Perception and Reality

[Russell Parr]

"It's all caused bro, everything is caused!", isn't going to hold up here.

Actually, it holds up every single time.

The question:
"Are you the only consciousness there is? If not, how and why are there others?"

is laughable. Again you demonstrate another stupid belief: that consciousness is a definite thing in some spacial realm or some other fantasy.

Rather, I am demonstrating what is lacking in your simplistic philosophy. Besides, it's really you that is suggesting consciousness is a 'definite thing', as only consciousness can perceive appearances. I maintain that it is just another temporal caused phenomena in an infinite causal reality.

Stop avoiding that we're always dealing with impermanent appearances.

I never began. I just also know that the whole of reality isn't only the impermanent appearances in front of us.

[Russell Parr]

"As sentient beings we will always have to deal with dualistic appearances." Always have to deal with? Sounds like eternal suffering to me. It is you who asserts that consciousness dies with the brain, are you afraid of dying? It is also you that asserts that consciousness is caused and that the causality is infinite, is it not logical that you are a part of these infinite causes beyond the causation of consciousness?

Always dealing with dualistic appearances doesn't mean we have to suffer from them. Suffering is in believing that our appearances are inherent in some way.

So you too believe your consciousness will transcend bodily death? Sounds to me that it is you who is afraid of death.

Yes, I am part of infinite causality, but my consciousness isn't beyond the causes of consciousness.

Now you've hit the truth nail on the head. Only God is perfect. Is God not within you right here and right now? Why do you leave God time and time again to travel into imperfection?

Do I? And how is that?

Animals do this already except that we call it instinct instead of logic. What you're speaking of here is the natural process of cutting away the dualities that prevent one from realizing their perfection in God. This is where logic is king, but once it gets to the silence of all dualities, the realization of the non-choosing, nondual perfection of God, it must drop its crown and bow to the silence. This is when things really get tough, when the logic that keeps dualities alive is muted and one realizes that in order to realize their perfection in God they must rely 100% on the perfection of God. It is no wonder it is a gradual process, one duality at a time.

Again, you aren't cutting away dualities, which is an inherent aspect of consciousness. What is cut away is delusions about duality. There is no non-dualistic aspect of realization, get over it.

Should your body be filled with the silence of dualities, would the perfection of I and the Father are One disappear?

Once more, duality isn't what is silenced, but delusion. Unless you're taking a dreamless nap, I suppose.

[jufa]

The problem ran into concerning "Perception and Reality," there is always something behind our perceptions we cannot visualize and apply our senses of feeling behind to give our intellect a 'aya' instant of reality.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theilusionofgod,yuku.com

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edited out. See new thread.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: So you too believe your consciousness will transcend bodily death? Sounds to me that it is you who is afraid of death.

Everytime you are not thinking, your consciousness experiences a death. What I know is that consciousness is not the be all and end of existence, therefore, although consciousness may cease at bodily death, whatever part of me is a part of existence can never be annihilated.

Quote:
movingalways: Should your body be filled with the silence of dualities, would the perfection of I and the Father are One disappear?

Russell: Once more, duality isn't what is silenced, but delusion. Unless you're taking a dreamless nap, I suppose.

So you do acknowledge that a dreamless nap silences duality. As does meditation. Please understand that I am not putting forward that we retreat into sleep or meditation, I fully ackowledge the key role of consciousness as being the receiver of wisdom of God or the infinite.

What the debate comes down to as I see it is that although you acknowledge you are a part of the infinite causality, the perfection of God, you do not yet realize this truth. In other words, you say the words with your intellect but not your being. It is as if you envision yourself as this thing called consciousness that is caused by something you don't know and can't know with your consciousness so it is rendered void or vacuous.

Or you view this something as being causes you mine with your consciousness, the subjective "why" or "what" mining objective causes or reasons, plucking them out as required. If this is the case, then you should realize by now that cause-mining is a surface activity of the senses. Your toe hurts because you stubbed it on a chair. Or the the poliovirus causes the disease of poliomyletis. Very useful cause-finding. However, regardless of what cause you find to answer your question of "why", be they mundane or scientific, you will never find the ultimate cause of that cause or of any cause. For example, you use logic all the time, however, you do not know, because you can't know, the cause of logic. And herein lies the realization of nonduality. And humility before God or the infinite.

What is your understanding of "you" beyond the conscious "you?"

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edited

[Russell Parr]

You did it again. You said "infinite causal reality" while you agree you can't even conceive of it. As if it were a solid explanation . Do you grasp that the language is meaningless since you can't even think about what it is you're suggesting exists?

Infinite means boundless, and causal as in interrelated. Although I cannot conceive of it in full, I know it is true by way of logical deduction, the same way I know that 1+1=2.

You avoided the fact again that every thought, idea and perception you have is limited to consciousness (thoughts,sensations,etc) and refuse to explain how you could possibly know of or even think about that which is not made up of these aspects of consciousness?

I logically deduce that Reality is boundless, and is the causal source of consciousness and everything we experience.

Moving's not going to look over your clinging just because you ignorantly say "sounds like your afraid of death" when so far you have provided zero reasoning regarding the causes of appearances which are coming to an end at bodily death.

Stop avoiding it an explain how you're 99% sure and not 67% sure?

What happens to consciousness at the death of the body is an empirical, scientific inquiry. I am also 99% sure the sun will rise again tomorrow. But I am 100% sure that it will do what it is caused to do.

Tell me, where will your consciousness go when you die? The consciousness emanating from your body.

It seems like when you speak about dualism, causality and consciousness, your knowledge is purely language and thought based. As if you're just repeating what you've heard. You might want to try applying it to your own experience, you seem to forget impermanent experiences are the source of all logic, understanding and reason. Only through introspection and understanding of ones own mind can one attain wisdom. I wonder how you reasoned a mind-independent infinite amorphous realm using the mind?

Again, logical deduction.

I want you to explain if and why you agree with Moving in the following:

What I know is that consciousness is not the be all and end of existence, therefore, although consciousness may cease at bodily death, whatever part of me is a part of existence can never be annihilated.

[Russell Parr]

What the debate comes down to as I see it is that although you acknowledge you are a part of the infinite causality, the perfection of God, you do not yet realize this truth.

The debate went from you challenging the legitimacy of logic to me challenging your use of it consistently. Language is important, and it should be the goal of everyone to refine and purify our language to be logically consistent, for benefit of ourselves and others. Logic allows us to truly understand God and spirituality. Loose language and poetic expressions can be useful and impactful, but does more harm than good if a logically sound understanding isn't being passed along.

In other words, you say the words with your intellect but not your being.

My intellect is part and parcel to my being, and intellect is necessarily logical.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker:The Buddha said this:

There is the realm of the born. (I.e the impermanent, the dying, the arising and fading.)

There is the unborn: (I.e the unmanifested, the unborn, the undying.)

I notice you left out the concept of permanence when referring to the unborn. While I believe you might have done this because the concept of permanence often causes a misinterpretation of solidity or of an absolute or objective existence, I believe it is important where wisdom is concerned to understand that although consciousness may or may not come to an end with bodily death, existence or God cannot be annihilated.

What is not addressed very often, probably because of the danger of misinterpretation by the intellect, are the effects upon consciousness when the realization of the impermanence of consciousness (what is believed can be logically or empirically known) comes in concert with the realization of permanency of existence or God (what cannot be known logically or empirically, rather, logically intuited by consciousness). Effects that allow one to see through the illusion of the appearance while still conscious as well as providing one with the wisdom that existence or God a) continues regardless of the fate of consciousness and b) that while consciousness is engaged, existence or God is "there" running things in the background, including the things of consciousness.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
What the debate comes down to as I see it is that although you acknowledge you are a part of the infinite causality, the perfection of God, you do not yet realize this truth.

Russell: The debate went from you challenging the legitimacy of logic to me challenging your use of it consistently. Language is important, and it should be the goal of everyone to refine and purify our language to be logically consistent, for benefit of ourselves and others. Loose language and poetic expressions can be useful and impactful, but does more harm than good if a logically sound understanding isn't being passed along.

