Why causality is an illusion

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:30 pm

The sowing of the reaping of intelligent causality:

Men and women who have awakened to the causal link of attachment to the earth, which is lust, cease lust in their consciousness, thereby ceasing the sex act, thereby, ending the causal link of attachment to the earth, thereby ending human intelligence, thereby, ending the human experience.

No matter if man ceases having sex, treating the symptom, or man ceases the arousal of desire for all causes in his mind, the procreation of idea, the result is the same. End of human consciousness.

The end of human consciousness, but not the end of Consciousness.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:45 pm

And so the world of "intelligent' causes turns and turns and turns...


I'm mentioning emptiness.

that all phenomena lacks inherent existence.

Much of what you wrote on the other thread implied an understanding of emptiness even if you don't call it emptiness.
Nagarjuna got emptiness by way of reasoning.
How did you get your understanding if reasoning wasn't involved?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:23 am

I have said in several posts that I am reasoning my way beyond reasoning. Check out my signature. :-)

Most here have received the intellectual enlightenment of "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" and believe that they have arrived of the wisdom of emptiness. This is not so, for to completely live, to be of the wisdom of emptiness, one must be wholly emptied of reasoning. Think about it, how can one claim emptiness of form and then, turn around and fill their forms with causes for form?

The infinite was, and is, when reasoning was not. If one can grasp this simple truth, they have begun the not-so-simple process of using reason to go beyond reason, of using human consciousness to go beyond human consciousness. Of standing on the silence and stillness of infinity and witnessing the death of their mortal life.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:44 am

movingalways wrote:I have said in several posts that I am reasoning my way beyond reasoning. Check out my signature. :-)

In fact you haven't reasoned at all so far in any post; you're just using a reasonable sounding language, wearing it like another dress from the wardrobe. When challenged you quickly jump to a "beyond" where any evidence of disorganized or out of focus thought cannot come. It's an unbeatable tactic: this way you keep yourself safe forever: always right! Not so different from the rest after all. I can only hope you are happy on your island of silence and stillness, gazing down at us mortals stuck in those smelly swamps of plain old reasoning!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:14 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:I have said in several posts that I am reasoning my way beyond reasoning. Check out my signature. :-)

In fact you haven't reasoned at all so far in any post; you're just using a reasonable sounding language, wearing it like another dress from the wardrobe. When challenged you quickly jump to a "beyond" where any evidence of disorganized or out of focus thought cannot come. It's an unbeatable tactic: this way you keep yourself safe forever: always right! Not so different from the rest after all. I can only hope you are happy on your island of silence and stillness, gazing down at us mortals stuck in those smelly swamps of plain old reasoning!


Diebert, to my knowledge, I have reasoned the way of the ending of materialism, of causality in every post I have written since I have arrived at GF. Never have I claimed to be speaking "from beyond" this final death of self, always of walking on the path of this "future" realization. Rather than respond from a position of defensiveness, as you have demonstrated above, are you willing to reason with me the scenario I presented above, which was:

The sowing of the reaping of intelligent causality:

Men and women who have awakened to the causal link of attachment to the earth, which is lust, cease lust in their consciousness, thereby ceasing the sex act, thereby, ending the causal link of attachment to the earth, thereby ending human intelligence, thereby, ending the human experience.

No matter if man ceases having sex, treating the symptom, or man ceases the arousal of desire for all causes in his mind, the procreation of idea, the result is the same. End of human consciousness.

The end of human consciousness, but not the end of Consciousness.


Are you denying that what the founders of this board are putting forward of a non-sexual or asexual male mind of reasoning will result in the end of the human mind? This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I am willing to talk about this elephant, are you?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:03 am

I have said in several posts that I am reasoning my way beyond reasoning. Check out my signature. :-)


David has indicated to you several times in conversations with you,
and has often said generally,
that the need for reasoning and wisdom dissolves.
I guess you're on the same page.

Generally,
I think you are submitting a report concerning the infinite,
like a journalist.
and what you are looking for is acknowledgement.

I hereby acknowledge you,
as I find your expression inspiring.

OK, given that,
we now have to deal with your 'sore point',
the man/woman thing.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Kunga » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:36 am

I am aware that every human word is a lie, and I am being obedient to this awareness.

