you make this distinction or if we have three things, awareness, mind, and brain. I am still unsure what these terms mean to you.

Although awareness cannot be perceived directly, it can be perceived indirectly, but that which is perceived in this manner is but a single expression of that which is truly existent.

Didn't quite understand this.

Given that they (the strings) are separate entities, it follows that there must be something else which separates them one from another, and this other thing must also exist; for we have agreed that there is not non-being.

Well, it is possible that space separates them, but I have said I don't believe in any empty space. I do indeed think that being is unbroken, but it can be lumpy. Perhaps the strings are like grains of sand in the surf.

Then, either these two things (strings and that which separates them) are one and the same sort of thing, or they are two different sorts of things. If they are completely different sorts of things, then they cannot be related, for to be related is to enter into one another – through some element held in common. If they are related in some way, then there must be an element which they hold in common, and this element, being that it abides in both things, must be more fundamental than either.

It is a good point, I will have to think about it. Perhaps the fundamental matter particle is not the most basic thing. Or perhaps, as I said above, the matter particle is a thickening in a universal soup. And your solution is that things have no substance. But that doesn't make sense.

Yes, I understand, but as I said before, reasoning will act as a rope upon which you can swing from one bank to the other, but in order to achieve the other shore, you must let go of the rope at the appropriate time.

And how do we know when that time has come?

I believe you are insinuating that there isn't an answer, that is, to the question of just exactly how matter works. I am sure there is an answer!

That which separates the absolute from the relative is the same as that which binds them together –The Principle of Interdependent Complementarity (not-two, not-one, not-both, not-neither).

No, no, that can't be right. The principle is just a description of what is. It isn't anything. It's an abstract. The only things which I can accept are completely nonmaterial, are abstract concepts. Those concepts need the material world to be born in our minds, but they themselves are completely immaterial, perhaps more so than thought itself.

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:58 am

Iolaus wrote:You have stated that we are beings, timeless beings, and that we will continue to be so. That we might find ourselves in such-and-such a type of lifetime. So, in that case, when the body dies, what do you suppose happens to the piece of awareness? Obviously it must leave the body, and you had mentioned such an awareness craving sensation and not knowing it true nature. Yet this awareness is not identical with, in the sense of being undifferentiated from, other awarenesses or the awareness of the absolute. For if it was, then upon death, this awareness would not have the ability to continue living a separate life. Therefore, we must posit some sort of subtle vehicle for this awareness, as the body is a grosser vehicle.

I have said that we are ultimately one and the same being, and that it is thought that separates us one from another, thought and ignorance of our true self. I have also said that things are not possessed of their own intrinsic characteristics, and that whatever characteristics they may appear to exhibit are posited to them by that which is real – awareness. For this reason, we cannot say that awareness abides within the body (a thing) during life, or that it leaves the body at death – just as we cannot say that awareness dwells within the dream-body, or leaves the dream-body when we awaken, for the dream-body is merely an illusion, and so has neither an inside nor an outside.

But you had said that the mind is not affected by the thoughts. That sounds like awareness.

Most people discuss the mind as something different from the brain, arguing over whether there is really a transcendent mind. I am not sure if you make this distinction or if we have three things, awareness, mind, and brain. I am still unsure what these terms mean to you.

I used the sentient mind merely as an analogy. The sentient mind is a thing (relative entity), as I demonstrated earlier when I enumerated its elements, and like all things, does not exist apart from its elements. Awareness, on the other hand, is not a thing, and so cannot be defined in terms of its subsidiary components.

Didn't quite understand this.

Forms are a reflection of awareness, which cannot be perceived immediately, but only through the mediation of its complementary aspect – knowledge (essence). It is because forms are intimately related to awareness, that awareness is able to recognize them.

Well, it is possible that space separates them, but I have said I don't believe in any empty space. I do indeed think that being is unbroken, but it can be lumpy. Perhaps the strings are like grains of sand in the surf.

This is merely one more dualistic approach, but the nature of reality is “not-two”.

It is a good point, I will have to think about it. Perhaps the fundamental matter particle is not the most basic thing. Or perhaps, as I said above, the matter particle is a thickening in a universal soup. And your solution is that things have no substance. But that doesn't make sense.

I told you that it would be exceedingly hard to break away from such habitual notions as ‘substance’, but break away you must.

And how do we know when that time has come?

This I cannot say, for the path is yours alone.

I believe you are insinuating that there isn't an answer, that is, to the question of just exactly how matter works. I am sure there is an answer!

Indeed, there is an answer, but as it is written in the ‘Sutra of Innumerable Meanings’ “only a Buddha together with a Buddha can fathom the true nature of dharma (phenomena) ….”

No, no, that can't be right. The principle is just a description of what is. It isn't anything. It's an abstract. The only things which I can accept are completely nonmaterial, are abstract concepts. Those concepts need the material world to be born in our minds, but they themselves are completely immaterial, perhaps more so than thought itself.

Why do you cling so tenaciously to a view that twenty-five hundred years of Western science has been unable to logically rationalize, when you own personal dream experiences tell you that there is another view? Why, if our own petty fragment of awareness is capable of create entire worlds of its own, should you so readily deny that the objective world may be of the same stuff. Why cannot the substance you seek be an intelligent one, a thinking one, an awakened one?

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:16 pm

Jehu,

I have said that we are ultimately one and the same being, and that it is thought that separates us one from another, thought and ignorance of our true self. I have also said that things are not possessed of their own intrinsic characteristics, and that whatever characteristics they may appear to exhibit are posited to them by that which is real – awareness. For this reason, we cannot say that awareness abides within the body (a thing) during life, or that it leaves the body at death – just as we cannot say that awareness dwells within the dream-body, or leaves the dream-body when we awaken, for the dream-body is merely an illusion, and so has neither an inside nor an outside.

I cannot say how we are separated, since I don't know, but I would think it is more than thought. If it is thought, then how does a person who knows they are not separate manage to still remain separate? But I know that what separates the person-molecules from the Being-Ocean is some kind of thin, permeable membrane, and I suppose that it could be made of thought.

If we do not have any intrinsic characteristics, and I agree that we more or less cannot, then what are we doing, why progress, why be compassionate, why take lifetimes to learn to prefer honesty and respect for other beings? What does it mean for a being to do good, not by command but because they prefer it?

If awareness does not abide within the body, then something else very well might. The mind, the soul, something that is more subtle than the body but not the pure, undifferentiated awareness of which you speak. There is too much evidence from out of body experiences, that the consciousness-memory-mind leaves the body at death with full awareness.

When we consider the evidence of the world around us, it seems quite logical to me that there is going to be an intermediate between the very heavy material body and the pure awareness. Things have continuum, they have layers, they have gradations.

If there is but one awwareness, then is it arbitrary that this awareness posits to one person an enjoyment in lying, and another an uncomfortableness with guile? How about when a person changes utterly within a lifetime, due to the understanding that suffering brings them? The word posit indicates that it is something like a fantasy.

This is merely one more dualistic approach, but the nature of reality is “not-two”.

I just don't know if I can understand what you are saying. I would agree that reality is not-two, but much of what you say seems like two. There just isn't much point to existence unless the awareness remains as an entity through vast experiences, so that they can acquire characteristics and wisdom, and experience meaning. The awareness need not be defined as either a separate entity or at unity with Being, rather shouldn't it be both at the same time?

I told you that it would be exceedingly hard to break away from such habitual notions as ‘substance’, but break away you must.

Well the question I had on that is if we say that things have no substance, what does it mean? How is it to be differentiated from nothingness?
Is it possible, not that things lack substance, but that we have a poor understanding of what substance is? You say that the contents of awareness, and upon which awarenes depends for its existence, is knowledge.

Knowledge of what?

It's not that I don't understand the difference between that which is self-existent and that which is not.

Why do you cling so tenaciously to a view that twenty-five hundred years of Western science has been unable to logically rationalize, when you own personal dream experiences tell you that there is another view? Why, if our own petty fragment of awareness is capable of create entire worlds of its own, should you so readily deny that the objective world may be of the same stuff. Why cannot the substance you seek be an intelligent one, a thinking one, an awakened one?

Well, the conversation was about whether or not there is a separation between the absolute and the relative. You say the relative has no substance, and yet you also say they are separated only by a principle.

I am not acatually sure here what view you refer to. That matter is real? At least I subscribe to the idea that it is all energy. Matter is an appearance from a particular point of view within a field of energy. Energy seems real to me.

Furthermore, I don't think my views are very similar to mainstream scientific ones!
The world I create in my dreams does not seem comparable to the dream of the Absolute. It may be on a grander scale I suppose.
When I dream, the situation is not real, but my persona is the same as the one I awaken to. It's just me, having and adventure that isn't real. But I am not able to dream up a plethora of characters and experience the dream from their points of view, or even more than that, to create a consistent universe with vastness and stability.
And, unlike BH who thinks dreams are like bowel movements, I think dreams vary a lot, and have various meanings and uses. At times, the person dreaming accomplishes something profound, such as lucid dreaming, or a visit with someone recently dead, or a telepathy with another person. In those cases the dream is as real as waking life is real.

For example, my daughter dreams that her brother cut his dred locks, (unlikely, he had them for years) at the very same time that he is walking downstairs with a hat on to cover his hair, and to show her that he has cut it. She wakes up and sees him standing by the bed, and says, "Oh, I just dreamed you cut your hair." He takes off the hat.
As for me, I was once agonizing for weeks over a spiritual question very sincerely, and went to two different people for an answer, but then I had a dream which was unlike most dreams, and a person came to me and said that he was going to answer my question and took me on a tour to show me the answer, which in retrospect I now see laid the groundwork for much more profound breakthrough later, all on the same theme, which is universal love. I think that dreams like that are real, in the sense of not being an internal fantasy, but involve contact with another entity. Nor could such an encounter have occurred in waking reality. Because in waking reality, all you can do is talk.

The very problem you are having with me!

Well, perhaps that doesn't relate...are you saying that consciousness is the substance of the universe?

Actually, most people, unless they are atheists, believe in something they call the nonmaterial. But I must be worse than them, maybe I am an atheist, for nonmateriality makes no sense to me at all. If something is, it is. And the only thing that ISness can be contrasted to is nothingness.

Yet I do have a quandary in that the self-existing Being must be invulnerable, and material things are vulnerable.
So, I am confused.

I know there is only one substance, and that substance is God, so where are we hung up?

Jehu · Post by **Jehu** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:10 pm

Iolaus wrote:If we do not have any intrinsic characteristics, and I agree that we more or less cannot, then what are we doing, why progress, why be compassionate, why take lifetimes to learn to prefer honesty and respect for other beings? What does it mean for a being to do good, not by command but because they prefer it?

It is not a matter of learning to prefer good over evil, it is merely a matter of awakening to one’s true nature, and then there is naturally an outpouring of loving kindness and compassion.

If awareness does not abide within the body, then something else very well might. The mind, the soul, something that is more subtle than the body but not the pure, undifferentiated awareness of which you speak. There is too much evidence from out of body experiences, that the consciousness-memory-mind leaves the body at death with full awareness.

Let us return to the matter of the relative entity, for it is imperative that you see that it is only an apparent entity, and that it has no intrinsic characteristics whatsoever. Further, as it is the essence of the material object that you seem to cling to the most, let us speak in terms of material things. As we said before, a relative thing arises as a result of the binding together of its constitutive causes (elements), and that there is no thing apart from those elements. For this reason, we cannot say that a thing’s constitutive causes (essence) abide within the thing itself, but that the thing itself abides, not ‘within’, but rather ‘among’ its elements; as a pattern of distribution or ‘form’. This is analogous to how the constellation Virgo exists only as a pattern of distribution among that group of stars which constitute its material essence, and if those stars were to either scatter or cease to exist, so too would the constellation Virgo cease to exist – at least in actuality.

Now, the same is true of a bicycle, for the thing we call a bicycle does not abided within its component parts, neither individually or as a whole, but as a particular pattern of distribution among its essential components. For example, it would not due to simply attach all the bicycle components together willy-nilly, for the resulting thing would not have the capacity to function as a bicycle; and a thing is as it does. [“Stupid is as stupid does!” – Forest Gump] So you see, even though the form of a bicycle is non-material, it is not non-existent; in fact, it is more real that is the material components wherein it is embodied, for they are subject to continuous change, while it has at least a modicum of stability.

When we consider the evidence of the world around us, it seems quite logical to me that there is going to be an intermediate between the very heavy material body and the pure awareness. Things have continuum, they have layers, they have gradations.

There is indeed an intermediate between the absolute (awareness) and the relative (knowledge), and it is called ‘Thought’, ‘Reason’, ‘Truth’, ‘God’, and a dozen other names; but it is the ‘Law of Identity’, the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’. It is as Parmenides said, “thinking and being are the same”.

If there is but one awareness, then is it arbitrary that this awareness posits to one person an enjoyment in lying, and another an uncomfortableness with guile? How about when a person changes utterly within a lifetime, due to the understanding that suffering brings them? The word posit indicates that it is something like a fantasy.

Yes, it is exactly like a fantasy. A fragment of awareness falls into a state of ignorance wherein it imagines that that which is not real is real, and that which is real is not real. Because of ignorance there arises the notion of a self-abiding self, this gives rise to craving after things, this leads to self-serving activities, and these give birth to all manner of suffering and evil. So you see, while it is the absolute that maintains the illusion of an objective world which is accessible to all sentient beings, it is the fragmented awareness of the sentient beings themselves which give rise to all things evil.

I just don't know if I can understand what you are saying. I would agree that reality is not-two, but much of what you say seems like two. There just isn't much point to existence unless the awareness remains as an entity through vast experiences, so that they can acquire characteristics and wisdom, and experience meaning. The awareness need not be defined as either a separate entity or at unity with Being, rather shouldn't it be both at the same time?

Awareness is but one aspect of the one true entity – Being/God, but Being/God is not a sentient being, and we must not fall into the trap of thinking that Being/God perceives in the same sort of way that we human beings perceive.

Well the question I had on that is if we say that things have no substance, what does it mean? How is it to be differentiated from nothingness?
Is it possible, not that things lack substance, but that we have a poor understanding of what substance is?

It is not to be differentiated from ‘nothing’, for it is no-thing; nevertheless, it is not non-existent, it is real. However, because it is real, we cannot predicate anything of it, and so we think that it is not real, while that which we can predicate of, we erroneously think to be real.

You say that the contents of awareness, and upon which awareness depends for its existence, is knowledge. Knowledge of what?

Itself, of course, for there is no other.

Well, the conversation was about whether or not there is a separation between the absolute and the relative. You say the relative has no substance, and yet you also say they are separated only by a principle.

What I have been saying is not that there is no ‘underlying reality’ (substance) to things, but only that this reality does not abide within the thing itself, but in the cognizant awareness of the sentient observer who imagines it.

I am not actually sure here what view you refer to. That matter is real? At least I subscribe to the idea that it is all energy. Matter is an appearance from a particular point of view within a field of energy. Energy seems real to me.

Energy is merely a term which refers to the latent potential of a material thing to affect it environment, and so is but one of the five elements that comprise all things. Further, as energy is subject to change, it cannot be real.

Iolaus · Post by **Iolaus** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:31 am

Jehu,

It is not a matter of learning to prefer good over evil, it is merely a matter of awakening to one’s true nature, and then there is naturally an outpouring of loving kindness and compassion.

Why compassion and lovingkindness?
I wonder if you have read Jed McKenna. Not because he mocks the compassion bit, (being supposedly enlightened) but also because I am puzzled about his take on mysticism.

Let us return to the matter of the relative entity, for it is imperative that you see that it is only an apparent entity, and that it has no intrinsic characteristics whatsoever.

Well, yes I see that and it is a very good thing, but I guess I am talking about acquired characteristics. On that, more below.

a relative thing arises as a result of the binding together of its constitutive causes (elements), and that there is no thing apart from those elements. For this reason, we cannot say that a thing’s constitutive causes (essence) abide within the thing itself, but that the thing itself abides, not ‘within’, but rather ‘among’ its elements; as a pattern of distribution or ‘form’.

