The fundamental question

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence.
no contrast ultimately.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:What exists is functionally dependent.
If it hasn't got a name it doesn't exist.

This conceptualising mind generates environment, bodies, activities, sorrows, pleasures.
The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.
And that?

the essence of the universe is mind.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
The conceptualising mind is itself conceptual. To say that a concept is dependent other than conceptually is to make it concrete, i.e., to separate. It is to misconceive. For it was never more than a concept to begin with.
And that?

the essence of the universe is mind.
Consciousness is actual, infinite, assigned conceptually, finitely.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

a continuum of experiencing things
identifies, discriminates, reacts, generates.
the loneliness of the long distance runner.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:a continuum of experiencing things
identifies, discriminates, reacts, generates.
the loneliness of the long distance runner.
There is a continuum of conceptual reference points (concepts) in the infinite consciousness, expressed as the experience of being a limited mind from the viewpoint of the reference, and the true idea of the concept in the infinite consciousness.

In the enlightened expression the viewpoint of the reference and the true idea of the concept are aligned, i.e., the awareness of being infinite consciousness, conceptually assigned.

But loneliness is experienced through an over-identification with the assignment, i.e., the concept as a being.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In the enlightened expression the viewpoint of the reference and the true idea of the concept are aligned, i.e., the awareness of being infinite consciousness, conceptually assigned.
and the term 'infinite consciousness' itself becomes a reference point.
names and forms.

its about generating the being of infinite consciousness which is easily forgotten.

infinite consciousness knows all the names and forms alluded to in all the languages there are and has no meaning category to rest upon.

compassion and detachment appear to be opposed,
compassion seems to 'get involved' and detachment 'walk away'.
call these guys up for 'acting in unison' when required is a perfect response.

can go to a house of sombre mood where causality has not found favour
can go next door to ebullient household where causality has blessed

not the same, not different
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence.
no contrast ultimately.
If this is so, how does "ultimate" cause contrast?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence
its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless
now you know it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:what exists is completely and utterly void of inherent existence
its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless
now you know it.
How do you know empty without knowing its contrast of inherent? How do you know meaningless without the contrast of meaning maker? What has inherent existence got to do with contrast?
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
In the enlightened expression the viewpoint of the reference and the true idea of the concept are aligned, i.e., the awareness of being infinite consciousness, conceptually assigned.
and the term 'infinite consciousness' itself becomes a reference point.
names and forms.

its about generating the being of infinite consciousness which is easily forgotten.

infinite consciousness knows all the names and forms alluded to in all the languages there are and has no meaning category to rest upon.
The infinite consciousness knows everything because everything is its ideas (concepts). They do not exist in another way.

The limited mind cannot be said to generate anything because it exists merely as a concept to begin with. If the limited mind had generated being, as you propose, the idea that it could fly would indeed grant it the ability to do so. But in actuality, a person who considers himself able to fly does not have an idea that is the same as the idea that the infinite consciousness has of him. Instead, the infinite consciousness has an idea of a person who misconceives, and, through the concept, the misconception.

Likewise the limited mind that believes that the things it conceives, or the things that it indirectly conceives through the infinite coherrence of concepts, are concrete, misconceives what are actually concepts.

The fact that the infinite consciousness is unassigned in time and space does not preclude it from actually being conscious. Because time and space were not things to begin with, but its concepts. The notion that there would need to be something exterior to it for it to be aware is the notion that it exists as a reference point in time and space, i.e., a prejudice from the limited mind's way of perceiving form. That is, it is to understand things backwards. Indeed, if this were true, there would be no conception at all since the premise of the limited mind would be removed.
compassion and detachment appear to be opposed,
compassion seems to 'get involved' and detachment 'walk away'.
call these guys up for 'acting in unison' when required is a perfect response.

can go to a house of sombre mood where causality has not found favour
can go next door to ebullient household where causality has blessed

not the same, not different

The behavior of the enlightened expression is that of unconditional love in its assigned context, not because it seeks to promote the conceptual self, but because there is no actual separation between itself and others, i.e., its own self-love (egocentricity in the grasping mind) is all-encompassing. For the love of the ego is nothing but a convoluted idea of the actual, unassigned self (infinite consciousness).
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The behavior of the enlightened expression is that of unconditional love in its assigned context, not because it seeks to promote the conceptual self, but because there is no actual separation between itself and others, i.e., its own self-love (egocentricity in the grasping mind) is all-encompassing. For the love of the ego is nothing but a convoluted idea of the actual, unassigned self (infinite consciousness).