(statement made by movingalways shortly after she arrived here)

LOL
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Kunga » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:54 am

If there is no begining or end.....is there a middle ?
If there is a middle.....there must be a begining and end.
If there is no begining,middle, or end....
Then this is an illusion.....
Time is the illusion.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Blair » Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:07 am

Kunga wrote:(statement made by movingalways shortly after she arrived here)


Yeah but we still don't know from which planet.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby cousinbasil » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:03 pm

Pam wrote: have said in several posts that I am reasoning my way beyond reasoning. Check out my signature. :-)
Your signature is faulty, as I have shown you. :-)

Most here have received the intellectual enlightenment of "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" and believe that they have arrived of the wisdom of emptiness. This is not so, for to completely live, to be of the wisdom of emptiness, one must be wholly emptied of reasoning. Think about it, how can one claim emptiness of form and then, turn around and fill their forms with causes for form?
What's wrong with this picture? "...one must be wholly emptied of reasoning. Think about it..." You are trying to reason the reader away from reasoning.

I must say that if eschewing rationality is your answer, you do lead by example.

Are you denying that what the founders of this board are putting forward of a non-sexual or asexual male mind of reasoning will result in the end of the human mind? This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I am willing to talk about this elephant, are you?

If there is an elephant in the middle of the room where you are, you might consider moving.

As far as I can tell, the "house philosophy" (which the house often argues does not exist as such) is not in the least asexual. Rather, by using rational functions, one can avoid becoming attached to sexuality or anything else. It assumes the characteristics of "male" only in that the founders are male. If one succumbs to passion, one becomes slave to another person, this is the entirety of the message. If one is aware of the roots of identification, one can overcome attachment, one is then not answerable to any "better half" but that "better half" be all of humanity.

I will paraphrase a story I read once: a student was walking with his teacher, listening for the hundredth time the teacher telling him, "All things are illusion. All things are maya." Presently, they witnessed an elephant step on a man, crushing him to death. The student turned to his teacher and said, "Master, I do not understand. If all things are maya, then the elephant must be maya. How is it that man has just gotten trampled?" Without hesitating, the teacher replied, "The man's maya should have run away from the elephant's maya."
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:58 am

Kunga wrote:I am aware that every human word is a lie, and I am being obedient to this awareness.

(statement made by movingalways shortly after she arrived here)

LOL


Every human word is a lie because belief in being only human is why man personifies thought. And in his ignorance of having personified thought, he then projects it out into the world as if it is a truth. Human history is the causal chain of these lies born of the ignorance of personified thought.

Thought in its original state is not personal.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:34 am

As far as I can tell, the "house philosophy" (which the house often argues does not exist as such) is not in the least asexual. Rather, by using rational functions, one can avoid becoming attached to sexuality or anything else.


Which is indeed what happens when one uses rational functions. Eventually, all attachments fall away, including the attachment to rational functions. When you contemplate Consciousness, can you truthfully say that the function of rationality is present in every thing of Its Thinking?

It assumes the characteristics of "male" only in that the founders are male.


This is not so. David and I have, in the past, discussed the male principle, found both in the male and female form. The male principle is a metaphysical concept, and has nothing to do with the gender of the one who has realized this principle.

If one succumbs to passion, one becomes slave to another person, this is the entirety of the message. If one is aware of the roots of identification, one can overcome attachment, one is then not answerable to any "better half" but that "better half" be all of humanity.


When one overcomes attachment, they overcome attachment. A = A. The desire for sex is desire to attach, no wiggling away from this truth. Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little bit detached. Desire or passion is, at its root, the way by which the law of causality is kept alive. When one is still, there is no desire, and where there is no desire, there are no causes.

"The man's maya should have run away from the elephant's maya."


Precisely! The man's attachment to form should have run away from the elephant's attachment to form. No more attachment, no more appearance of the man or of the elephant.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby cousinbasil » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:40 am

cousinbasil: It assumes the characteristics of "male" only in that the founders are male.
Pam: This is not so. David and I have, in the past, discussed the male principle, found both in the male and female form. The male principle is a metaphysical concept, and has nothing to do with the gender of the one who has realized this principle.

I meant that both females and males can benefit from realizing non-attachment. The male principle as a philosophical concept is sterile and meaningless. David et al would have you believe that because the male is more predisposed to embody the male principle (else why would it have been named after he gender?) he is more likely to surmount those things that foster delusion. This is nonsense, IMO, regardless of what you and David have discussed.

When one overcomes attachment, they overcome attachment. A = A. The desire for sex is desire to attach, no wiggling away from this truth. Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little bit detached. Desire or passion is, at its root, the way by which the law of causality is kept alive. When one is still, there is no desire, and where there is no desire, there are no causes.

I do not think you are viewing attachment properly. There are in fact degrees of pregnancy, or else abortions would be as safe (and legal) in the eighth month as in the second.

Let me give you an example. A client calls me up with a problem. This client means nothing to me. However, as soon as I hear the problem, I attach myself so that I can pick up every detail of his problem that I can, no matter how small, if I think it will help me solve it for him. But once it is solved, I detach entirely. You may say this is proof that attachment is all or nothing. Upon closer examination, this is not so. If I were completely attached, I would be unable to delegate, to distance myself far enough to obtain the desired results, but not so far as to be uninvolved. It is rather like an orbit - too close, you burn up and crash, too far you drift away.

The "law of causality" has nothing to do with passion or desire. To say where there is no desire there are no causes is patently mistaken. I can watch an avalanche, for instance. This is stark cause and effect; the rushing snow causes trees to break and die. I identify cause and effects. At what point does desire enter this scenario?

One can make the observation that things simply are. If time and space are one, there no such thing as change; in such a view, causality ceases. Physically, everything that is caused, every motion, also is a cause, until matter and energy get to their ultimate state of disorder. Therefore, it is the labeling of a thing as either cause or effect that is illusory, except in reference to another arbitrary thing. If one observes causality at work knowing that to fully enumerate anything's full set of causes and/or effects is impossible, does that negate causality itself?

The huge mistake people make is confusing desire with causes - this is a product of the immature ego, which begins its existence learning that crying leads to a full stomach and must continually back out of the false assumptions that desires matter, that the world "cares" about one's desires, that desiring a thing makes it happen. You seem to be making this very mistake by saying that if desire goes away, so do causes. They are not the same.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:47 am

movingalways wrote:Diebert, to my knowledge, I have reasoned the way of the ending of materialism, of causality in every post I have written since I have arrived at GF.

I question it. You're displaying a telling and constant disregard with regards to elementary logic as well as some form of resistance to it in many of your posts, not unlike Jufa does. You're claiming to reason but all I see are intuitive stabs from you, hit and miss. There's so much further you could take this if you could let go of a few assumptions and probe deeper than you have so far. If you're made for it of course.

Are you denying that what the founders of this board are putting forward of a non-sexual or asexual male mind of reasoning will result in the end of the human mind? This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I am willing to talk about this elephant, are you?

Don't you see there can be no thing as "asexual male mind of reasoning" unless by applying faulty logic? Even the sexual remains at base a male direction, a male division and thrust, cleverly "channeled" by the female. Anyway, you believe the male principle is only a metaphysical concept, but you're thereby ignoring the elephant of practical implications of this concept for human psychology and gender dynamics.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:14 am

In the Jungian sense.
For society to work harmoniously (projected).
the citizens had to be divided from within to be conquered from without.
the men were assigned the task of logic and the women the task of feeling.
the idea was the two halves would come together as one and domestic bliss would arise.
An incomplete He and an incomplete She would blend into a glorious We.
She was in charge in the house and he was in charge outside the house.
The baby boys and baby girls are trained up like monkeys.
the baby girls are given dolls to make them familiar as nurturers for the glorious We.
the baby boys are given toy guns to fit them up to be aggressive protectors for the glorious We.
Silly winning formula that as usual doesn't win.

The result was men lost feeling and women lost logic.
both disintegrated.
In order for both to recover sanity,
feeling-logic must sing in perfect unison.

realising emptiness creates that.
A perfect piece of reasoning,
when taken in,
realised,
and the experience of not-self breaks through,
the mind floods with empathy and compassion.

feeling-logic singing in perfect unison.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:03 pm

I question it.

When you know, let me me know.

You're displaying a telling and constant disregard with regards to elementary logic as well as some form of resistance to it in many of your posts, not unlike Jufa does.


Again, you resort to comparing me with someone else. Hearsay. Nothing to do with the truth, with the absolute life of Diebert.

You're claiming to reason but all I see are intuitive stabs from you, hit and miss. There's so much further you could take this if you could let go of a few assumptions and probe deeper than you have so far. If you're made for it of course.


I am not the one who continues to question; it is you who would benefit of letting go of a few assumptions.

Don't you see there can be no thing as "asexual male mind of reasoning" unless by applying faulty logic? Even the sexual remains at base a male direction, a male division and thrust, cleverly "channeled" by the female. Anyway, you believe the male principle is only a metaphysical concept, but you're thereby ignoring the elephant of practical implications of this concept for human psychology and gender dynamics.


Don't you see that you remain on the surface level of consciousness, the physical, cultural and societal aspects of the appearance of causality? I am not ignoring these things, but at their core, there is a deeper truth. Enlightenment begins on the surface, but if that surface enlightenment stays there, well, it stays there. This is why I say it is you who must go deeper.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:05 pm

feeling-logic singing in perfect unison.


The divided mind of man revealed. Where is the rest in this continual seeing of 'two'?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:12 am

movingalways wrote:I am not the one who continues to question; it is you who would benefit of letting go of a few assumptions.

You continue to raise arguments wrapped in the language of logic but you ignore any questioning of the quality of it. Allow me to highlight it slowly so everyone can follow. You see, you started this thread about "why causality is an illusion". That argument goes something like "it is an illusion because so and so, this is why etc etc". So you're building up a causal and logical argumentation to reach your conclusion to present to others. It was similar with the thread of Jufa "there is no logic for existence" where he claimed: "there is no logical reason for this universe to exist", which implies a very logical statement in itself: that existence has to be reasonable yes or no. The similarity you might not find important but I think you shouldn't ignore it either.

Don't you see that you remain on the surface level of consciousness, the physical, cultural and societal aspects of the appearance of causality? I am not ignoring these things, but at their core, there is a deeper truth. Enlightenment begins on the surface, but if that surface enlightenment stays there, well, it stays there.

Truth is the same principle at all levels. If you cannot improve the clarity of your own reasoning right here and now, which means your own thoughts, it's becoming impossible to even speak of "going deeper". Because a proper understanding is needed to weed out false beliefs and erroneous positions. Of course I can never know the precise depth of your personal understanding or experience but I can test the quality of your reasoning at this forum. It's all we can do here really.

Again, try to answer my earlier criticism on your logic on how causality would be an illusion. Please thing carefully this time!

    pam: Form arises and dissolves into the formless. This is why things, forms, do not affect or effect, other things, forms.

    diebert: You've just given "forms" a cause and an effect
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:02 am

The divided mind of man revealed. Where is the rest in this continual seeing of 'two'?


You read it wrong.
It is,
the divided mind of man resolved.
two is not to be found.
no more seeking.

By the by,
Kanga's point.
If Absolute Pam is not current,
and Human Pam is speaking,
and Human words are lies,
how can Human Pam be believed?
Where is the rest in this continual seeing of 'two'.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:48 pm

I died from minerality and became vegetable;

And From vegetativeness I died and became animal.

I died from animality and became man.

Then why fear disappearance through death?

Next time I shall die

Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;

After that, soaring higher than angels -

What you cannot imagine,

I shall be that.

~ Rumi
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Blair » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:34 pm

Good..

is that the end o' you, mineral became vegetable? (snort)
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:32 pm

endless possibilities
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Blair » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:23 pm

Vege to animal, animal to man
man to pam
pam to spam
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:16 pm

pam's discovered the mental trick of reification.
no longer is illusion possible.
even emptiness can be attached to and be an incurable disease.
Nagarjuna instructed emptiness is like a poisonous snake,
you have to know how to catch it,
or it will bite.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:25 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:pam's discovered the mental trick of reification.

Trick that can easily become trap. The cure is Nagajuna's poison, reasoning on the edge, blowing up each and every resistance or hide-out until "nothing" is left.

Also Nagarjuna thought causation was empty, in the sense of being pure conditioned dependent arising. It's all and nothing. Each and every word can become truth or lie, depending on the context they arise in or are interpreted by. Like everything else really. A greater illusion than "human words" is the idea that all words would be lies. In the end they all just reflect perfectly fine.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest