Why causality is an illusion

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

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:22 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:This projection, Dennis, for the time being,
a being-towards-death,
is open to the vagaries of cause/effect,
and must make a stand.
A stand in the face of it's approaching destruction.


You challenger! For example:

    The purpose of Maori tattooing is not only to imprint a drawing onto the flesh but also to stamp onto the mind all the traditions and philosophy of the group. Similarly, the Jesuit missionary Sanchez Labrador has described the passionate seriousness with which the natives devoted whole days to letting themselves be painted. He who is not painted, they said, is "dumb". (Claude Lévi-Strauss)

But be aware that:

    The [painted] body is made to signify, but with signs that, strictly speaking, have no meaning. All resemblance has vanished, all representation is absent . The body is covered with appearances, illusions, traps, animal parodies and sacrificial simulations, not in order to dissemble, nor to reveal (a desire, say, or a drive), nor even just for fun (the spontaneous expressiveness of children and primitives). What is involved here is an undertaking ... termed metaphysically: a sacrificial challenge to the world to exist.

    For nothing exists naturally, things exist because challenged, and because summoned to respond to that challenge. It is by being challenged that the powers of the world, including the gods, are aroused; it is by challenging these powers that they are exorcized, seduced or captured. (Jean Baudrillard)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:14 am

For nothing exists naturally, things exist because challenged, and because summoned to respond to that challenge. It is by being challenged that the powers of the world, including the gods, are aroused; it is by challenging these powers that they are exorcized, seduced or captured. (Jean Baudrillard)


Things do indeed exist [the condition] because challenged [by the condition]; humanism feeds on humanism, causality feeds on causality, arousal of the gods feeds on arousal of the gods. This condition of the arousal of the gods, however, is not exorcized by challenging the condition, for the activity of the challenging is the same activity as is the activity of the arousal. There is only way to exorcize belief in gods, the belief in the condition of two, and that is by remaining true to one's wisdom of the Unconditioned God of One. And by "God," I am not referring to the dual God of religious doctrines, but to the Spirit of Omniety, to the One Spirit of Life.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:14 am

movingalways wrote: And by "God," I am not referring to the dual God of religious doctrines, but to the Spirit of Omniety, to the One Spirit of Life.

One you might very well have seduced into existence. You seductress! You annihilator.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:56 am

Shall we put it like this?

there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the world that appears before us , but that all such phenomenal entities are impermanent, continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words, "empty" of essence.

if so, we can now say,
existence is projection.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when we practice to deceive.

Realising existence is projection,
dissolves the web instantly.
Instant 'Grok'.

It's empty and meaningless,
and,
It's empty and meaningless,
that
It's empty and meaningless.

Given that,
I find, being (existence),
at times,
a wonderful experience.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:19 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:Realising existence is projection,
dissolves the web instantly.
Instant 'Grok'.

It's empty and meaningless (3x)


You sir, have seduced yourself. Congrats! Now why not create a fresh verse?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:44 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote: And by "God," I am not referring to the dual God of religious doctrines, but to the Spirit of Omniety, to the One Spirit of Life.

One you might very well have seduced into existence. You seductress! You annihilator.


You did not respond to my truth that arousal cannot exorcize arousal.

Your words of doubt, "one you might have", reveal your attempt to divide the absolute [singular] truth of you.

How can Pam seduce that which was, and is, before Pam came into existence? Is this not to place the cart before the horse?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:42 am

You sir, have seduced yourself. Congrats! Now why not create a fresh verse?


Has there been a price hike in the 'cheap shots' business today?
Getting rid of stock huh?

What's at stake?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:05 am

movingalways wrote:How can Pam seduce that which was, and is, before Pam came into existence? Is this not to place the cart before the horse?

Pam's spirit of 'omniety', her one spirit of life, comes into appearance as knowledge, sense or word. As does Pam of course. But the process by which anything is challenged to exist - "called out" - I named here seduction. But you're right to say it's not Pam who is really the seductress. In one old story the Devil represents a temptation, to "truly" exist, to invoke God-Being. And surely, God shows up shortly after the deception so he can frown upon it! But we might be looking at just another creation story, six days told in one drama. One could just as well retell it like some sacrificial murder.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:18 am

Philosophy starts from,
existence exists and I exist.
To say existence doesn't exist and I don't exist is ludicrous because existence and I have to exist to say it.
Philosophy has branches,
ontology,
epistemology,
ethics,
politics,
aesthetics.

there is something and not nothing.

