David,
I don't recall what I said back then, but I certainly wouldn't define logic as the activity of making causal references.
Rather, logic is the activity of exposing and undermining delusion. Delusion is the belief in things that don't really exist and expresses itself in the form of contradictory thinking.
And by what criteria then, does one define their existence once logic has exposed the things that [they believe] don't really exist? From what I have observed on this forum, the criteria of thinking of the habit of living without delusion is all about making meaning in the form of projecting one's reasonings of the reasonings of another. To me, this is self-righteous storytelling, pure and simple.
What I am saying is that there is only The Story and that the logical man cannot escape this truth. What I am also saying is that it is the righteous man who arrives at the understanding of emptiness and fills it with the Story of emptiness. This is what the Buddha did and what Christ did. No where in their words will a man find any projection of “I think” with regards to another man's interpretation of his sentient world. Of my understanding of their wisdom, both came to the realization of emptiness, and realizing that man is the storyteller of Himself, proceeded to tell the Story of Emptiness, the Story of the nondual, non-sentient I AM.
Which means that the logical stories of “I think” sentient projection that are told on this site are not stories of nonduality as is the belief of many here. They are a beginning of awakening to nondual awareness, to be sure, but since they are 'other' directed, they are stories of duality, pure and simple.
It's not a matter of our being unable to know the cause of Everything.
There is literally no cause to know.
Clearly our assertions are different with regards to knowing a cause. I agree, no one can know the cause of Everything; however, one can know the cause of sentience. And, since sentience = suffering [hunger, thirst, both physical and psychological], when one knows the cause of sentience, they also know the cause of suffering and by extension, how to end the cause of sentience. Logic cannot make a person aware of any of these things. Why? Because logic is of sentient self-righteousness. Only the spirit of a pure heart pushing away all self-righteous thinking can come to know these things of the cause of their suffering.
It has nothing do with our status as sentient beings. Not even the greatest of super-beings can determine the cause. Not even Everything itself can determine it.
The ending of suffering has everything to do with our status as sentient beings. Did you not once proclaim Meister Eckhart an enlightened being? What do you think he was referring to when he said that man's task is to break through the creature [sentient] emanation? And in order to achieve this, does man not need to know its cause?
The cause of sentience is the arising thought or idea of sentience in the Godhead, and then, of dividing this arousal of I AM into good and evil. It really is that simple. This is why the term “emanation” is so important. The wisdom of sentience as being an emanation of Everything means that sentience is not a permanent consciousness in the Godhead of infinite emanations or worlds.
I am aware that you place yourself in the same league as the Buddha in Gautama and the Christ in Jesus with regards to your perception of being enlightened. I posted a link to the Buddha's last thoughts, the parinirvana sutta, in my thread on the logic of causal transcendence. If you are aware of this sutta, you must also be aware that in its contents, the Buddha clearly identified suffering with sentience and rebirth into sentience. There are other suttas that address this wisdom, which I can provide if you wish, but none so direct as this one.
True expansion beyond humanism or the creature emanation as Eckhart calls it is the expansion beyond sentience into the infinite house of the Father or the Totality so as to be moved into other worlds of the Father's “I AM.” This places you and me and everyone on this site in the position of being the one who interprets themselves out of sentience and into the purified body of their infinite House. This is the Story of awakening to one's dual thinking process, of repenting one's dual thinking process, of obedience to one's repenting and, finally, of ascension into the Unknown Story that lies beyond this one. The Story of I AM that includes metaphors and myths such as used by the three spiritual giants already mentioned. To the man who is in denial that he is always telling a story about something that doesn't really exist, this Story of ascension out of the suffering of sentience remains untold.
I once asked you where you rested when you are not using logic. You told me you rest in the mystical, which was helpful, for I too, rest in the mystical, but unlike me, who reveals her mystical, resting-place language on this forum, you have not revealed yours, at least that I am aware of.
Being as mystical definitions transcend logical definitions, is not the more enlightened mind the mystical mind? This question also relates to your statement to Dennis about there being Meaning in meaninglessness or emptiness. Can you define this Meaning of meaningless for me?
To sum up, when you said
As for enlightenment, it is simply the habit of being without delusion.
I assert that you are speaking of the first step of enlightenment only.
I am aware this is a long, drawn-out, perhaps even rambling post. My access to wifi is hit and miss, therefore it is important to me to say as much as I can in one 'go.'