GENIUS FORUMS

David:
The "tapping" into Ultimate Reality is definitely a spiritual movement, involving the whole of one's being.

Carmel:
spiritual? The implication here that it requires more than logic to "tap" into Ultimate Reality. The "spirit" is involved, too? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "spiritual".

David:
But it doesn't happen in the way you describe, that of leaving logic behind and blindly submitting to a particular belief in the desire for it to be real.

Carmel:
...except that I never said nor implied that one should leave logic behind.

David:
Rather, it's a case of pushing logic to such an extent that it undermines utterly everything, including all forms of belief, such that one comes to rest spontaneously in nothing whatsoever.

Carmel:
Your belief in "nothing" is still a belief.

David:
This point isn't "logically grasped" until it is understood that there is nothing to tap into, and no one to do the tapping.

Carmel:
That's a half truth/half lie. If there is nothing, there is something.

David,

This point isn't "logically grasped" until it is understood that there is nothing to tap into, and no one to do the tapping.

The activity of the possibility of causing that as a cognitive event is the greatest possibility for human being...
an engineering feat of skillful means...

Dennis Mahar wrote:David,

This point isn't "logically grasped" until it is understood that there is nothing to tap into, and no one to do the tapping.

The activity of the possibility of causing that as a cognitive event is the greatest possibility for human being...
an engineering feat of skillful means...

Carmel:
Yeah, good luck with that one. Causality is logically viable, infinity is logically viable.

"Nothing" is not logically viable, it can only exist in contrast to "something". There is no argument for it in and of itself, it's pure unadulterated, regurgitated, religious dogma.

You can't grasp it unless you're tapped in.

I can grasp it perfectly fine. That was not my point of contention. What I'm saying is that it's a half truth, half lie. This requires some cognitive reflection and logical thinking to grasp, which many people here don't seem to be willing to engage in. It's easier to just mindlessly digest and burp out "nothing". "Nothingness" isn't the whole Truth.

You won't grasp "something" until you're "tapped in"...think about it ol' princey...

No thing.

Carmel wrote:David:
The "tapping" into Ultimate Reality is definitely a spiritual movement, involving the whole of one's being.

Carmel:
spiritual? The implication here that it requires more than logic to "tap" into Ultimate Reality.

Giving oneself entirely over to logic is the very essence of spirituality.

The "spirit" is involved, too? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "spiritual".

The opening up of one's entire being to the nature of reality, after which no further movement is possible.

David:
But it doesn't happen in the way you describe, that of leaving logic behind and blindly submitting to a particular belief in the desire for it to be real.

Carmel:
...except that I never said nor implied that one should leave logic behind.

You are the one painting it as a "religious" act.

David:
Rather, it's a case of pushing logic to such an extent that it undermines utterly everything, including all forms of belief, such that one comes to rest spontaneously in nothing whatsoever.

Carmel:
Your belief in "nothing" is still a belief.

Again, there is no belief involved at all. Becoming enlightened involves making a supreme act of logic in which nothing is affirmed and nothing is rejected. Not even nothingness itself.

-

Carmel:
Your belief in "nothing" is still a belief.
David:
Again, there is no belief involved at all. Becoming enlightened involves making a supreme act of logic in which nothing is affirmed and nothing is rejected. Not even nothingness itself.

Carmel:
yes, thanks, that actually makes sense...

Believers have no conception beyond belief. They see it in everyone. They are lost. Cannot be helped.

They are here to confound and confuse. That they may bring their self into illusory existence.

Life has no meaning.

The question and search for meaning by thy l is a crutch upon which self hobbles through no-thing. Grasping. Clinging. Reaching. Searching. The self, unable as it is, by definition, to accept, to surrender to no-thing.

Emptiness.

Out, in and of which ALL is.

pointexter wrote:Believers have no conception beyond belief. They see it in everyone. They are lost. Cannot be helped.

They are here to confound and confuse. That they may bring their self into illusory existence.

Life has no meaning.

The question and search for meaning by thy l is a crutch upon which self hobbles through no-thing. Grasping. Clinging. Reaching. Searching. The self, unable as it is, by definition, to accept, to surrender to no-thing.

Emptiness.

Out, in and of which ALL is.

Do you believe all that?

If you're still clinging to "emptiness" then you're no less confused.

bluerap wrote:This Reality is necessarily beyond all things, including consciousness, since it isn't a "thing" with boundaries that we can encapsulate with mind made labels.

Then stop saying it's beyond anything at all. If there are no boundaries there's no beyond, ultimately.

Anyway, the essence of the point I tried to made might have passed you by. David introduced the term "local consciousness", implying that there's something somewhere non-local or even unrelated to consciousness which still has an independent nature of "existing". He might have not meant that but language easily starts conveying this, as it's full of object dynamics. Like a stick which hits you thirty times!

What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.

It's much more than some intellectual understanding, no matter how full it might seem. It's more like a seamless and effortless ruffle.

bluerap:

What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.

Diebert:
It's much more than some intellectual understanding, no matter how full it might seem. It's more like a seamless and effortless ruffle.[/quote]

Carmel:
That's an interesting way of putting it and you're right to say it's seamless and effortless.