Pam is bringing forth her ontology,
what exists and its nature.
It's a conversation,
an activity of naming what is ineffable.
the best it can do is point.

Philosophy is about stories,
as Neitschke pointed out,
creative meaning makers.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:10 am

Pam's spirit of 'omniety', her one spirit of life, comes into appearance as knowledge, sense or word. As does Pam of course. But the process by which anything is challenged to exist - "called out" - I named here seduction. But you're right to say it's not Pam who is really the seductress. In one old story the Devil represents a temptation, to "truly" exist, to invoke God-Being. And surely, God shows up shortly after the deception so he can frown upon it! But we might be looking at just another creation story, six days told in one drama. One could just as well retell it like some sacrificial murder.


It is true that human awareness is wholly dependent on WORD. This is why it is important to detach oneself from their personality of surface consciousness and go deep into the silence where WORD comes into existence, or is "called out" as you say. The critical aspect of becoming aware of this "calling out" is that one comes to the humble realization that the personality has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of words. At this point, the personality or self begins its journey of dying to the truth.

When the personality is dead, all that is left is WORD or the "calling out." Mind battling mind. Duality battling duality. Arousal battling arousal. And while this battle of words rages, there is always present That which is transcendent to the battle and its raging. This transcendent presence absolutely has to be 'there', or the battle could not exist. There is no name for this transcendent That, but because human consciousness is dependent on WORD, there is a necessity to "call out" or "call forth" a WORD that names THAT so that one can exit the battle of dualities and rest in WORD. This is what is meant by the WORD made flesh. And what is absolutely critical if one is to ascend into this WORD so as to not return to the battle of words is that it must be a WORD of identity. This is why Masters such as the Buddha and the Christ are the Masters they are. Both recognized that to man, WORD is life, IDENTITY is life, ergo both called forth words to name THAT that suggested identity, but unlike the identity of personality, they were identities without a history or memory: they aroused no image of time, distance, space or matter.

This is what is meant by my signature; imageless WORD is needed, is given, is called out as the WAY of resting in THAT so that one's belief in dualism can be annihilated. Resting in one's WORD of transcendent SELF is still to rest in a dual state, as there is no WORD in THAT which forms words/WORD, but for the one who rests in this 'transparent' WORD, the belief in the reality of the battle or arousal of words, the existence of causality, is dead. In WORD of transcendent identity, in awareness of being in the world, but not of the world, the Buddha or the Christ or 'whatever floats your boat' abides...
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:13 am

Pam is bringing forth her ontology,
what exists and its nature.
It's a conversation,
an activity of naming what is ineffable.
the best it can do is point.


:-)

This is all anyone can do. What I bring forth is my experience or awareness that in the activity of naming what is ineffable and resting in total obedience and love of this name is the way man exits his attachment to names. The way out is the way through.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:56 am

mind and object (world) = dependant arising.

mind is the designator.
designates characteristics/functions.
then reacts.

if the mind is postulating that world and self has inherent existence then self is deemed separate and takes an attack/defend posture, giving rise to conflict.

if the mind is postulating that world and self lacks inherent existence then peace reigns because all is one, non-duality.

mind impacts world powerfully,
world is conceptual,
world is possibility conceptually.
world is projection and depends on projector.
dependant arising.

there is no hidden meaning.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:34 am

mind and object (world) = dependant arising.


This is truth.

mind is the designator.
designates characteristics/functions.
then reacts.


Also truth.

if the mind is postulating that world and self has inherent existence then self is deemed separate and takes an attack/defend posture, giving rise to conflict.

if the mind is postulating that world and self lacks inherent existence then peace reigns because all is one, non-duality.


Not true, for the very act of postulating is to be inside the realm or dimension of duality. God, or the Tao, or Pure, or the One Consciousness, which was, and is, before man's mind of a duplicate creation came into existence, does not postulate. This awareness of That which is whether man is or not, is the true nondual awareness.

mind impacts world powerfully,
world is conceptual,
world is possibility conceptually.
world is projection and depends on projector.
dependant arising.


All of which remains in the darkness of one's belief in duality.

there is no hidden meaning.


Agreed. But there is a hidden reality of [infinite] light that is fully revealed when the darkness of "postulating" [finiteness] is no more. This is the Buddha's Nirvana and the Christ's I AM.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:28 am

Wanted to add that since man is bound to objectifying his consciousness via words, [his dependent arising within his belief in dualism], that he is never without this binding, or "umbilical cord" of consciousness, even when he is consciously walking the path of its total transcendence.

