Serious conversations about important issues, Part II: Truth is the root of all evil.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn: The bottom line is this: If you are not fully comprehending the nature of God and dwelling in His boundless freedom, then you can take it as read that your mind is under the spell of the core illusion.

If one has anti-Trump views, are they under the spell of the core illusion or are they dwelling in God's boundless freedom?

It would depend on whether they are enlightened or not.

The mere fact of having anti-Trump views is irrelevant. If one is enlightened and has anti-Trump views, one is still enlightened.

Conversely, if one is unenlightened and tries to hide behind a facade of being neutral, or transcendent, or indifferent, or holy, one is still unenlightened.

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: The bottom line is this: If you are not fully comprehending the nature of God and dwelling in His boundless freedom, then you can take it as read that your mind is under the spell of the core illusion.

If one has anti-Trump views, are they under the spell of the core illusion or are they dwelling in God's boundless freedom?

It would depend on whether they are enlightened or not.

The mere fact of having anti-Trump views is irrelevant. If one is enlightened and has anti-Trump views, one is still enlightened.

Conversely, if one is unenlightened and tries to hide behind a facade of being neutral, or transcendent, or indifferent, or holy, one is still unenlightened.

Anti-Trump views belong to God, of this I am certain, just as ignorance and wisdom belong to God (to whom or what else could they belong?). Speaking for myself alone, I can assure you that the ongoing, existential activity of God reconciling the world unto Himself/Itself (acknowledgment of conditions, integration of conditions, transcendence of conditions) is not in any way related to the concepts of hiding behind or neutrality or indifference or holiness. While I understand why you might come to his conclusion, I assure you, it is an uninformed one.

[jupiviv]

There is no core illusion apart from specific illusions, just like there is no infinite apart from finite things.

You’re still not getting it.

Keep saying that and I'm sure it will naturally begin to permeate your life and eventually nudge you towards a deeply reasoned breakthrough into non-existence.

What the illusion of maya conceals is the fundamental nature of all things. This fundamental nature is the same everywhere. Whether it be a chair, or an electron, or a galaxy, or a banana, or a thought - they all exhibit the same fundamental nature.

In other words, the core illusion of maya is a specific illusion about all things.

A specific illusion cannot literally conceal all things anymore than a specific thing can literally contain all things. Specific illusions about specific things merge and interact with each other and the world, generating broader illusions, i.e. a consistent deluded attitudes towards things in general. There is no grand realisation of monism, either within or beyond a specific thing. Likewise, no grand illusion concealing that. The thing *is* all of reality so any talk of how it relates to or exhibits a monistic reality is utter nonsense. For that reason there is also no movement towards or away from an ideal or perfect realisation of oneness. It's already present in all instances of consciousness, even if obstructed by delusions or expressed equivocally.

What matters is believing what we see. The ability to ascribe a short list of disparate and conventionally unrelated things to a univocal superstratum of "fundamental nature" doesn't quite cut it. Nobody should choose core "truths" over core illusions because both are illusions and excuses for blindness. The real choice is between the sun and an afterimage. Reason can neither enlightened us nor be transformed by us into an enlightened version of itself (there is none). Only a revolutionary reordering of our relationship to other things (including reason) can transform the stunted and self-serving "reason" and "truth" of humanity into something better. Better because we want them to be so. Your conceited, brittle "absolute truth" is useless in that great and noble endeavour.

A core illusion in the literal sense would be a reality concealed by lesser illusions, which makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Most people have no knowledge or awareness of the core illusion of maya because their minds are continuously being distracted by the more superficial illusions of their daily lives.

Illusions can't be more or less superficial, nor conceal other illusions. Those are flatly self-contradictory statements. What you should have said is: most people spend a lot of time addressing illusions in isolation from each other, as convenient to their deluded needs and purposes.

Like a stack of cards, once maya crumbles, the rest of the mind’s delusions also begin to crumble.

Minds are not inherently distinct from each other, either in time or space. If destroying some "core illusion" leads to the destruction of all others, the efforts of the original Buddha would have liberated the entire human race from delusion for all time.

Back here on planet earth, it doesn’t work like that. Maya is very subtle and hard to discern. It requires an intense inward focus to unearth it. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to convey its existence and meaning to others, even to those who are keen and bright.

