I have Realized the Infinite

[Loki]

According to my own evaluation, I have attained a clear understanding of how Reality has an Infinite nature. A month ago I was very confused, but now I am seeing clearly.

Thanks goes out to those forum members who have given me their time and patience since my inception. You know who you are.

-

So what's the point of this thread? In part, I wanted to give thanks, but mostly I just wanted to share my new understanding. Now that I've explored the territory, I have a map, so why not share the map so others can make the journey easier than I have made it? There are lots of maps to enlightenment out there, and each map is unique and appeals to specific personalities, and perhaps my unique take on enlightenment will appeal to a certain type of person. Perhaps you may find what I'm about to say uniquely useful. Also, criticism of my "map" is very much encouraged, because I'm not under the illusion that I have nothing else to learn and improve upon, but I do feel I've made significant progress.

-

Realizing the Infinite

To realize the infinite nature of all things, you must first acknowledge a few basic things, or, in other words, you must accept a few basic premises, and understand why these premises must be accepted.

For starters, things, as we are able to know them, are appearances. Appearances, by definition, require mind. Appearances comprise our reality, they are what we wonder about, and they provide a means to know. Reality is a myriad of appearances, and Reality is also the logical implications that make these appearances possible.

Reality, Existence, Appearance, Thing, Manifestation, these are all tied together. That which appears is a thing, and that which is a thing exists, and that which exists manifests, and the logical implications of manifestation is our Reality. Reality isn't just perception of things themselves, but reality is also the entirety of logical implications that make manifestation, existence, thingness, and appearance possible.

The basic premises I just outlined above comprise the first step, and I personally found it a rather tricky first step. If you walk away from this first step I outlined without seeing the significance and absoluteness of A=A, then you have not really understood the first step. It's deceptively, deceptively simple. It's extreme simplicity is perhaps what makes it so difficult to clearly see.

The second step, I found, to be quite a bit easier, and in fact, I clearly understood it even before I really understood the first step.

The second step is to understand the dualistic nature of any manifestation. A manifestation, such as a white dot, exists in contrast to what it is not (the surrounding otherness). A white dot cannot exist without contrasting itself with otherness, and this "surrounding otherness" is just as much a manifestation or thing as the white dot. A white dot also can't exist without having dimension (one side in contrast to another) or one curve connecting to a contrasting curve. So appearances, by nature, are dual. Also, since a thing is dependent on otherness, then the dualness is a oneness. Things cannot exist without other things, and therefore they are one. And since the two are actually a oneness, then a specific thing doesn't have real boundaries, because a thing's counterpart is a part of what that thing is. The two things are a unity, and the boundary is there for convenience. (Note: Although I had no problem realizing how things are dual and a unity, I did struggle with accepting the lack of boundaries).

Trickiness ensues in the third step, which I found even harder than the first step. The third step is to understand how the dual (thingness) has an infinite essence. I'll say it again: that which is dual (thing v thing) has an infinite essence.

How can a person really know this?

Well, as David Quinn recently stressed to me, you first have to get it out of your head that the “Infinite nature of things” has anything to do with space expanding outwardly in all directions. You also have to realize that it doesn't matter if the universe does or doesn't expand infinitely in all directions. This doesn't matter simply because it's not something we can really know, and the goal here is to stick with what we can know.

What is it that we can know about the reality right in front of us?

Like I said, things are dual, and the dual has an infinite nature. So how do we know the dual has an infinite nature? Well, you just have to ask yourself where the cause of a thing resides.

Bring your mind back to the white dot (in the foreground) in contrast to the black background.

What causes the white dot in the foreground? We could say that the surrounding black background causes the white foreground dot, but then we would have to ask what causes the black background. We could say that the white dot in the foreground causes the black background, but then we're back to where we started: what causes the white dot in the foreground?

Where does the cause of the black background (or of anything) truly reside?

The causes of things reside everywhere and nowhere.

I'll tell you why. If you pinpoint a location where a thing's cause resides, then you have to ask where that cause resides, and then you move to another spot, but then that spot needs a cause, and this must go on infinitely. A thing's cause resides everywhere and nowhere. It is ineffable and unseen. The essence of a thing cannot manifest, it is not finite - and thus it is INFINITE.

You should notice that my analysis sticks with understanding the nature of appearances, in other words, the nature of that which appears to the mind. This is because we aren’t able to know that which exists beyond the mind, because the moment we do, it becomes a part of the mind. So my analysis sticks with the nature of knowing, the nature of manifestation, appearance, and existence, because this is my Reality.

Questions? Criticisms?

[guest_of_logic]

Evangelist: So after hearing the words of salvation as spoken to you direct from the Lord our God through this humble preacher, who from our first-time guests is willing to take the commitment of a lifetime and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour?

Loki: [takes the podium]

Questions? Criticisms?

Not right now - maybe another time. Or maybe not. Just wanted to give my immediate reaction to your Road to Damascus experience.

[Animus]

Infinitus fluidus

[jupiviv]

To realize the infinite nature of all things, you must first acknowledge a few basic things, or, in other words, you must accept a few basic premises, and understand why these premises must be accepted.

This first step is wrong itself. Never "accept" anything, or you'll end up in darkness.

For starters, things, as we are able to know them, are appearances. Appearances, by definition, require mind. Appearances comprise our reality, they are what we wonder about, and they provide a means to know. Reality is a myriad of appearances, and Reality is also the logical implications that make these appearances possible.

This is something that appears to your mind. Is it then possible that it could be something else? The answer lies in the question itself.

Furthermore, it could also be said that non-appearances comprise our reality. All things that appear are caused by the things that do not appear. You'll probably say that anything that does not appear is not a thing by definition, but therein lies another problem. If there is a category and definition of not-a-thing, then isn't that category itself also a thing? Again, the answer lies in the question.

[Loki]

To realize the infinite nature of all things, you must first acknowledge a few basic things, or, in other words, you must accept a few basic premises, and understand why these premises must be accepted.

This first step is wrong itself. Never "accept" anything, or you'll end up in darkness.

You don't even know what I mean by accept, you are just guessing (but I wonder if you are even conscious that you are guessing).

By accept, I just mean, "confirm as correct". Take the proposition: "things are appearances". This is something to be accepted, provided one is to advance further. Without accepting this basic proposition, you cannot discern truths that depend on this proposition.

For starters, things, as we are able to know them, are appearances. Appearances, by definition, require mind. Appearances comprise our reality, they are what we wonder about, and they provide a means to know. Reality is a myriad of appearances, and Reality is also the logical implications that make these appearances possible.

This is something that appears to your mind. Is it then possible that it could be something else?

What appears can't be other than how it appears.

Furthermore, it could also be said that non-appearances comprise our reality.

That which can't appear (the unseen) is a part of what drives reality, yes I covered that already.

All things that appear are caused by the things that do not appear.

Things are rooted in the infinite (in the unseen). My first post actually covers this.

You'll probably say that anything that does not appear is not a thing by definition, but therein lies another problem. If there is a category and definition of not-a-thing, then isn't that category itself also a thing?

A category may be a thing, but don't confuse the category with the actuality. The actuality is infinite, and the infinite does not fit my definition of a thing.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

It's always anthropomorphism, isn't it? Can that which is finite grasp that which is infinite? Not without a radical shift in thinking.

[Kelly Jones]

Evangelist: So after hearing the words of salvation as spoken to you direct from the Lord our God through this humble preacher, who from our first-time guests is willing to take the commitment of a lifetime and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour?

Loki: [takes the podium]

Questions? Criticisms?

Not right now - maybe another time. Or maybe not. Just wanted to give my immediate reaction to your Road to Damascus experience.

Laird, it's not the messianic or evangelical nuances that really bother you, because you've shown yourself to be quite happy to jump into such roles with your own God-speak. Rather, it's Loki's desire to articulate his own approach to some ideas he accepts, they being ideas which you don't accept.