Words are man's-life blood; they are the way of the dream and the way of ending the dream.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:28 am

Not true, for the very act of postulating is to be inside the realm or dimension of duality. God, or the Tao, or Pure, or the One Consciousness, which was, and is, before man's mind of a duplicate creation came into existence, does not postulate. This awareness of That which is whether man is or not, is the true nondual awareness.


Once emptiness is realised,
a possibility opens up,
a path of liberation appears possible,
not yet fully attained,
it is postulated,
a matter of trust,
you call it vision,
do you not?

postulated, vision...
a rose by any name....
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:30 am

Once the inherent emptiness of naming-forming is realized, it is realized. This is enlightenment.

Any thoughts of "possibilities" that arise from this enlightenment is to return to the core duality of dependent-arising.

I am not a Christian, nor am I a Buddhist; however, the teachings of the Buddha and of the Christ are the purest teachings I know. I offer you these teachings of the Buddha of "Nama Rupa":

http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Th ... uality.htm
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:46 am

OK,
we've got mind as 'thingness',
characteristics and functions,
it takes a trillion neurons firing thru' myriad synapses to have the world show up in the way it shows up.
buddha mind ( a possibility for human mind to awaken to conditions )
will turn out to be a particular arrangement of genes that can be brought about by application of a vaccine at some point..

meantime, it's back to emptiness and dependent arising.
world is projection, postulated.
rain falls 'cos it was set up like that.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:54 am

David Quinn: It is logical and mystical. The logic comes from the truth that Reality/Tao is utterly everything. It becomes mystical when you enter the whole of yourself into that logic.


What you present is the doctrine of duality as being the reality of consciousness.

David, many times you mention the Buddha and Lao Tzu, but never in my encounter with their teachings have I come across a wisdom that equates logic with wholeness/mysticism. As a way of being purified of belief in dualism, yes, but not as The Way of realizing wholeness. I mentioned this observation over a year ago, which, to my knowledge, you failed to address. You do not mention Jesus as often as you do Lao Tzu and the Buddha, but if one includes him in the circles of great Masters of wholeness, of mysticism, at no time does Jesus speak of logic and reason as The Way to realize the Kingdom of the wholeness of God.

At the heart of Jesus' and the Buddha's teachings was not to "become enlightened", but to end suffering, and both made it clear what this ending of suffering entailed: the complete transcendence of duality. And what lives at the heart of man's attachent to duality? His application of logic and reason to that which has no logic or reason to exist. And how did the three teachers of the Mystery that is life go about completely transcending man's attachment to duality? The Way of all three Masters was to be transformed from the language of attachment to duality, logic and reason, into the language of detachment from logic and reason, the language of the spiritual metaphor of I AM or SELF. And in doing so, they became for all who have ears to hear, the living revelators of the living vision of transcendence.

At the heart of what I see as being your error, one that prevents you from being transformed into the living vision of transcendence, is your understanding of the Tao as being utterly everything, as if it is an Thing full of finite things, a Totality of things. Of my comprehension, this is not the vision of Lao Tzu of The Tao. Verse one of the Tao te Ching:

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.

Lao Tzu identifies the Tao as being the Originator of heaven [that which cannot be conceived of having a name] and of earth [that which is conceived of having a name]. This distinction between being everything and being the Originator of everything are two different visions of the Tao. Your vision of a logical Tao of the rearranging of finite things keeps a man locked into the prison of duality with no language of wholeness upon which to stand, whereas Lao Tzu's vision of a Tao of Mystery gives a man a way to walk out of this prison – the Way of his living transcendence.

Lao Tzu plainly addresses the way a man becomes the Way of living transcendence in the last paragraph of verse one:

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place,
it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.

As development of wisdom takes place, we receive the different names of the Mystery. And what is the nature of these different names? The nature of the Metaphor of the [infinite] spiritual SELF. The very language Lao Tzu [whoever Lao Tzu “was”] used to produce the Tao te Ching.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:36 am

The Mystery refers to ignorance.
mystery is ignorance.
the absurdity of human being existing in a state of ignorance in relation to its conditions.
of human being then responding with make believe 'winning formulas' that don't work, entailing suffering.
the mystery is disclosed by analysis of causes/conditions.

duality is non-duality,
a conceptual distinction.
theres not duality over here and non-duality over there.
who's transcending what?

you can throw Lao Tsu out,
know one really knows what he's talking about,
he's mystifying.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby movingalways » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:22 am

Dennis,

If you equate duality with nonduality, our understandings of the nature of awareness are too far apart for a fruitful meeting of the minds. I seek to be the essence of God's thoughts, which are "good and only good." Duality includes "not good." My story in a nutshell.