No shit! Yes, it doesn't work like that except for completely different reasons than the ones you have given. Reasoning about things, even "deep" things like "core illusions" doesn't generate any "enlightened momentum" in multiple minds, whether through time in a single life or through space in other lives. If it causes change (for better or worse), other factors have to accounted for.

The difficulty of conveying a special enlightened type of reasoning is a non-issue precisely because such a thing doesn't exist. No act of reasoning can circumvent the web of motivations and material conditions underpinning it. And yet the simplest acts of reasoning applied to everyday things become wisdom in the service of an indomitable will to tear down the entire edifice. You know, like that thing with the fishes.

Imagine a person deciding to expose corruption taking place in a government department blah blah blah

OK boomer. I was giving a real world example to provide context for a simple question, not writing a novella. No idea why a) you asked me to flesh out my example b) you now insist on discussing a more trendy example, specifically the impeachment of the greatest US President since Washington.

But you still haven't answered any of my questions.

[jupiviv]

Pam Seeback: Why battle ten demons when you can battle one?

jupiviv: It's a continuous battle with many forms of the same delusion.

Fair enough, but at some point, weariness of battling the many forms of the same delusion sets in. Don't get me wrong, the weariness to which I refer is a necessary part of The Hero's Journey (if I may borrow the genius of Joseph Campbell). Delusion breakthrough, by necessity of the need for a logical, orderly path or way, involves a multitude of inner narratives of subject-object conflict, primarily of self and God or self versus God, but eventually one comes face to face with the root cause of the suffering of 'feeling conflicted' and the many forms of delusion become one.

I agree with this in the sense that all suffering for the sake truth is caused by the will to honesty asserting itself against convenience, pleasure, attachments etc. So the category of attachments may be called a "root cause" but it's important to remember that it's nothing more than that.

So yes, there are many forms of the delusion of being separate from God and each of these forms causes suffering, but as one gets closer to the imagined edge between self and God, they find that the different feeling forms of delusion come primarily as the different forms of love. You mentioned compassion, the form of sympathy and/or empathy with deluded humanity - I believe it is honest to declare compassion to be the suffering form of love.

Yes, delusions originate in different types of love but only because we don't let love reach its destination. It's possible to love others wisely and yet suffer from that love because of the circumstances that acting on it may put us in. It's not ideal, of course, but it's also very likely given human nature.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

First off, it needs to be recognized that all things are mentally constructed. Everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction that involves the use of mental processes like memory, categorization, attention, desire, conditioning, emphasis, exclusion, etc. And also it is the mind that decides where things begin and end - where the “self” ends and “other” begins, or where “ignorance” ends and “wisdom” begins. The mind draws the lines that separate the world into "things".

It ultimately comes down to whatever the mind appears to be in any given moment. Given that appearances are what we directly experience in each moment, the mind is both absolute and knowable.

If mind is whatever appears to "be", then any observation or logic that "all things are mentally constructed" would be yet another appearance unless you'd invoke a deeper level knowledge or category of things which is not mentally constructed, experienced or known. Wouldn't that move truth as target out of the category of the real altogether? It would appear to invoke some metaphysical cause of truth. And yet we make distinctions between truth and lies in everyday lives, which seems important to philosophers, thinkers and rational people alike.

As one becomes wiser (and thus less deluded), one’s definition of wisdom becomes less deluded.

When there's a degree of wisdom, then there's a scale being erected. And I think you were being asked to talk about that scale, if any.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It makes perfect sense. Most people have no knowledge or awareness of the core illusion of maya because their minds are continuously being distracted by the more superficial illusions of their daily lives.

Illusions can't be more or less superficial, nor conceal other illusions. Those are flatly self-contradictory statements. What you should have said is: most people spend a lot of time addressing illusions in isolation from each other, as convenient to their deluded needs and purposes.

The distractions and superficiality, when closer examined, form the very core illusion at play. But there's still a distinction between superficiality and depth when it comes to activities like giving attention, focus or enabling a drive towards getting to the essence of a concern. To understand superficiality, the imagined existence at surface level, we have to first stop being superficial. Like to fully understand life, we first really need to die.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv to David Quinn: There is no grand realisation of monism, either within or beyond a specific thing. Likewise, no grand illusion concealing that. The thing *is* all of reality so any talk of how it relates to or exhibits a monistic reality is utter nonsense. For that reason there is also no movement towards or away from an ideal or perfect realisation of oneness. It's already present in all instances of consciousness, even if obstructed by delusions or expressed equivocally.