David articulated this very well when he said:
"Again, there is no belief involved at all. Becoming enlightened involves making a supreme act of logic in which nothing is affirmed and nothing is rejected. Not even nothingness itself."
---
Carmel:
No amount of "grasping" will get you there, whether grasping at "nothingness", "Ultimate Reality", "absolute truth" or...

pointexter,

The question and search for meaning by thy l is a crutch upon which self hobbles through no-thing. Grasping. Clinging. Reaching. Searching. The self, unable as it is, by definition, to accept, to surrender to no-thing.

The point of human being appears to be activity, as in quark is activity, as in molecule is activity...as in a life is an exercise in personhood for a human being...and that life is defined in and by the practices of that human being as an 'in order to' acquire...

the dominant archetypal driver looks like the 'treasure hunt'..
as in the search for the holy grail,
'grail' can mean wisdom, can mean money, whatever it is that can be represented as grail...

the joke is there's nothing to get.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Then stop saying it's beyond anything at all. If there are no boundaries there's no beyond, ultimately.

I said that it is beyond all things. Things have boundaries. Reality, in the most ultimate sense of understanding, "reaches" beyond boundaries infinitely.

Anyway, the essence of the point I tried to made might have passed you by. David introduced the term "local consciousness", implying that there's something somewhere non-local or even unrelated to consciousness which still has an independent nature of "existing". He might have not meant that but language easily starts conveying this, as it's full of object dynamics. Like a stick which hits you thirty times!

If David is talking about Ultimate Reality, then the error here is assuming that it is a "something somewhere." Our thoughts and labels "exist" within reality, but to understand its fundamental nature is to see that Reality itself is beyond any concept of "existence."

The phrase "local consciousness" can be used to describe the limited details we are able to observe as physical, conscious beings. I think this is where David was going with this term, and I invite him to correct me if I am in error.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

bluerap wrote:What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.

It's much more than some intellectual understanding, no matter how full it might seem. It's more like a seamless and effortless ruffle.

Carmel wrote:Carmel:
That's an interesting way of putting it and you're right to say it's seamless and effortless.

David articulated this very well when he said:
"Again, there is no belief involved at all. Becoming enlightened involves making a supreme act of logic in which nothing is affirmed and nothing is rejected. Not even nothingness itself."
---
Carmel:
No amount of "grasping" will get you there, whether grasping at "nothingness", "Ultimate Reality", "absolute truth" or...

I put "grasping" in quotations for this reason. In the end, grasping the true meaning of "nothingness," "Ultimate Reality", and "absolute truth" removes any need or effort to grasp.

Carmel wrote:You won't grasp "something" until you're "tapped in"...think about it ol' princey...

it's not the grasping but the act of it that can show you that there is nothing there.

Yeah, prince, but just don't cling too tightly to "nothing" or you'll start turning into a mindless new age hippie dude, dig? ;)

on second thought, I can't really see that ever happening to you...so, no worries.:)

Grasping at it leads to error, while not grasping at it keeps one imprisoned in the ignorance of ordinary consciousness. One has to learn how to navigate around both pitfalls.

Without the intensity of the mind fully focused on comprehending reality, nothing will ever happen. And yet as soon as one treats reality as an object that can be understood, barriers immediately arise.

Everything turns on unearthing the fundamental delusion underlying both options.

"Maya is like a thief. As soon as it is found out, it flees" - Ramakrishna

-

Are there absolute truths concerning reality?

No belief is true.

Truth extinguishes belief.

Belief is a crutch for clinging to falsehood.

Emptiness cannot be grasped. There is no possibility of clinging to it. It is inferred by deductive logic as fundamental. As truth.


"the joke is there's nothing to get."
Its no joke. No-thing cannot be gotten. It can be accepted. Without emptiness there is no thing.

pointexter wrote: Its no joke. No-thing cannot be gotten. It can be accepted. Without emptiness there is no thing.

emptiness is in obvious existence. even if this is a falsehood it is what we perceive to be true. absolute truth lies in absolute belief, no matter how ridiculous a claim it's all faith-based. if you cannot grasp your own concept beyond a doubt within yourself then it simply is not true, even if it is.

Belief and faith is certainty without proof. All proofs are contingent.
Both faith and belief are psychological states ( all of which are false).
Truth is a product of reason. Of pure logic. It is by definition, absolute.

we are, by way of human nature infinitely flawed and whilst maintaining such form, the only truths we can realize are also by nature, flawed. in theory, i suppose one could 'transcend' his mental state for a limited duration but the main point being, even in that state of 'transcendence' your mind is still shackled to its physical counterpart. death is the only absolution, in my opinion.

[quote="m4tt_666"]we are, by way of human nature infinitely flawed and whilst maintaining such form, the only truths we can realize are also by nature, flawed.

Carmel:
You're right. People who think they can know the absolute truth about "reality" with the mere apparatus of an semi evolved monkey brain are deluding themselves. It's somewhat interesting to watch this mentality from a psychological perspective though. This strange and pathetic need the ego has for assurance and false security. kinda cute.

we are, by way of human nature infinitely flawed and whilst maintaining such form, the only truths we can realize are also by nature, flawed.

how can you know flawed
without a background flawlessness
that entertains this projected story of being flawed..

having fun?

flaws are based off of our set of individual morals that guide each of us through the day. perceiving these flaws and acting accordingly is what has ensured human survival, and indeed any physical survival of life. without this basic common sense our species would have died out long ago.

being human we are all susceptible to perceiving these flaws.