movingalways wrote:I assume by "accurate knowledge of God" you are referring to causality and by choosing ultimate truth in you are referring either to choosing causality/and or logic which in the case of conscience (if you perceive conscience as being ego-free) would mean an "ego-free choosing agent of logic within the causality?" See my comments immediately below for why this is not logically sound.
Knowledge of God includes not only causality, but truth about the illusory nature of things, and the ultimately formless nature of the All. Enlightenment is not one-faceted as you seem to be suggesting in promoting emptiness alone, which is dangerously close to nihilism.
Do you hear what you are saying here? By making choosing an "it" that chooses between, you have broken one of the first rules of causality which is that there is no independent agent causing the causes. Either there is an external self that "sees" all forms and is able to choose which form it likes and in doing so, reject all other forms or there is no such entity. If this is your viewpoint, then how is it any different than beingof1's of being an omnipresent, omniscient Causal Self or self?
I was simply describing what "choice" is, which is a category of causality perceived by, and related to being, sentient beings. Are you denying the appearance of sentient beings?
I don't think we are agreeing on the same thing, which could be a problem with the context of my content. I am not suggesting (which I believe you believe I am suggesting) that there is a independent agent making nondual choices upon realization of the nondual infinite, I am suggesting that the choices made are still dualistic, however, they reflect a duality that projects as little dualism into the world as possible. Do you believe that nondual choices are possible? If so, could you provide me with an example?
I am not suggesting any independence to an agent except for the appearance of so. There is no such thing as "as little dualism", there is duality or there isn't. Ultimately, there isn't, appearance wise, there is. Choices are appearances, and are obviously dualistic.
True, duality won't end as long as there is consciousness, so for duality to end consciousness has to end. People talk about death of the ego or death of the self as if that is possible without death of consciousness. The bottom line is that consciousness (or conscience) chooses one form over another and what is the effect of this choosing? The projection of "I desire this form" into the world: ego, self, me, my, I.
Making choices does not necessitate egotism. When a calculator is processing which numbers to display, is it desiring to do so? How about a robot when it is deciding which foot to move in order to walk? No, it merely does what it is caused. Similarly, sentient beings can make choices without interference of egotistical preferences, in full recognition of the infinite causal nature underpinning all movement in reality.
I believe you found Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite" a helpful guide (perhaps you're still using it) which leads me to believe you respect his understanding of enlightenment. Have you read his GeniusRealms blog, specifically the first entry? What David has to say about choosing one form over another: "Belief is the arbitrary raising of a particular form over and above all other forms. It is also the essence of insanity." So, according to Quinn, not only is choosing one form over another the essence of insanity, it also has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with belief.
David was alluding to the clinging involved in beliefs. Choosing doesn't necessitate clinging or attachment to our choices. One makes a choice, keeping in mind the temperal nature of it all, and moves on.
A guide is no longer needed once it's understood. It's a fantastic guide, but only in as far as its contents are extracted and implemented. It can be thrown away, or handed down beyond that.
I agree with Quinn here, however, how does he end his blog entry on being a genius follower of the infinite? "In the end, the whole spiritual path to enlightenment boils down to belief. Not in the sense of blindly accepting articles of faith, but in the sense of having utter conviction in the truth. You really have to believe, with the whole of your being, in what you know to be true. Intellectually, you know that everything is nirvana. So believe it. And keep believing it, over and over, all the time, no matter what the situation. If you can apply this belief in a sustained manner, you will find yourself on the other side of the road in no time. Indeed, you will find that there has never been any road in the first place." Utter conviction in the truth? So in other words, truth is not truth of its own merit, one must convince oneself of truth, one must raise the form "truth" above all other forms? Which means, according to Quinn of his own words, in order to become enlightened one do the very thing they have already concluded is the essence of insanity.
Clinging and attachment to Truth is useful inasmuch as it helps to reform and gets rid of the habits of clinging and attachment. This is what the path is all about. Once these habits are overcome, clinging to Truth is no longer needed, and the end of the path is reached. One is then simply at one with Truth.
I have much respect for David Quinn, but ultimately, he is finds himself in the same messy position as does every conscious being coming face to face with the problem of duality - how to manage it (which is his wisdom recipe) or how to end it (my wisdom recipe). Either way, duality remains while consciousness remains.
A recipe missing a few key ingredients makes for a bland stew.