I state the obvious when I say that there is a grand realization of monism if this is one's named reality. But since names such as 'grand' and 'idea' and 'perfect' are relational to what they are not, they are names used by ego consciousness that is attached to self identity, and when ego consciousness is the primary mode of perception, the insight of a self-less reality cannot break through. Having said this, the need to put wisdom on some sort of pedestal of self attainment is a natural part of the waking up process. I liken it to a support mechanism or bridge or safety net for consciousness until it gets accustomed to seeing not-two. The Buddha's parable of the raft comes to mind.

What matters is believing what we see. The ability to ascribe a short list of disparate and conventionally unrelated things to a univocal superstratum of "fundamental nature" doesn't quite cut it. Nobody should choose core "truths" over core illusions because both are illusions and excuses for blindness. The real choice is between the sun and an afterimage. Reason can neither enlightened us nor be transformed by us into an enlightened version of itself (there is none). Only a revolutionary reordering of our relationship to other things (including reason) can transform the stunted and self-serving "reason" and "truth" of humanity into something better. Better because we want them to be so. Your conceited, brittle "absolute truth" is useless in that great and noble endeavour.

Why does belief have to enter the picture once oneness is realized? The sun is the sun when it is named. Just as we are tired when tired is named. And once we realize is the naming of things that distinguishes the One or oneness, we will no longer fall into the error of 'not-me' perception which is most intensely reflected in the left-right battlefield of religion and politics, the latter of which is currently alive and 'well' on the two forums in this site.

The naming of things as the creation of things in relation to things is how I envision your "revolutionary reordering of our relationship to other things". However, I would re-write your statement to read "a revolutionary reordering of relating to things" because the concepts 'relationship' and 'other' imply the presence of selves-at-a-distance while the concept 'our' implies the existence of selves as being the cause of the relating. As for the condition of belief in relation to oneness, perhaps a believing or hoping that I am That (name) perception will eventually permeate human consciousness as a whole is required as a part of a realized one's interaction with the world, after all, there is no guarantee that such a reality will be actualized.

[jupiviv]

It makes perfect sense. Most people have no knowledge or awareness of the core illusion of maya because their minds are continuously being distracted by the more superficial illusions of their daily lives.

Illusions can't be more or less superficial, nor conceal other illusions. Those are flatly self-contradictory statements. What you should have said is: most people spend a lot of time addressing illusions in isolation from each other, as convenient to their deluded needs and purposes.

The distractions and superficiality, when closer examined, form the very core illusion at play. But there's still a distinction between superficiality and depth when it comes to activities like giving attention, focus or enabling a drive towards getting to the essence of a concern. To understand superficiality, the imagined existence at surface level, we have to first stop being superficial. Like to fully understand life, we first really need to die.

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up. This can also apply to how much attention is given to one subject over another.

I state the obvious when I say that there is a grand realization of monism if this is one's named reality. But since names such as 'grand' and 'idea' and 'perfect' are relational to what they are not, they are names used by ego consciousness that is attached to self identity, and when ego consciousness is the primary mode of perception, the insight of a self-less reality cannot break through. Having said this, the need to put wisdom on some sort of pedestal of self attainment is a natural part of the waking up process. I liken it to a support mechanism or bridge or safety net for consciousness until it gets accustomed to seeing not-two. The Buddha's parable of the raft comes to mind.

There's nothing wrong with names such as "grand realisation" or "self-less reality", even when attached to the self. Delusion only happens if we refuse to discard those names when necessary, because, for example, we wish not to stray too far from the familiar subjects/thoughts connoted by them. The problem with your thinking as I see it: you are misguidedly trying to extract a pattern of linear progression from a rhizomic process. All of the mental processes you mentioned can occur many times throughout one's life, in many different contexts, and potentially having many different effects.

What matters is believing what we see. The ability to ascribe a short list of disparate and conventionally unrelated things to a univocal superstratum of "fundamental nature" doesn't quite cut it. Nobody should choose core "truths" over core illusions because both are illusions and excuses for blindness. The real choice is between the sun and an afterimage. Reason can neither enlightened us nor be transformed by us into an enlightened version of itself (there is none). Only a revolutionary reordering of our relationship to other things (including reason) can transform the stunted and self-serving "reason" and "truth" of humanity into something better. Better because we want them to be so. Your conceited, brittle "absolute truth" is useless in that great and noble endeavour.

Why does belief have to enter the picture once oneness is realized?

Because that is how I'm defining belief - a consistent demand and desire for total honesty that transcends all individual, contextual instances of honesty.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The distractions and superficiality, when closer examined, form the very core illusion at play. But there's still a distinction between superficiality and depth when it comes to activities like giving attention, focus or enabling a drive towards getting to the essence of a concern. To understand superficiality, the imagined existence at surface level, we have to first stop being superficial.

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up. This can also apply to how much attention is given to one subject over another.

What so difficult to understand about the idea of a distinction between superficiality and depth? Someone gives all of the attention, none at all, or trying to give a little bit at the time. We're talking about priorities, valuing and so on. This is not a binary thing, more like orientations. The deeper point would be the realization that all what was thought to be real, solid and "me" turns out to be surface chatter and rather random as well.

Your part 3 is a superficial, distracting, ego-document which needs a special place below Wordy Matters. But it can stay as some kind of tribute to your own illusion which instead of attacking and doubting, you are whacking others with, as that frees you temporary from that existential itch.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: I state the obvious when I say that there is a grand realization of monism if this is one's named reality. But since names such as 'grand' and 'idea' and 'perfect' are relational to what they are not, they are names used by ego consciousness that is attached to self identity, and when ego consciousness is the primary mode of perception, the insight of a self-less reality cannot break through. Having said this, the need to put wisdom on some sort of pedestal of self attainment is a natural part of the waking up process. I liken it to a support mechanism or bridge or safety net for consciousness until it gets accustomed to seeing not-two. The Buddha's parable of the raft comes to mind.

jupiviv: There's nothing wrong with names such as "grand realisation" or "self-less reality", even when attached to the self. Delusion only happens if we refuse to discard those names when necessary, because, for example, we wish not to stray too far from the familiar subjects/thoughts connoted by them. The problem with your thinking as I see it: you are misguidedly trying to extract a pattern of linear progression from a rhizomic process. All of the mental processes you mentioned can occur many times throughout one's life, in many different contexts, and potentially having many different effects.

I assume 'rhizomic' suggests harmonic or flowing or merging or synergy of things or view but within this synergy of non-specific direction of spirit movement, there is a progression of awareness of the 'totality/completeness' of its inter-relatedness or inter-subjectivity that is expressed via word. And, when awareness of oneness has permeated one's consciousness completely, dualistic concepts such as 'grand' do not arise except how I'm using them now. Just as all use of reactive emotional language ceases.

I realize that until one is saturated with the truth of oneness that mental-emotional processes that imply awareness of a self/not-me (concepts such as grand, foolish, intelligent, stupid, jackass, divine, sage, atheist, etc.) continue...

jupiviv: What matters is believing what we see. The ability to ascribe a short list of disparate and conventionally unrelated things to a univocal superstratum of "fundamental nature" doesn't quite cut it. Nobody should choose core "truths" over core illusions because both are illusions and excuses for blindness. The real choice is between the sun and an afterimage. Reason can neither enlightened us nor be transformed by us into an enlightened version of itself (there is none). Only a revolutionary reordering of our relationship to other things (including reason) can transform the stunted and self-serving "reason" and "truth" of humanity into something better. Better because we want them to be so. Your conceited, brittle "absolute truth" is useless in that great and noble endeavour.

Pam Seeback: Why does belief have to enter the picture once oneness is realized?

Because that is how I'm defining belief - a consistent demand and desire for total honesty that transcends all individual, contextual instances of honesty.

The only total honesty that transcends all individual, contextual instances of honesty is that of oneness realization. Which means honesty is not possible as long as there is awareness of 'other.'

[jupiviv]

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up. This can also apply to how much attention is given to one subject over another.

What so difficult to understand about the idea of a distinction between superficiality and depth? Someone gives all of the attention, none at all, or trying to give a little bit at the time. We're talking about priorities, valuing and so on. This is not a binary thing, more like orientations. The deeper point would be the realization that all what was thought to be real, solid and "me" turns out to be surface chatter and rather random as well.

To repeat my response that you literally quoted just to tell me I don't understand the idea of depth:

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up.

Now perhaps that doesn't fit into your idea of "stop being so superficial", but you're not helping anyone understand why that is so.

Your part 3 is a superficial, distracting, ego-document which needs a special place below Wordy Matters. But it can stay as some kind of tribute to your own illusion which instead of attacking and doubting, you are whacking others with, as that frees you temporary from that existential bitch.

My dude must needs chillax. The point of the essay is to recap the main points of my critique of QRS through the lens of a "worldly" framework of ideas that intersects the QRS one. Keep in mind that it was written in 2015 at the height of Gamergate and proto-alt-right e-mobilisation. I was already identifying the core problems I'm dealing now in New Atheism and the broader "rational" movement back then. That should be sufficient grounds to dismiss accusations (including those made by you) that I'm just some horny young polemicist searching for punching bags.

[jupiviv]

I assume 'rhizomic' suggests harmonic or flowing or merging or synergy of things or view but within this synergy of non-specific direction of spirit movement, there is a progression of awareness of the 'totality/completeness' of its inter-relatedness or inter-subjectivity that is expressed via word.

The progression towards totality is itself rhizomic. As one becomes more honest about things in general, and more willing to be so despite potential negative consequences, the nature of reality becomes clearer.

The only total honesty that transcends all individual, contextual instances of honesty is that of oneness realization. Which means honesty is not possible as long as there is awareness of 'other.'

"Oneness realisation" doesn't exclude awareness of "other". I am aware of things other than myself, as are you (demonstrably so, since you're having a conversation with me and expressing disagreement). How does that contradict oneness?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up.

You're here still talking about illusions having depths or degrees. That's the very idea which I tried to dismantle, like the I & thing. By the way, if an illusion would be cover, it wouldn't be illusion in any philosophical sense. It would simply be packaging, misdirection, protection or such thing.

I'm just some horny young polemicist searching for punching bags.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: "Oneness realisation" doesn't exclude awareness of "other". I am aware of things other than myself, as are you (demonstrably so, since you're having a conversation with me and expressing disagreement). How does that contradict oneness?

But I am not having a conversation with you, what is being caused is idea analysis. When you wrote your words above, can you honestly say you were aware of a self that was writing? Or a self you were writing to? Are 'you' and 'me' and 'yours' and 'mine' not ideas just as 'expressing' and 'oneness' are ideas? After all, there is no inherent self to be aware of. Which by default, means there is no inherent other (self) to be aware of.

Another way of putting it is that when thinking is happening, God is thinking of God - is there a second (other) God?

[jupiviv]

But what determines the depth of an illusion? It's the stakes of what discovering reality means for a specific person in a specific situation, not the premisses of whatever specific illusion is covering that up.

You're here still talking about illusions having depths or degrees.

No I'm saying the question of depth applies to the psychological forces which illusions conceal, as opposed to their content. It's the same position I've stated in the OP and elsewhere. I certainly haven't noticed any arguments against it from anyone so far.

That's the very idea which I tried to dismantle, like the I & thing.

"I & thing"... OK.

By the way, if an illusion would be cover, it wouldn't be illusion in any philosophical sense. It would simply be packaging, misdirection, protection or such thing.

Fine, please link to a popular academic-philosophic definition.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: "Oneness realisation" doesn't exclude awareness of "other". I am aware of things other than myself, as are you (demonstrably so, since you're having a conversation with me and expressing disagreement). How does that contradict oneness?

But I am not having a conversation with you, what is being caused is idea analysis.

OK then, you're analysing ideas you disagree with. There is no reason to do that unless you believe those ideas can be held by someone other than you, including a future or past version of you.

When you wrote your words above, can you honestly say you were aware of a self that was writing? Or a self you were writing to?

Yes to both.

Are 'you' and 'me' and 'yours' and 'mine' not ideas just as 'expressing' and 'oneness' are ideas? After all, there is no inherent self to be aware of. Which by default, means there is no inherent other (self) to be aware of.

Self and other exist *because* they lack inherent existence, i.e., they are caused by each other (hence, ultimately, reality as a whole).

Another way of putting it is that when thinking is happening, God is thinking of God - is there a second (other) God?

I don't know. All I have is the belief that my thoughts are God incarnate, and so is everything else.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No I'm saying the question of depth applies to the psychological forces which illusions conceal, as opposed to their content.

Illusions are not concealing anything, at least in the higher philosophical sense. Like a Fata Morgana, it's only pretending there's content or behind.

Fine, please link to a popular academic-philosophic definition.

You mean it's not enough to get it from me? Why even bother talking, just go to that more authoritative source directly!

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: Are 'you' and 'me' and 'yours' and 'mine' not ideas just as 'expressing' and 'oneness' are ideas? After all, there is no inherent self to be aware of. Which by default, means there is no inherent other (self) to be aware of.

jupiviv: Self and other exist *because* they lack inherent existence, i.e., they are caused by each other (hence, ultimately, reality as a whole).

As I see it, having the understanding that one thing causes another as if they are independent objects or in the case of selves, independent subjects, is the same thing as declaring things to be inherently existing.

Pam Seeback: Another way of putting it is that when thinking is happening, God is thinking of God - is there a second (other) God?

jupiviv: I don't know. All I have is the belief that my thoughts are God incarnate, and so is everything else.

Since you believe your thoughts are God (singular) incarnate, are you not concluding that there are not two Gods?

At some point, truths must be acknowledged as truths. One of these truths is that reality is not cut in two.

[Avolith]

No I'm saying the question of depth applies to the psychological forces which illusions conceal, as opposed to their content.

Illusions are not concealing anything, at least in the higher philosophical sense. Like a Fata Morgana, it's only pretending there's content or behind.

If there's nothing outside illusion, then what is depth, consciousness, masculinity, truth? Are they just certain qualities of illusions? Are they particular illusions that happen to have stronger correlations through time, appear more self-repeating (e.g. appear to be reaching further into the past) than untruthful appearances? In still other words - truth as just a more intricate, fractal-like appearance. This breaks down into, truth as the prettiest aesthetic, for the most refined hedonist.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No I'm saying the question of depth applies to the psychological forces which illusions conceal, as opposed to their content.

Illusions are not concealing anything, at least in the higher philosophical sense. Like a Fata Morgana, it's only pretending there's content or behind.

If there's nothing outside illusion, then what is depth, consciousness, masculinity, truth? Are they just certain qualities of illusions? Are they particular illusions that happen to have stronger correlations through time, appear more self-repeating (e.g. appear to be reaching further into the past) than untruthful appearances? In still other words - truth as just a more intricate, fractal-like appearance. This breaks down into, truth as the prettiest aesthetic, for the most refined hedonist.

Not sure why you're commenting on the notion "there's nothing outside illusion" or how you distilled it from the above. Are you referring to Quinn's "everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction"? If we'd go calling everything illusion instead of "things" or reality, I think it would not change that much on the whole in these kind of discussion. We end up always positioning the real against the unreal.

Quinn described earlier the self as "interconnected bundle of illusions that a [deluded] person instinctively identifies with". Or I'd say that the act of identification is by definition "self" and illusions occur within all interactions between subject and object. Here depth and truth-seeking are perhaps best described by Nietzsche's tuning hammer or fork: for sounding out idols, the emptiness of things. Not sure about any universal levels to assign.

[David Quinn]

If there's nothing outside illusion, then what is depth, consciousness, masculinity, truth? Are they just certain qualities of illusions? Are they particular illusions that happen to have stronger correlations through time, appear more self-repeating (e.g. appear to be reaching further into the past) than untruthful appearances? In still other words - truth as just a more intricate, fractal-like appearance. This breaks down into, truth as the prettiest aesthetic, for the most refined hedonist.

There is indeed a core truth behind all the illusions. This core truth is very profound and constant; it never changes, it is the same everywhere, all people share in it equally, and it goes to the root of all things.

What is the nature of this core truth? It is indescribable nirvana. It is indescribable because it cannot be captured by thought or be put into words, but when you awake to it, its nature is fully revealed. An extraordinary understanding that knows no bounds is suddenly apparent.

In truth, we are all dwelling in this indescribable nirvana in every single moment of our lives. Right now, as of this very moment, everyone who reads these words is fully ensconced in it. The reason why people are unconscious of it is because they allow their attention to be diverted by the mind’s constant habit of seeking happiness or satisfaction somewhere else, away from what is happening before their eyes right here, right now.

It is only by putting an end to this habit that our attention can settle back into nirvana, and the key to doing this lies in fully grasping the fact that nothing really exists. But it takes a powerful masculine focus to follow through with this to the very end.

[Avolith]

Thanks for the replies, I was looking for some clarifications. I'll type more brain dumps, I don't know if they're true.

I've been reading about DMT trips. There's threads full of people saying they experienced things that are completely indescribable by language. They pile on the superlatives and say the words still fall completely short of a faithful description. What is the relation between that and enlightenment? Can you smoke a plant and 'get there' just like that? Notwithstanding all kinds of dangers and risks.


Why is it not the case that all humans become enlightened as a normal part of growing up, if not from birth?

First there's bottom-up reasoning. If I had to assume humans were an intelligent design by some person or god, I'd think of delusions as byproducts of biological instincts. Biological instincts are evolutionarily preprogrammed constraints. Instincts are great because they're 'cheap' for the brain to run. They don't need to be developed like abstract conceptual thinking, the software works out of the box from the moment you're born. They have a clear survival value for the species.

Then on top of that there's a supplemental more dynamic consciousness, which is usually only partially activated in men, such that they can build civilization, but most still have the biological drives to build it in order to impress women. This interaction between consciousness and instincts again has survival value.

Then top-down: The appearance of evolution, instincts, cognition, enlightenment are all part and parcel of the infinite, which can't express in any other way than this. It's one, giant, thought getting to know itself. Like a human being combining basic concepts to come up with a deeper understanding, the infinite is combining matter, space, energy, cells, DNA, life to come up with humans, human consciousness and ultimately enlightenment and a symbolic understanding of the infinite through all of the before mentioned things.

Like gaining an understanding of a cog is a stepping stone to understanding a gearbox, an unenlightened, dying, suffering human is a stepping stone to the infinite meeting itself. In this process it's 'concentrating' so hard (on the details of one cog, or human life) that the bigger picture went out of view, had to go out of view.

Just like to understand a cog you would do well to glance at the gearbox from time to time (and vice versa), enlightenment is the infinite glancing at the gearbox, widening its attention field temporarily, taking stock. Afterwards it contracts again, taking some memory of the expansion with it, to apply this to the particulars of the again narrowed attention field - in order to make an even better expansion possible the next time.

Sometimes a person loses a train of thought, or an intuitive understanding, and has to piece back 'that story' of 'why he did that thing' from various memories or tidbits. In the same way we are a tidbit the infinite saw fit to use in order to piece back itself. A human being is like the infinite losing its train of thought, but, on purpose, so it can pleasantly surprise itself later.

When you know you're a person, you already know you're not. You can only really come up with being a person to the degree that you know that you're not.

I lost this post due to being logged out while typing it. I thought it was fitting to lose a thought after typing about losing a train of thought, but I conquered the universe after google showed me how to make a memory dump of my browser process and find back the post text. Now I press submit and hope it will blast me off into an epiphany. An epiphany that comes about after learning no one sees anything in a word I wrote, that would be a nice learning experience. Something tells me I should stop talking to myself, but then if I really am the infinite, there's nothing else I can do. Alright, I'm done.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

....when you awake to it, its nature is fully revealed. An extraordinary understanding that knows no bounds is suddenly apparent.

And yet "everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction" as you stated earlier. You then continue with suggesting what very much sounds like some brain state of "being awake" which naturally posits the possibility of contrasting sleeping states, always lurking in the background and then a revelation and sudden appearance to boot! So whatever we wake up to, including the deepest, brightest sense and insight or unfolding understandings would be still momentary constructions after all. And like all constructions it would be very much bound and conditional.

One obvious difference with more common states would be the lack of doubt about any of its meaning or psychological fulfillment.

In truth, we are all dwelling in this indescribable nirvana in every single moment of our lives. Right now, as of this very moment, everyone who reads these words is fully ensconced in it. The reason why people are unconscious of it is because they allow their attention to be diverted by the mind’s constant habit of seeking happiness or satisfaction somewhere else, away from what is happening before their eyes right here, right now.

Live in the now, enjoy a life of mindfulness! This is what the corporate flyer told me yesterday, offering free courses to learn it for a healthier, more productive life. Nobody wants their employees to be too distracted or dreaming too much of elsewhere, of course. Unhappiness is not productive.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've been reading about DMT trips. There's threads full of people saying they experienced things that are completely indescribable by language. They pile on the superlatives and say the words still fall completely short of a faithful description. What is the relation between that and enlightenment? Can you smoke a plant and 'get there' just like that? Notwithstanding all kinds of dangers and risks.

One other experience reported often with drugs or any other caused altered state, is the overwhelming sense everything is understood and makes perfect sense, the whole universe and that deep meaningful connection oozing out of every crevice. Of course many have experimented with this in laboratories or privately, to see if something could be communicated of this also during the state. But all that is ever retrieved are nonsensical words or drawings, not even necessarily complex or mysterious ones. What seems to be clear is that some extremely hightened sense of meaning and connection is being experienced. Then the imagination comes up with a few things which signify the experiences but are mostly void without it, even for other people in that state or even when repeating the experience and then looking back to the thoughts, the music or the drawings.

In other words, this cannot be any meaningful enlightenment while it does offer the experience of being close to whatever we imagined it to be. Plus it could open conceptual pathways and desire for introspection which might not easily occur otherwise. That is the connection with entheogens.

Why is it not the case that all humans become enlightened as a normal part of growing up, if not from birth?

Suffering usually gets in the way, the attachment, which has to do with our projection into things and others, creating a maze of mirrors. You are asking here if there's some known evolutionary benefit for enlightenment to be part of natural development or perhaps the reverse: blocking that development would be the more protective measure? Then again evolution works over very long time scales. It might mean that as a species, the way forward would be to create conditions in where enlightenment would become a normal, undisturbed part of growing up with everyone.

[David Quinn]

....when you awake to it, its nature is fully revealed. An extraordinary understanding that knows no bounds is suddenly apparent.

And yet "everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction" as you stated earlier. You then continue with suggesting what very much sounds like some brain state of "being awake" which naturally posits the possibility of contrasting sleeping states, always lurking in the background and then a revelation and sudden appearance to boot! So whatever we wake up to, including the deepest, brightest sense and insight or unfolding understandings would be still momentary constructions after all. And like all constructions it would be very much bound and conditional.

Yes, it is true that momentary constructions are all that we ever experience, even for awakened Buddhas, and it is true that they are always bound and conditional. What separates the awakened Buddha from the ordinary person is that he no longer falls into the trap of thinking that any of these momentary constructions are real.

Or to put it another way, the awakening process involves ceasing to grasp at things as though they were real, which in turn comes from fully realizing that nothing really exists. These two aspects - the realization that nothing exists and the cessation of grasping - in fact occur at the same time, and as soon as it occurs one is immediately “awake”.

With this awakening, a new understanding and a new mode of being appears. But if one tries to grasp at this new understanding or this new mode of being in the belief they really exist, then in that very instant one immediately falls back into ignorance again.

In truth, we are all dwelling in this indescribable nirvana in every single moment of our lives. Right now, as of this very moment, everyone who reads these words is fully ensconced in it. The reason why people are unconscious of it is because they allow their attention to be diverted by the mind’s constant habit of seeking happiness or satisfaction somewhere else, away from what is happening before their eyes right here, right now.

Live in the now, enjoy a life of mindfulness! This is what the corporate flyer told me yesterday, offering free courses to learn it for a healthier, more productive life. Nobody wants their employees to be too distracted or dreaming too much of elsewhere, of course. Unhappiness is not productive.

The problem with trying to “live in the now” is that it involves blocking out what is not the now - e.g. the past, the future, regrets, worries, anxieties, etc. It involves compartmentalizing the mind and suppressing whatever threatens to disturb the peace that one is trying to cultivate.

The way of wisdom, by contrast, involves opening yourself up to the All, which is achieved by abandoning all finite things, including the now. This is a process, however, that can only be done in the here and now.