What Insights Have You Experienced?

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, I have been attempting to answer this post for two hours, writing, deleting, writing, deleting (obviously I'm not in union with the logos principle of which I spoke) and here I am, at the point where I have to shut down my computer to leave to go camping with hubby for five days where there is no internet service. Perhaps when I return I'll have some wisdom to share to keep this dialogue alive, perhaps not, but whatever the outcome, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my post.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot: Thoughts are subject to conditions. This makes more sense when you realize that thoughts and thinking are the same thing. By definition the absolute is not subject to conditions. You are not a thought, neither your own nor someone else’s. Thoughts come and go, the absolute always is.

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned. In other words, what I am writing to you right now is free of the conditions of "they say" (beliefs/doctrines), I am the absolute writing of the absolute of this moment of the absolute.

That you are, is all that you know for sure.

This is true if the absolute is divorced completely from it thoughts, which obviously is impossible since the absolute is the cause of everything, thought included. The fact that thought comes and goes does not change this truth. Therefore, of this moment of being of concrete, sense based consciousness, I am certain I am sitting in a blue and white chair typing on a black and white keyboard discussing the nature of the absolute to you, Cahoot. Should a man enter my house with machete in hand while I am typing these words to you, my focal point of consciousness would likely immediately shift to what to absolutely do right here, right now about this man and his machete.

Regarding seeing yourself with your own eyes, as Naturalist recently references:

When someone tells you to shut the fuck up, and you get a little hot under the collar, then do as Buddha advises and consider the advice, which is essentially worthless ... until you consciously and deliberately apply it the next time similar conditions begin to appear, such as disproportionate posting.

Then in this way of similar situations, you can see yourself with your own eyes.

When you see yourself with your own eyes, is this not the absolute seeing/knowing the absolute? When you discover for yourself that you are posting disproportionately, are you not certain of this discovery which will then govern your future posting life?

A question though. On this board there's a lot of comparing what one thinks is going on, with what one thinks others think is going on. Lotta thinkin. Does this frequent comparing have a basis in logos truth, or do I not understand this logos truth-concept? (This is meant to be a little humorous, along with some truth I've observed, and not to detract from the points you were making.)

If I have misunderstood, how and why, if you have the time and inclination, and if you don't, I surely understand.

Upon further thought regarding the Logos, it would appear that at all times nature and thought are ordered perfectly according to each moment of its appearance in/of the absolute, in other words, each moment is absolute of its cause, but that the dynamic of these moments changes when the absolute becomes aware of the absolute (becomes enlightened/wise). Which means the dynamic of individual discussions on this board are all different: there are discussions between those who realize they are absolute (conscious absolute to conscious absolute), there are discussions between those who realize they are absolute and those who do not (conscious absolute to unconscious absolute), and there are discussions between those who don't realize they are absolute and don't realize they are absolute (unconscious absolute to unconscious absolute).

Put another way, if you aren't certain that what you are posting is absolutely true why are you posting it?

[Russell Parr]

I think you're muddling things up little (though in large quantity), MA. The absolute (the noun, not the adjective) doesn't cause or is causally connected to anything, nor does it perceive anything or perform any action. That absolute isn't a thing, it's just a term meant to symbolize the permanent state of reality, that of infinite causality.

[Pam Seeback]

I think you're muddling things up little (though in large quantity), MA. The absolute (the noun, not the adjective) doesn't cause or is causally connected to anything, nor does it perceive anything or perform any action. That absolute isn't a thing, it's just a term meant to symbolize the permanent state of reality, that of infinite causality.

It's a good thing you only think I'm muddling things up because I am not muddling things up, that is, if one has gone beyond intellectualism of the absolute or infinite causal nature of reality into the living of or realization of the absolute or infinite causal nature of reality.

This is why, as valuable as logic is to clear away the relativism of "I think" thinking, when the relativism is cleared away, logic is realized to be as much as part of the infinite causality as is any other caused thing. Logic is caused, love is caused, hate is caused, joy is caused, dog is caused, tree is caused, etc., there is nothing that is named or not named that is not caused by the Absolute.

I'm going to throw in a few concepts with regards to the "path" of absolute or infinite causality realization to better explain what I mean above. I assume you are familiar with the concept of "the philosopher" as being the lover of wisdom. Are you also familiar with the concept of "the mystic" as being the lover of the absolute or the infinite or emptiness or God? Where the philosopher relies on logic and reasons what is true of one's nature, the mystic relies on faith and hope that what is discovered to be true by way of the intellect is also true of the "living" heart or the "living" being, in other words, is realized, is known, in comprehended. In the full fledged awakened being, these two aspects of the journey toward truth's realization are synthesized, one could say that one who realizes the absolute nature of thought is a mystic philosopher. A marriage between Aristotle and Plato comes to mind. :-) Only then is one fully conscious of the thoughts they release into the world, taking full responsibility for the caused effect of each one -- "ye are gods."

[Cahoot]

Cahoot: Thoughts are subject to conditions. This makes more sense when you realize that thoughts and thinking are the same thing. By definition the absolute is not subject to conditions. You are not a thought, neither your own nor someone else’s. Thoughts come and go, the absolute always is.

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned. In other words, what I am writing to you right now is free of the conditions of "they say" (beliefs/doctrines), I am the absolute writing of the absolute of this moment of the absolute.

That you are, is all that you know for sure.

This is true if the absolute is divorced completely from it thoughts, which obviously is impossible since the absolute is the cause of everything, thought included. The fact that thought comes and goes does not change this truth. Therefore, of this moment of being of concrete, sense based consciousness, I am certain I am sitting in a blue and white chair typing on a black and white keyboard discussing the nature of the absolute to you, Cahoot. Should a man enter my house with machete in hand while I am typing these words to you, my focal point of consciousness would likely immediately shift to what to absolutely do right here, right now about this man and his machete.

Regarding seeing yourself with your own eyes, as Naturalist recently references:

When someone tells you to shut the fuck up, and you get a little hot under the collar, then do as Buddha advises and consider the advice, which is essentially worthless ... until you consciously and deliberately apply it the next time similar conditions begin to appear, such as disproportionate posting.

Then in this way of similar situations, you can see yourself with your own eyes.

When you see yourself with your own eyes, is this not the absolute seeing/knowing the absolute? When you discover for yourself that you are posting disproportionately, are you not certain of this discovery which will then govern your future posting life?

A question though. On this board there's a lot of comparing what one thinks is going on, with what one thinks others think is going on. Lotta thinkin. Does this frequent comparing have a basis in logos truth, or do I not understand this logos truth-concept? (This is meant to be a little humorous, along with some truth I've observed, and not to detract from the points you were making.)

If I have misunderstood, how and why, if you have the time and inclination, and if you don't, I surely understand.

Upon further thought regarding the Logos, it would appear that at all times nature and thought are ordered perfectly according to each moment of its appearance in/of the absolute, in other words, each moment is absolute of its cause, but that the dynamic of these moments changes when the absolute becomes aware of the absolute (becomes enlightened/wise). Which means the dynamic of individual discussions on this board are all different: there are discussions between those who realize they are absolute (conscious absolute to conscious absolute), there are discussions between those who realize they are absolute and those who do not (conscious absolute to unconscious absolute), and there are discussions between those who don't realize they are absolute and don't realize they are absolute (unconscious absolute to unconscious absolute).

Put another way, if you aren't certain that what you are posting is absolutely true why are you posting it?

This is a very good read. Thank you. I've given it a lot of thought.

We’ve also done a good bit of camping this season. In fact yesterday I built a firepit in the backyard, and I’ve got a nice stack of seasoned split firewood ... though I didn’t do the splitting ten years ago. Everyone is eager to experience the pit on cold nights … beer and smores, then snores.

It's very easy to build. It came into my consciousness two days ago, during a walk, and by noon yesterday it was done, along with a few other things.

Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic. At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous. In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way. At the actual moment of truth, something other than thought takes over. Not during all that precedes the moment, but at the actual moment. I’ve known this experience, and walked away. From that experience, and others, I’ve identified that which took over. I’ve applied the knowledge associated with this identification, to analysis of memories. I have taken the principle and applied it to change the present, not only in the observation of events, but as a participant in the creation of reality. The other something has appeared at other moments of truth. And I can see how, by identifying this thing other than thought, and applying thought to it, a philosophy can be formed in which the moment of truth is defined, dualistically, though this something is not a thing at all, and is not dualistic. It can be given words but this will add static to the reception. But truly, the inner does become the outer, at the moment of truth, if you walk away. I don’t know what happens, with certainty, if you don’t.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'm going to throw in a few concepts with regards to the "path" of absolute or infinite causality realization to better explain what I mean above. I assume you are familiar with the concept of "the philosopher" as being the lover of wisdom. Are you also familiar with the concept of "the mystic" as being the lover of the absolute or the infinite or emptiness or God? Where the philosopher relies on logic and reasons what is true of one's nature, the mystic relies on faith and hope that what is discovered to be true by way of the intellect is also true of the "living" heart or the "living" being, in other words, is realized, is known, in comprehended. In the full fledged awakened being, these two aspects of the journey toward truth's realization are synthesized, one could say that one who realizes the absolute nature of thought is a mystic philosopher. A marriage between Aristotle and Plato comes to mind. :-) Only then is one fully conscious of the thoughts they release into the world, taking full responsibility for the caused effect of each one -- "ye are gods."

The only thing I can add to this is that eventually all aspects of the absolute become 'synthesized', so to speak.

[Cahoot]

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned.

I don’t follow the conclusion.
For example, in the same sense my dog is part of the absolute and is caused by the absolute, and it is conditioned.

[Pam Seeback]

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned.

I don’t follow the conclusion.
For example, in the same sense my dog is part of the absolute and is caused by the absolute, and it is conditioned.

Is your dog not absolutely "dog?"

[Kinderfall]

Holy Hell! The Absolute is not connected to anything, IT IS everything. Absolute = the totality of everything, existing and non-existing, and EVERYTHING that exists is conditional. We only use the term IT to represent a concept and not an actual thing, the Absolute is unbounded, un-measurable, we identify things by what they are not, and since there is nothing the Absolute is not, it is unidentifiable.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

since there is nothing the Absolute is not, it is unidentifiable.

Hold on a second.....

Absolute = the totality of everything, existing and non-existing

Kinder surprise!

[Cahoot]

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned.

I don’t follow the conclusion.
For example, in the same sense my dog is part of the absolute and is caused by the absolute, and it is conditioned.

Is your dog not absolutely "dog?"

Well, tell me what absolutely dog is, and I’ll see if she matches up.

[Pam Seeback]

The absolute always is, however the absolute is causally connected to the thinking of thoughts, which means that whatever thoughts the absolute causes are not conditioned.

I don’t follow the conclusion.
For example, in the same sense my dog is part of the absolute and is caused by the absolute, and it is conditioned.

Is your dog not absolutely "dog?"

Well, tell me what absolutely dog is, and I’ll see if she matches up.

I can't tell you what absolutely dog is, to do so is the height of ignorance. However, what I can tell you is that she is being formed of the non-thinking Absolute according to the causality of "dog," and while conscious in the sense realm, the thinking Absolute names it, in this case most likely three times (species/breed/given name).

The Absolute as I see "it" is the same "thing" as The Totality, The Causality, God, The Tao, Infinite Self, The Infinite, etc. and responds, as thinking consciousness, in two different ways to its things: 1. Attached (ignorance) and 2. Detached (wisdom). In relation to your dog, the thinking Absolute is attached and ignorant when it believes it knows the causality or suchness of dog absolutely with its intellect (it is consciously or unconsciously lying to Itself) and is detached and wise when it knows that the name "dog" complete with all the attached attributes is not the causality or suchness of thing "dog" (conscious truth-telling).

[Pam Seeback]

Holy Hell! The Absolute is not connected to anything, IT IS everything. Absolute = the totality of everything, existing and non-existing, and EVERYTHING that exists is conditional. We only use the term IT to represent a concept and not an actual thing, the Absolute is unbounded, un-measurable, we identify things by what they are not, and since there is nothing the Absolute is not, it is unidentifiable.

Yes, the Absolute is unidentifiable and no, the Absolute is not connected to anything because it is everything. And you are the thinking aspect of the unidentifiable Absolute, are you not? And what do you do as the unidentifiable thinking Absolute? You identify things.

As I explained to Cahoot, as the thinking Absolute you are either in the dark as to your infinite nature and you become attached to your things or you are wise to your infinite nature and you do not become attached to your things. I and the Father are One both in ignorance and wisdom.

[Cahoot]

Any identified suchness of thing dog is an inference, whether it be ignorant inference or wise inference, whether it be abstract concept or sensory perception. And there are common reference points to differentiate dog that are independently witnessed by different people. If I describe a dog without using the word dog, you will know that I’m referencing dog based on qualities of dog that we have independently observed. While any one of these individual qualities may not be unique to dog, the logic of science indicates that a finite number of dog qualities will identify this suchness of thing dog from all other things. Since such identifying definitions vary, does the elusiveness of identifying essence of dog, or essence of anything, identify the singular limitation of Logic?

[ardy]

Cahoot: Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic. At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous. In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way. At the actual moment of truth, something other than thought takes over. Not during all that precedes the moment, but at the actual moment. I’ve known this experience, and walked away. From that experience, and others, I’ve identified that which took over. I’ve applied the knowledge associated with this identification, to analysis of memories. I have taken the principle and applied it to change the present, not only in the observation of events, but as a participant in the creation of reality. The other something has appeared at other moments of truth. And I can see how, by identifying this thing other than thought, and applying thought to it, a philosophy can be formed in which the moment of truth is defined, dualistically, though this something is not a thing at all, and is not dualistic. It can be given words but this will add static to the reception. But truly, the inner does become the outer, at the moment of truth, if you walk away. I don’t know what happens, with certainty, if you don’t.

Very interesting - I did something similar in this area about 25 years ago. I was one of those people who remained calm up to a point when I would 'lose' it and become cold and deadly in my anger.

I read somewhere that there is a point where you can recognise the impending anger. I watched it over a year or so and came to recognise not just the point where I would lose it but also that I enjoyed the ego burst that came from anger. I now only let it go if it has a role to play.

Some of this recognition is at the first nen area of thought but this is the only area where I seem to be able to control it.

[Cahoot]

Cahoot: Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic. At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous. In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way. At the actual moment of truth, something other than thought takes over. Not during all that precedes the moment, but at the actual moment. I’ve known this experience, and walked away. From that experience, and others, I’ve identified that which took over. I’ve applied the knowledge associated with this identification, to analysis of memories. I have taken the principle and applied it to change the present, not only in the observation of events, but as a participant in the creation of reality. The other something has appeared at other moments of truth. And I can see how, by identifying this thing other than thought, and applying thought to it, a philosophy can be formed in which the moment of truth is defined, dualistically, though this something is not a thing at all, and is not dualistic. It can be given words but this will add static to the reception. But truly, the inner does become the outer, at the moment of truth, if you walk away. I don’t know what happens, with certainty, if you don’t.

Very interesting - I did something similar in this area about 25 years ago. I was one of those people who remained calm up to a point when I would 'lose' it and become cold and deadly in my anger.

I read somewhere that there is a point where you can recognise the impending anger. I watched it over a year or so and came to recognise not just the point where I would lose it but also that I enjoyed the ego burst that came from anger. I now only let it go if it has a role to play.

Some of this recognition is at the first nen area of thought but this is the only area where I seem to be able to control it.

Using will to control anger is certainly a known path to co-exist in society. This is why it's taught, and often insisted upon by teachers.

However, in terms of the absolute, there is a significant element of trust in surrendering control of anger to intent and energy. Surrendering control is to surrender fear. That fear can take many forms, depending on what one knows. One might know nothing and be fearless, or one might have read a few things and have a fear of becoming uncontrollably disassociative in perception. That’s why, when you reach the point where you really don’t give a fuck, which is a point no one really chooses, what happens after that is in God’s hands.

Find the principle behind controlling anger and you find the principle that applies to the motive force that initiates the proper physical movement, in every situation, even if ego perceives that movement to be a stumble.

As you know from meditation, look at it this way. At first, with considerable energy and effort, the cause for every physical movement can be intellectually identified. The intellect can keep up for awhile in identifying the motive force that initiates every physical movement, but it’s taxing to familiar resources. That’s why Zen walking meditation looks kind of silly. People walking slowly, intellect following along, maybe directing the walk. Intellect keeping up with every motion, even diaphragm movements, moving slowly.

Introduce walking meditation without end when intent and energy are strong and the two of them will outlast the intellect in maintaining constant attention on present-time physical motion, though if the intellect is strong, or too firmly entrenched in its machinations, there will be a struggle.

The reason for doing such things as walking meditation, when they are necessary to do, is simple. To find the endless principle of why one moves at all, is to find the one motive force that applies to all situations. In other words, to find the truth that exists in stillness, which holds the imminent potential for movement, is to find the motive force that initiates all movement, is to find the ineffable that seekers sometimes attempt to eff with the intellect.

[Pam Seeback]

Any identified suchness of thing dog is an inference, whether it be ignorant inference or wise inference, whether it be abstract concept or sensory perception. And there are common reference points to differentiate dog that are independently witnessed by different people. If I describe a dog without using the word dog, you will know that I’m referencing dog based on qualities of dog that we have independently observed. While any one of these individual qualities may not be unique to dog, the logic of science indicates that a finite number of dog qualities will identify this suchness of thing dog from all other things. Since such identifying definitions vary, does the elusiveness of identifying essence of dog, or essence of anything, identify the singular limitation of Logic?

There is a difference between the single eye of the absolute in every man's consciousness (I am That) and the double eye of the relative (the kicking in of logic that seeks the absolute in the relative, aka, communication between minds). Where the absolute moves the spirit "vertically" of Word when one is solitary, when one steps into relationship, the relative, the two who are relating can have moments of absolute understanding (dog is dog) or moments where absolute understanding is not absolute and reasoning must be used ("What is dog?," ask mind #1. "Dog is an animal with four legs, two ears and is a descendant from the species "wolf", etc." answers mind #2).

Nutshell: Even when two minds are relating/reasoning (are not in absolute union) the Absolute within each mind is forming words that are absolute to each mind, for example, within mind #1, "What" means "what" "is" means "is" "dog" means "dog." Where confusion enters in is when one doesn't realize "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" and instead, believes absoluteness (truth) is external (he says its true, I believe him, therefore it is true).

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot: Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic. At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous. In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way.

This is true, thought can get in the way, but the thought that gets in the way is the cloud of attachment (mistaking the relative of human communication for the absolute solitary).

Let's look at the actual moment of truth when the cloud of human relativity is cleared away. You find an injured dog on the road. In order to realize the truth of the moment, this thought must enter your consciousness. And even if the thought "injured dog" is entirely subconscious, in order to act on the circumstance of "injured dog" consciousness of words extended into thought - realization - is necessary in order to cause something to be done about "injured dog." This is the absolute Word at work. Dog is hurt, what will I do, I will do this or I will not do this, the spirit of God moving across the face of the waters.

[Russell Parr]

Here is something that I know, and it is not based on logic.

A contradiction. All knowledge is based on logic. If there are at least two elements at play (which is the case in all knowledge), logic is at work, building and discovering the relationships between the elements (or 'things' if you don't like the word elements). This occurs consciously and subconsciously. Whether the logic is faulty or not, is another question.

At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous.

Wrong, there is no truth without thought.

In fact, I can infer based on what I've seen in life, that thought gets in the way.

Faulty thought gets in the way, not thought itself.

Clearly I think logic plays a much different role than you do, but I speak of it in this way because I suspect that you are placing some higher importance on what appears to me to be no thought at all, instead of using thought to realize nothingness, which is enlightenment.
_____

This is true, thought can get in the way, but the thought that gets in the way is the cloud of attachment (mistaking the relative of human communication for the absolute solitary).

True. We can have truthful thoughts, in other words. After all, are we not all conveying with we consider to be true?

Let's look at the actual moment of truth when the cloud of human relativity is cleared away. You find an injured dog on the road. In order to realize the truth of the moment, this thought must enter your consciousness. And even if the thought "injured dog" is entirely subconscious, in order to act on the circumstance of "injured dog" consciousness of words extended into thought - realization - is necessary in order to cause something to be done about "injured dog." This is the absolute Word at work. Dog is hurt, what will I do, I will do this or I will not do this, the spirit of God moving across the face of the waters.

This describes simple cause and effect to me. Person identifies dog, relates to dog, reacts, etc. I don't see how clears away human relativity, it appears you are just describing an example of it.

Not that human relativity is to be cleared away anyway, which is impossible. The goal is to see through it in order to realize God. Whether you notice the dog or not, relate to it, help it or leave it, is all superfluous to the fact that God is at work in all things.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: We can have truthful thoughts, in other words. After all, are we not all conveying with we consider to be true?

Whatever we think, be it absolute or be it clouded with human moral relativity, it is true in the sense of "no thought returns void."

This describes simple cause and effect to me. Person identifies dog, relates to dog, reacts, etc. I don't see how clears away human relativity, it appears you are just describing an example of it.

How is identifying "injured dog" and deciding what to do about "injured dog" an example of human relativity? An example of human relativity would most likely be of the egoic moral sense with thoughts such as "a good person would do something, therefore if I don't do something, I'm a bad person." I see "encounter with dog" as God encountering God and thinking absolutely in relation to the encounter.

Not that human relativity is to be cleared away anyway, which is impossible. The goal is to see through it in order to realize God. Whether you notice the dog or not, relate to it, help it or leave it, is all superfluous to the fact that God is at work in all things.

When I say "clear away" human relativity I am referring to the actual conscious action of recognizing its confusing presence in one's consciousness and having the conscious thought to "send it packing" so the clarity of A = A can be realized. The scripture about commanding the mountain to move comes to mind.

I am not denying that God is at work in all things including human relativity, again, no thought returns void, I am saying that when thinking God works by the principle "this is so", God is expressing the absolute, not the human relative. "The dog is hurt, this is so." "I will help the dog by doing this, this is so" or "I won't help the dog, this is so." And should God change its/his mind either way, it is still God expressing the absolute.

When God thinks absolutely, God thinks clearly and cleanly. It is what it is, I will do what I will do, I did what I did. In other words, God as the absolute suffers no "thought hangover."

[Pam Seeback]

deleted post, duplicate.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell, where I believe you and I differ is in the role of logic in relation to the absolute. Where you see logic as the way the absolute expresses itself (I hope I am recalling your view correctly), I see logic as the means by which beliefs are dispelled (the human relative) so the absolute can be realized/expressed. In using the encounter with the injured dog as an example and my beliefs about what I should or should not do start crowding in on me, I would use logic to remind myself that I am infinite of forms, therefore, my beliefs are irrelevant, I will/must do what I will/must do.

[Russell Parr]

How is identifying "injured dog" and deciding what to do about "injured dog" an example of human relativity? An example of human relativity would most likely be of the egoic moral sense with thoughts such as "a good person would do something, therefore if I don't do something, I'm a bad person." I see "encounter with dog" as God encountering God and thinking absolutely in relation to the encounter.

Ah, I don't see it that human relativity is necessarily egoic. A human is capable of dealing with things in reason and logic, though in most cases in shallow thoroughness and consistency.

Not that human relativity is to be cleared away anyway, which is impossible. The goal is to see through it in order to realize God. Whether you notice the dog or not, relate to it, help it or leave it, is all superfluous to the fact that God is at work in all things.

When I say "clear away" human relativity I am referring to the actual conscious action of recognizing its confusing presence in one's consciousness and having the conscious thought to "send it packing" so the clarity of A = A can be realized. The scripture about commanding the mountain to move comes to mind.

I don't think it's necessary to 'send it packing', just cleanse oneself of the hypnotic trance that egoic human relativity impose on consciousness. Apply A=A to all experiences, realize the infinite causal nature of it all, and be no longer fooled by it. Like witnessing a magic show after learning all the tricks beforehand.

I am not denying that God is at work in all things including human relativity, again, no thought returns void, I am saying that when thinking God works by the principle "this is so", God is expressing the absolute, not the human relative. "The dog is hurt, this is so." "I will help the dog by doing this, this is so" or "I won't help the dog, this is so." And should God change its/his mind either way, it is still God expressing the absolute.

When God thinks absolutely, God thinks clearly and cleanly. It is what it is, I will do what I will do, I did what I did. In other words, God as the absolute suffers no "thought hangover."

I understand that there are many ways to realize God, but this seems a bit too finite and anthropomorphic to me. God doesn't think or express, as these are a finite actions performed by finite things. God is the All at all times.

Russell, where I believe you and I differ is in the role of logic in relation to the absolute. Where you see logic as the way the absolute expresses itself (I hope I am recalling your view correctly), I see logic as the means by which beliefs are dispelled (the human relative) so the absolute can be realized/expressed. In using the encounter with the injured dog as an example and my beliefs about what I should or should not do start crowding in on me, I would use logic to remind myself that I am infinite of forms, therefore, my beliefs are irrelevant, I will/must do what I will/must do.

Logic is nothing more than a tool used by sentient beings. It doesn't have any ultimate or absolute existence, so the absolute doesn't "use" it to express itself.

Regarding your injured dog example, by 'beliefs' I think you referring to egotistical feelings that influence our sense of conscience. This is from where the feelings of "I am fundamentally good/bad if I do this/that" emanate. I agree with using logic to dispel such delusional thoughts from our minds.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: God doesn't think or express, as these are a finite actions performed by finite things. God is the All at all times.

Either God is the cause of every form or God is not the cause of every form, thoughts are forms.

It is not logical to conclude that a finite thing performs a finite thing, i.e., a thought performs a thought. Here you are presenting the impossible scenario of an effect causing an effect. Logically, the infinite (spirit or will) causes the finite to appear and when one is, to borrow David Quinn's phrase, "immersed in the infinite", they are one with cause and effect, spirit and thought, aka, the absolute.

One cannot keep the infinite at arm's length forever, eventually the intellectual seeking becomes existential knowing. "What you seek is seeking you." - Rumi

[Cahoot]

At the actual moment of truth, thought is superfluous.

Wrong, there is no truth without thought.

Any of the following could be substituted for the word “truth” in the sentence.

Absolute, The Totality, The Causality, God, The Tao, Infinite Self, The Infinite.

Would any of these make the sentence right?