Well, yeah, that's getting around back of the conceptualising self and its marching to a tune. (any port in a storm).
Its act.

Do you understand me when I say:
in your conversation lad, the being of infinite consciousness is generated.
its possibility called up.
remembering.
re-cogniting.
re-orientation
re-contextualising.

the always/already prepositions,
towards, from, out of etc..

lotus opens from mud
towards that, out of speaking/writing

beholden to
beholding suchness
as it Is and Isn't.

healed.
bliss.

a nightingale sings,
hear it?
the hearing and the heard; causes/conditions.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
The behavior of the enlightened expression is that of unconditional love in its assigned context, not because it seeks to promote the conceptual self, but because there is no actual separation between itself and others, i.e., its own self-love (egocentricity in the grasping mind) is all-encompassing. For the love of the ego is nothing but a convoluted idea of the actual, unassigned self (infinite consciousness).

Well, yeah, that's getting around back of the conceptualising self and its marching to a tune. (any port in a storm).
Its act.

Do you understand me when I say:
in your conversation lad, the being of infinite consciousness is generated.
its possibility called up.
remembering.
re-cogniting.
re-orientation
re-contextualising.

the always/already prepositions,
towards, from, out of etc..

lotus opens from mud
towards that, out of speaking/writing

beholden to
beholding suchness
as it Is and Isn't.

healed.
bliss.

a nightingale sings,
hear it?
the hearing and the heard; causes/conditions.
Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness. Past and future to our current perception, timelessly. To say that you or I generate its being is merely a privation of knowledge, whereby the idea is held that concepts are created and destroyed. But even that idea is known timelessly.

Causes and conditions pertain to the way concepts are defined, but the concepts themselves do not arise or cease simply because they are assigned in relation to each other, each with their present, past and future in relation to other concepts.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness.
From what does this "infinite consciousness" arise? Are you proposing that the Infinite is made of or from consciousness?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness. Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Should man or bird transcend the filters of incarnation then the conduit is clear. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters. In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

Cahoot wrote:I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness.
I disagree. Everything is dependent on consciousness for existence, but this isn't to say that everything is consciousness.
Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters.
Consciousness isn't filtered through anything to take form.. it's simply there or it's not. Nature doesn't start with consciousness, then bind it up into packages for the purpose of harnessing it. This would be like saying that the images produced by a television inherently exists, and that the TV is simply is caused to harness the image.
In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
How can anything possibly be above or beyond the Infinite? All things are a manifestation of the Infinite, including consciousness.

One of the biggest obstacles of becoming conscious of ultimate reality is figuring out where consciousness fits into the grand scheme of things, and a lot of people end up expanding it into something that encompasses the entire universe. We see New Agers doing this everywhere. But how is this not incredibly confusing? There's simply no experience of consciousness that isn't finite, or else there'd be no way to explain or refer to it.

The subject of consciousness is troublesome because everything else in the universe more-or-less clearly defined and discernible. As it's impossible for consciousness to directly observe itself, it seems contradictory to declare the boundaries of consciousness. This is where the importance of logical deduction comes in. Consciousness must have boundaries, as it clearly isn't the Totality. Therefore, the idea that consciousness is the boundless substance of the Totality can only be sustained by the ego, in an attempt to immortalize itself.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

Riddle me this, New Ager. How can Parabrahman … be, not be, all things, any thing, no thing, all at once, never, and always?
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:Your and my perceptions are already known to the infinite consciousness.
From what does this "infinite consciousness" arise? Are you proposing that the Infinite is made of or from consciousness?
A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness. Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Should man or bird transcend the filters of incarnation then the conduit is clear. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters. In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
Since there is no actual separation there is no actual hierarchy, nor is there something created or a creator, other than conceptually.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.
Consciousness is merely a concept. There is only the Infinite. It is all and nothing.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters.
Consciousness isn't filtered through anything to take form.. it's simply there or it's not. Nature doesn't start with consciousness, then bind it up into packages for the purpose of harnessing it. This would be like saying that the images produced by a television inherently exists, and that the TV is simply is caused to harness the image.
Consciousness is filtered through its concepts, and among them is nature. As to the metaphor, the concept of the image on the television is defined in relation to the condition of the television, and both are timeless in their present moment.

A metaphor of your way of understanding concepts as being created and destroyed is a movie reel playing without past or future frames to the current one. As if the past is erased and the future undecided. A matter of perspective.
In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
How can anything possibly be above or beyond the Infinite? All things are a manifestation of the Infinite, including consciousness.

But how is this not incredibly confusing? There's simply no experience of consciousness that isn't finite, or else there'd be no way to explain or refer to it.
What makes you imagine that limited concepts would exist more readily for you than for an infinite consciousness? Consciousness is already a matter of fact, as are concepts, as is the fact that a limitation is merely one of these concepts.
This is where the importance of logical deduction comes in. Consciousness must have boundaries, as it clearly isn't the Totality. Therefore, the idea that consciousness is the boundless substance of the Totality can only be sustained by the ego, in an attempt to immortalize itself.
There is nothing at all but consciousness. Attempting to disprove it with concepts is fruitless. And, indeed, it is the ambition of the ego in an attempt to immortalize itself, since the ego is nothing but a concept in the infinite consciousness, i.e., just an idea.
Last edited by TheImmanent on Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:A limitation is merely a concept. Consciousness is necessarily infinite. There is nothing else at all.
Consciousness is merely a concept. There is only the Infinite. It is all and nothing.
There is a concept of consciousness in consciousness. This is what self-definition is. The significance being that consciousness is infinite, i.e., without any actual limitation, since it exists by its own nature.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

So,
Consciousness is the Context. and contents.
You haven't got a 'why'.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:There is a concept of consciousness in consciousness. This is what self-definition is. The significance being that consciousness is infinite, i.e., without any actual limitation, since it exists by its own nature.
How can you conceive of consciousness other than by the concept of it? All we can know of that which lies beyond consciousness is that it is capable of causing consciousness. We cannot say anything else about it, as it is necessarily the void that is beyond our conscious reach.

The trap you're falling into is due to a premature conclusion in reflection of causality. As conscious beings, it is true that a thing cannot have existence without our conceiving of it. It seems natural to conclude that there must be nothing but consciousness, as a result. But this fails to recognize that, in declaring that which lies beyond consciousness is more consciousness, or infinite consciousness, we are indeed stepping out of our boundaries to do so.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

TheImmanent wrote:
Cahoot wrote:I think so, in a round about way. In the panoply everything is consciousness. Parabrahman cloaked as man or bird or anything else knows the one and only consciousness, filtered through the limitations of form. Should man or bird transcend the filters of incarnation then the conduit is clear. Human incarnation more tightly binds Parabrahman than birdland does, but has a better chance to clear out the filters. In the hierarchy this places Parabrahman above the infinite, as creator. Correct?
Since there is no actual separation there is no actual hierarchy, nor is there something created or a creator, other than conceptually.
But there are distinctions and the nature of distinctions is hierarchical. After all, a man may have a bird but that does not make him a bird. There are distinctions between bird and man, and these distinctions can be utilized in a dualistic way as a lantern, to light what one has seen of the yellow brick road. May as well, since the medium is language, the nature of which is conceptual, the nature of which is dualistic, and so on.

The light is either on, or off.
Locked