Peace out, blessings on your journey.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:47 am

duality, non-duality is a matter of conception.

I seek to be the essence of God's thoughts, which are "good and only good."


like that is a matter of conception.

depends on a conceptualising mind.

its how it's set up.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:12 am

A problem with causality arose.
While causality is intelligible to us and helped deliver the understanding that phenomena is not self established.
How could causality be self established if all phenomena lacks inherent existence?
It was decided causality is not self established.

And yet, causality is required as a function to reward virtuous behaviour, thus ending cyclic existence.
This is how the concepts,
'conventional reality',
and
'ultimate reality'
were brought into play.

behaviour in conventional reality
became meaningful
as a means to access ultimate reality.
therefore causality looks more solid than an illusion somehow.

It all hangs on virtuous behaviour apparently.
the effects granted to virtuous behaviour.

Is what we are meant to see,
that causality applies in conventional reality,
and doesn't apply ultimately?

that it's empty and meaningless,
with a kicker.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Sphere70 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:51 am

Apologies for the late reply.
Ah, you’re a fighter, I’ll give you that. I’m not sure how men like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Huang Po, Diogenes, Lao Tzu, etc, qualify as being “gray", but at least you’re putting up a spirited defense of your views, which is good to see. :

Actually I don't care much for either Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Diogenes in terms of practicality related to what I 'see' as truth, but I find them all very entertaining. I don't really care much for U.G. nowadays either for the same reasons. But whatever works for a person is all good.

What we’re discussing is the means of getting there.

Essentially, the difference between us (and it’s a big one) is that you advocate the indiscriminate silencing of thought, whereas I advocate the more targeted process of eliminating delusion (false thinking, self-deception, etc). Your indiscriminate attitude towards thought is driven by self-deception on your part.


I don't really advocate the silencing of thought because that is impossible, and thought doesn't really matter I've come to see - I've just downgraded it because of the love of thought I saw around here related to truth. I actually think it has nothing to do with truth, or becoming sane for that matter. Actually, what I "practice" as the way to sanity is very crude, simple and basic, and the one thing that must be common to all - I'm just turning the beam of attention, whenever it occurs to me, to the reality of my nature, to the innermost sense of being me. Neither thought, emotions nor the shifting nature of phenomena touches or affect that in any way. I can't see that this can be any different for anyone else. The basic fact that 'you are'. Of course it can be talked about in different terms as Tao, The I am, The Void, Presence, The Self, Atman - whatever.

What has to be cleared away is the desire to clear things away. To stop fighting what is already here.


Agreed. But even that desire is really fine. It doesn't touch, nor take away, from that which one is. It's all good, really =)
Sphere70
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:33 pm

I don't really advocate the silencing of thought because that is impossible, and thought doesn't really matter I've come to see - I've just downgraded it because of the love of thought I saw around here related to truth. I actually think it has nothing to do with truth, or becoming sane for that matter. Actually, what I "practice" as the way to sanity is very crude, simple and basic, and the one thing that must be common to all - I'm just turning the beam of attention, whenever it occurs to me, to the reality of my nature, to the innermost sense of being me. Neither thought, emotions nor the shifting nature of phenomena touches or affect that in any way. I can't see that this can be any different for anyone else. The basic fact that 'you are'. Of course it can be talked about in different terms as Tao, The I am, The Void, Presence, The Self, Atman - whatever.


People think absolute is thingness. It isn't.
It actually means 'to set free'.

to conceptualise is to thingify or contain.
to hold or make solid what is empty.

the fearless acceptance of both,
to set free,
to contain,
resolves.

promoting non-duality and denying duality contains.
the fearless acceptance of both releases.

promoting unconditioned mind and denying conditioned mind contains.
the fearless acceptance of both releases.

promoting ultimate reality and denying conventional reality contains.
the fearless acceptance of both releases.

If you're looking at your girlfriend,
she's not there,
she's there conceptually.

it's how it's set up.

absolve her from your thingifying of her,
absolute her from your mock-up of her,
set her free from your projection of her,
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:34 pm

Movingalways, lol. Got to laugh at your signature when contemplating this 3 legged argument.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests