I don't understand...

[geniuine]

The more I try, the less I know... Soon, there will be nothing left. What's happening?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Could you be more specific, with an example?

[geniuine]

No. I'm afraid.

[Ryan Rudolph]

All understanding is based on analyzing the world of things, and in a sense, things are undivided, so when the minds abides in emptiness, there is nothing to understand, but as once as you want to break up reality into pieces, and start observing patterns, and seeing relationships, then there is lots to understand. And so the enlightened mind needs to learn how to accept the dualistic nature of the thinking process.... do you follow?

[geniuine]

Not really. Can you please provide a few examples?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

geniuine, take the example of a glass breaking on the floor, and follow along:

"All understanding is based on analyzing the world of things"
Can you understand why the glass breaks on the floor without analyzing the things involved?

"in a sense, things are undivided"
This implies that in one sense things are divided. How are things divided? Why are they divided? In what sense might this division not be completely true?

"when the minds abides in emptiness, there is nothing to understand"
This follows from the above two premises; if you can only understand why a glass breaks (or any other thing happens) by looking at things, but this division into things is not completely true, then nothing can be understood when dealing solely with truth. (If you disagree with one of the above premises, then this would not follow.)

"as once as you want to break up reality into pieces, and start observing patterns, and seeing relationships, then there is lots to understand."
This is the other side of the coin; if the above sentence is what happens when dealing with truth, this is what happens when dealing with things that must be understood.

"And so the enlightened mind needs to learn how to accept the dualistic nature of the thinking process."
If the above is true, then if you want to understand why a glass breaks on a floor, but also want to understand truth, you will need to reconcile yourself with these two facets of thought.

[Tomas]

Not really. Can you please provide a few examples?

When did you figger in\out yer as stupid is as stupid duz. Huh?

Punk... the match and the firecracker? Does the match head have an ignition source? If it becomes lit, is there a time limit how long it will remain lit? Does the smoke from the match and the punk roll over into the powder to ignite the fuse on a firecracker?

This is unknown.

.

[Blair]

To understand reality you must basically undo everything you know of it.

Invert it, overhaul your mind. What seems true, is false, and v.v

[geniuine]

Can you understand why the glass breaks on the floor without analyzing the things involved?

I don't think so, because without the things involved, there's nothing to understand.

How are things divided?

Senses and perceptions?

Why are they divided?

They were caused to be divided.

In what sense might this division not be completely true?

Maybe in the absence of a mind.

if you can only understand why a glass breaks (or any other thing happens) by looking at things, but this division into things is not completely true, then nothing can be understood when dealing solely with truth.

I don't know what you mean. Though, I do agree that if a mind isn't thinking about anything, then at that point, there's nothing to be understood (in a way).

This is the other side of the coin; if the above sentence is what happens when dealing with truth, this is what happens when dealing with things that must be understood.

Again, I don't know what you mean.

if you want to understand why a glass breaks on a floor, but also want to understand truth, you will need to reconcile yourself with these two facets of thought.

If a glass breaks on the floor, then that's the truth - meaning, the glass did break on the floor (it's true, if it actually happened).

You lost me, when you started referring to thought as something dual... Or did you mean that the absence of thought (simple consciousness or observation) is directly linked to thought itself (or part of the thinking process)?

[Sarge_Jr]

What is there to understand if you have nothing to understand? Its a endless and pointless loop.

If you want to crack what reality is you need to notice, like the smashing glass thing, what makes things happen. What makes two people break apart? Their differences? The unwanted truth revealed?

Analyze everything. Take your time, you've got plenty of it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Senses and perceptions?

...If a glass breaks on the floor, then that's the truth - meaning, the glass did break on the floor (it's true, if it actually happened).

If you divide the glass and the floor into things through senses and perceptions, wouldn't that be the same as saying that it only breaks in perception? Meaning, it only appears to break? What part of the glass breaking happens actually?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Geniune,

Not really. Can you please provide a few examples?,

An example: you’re sitting at your computer desk - now, your room, you, your house, and the entire universe for that matter are one undivided movement. And when the ego goes out the widow, there isn’t a felt separation between you and the outside world, now the distinction made between things in the world is purely a function of the mind. Meaning, the mind is what divides reality up, and it needs to do this to make any sense of what is going on. For instance: you need to understand what relationship your window has to your computer desk. Things need to be understood so that we can safety live and navigate throughout the world, but in the deepest sense, reality is undivided…

So in one sense, there is no limit to what you can understand because reality can be analyzed in very fine detail in every aspect of reality. From the tiniest parts of the human cell to the farthest galaxy. However, on the other hand, when the mind abides in emptiness; there is nothing to understand because the mind is undivided from the environment. In such a state, all emotionalism and ego has ended.

[geniuine]

If you divide the glass and the floor into things through senses and perceptions, wouldn't that be the same as saying that it only breaks in perception?

Well, without being aware of the floor, the glass, and the breakage, we wouldn't know the difference.

Meaning, it only appears to break? What part of the glass breaking happens actually?

Yes, it appears to break, so therefore it actually breaks.

[geniuine]

An example: you’re sitting at your computer desk - now, your room, you, your house, and the entire universe for that matter are one undivided movement. And when the ego goes out the widow, there isn’t a felt separation between you and the outside world

Actually, there is, because when I look around my room, I'm not the picture of me on the wall, so there's that kind of distinction that can be made. By that I mean, I am not observing from the percpective of the picture, rather I'm looking at it. Do you know what I mean? Example: I'm like a light-bulb, shining in a dark room; there's an obvious difference between the source of light and that of what the light it illuminating.

now the distinction made between things in the world is purely a function of the mind. Meaning, the mind is what divides reality up, and it needs to do this to make any sense of what is going on. For instance: you need to understand what relationship your window has to your computer desk. Things need to be understood so that we can safety live and navigate throughout the world, but in the deepest sense, reality is undivided…

Yeah, that's what I'm not getting... I'm under the impression that it's all a function of the mind. Without it, there would be nothing (no awareness). The mind was caused and all that, but without the mind, we wouldn't know this.

So in one sense, there is no limit to what you can understand because reality can be analyzed in very fine detail in every aspect of reality. From the tiniest parts of the human cell to the farthest galaxy. However, on the other hand, when the mind abides in emptiness; there is nothing to understand because the mind is undivided from the environment. In such a state, all emotionalism and ego has ended.

Yeah, I don't understand that part. Does it have something to do with what Trevor wrote about the duality of the mind? The only thing that comes to my mind, after reading that, is that if we aren't using our brains, then we have nothing to learn (from our own perspective of course).

[geniuine]

This almost seems like a waste of time.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Genuine,

Actually, there is, because when I look around my room, I'm not the picture of me on the wall, so there's that kind of distinction that can be made. By that I mean, I am not observing from the percpective of the picture, rather I'm looking at it. Do you know what I mean? Example: I'm like a light-bulb, shining in a dark room; there's an obvious difference between the source of light and that of what the light it illuminating.

My point is that in emptiness, one doesn’t feel separate from anything, there is no window, no trees, or computer. There is only a subjective union with the outside world. The mind has fallen totally silent, and in that silence, the mind is reality.

Yeah, that's what I'm not getting... I'm under the impression that it's all a function of the mind. Without it, there would be nothing (no awareness). The mind was caused and all that, but without the mind, we wouldn't know this.

But there is still an undivided reality in the absence of a mind to break it up.

The only thing that comes to my mind, after reading that, is that if we aren't using our brains, then we have nothing to learn (from our own perspective of course).

The fundamental difference is that an enlightened unknowing emptiness is much different than a mind that believes in knowledge. Reason helps the mind to fall into emptiness by realizing what cannot to known.

This almost seems like a waste of time.

What else should you be doing that is more important than this?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yes, it appears to break, so therefore it actually breaks.

Let's check for consistency. Take a more extreme example of appearance, say, a hallucination. A schizophrenic sees a spaghetti-sauce-like substance dripping out of his television set, yet everyone around him says that the TV is behaving normally. Would you say that the sauce actually covers the TV set? Is appearance sufficient for actuality?

This almost seems like a waste of time.

You opened with a very general question, and not a single example. How do you expect anyone to be able to help you with a specific problem if you don't say what the problem is? The best I can do is no better than a doctor asking a barely responsive patient if it hurts here, or here, or here.

[geniuine]

My point is that in emptiness, one doesn’t feel separate from anything, there is no window, no trees, or computer. There is only a subjective union with the outside world. The mind has fallen totally silent, and in that silence, the mind is reality.

Sure, one doesn't feel separate, but the separation exists in the same way that the separation between an observer and that which is being observed, exists.

But there is still an undivided reality in the absence of a mind to break it up.

There is no reality in the absence of the mind. In addition, it still requires a mind to think of such a thing!

The fundamental difference is that an enlightened unknowing emptiness is much different than a mind that believes in knowledge.

?

Reason helps the mind to fall into emptiness by realizing what cannot be known.

What if one believes that everything can be known? Besides, what's the point of just shutting off?

What else should you be doing that is more important than this?

Perhaps seeking out new and exciting experiences and living life to the fullest!?

[geniuine]

A schizophrenic sees a spaghetti-sauce-like substance dripping out of his television set, yet everyone around him says that the TV is behaving normally. Would you say that the sauce actually covers the TV set? Is appearance sufficient for actuality?

Yes (in a sense), because that's what the schizophrenic sees, so it's true for him. How can he possibly determine that which everyone else sees is the truth if it's different from that which he so plainly sees. I mean, for all he knows, everyone else is in on it and they're just trying to pull the wool over his eyes. So, the next step would be to examine, what's actually happening. To leave it, when there's evidence that everyone else might be right, would be even more insane.

On the flip side, how do the people that don't see the sauce determine that they're right and not the ones that are hallucinating? Simply because they're part of the majority, doesn't make them right...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

So, the next step would be to examine, what's actually happening. To leave it, when there's evidence that everyone else might be right, would be even more insane.

On the flip side, how do the people that don't see the sauce determine that they're right and not the ones that are hallucinating? Simply because they're part of the majority, doesn't make them right.

Ah, when I bring in the possibility of hallucination, we see that you still have an actually happening apart from sensation. Is it possible that there is no actuality, and that nothing exists whatsoever apart from perception (eg. the glass, floor, spaghetti sauce, and TV do not exist as anything other than perceptions)? Or, if there is an actuality: what is it, apart from perception?

[geniuine]

Trevor,

Ah, when I bring in the possibility of hallucination, we see that you still have an actually happening apart from sensation. Is it possible that there is no actuality, and that nothing exists whatsoever apart from perception (eg. the glass, floor, spaghetti sauce, and TV do not exist as anything other than perceptions)? Or, if there is an actuality: what is it, apart from perception?

Can you please elaborate?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You said "the next step is to examine what's actually happening."

Thus, you suggested that something is actually happening, and that this event is actually happening apart from how the schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic sees the world.

I asked if the opposite of this is possible. That is to say, I asked if is a possible scenario for nothing to ever happen outside of perception.

Similar questions using examples: does the hallucination exist outside of the perception of the schizophrenic? Does the glass break outside of the perception of the person who dropped it?

If either of those last two questions are answered "yes", then there is something other than perception involved. There is an outside that needs to be accounted for.

[geniuine]

You said "the next step is to examine what's actually happening."

It's what happens (naturally) when two conflicting ideas meet.

OK, I'm curious to see where you take me, so I'll give you direct answers to your questions:

A schizophrenic sees a spaghetti-sauce-like substance dripping out of his television set, yet everyone around him says that the TV is behaving normally. Would you say that the sauce actually covers the TV set?

No.

Is appearance sufficient for actuality?

No.

Is it possible that there is no actuality, and that nothing exists whatsoever apart from perception (eg. the glass, floor, spaghetti sauce, and TV do not exist as anything other than perceptions)?

No.

Or, if there is an actuality: what is it, apart from perception?

I have no idea.

does the hallucination exist outside of the perception of the schizophrenic?

No.

Does the glass break outside of the perception of the person who dropped it?

Yes.

If either of those last two questions are answered "yes", then there is something other than perception involved. There is an outside that needs to be accounted for.

That's right, perceptions don't just cause themselves.

How's that for consistency?

[geniuine]

I'm sure that I have yet to contradict myself!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Genuine,

There is no reality in the absence of the mind. In addition, it still requires a mind to think of such a thing!

Here’s an exercise – if all minds were absent from the earth, would the earth still exist in our universe? Basically if all members of our species destroyed themselves, would the earth continue going of in the absence of minds? Of course it would, and it might even evolve intelligent life again. Such a progression indicates that a reality exists in the absence of consciousness. However, consciousness is necessary to understand what has been in the absence of consciousness….

Perhaps seeking out new and exciting experiences and living life to the fullest!?

What sort of experiences are you talking about?