You've explained to us all why you disagree with the idea of the Infinite. So we know where you're at. That Loki happened to mention the very point that David made, to show why your disagreement is founded on an error, is no reason to make such a snide and underhand post. You weren't able to understand the point about timelessness being the ever-present nature of Reality, but held tightly onto the view that discrete sequential time units are somehow intrinsically so, and therefore took the wrong view of timelessness as being the result of infinitely extendable chains of these discrete units. And that's no one's fault but your own.

Be honest. If you are too tired, too ill, or too apathetic to make a decent supporting argument to justify your post, then don't post. Please stop indulging in those snide little remarks, as they're rude and utterly pointless.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[Pincho Paxton]

The duality is right, but the infinite paradox of duality appears to be wrong. Did black create white, or did white create black? With duality they are one, so they both appeared, and they had no boundaries. But they did become the boundaries for everything else. They were the paper that the Universe was created on. So duality that followed, was actually also part of the paper, so in a way the next part of nature was 4 which is 2 plus 2... if you think of it's two halves they are just bigger, more mass.


Example: (Could have the order wrong.. could be photon, Black Hole)

The universe material (Aether, Black Hole) = Creation (zero) = (1+-1) Duality

photon / electron = 4 = (2+2) Duality but using the Universal material as well, so you have..
electron / black hole = 1
photon / Aether = 3

Atom / Nucleus= 8 = (4+4) Duality but using the Universal material and the photon, electron.

Their boundaries by the way are the fact that the material that is their paper (the Aether) is made from tiny bubbles. So they are encased in a bubble like a fly in resin. That is their boundary.

[Robert]

Hey Pincho:

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
In the wine (in the wine)
Make me happy (make me happy)
Make me feel fine (make me feel fine)

...

[Pam Seeback]

Because self is the visible, finite effect of the invisible, infinite cause SELF, self cannot REALize SELF. Analyzed effect of sense cannot realize the Spirit (invisible) Source of analyzed effect of sense. Self can opine about SELF, self can conjecture about SELF, self can make suppositions about SELF, but self cannot know the REALity of SELF.

Self must disAPPEAR so SELF can BE.

[Kunga]

so...without the feminine (unconsciousness)
there is no masculinity (consciousness)
so.............the infinite is both masculine & feminine .
without the unconscious there is no conscious.

A=A

[guest_of_logic]

Kelly, you seem not to have understood my "snide little remarks". It was with good reason that someone - I think Alex, in an earlier incarnation - coined the term QRStianity.

[Loki]

Yes Laird, I'm a religious follower.

How about you actually try using logical argumentation to debunk my OP?

Please quit spamming my thread with lazy, tired sentiments.

[Pincho Paxton]

Because self is the visible, finite effect of the invisible, infinite cause SELF, self cannot REALize SELF. Analyzed effect of sense cannot realize the Spirit (invisible) Source of analyzed effect of sense. Self can opine about SELF, self can conjecture about SELF, self can make suppositions about SELF, but self cannot know the REALity of SELF.

Self must disAPPEAR so SELF can BE.

We don't examine self, we examine somebody else it's easier. Even electrons are invisible, but they leave a message behind which we can get an image of.

Hot air rises... it's invisible, but we know it rises. We built a balloon, and used its nature.

The suns radiation will burn us.... it's invisible, but we know that it burns us. we know that it's a wave. We know that it comes from the Sun. We built a microwave oven, and copied its design.

The Aether creates self... this will invent a 3D plasma TV, anti-gravity transport, and thinking computers, and maybe teleportation. (we just haven't got round to it yet.)

[Loki]

I just wanted to elaborate more on the infinite nature of things...

Consider this quadrant:



Clearly there is a left side and a right side, and there are top quadrants and bottom quadrants.

How could the left exist without the right? How could a top exist without a bottom?

Since it's obviously impossible for a thing to exist without it's counterpart, a thing's essence is beyond form. If we were to say the essence of top is bottom, we could not be entirely correct, because the bottom requires the top just as much as the bottom. The nature of "topness", "bottomness" or "leftness" or anything is fundamentally empty, hence Infinite.

The simplicity of truth is so extreme that it is abhorrent to the human mind.

[Pincho Paxton]

I just wanted to elaborate more on the infinite nature of things...

Consider this quadrant:



Clearly there is a left side and a right side, and there are top quadrants and bottom quadrants.

How could the left exist without the right? How could a top exist without a bottom?

Since it's obviously impossible for a thing to exist without it's counterpart, a thing's essence is beyond form. If we were to say the essence of top is bottom, we could not be entirely correct, because the bottom requires the top just as much as the bottom. The nature of "topness", "bottomness" or "leftness" or anything is fundamentally empty, hence Infinite.

The simplicity of truth is so extreme that it is abhorrent to the human mind.

Well I guess you mean that the plank sized Aether never ends from the square outwards into the universe. If you were plank sized you however would have a boundary still, and that would be the fact that you are spinning, and this gyroscopic spin holds you at a point in space.

[guest_of_logic]

How about you actually try using logical argumentation to debunk my OP?

I'm tired now, and not long ago I finished writing a very long post to another forum, so I don't have the energy to put in a lot of analysis, but I'll have a bit of a go at it:

You're playing a game of redefinitions, just like QRS. You've redefined "infinite" so that it no longer means what it conventionally does - something like "unlimited in extent" - but now means something very odd that's hard to express concisely - something like "can be conceived of as being comprised of a randomly selectable indefinite chain of causes-by-physical-relation". Hey, if you feel like redefining words, go right ahead I suppose, but I don't really see the point - why? Just so that you can start a thread with "Infinite" in the title?

Your version of infinite is very easily applied to that which is conventionally considered finite. Take the totality of my field of vision right now. Conventionally, it is finite (i.e. in spatial extent), but by your definition I could say "The top rightmost dot of my computer monitor is caused by that which is - well, in your words, 'everywhere and nowhere' - so by that criteria I can pick any other part of my field of vision and ascribe it as the cause - say, the appearance of the wall behind my monitor. Now I can pick another random part of my field of vision to be the cause of that appearance - say, the webcam on top of my monitor. And so it goes, on to infinity since I'm free to choose not just finite components of my field of vision but infinitesimal points in it, of which there are no limit."

OK... well, that was pretty... random. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. What are you trying to prove? That you can redefine that which is finite as infinite? If so, then consider your point (all infinity of them) proved. But where does it get us? More importantly, where does it get YOU? Has it enlightened you?

[Loki]

Well I guess you mean that the plank sized Aether never ends from the square outwards into the universe. If you were plank

sized you however would have a boundary still, and that would be the fact that you are spinning, and this gyroscopic spin

holds you at a point in space.

Pincho, you are taking my images way too literally. My intention is not to create scientific models. The images I bring up are not models of any specific aspect of reality, but they are simply images that help demonstrate fundamental principles that govern all appearances.

You're playing a game of redefinitions, just like QRS. You've redefined "infinite" so that it no longer means what it conventionally does - something like "unlimited in extent" - but now means something very odd that's hard to express concisely - something like "can be conceived of as being comprised of a randomly selectable indefinite chain of causes-by-physical-relation".

"Infinite" still means unlimited in extent, Laird. Perhaps the issue you have is how I'm applying the concept?

Hey, if you feel like redefining words, go right ahead I suppose, but I don't really see the point - why? Just so that you can start a thread with "Infinite" in the title?

I like to understand things, Laird. It's not my fault that the logical implications of irrefutable propositions leads to the affirmation of that which cannot manifest.

Your version of infinite is very easily applied to that which is conventionally considered finite. Take the totality of my field of vision right now. Conventionally, it is finite (i.e. in spatial extent), but by your definition I could say "The top rightmost dot of my computer monitor is caused by that which is - well, in your words, 'everywhere and nowhere' - so by that criteria I can pick any other part of my field of vision and ascribe it as the cause - say, the appearance of the wall behind my monitor. Now I can pick another random part of my field of vision to be the cause of that appearance - say, the webcam on top of my monitor. And so it goes, on to infinity since I'm free to choose not just finite components of my field of vision but infinitesimal points in it, of which there are no limit."

You clearly don't understand what I'm pointing to. The emptiness and boundless nature of appearances is what my logic points to. That which is empty and boundless obviously has the quality of infinity. Also, the logic implies a principle that can't logically appear/manifest, so such a principle would have an infinite nature as well.

OK... well, that was pretty... random. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. What are you trying to prove? That you can redefine that which is finite as infinite?

I'm just demonstrating the logical consequence of accepting some basic and irrefutable premises.

If so, then consider your point (all infinity of them) proved. But where does it get us? More importantly, where does it get YOU? Has it enlightened you?

I know what is true. Isn't that enough?

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, you are taking my images way too literally. My intention is not to create scientific models. The images I bring up are not models of any specific aspect of reality, but they are simply images that help demonstrate fundamental principles that govern all appearances.

So you have realized the infinite principle of imagination? Well I make computer games that include infinite Universe. Games set in space where you fly a spacecraft from planet to planet. So I too have realized the infinite principle of imagined infinity. But I didn't feel enlightened at all. I feel better about knowing everything that is actually in the Universe. Imagined reality is just knowing that your brain is made up from words associated with pictures. I think it's actually very destructive to create a thought process based on that which does not exist, you could literally damage your own mind, giving it a new physical realisation that doesn't really exist.

[Loki]

Pincho, you are taking my images way too literally. My intention is not to create scientific models. The images I bring up are not models of any specific aspect of reality, but they are simply images that help demonstrate fundamental principles that govern all appearances.

So you have realized the infinite principle of imagination? Well I make computer games that include infinite Universe. Games set in space where you fly a spacecraft from planet to planet. So I too have realized the infinite principle of imagined infinity. But I didn't feel enlightened at all. I feel better about knowing everything that is actually in the Universe. Imagined reality is just knowing that your brain is made up from words associated with pictures. I think it's actually very destructive to create a thought process based on that which does not exist, you could literally damage your own mind, giving it a new physical realisation that doesn't really exist.

No, this isn't imagination either. Very little to do with imagination.

Appearances (or things), as they present themselves to consciousness are not imagination.

Enlightenment is just realizing the empty & boundless nature of all appearances.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, you are taking my images way too literally. My intention is not to create scientific models. The images I bring up are not models of any specific aspect of reality, but they are simply images that help demonstrate fundamental principles that govern all appearances.

So you have realized the infinite principle of imagination? Well I make computer games that include infinite Universe. Games set in space where you fly a spacecraft from planet to planet. So I too have realized the infinite principle of imagined infinity. But I didn't feel enlightened at all. I feel better about knowing everything that is actually in the Universe. Imagined reality is just knowing that your brain is made up from words associated with pictures. I think it's actually very destructive to create a thought process based on that which does not exist, you could literally damage your own mind, giving it a new physical realisation that doesn't really exist.

No, this isn't imagination either. Very little to do with imagination.

Appearances (or things), as they present themselves to consciousness are not imagination.

Enlightenment is just realizing the empty & boundless nature of all appearances.

Well.. I would be enlightened if I just knew what you meant.. lol! Sound kind of Buddha-like. I really can never understand anything religious.

[Loki]

It's not religious, just logical. A thing has no finite essence within and of itself. The examples I gave with the quadrants demonstrates this. But it is not an easy thing to realize, not because it is so complicated, but because it's so incredibly simple.

[Steven Coyle]

When you cut an infinity symbol in half it's shapes reads as "finite," when together it reads as "inverness."

[Kunga]

I really can never understand anything religious.

Don't you do anything religiously ? :)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Loki, congratulations. (I am not being snide). As you know, I don't feel quite the relationship you (plural) do to these definitions and the realization that comes from them, and I don't want to ask a stupid question, but still it is valid: with all that, how do you feel? Is there a feeling aspect to your realization? They say that knowledge of Self produces 'bliss' (ananda) I mean that is what yogis say (like Ramakrishna). I know that this was a realization about the Infinite and not the Self, but what comes from your realization?

What now/next?