Yes.

There is indeed an intermediate between the absolute (awareness) and the relative (knowledge), and it is called ‘Thought’, ‘Reason’, ‘Truth’, ‘God’, and a dozen other names; but it is the ‘Law of Identity’, the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’. It is as Parmenides said, “thinking and being are the same”.

I have wondered if thinking and being are the same, and I am not sure if that can be so. It seems to me the ultimate mystery is existence itself, existence of the real I mean. Therefore, how to ponder it? But, I suspect this line of inquiry cannot be answered any time soon and is not essential.

But anyway, as to an intermediate, I was referring to something else entirely. I was saying that the person embodied probably has subtle bodies that are not visible. I do believe that science has already shown this. You ought to have more interest in this! because there is indication of an electric or electromagnetic "adult" form surrounding, for example, an embryo or young living thing.

Yes, it is exactly like a fantasy. A fragment of awareness falls into a state of ignorance wherein it imagines that that which is not real is real, and that which is real is not real. Because of ignorance there arises the notion of a self-abiding self, this gives rise to craving after things, this leads to self-serving activities, and these give birth to all manner of suffering and evil. So you see, while it is the absolute that maintains the illusion of an objective world which is accessible to all sentient beings, it is the fragmented awareness of the sentient beings themselves which give rise to all things evil.

Yes, but is there a point to the experience? A goal or accomplishment? Despite that the sentient being acquires characteristics which are not inherent or real, nonetheless they may be extremely useful if the sentient being is involved in an incarnation of Brahma which, according to the Hindus lasts some 23 trillion years, if memory serves. So, while we may not be truly eternal (and do we want to be?) that is indeed a very long process. And those characteristics are acquired through knowledge in the Biblical sense, that is by experience/knowledge.
I guess, in the end, my views on this are alchemical, since I think that alchemy is a deep truth of the universe. It involves that there are three things, which are really two things, which are really one thing, but which cannot unite, (like yin-yang) and through long processes, forging a new entity, in which the three are united in an indissoluble bond. This is the philosopher's stone, a material-spiritual object, but is true on many levels of existence.

In my opinion, if there could be such a thing as a one, true religion, it would be alchemy.
Everyone thinks they have a real soul, but I had come to the conclusion that we are rather in a process of becoming real, or perhaps I should say, realer, ever more real.

But yes, the purity, what you call awareness, is always unalterable.

Awareness is but one aspect of the one true entity – Being/God, but Being/God is not a sentient being, and we must not fall into the trap of thinking that Being/God perceives in the same sort of way that we human beings perceive.

Yes, I agree. It's another mystery.

It is not to be differentiated from ‘nothing’, for it is no-thing; nevertheless,

The problem is that nothingness in English really does mean nothing. Nonexistence. So the Japanese or Buddhist idea of no-thing should be perhaps rendered non-thing.

What I have been saying is not that there is no ‘underlying reality’ (substance) to things, but only that this reality does not abide within the thing itself, but in the cognizant awareness of the sentient observer who imagines it.

When we speak of the way a bicycle or a constellation does not abide within its components, I agree entirely. It is the substance of the underlying reality that I am interested in. I can't understand what you mean that things lack substance. Nor what it means to say that the only substance is imagination. I suppose that one similarity between the manifest world and my dreams, is that they both can dissolve. But, dissolve back into what?

Energy is merely a term which refers to the latent potential of a material thing to affect it environment, and so is but one of the five elements that comprise all things. Further, as energy is subject to change, it cannot be real.

Well, energy is latent in matter because that is what matter is made of. I'd say it is energy which gives rise to matter, and that matter could disappear back into the underlying field, call it the quantum field, or the A field, or the Force.

Is that the mind of God?
I can't imagine existence without energy.
Thought might precede it, and have the capacity to generate it.
Maybe energy does not change but only appears to, to us.
Tell me again the 5 elements.

GENIUS FORUMS

The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being