When am I failing to use a logically sound understanding? When I am using loose languae? And please do not point to my use of the metaphor "God." It was you who brought this metaphor into the conversation with your allusion to "the perfection of God", not me.

Logic allows us to truly understand God and spirituality.

And what is this true understanding of God and spirituality that logic allows? If you return with the answer of "causality" then tell me logic's true understanding of causality. To do so, logic must take me to the first cause of all things, or even to the true cause of one thing. Go.

My intellect is part and parcel to my being, and intellect is necessarily logical.

I agree, your intellect is the logical part of your being, however, it is not the whole of your being, something the intellect does not like to hear.

[Beingof1]

Beingof1, while particle physics and physics in general are interpreted the psychological interpretation seems far from it as it cannot be tested like particles may be, I also think that you are mixing semi-mathematical models with physics, for example what is the unit of measurement for consciousness?

There is no unit of measurement for consciousness - that was the point. You can measure anything - except consciousness.

You can measure the electrical current for thought but try measuring the dimensions of awareness.


Seeker:

You keep back smack talking and then - all at the same time - use my arguments and points as if you came up with them all by your little lonesome.

Are you OK?

[Beingof1]

I can answer any question concerning reality and consciousness but what I am seeing is there is only one here with the where with all to grok the answer.

All stuck in the mud because of pride, ego, and the mostest paralysis.

[Russell Parr]

When am I failing to use a logically sound understanding?

Where this all started:

It's impossible to know in exact detail how it all works, as consciousness is finite, meaning it is able to perceive only finite bits of the Infinite at any given time. For all intents and purposes, however, it is logical to conclude that the brain is the seat of consciousness. Again, impossible to say for sure, but it looks to be about 99.9% likely.

This is a perfect example of the limitations of logic and another reason why it is problematic to give it absolute status such as you seem to be doing with your assertion "logic always works." Clearly since you prefaced your thought above with "for all intents and purposes" and leave a .01% chance that the brain is not the seat of consciousness, logic doesn't always work.

You usually reference logic correctly, but I think you are underestimating its role in Enlightenment, as well as in consciousness in general. We should be suspicious of how others use logic, sure, but let's remember that the misuse of it is not damaging evidence against the legitimacy of it. If someone kills another with a kitchen knife, do we blame knives?

When I am using loose languae?

The rest of my quote that you are responding to here wasn't aimed at you specifically; I was making a general point.

And what is this true understanding of God and spirituality that logic allows?

Logic is an unavoidable, fundamental part to any and all understanding.

I agree, your intellect is the logical part of your being, however, it is not the whole of your being, something the intellect does not like to hear.

It isn't the intellect that "doesn't like to hear" anything, but the ego, which isn't intellectual, but selfish. The ego may and does misuse logic, but logic remains a perfectly viable and necessary tool regardless.

[Russell Parr]

I can answer any question concerning reality and consciousness but what I am seeing is there is only one here with the where with all to grok the answer.

All stuck in the mud because of pride, ego, and the mostest paralysis.

Not everyone is interested in your absurd, uninspiring claims, which you clearly have no interest in challenging.

[jufa]

The 'Drama Circle' of Ego, birthed by the Father of Lies, is alive and well. Still pitting mind against what It is aware of in mind. Or that is to say, like saying Perceived is not the birthright of Perception to Perceive.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[ardy]

Beingof1, while particle physics and physics in general are interpreted the psychological interpretation seems far from it as it cannot be tested like particles may be, I also think that you are mixing semi-mathematical models with physics, for example what is the unit of measurement for consciousness?

There is no unit of measurement for consciousness - that was the point. You can measure anything - except consciousness.

You can measure the electrical current for thought but try measuring the dimensions of awareness.


Seeker:

You keep back smack talking and then - all at the same time - use my arguments and points as if you came up with them all by your little lonesome.

Are you OK?

Beingof1: Over the last 2 weeks of writing about the Rugby World Cup I stumbled over a drop-kick approach to gaining knowledge that you have just pointed out.

Young people attack everything you say to them with a fair amount of vitriol (knowing their is no real backlash), whilst appearing to ignore what you are saying. On their next thought bubble on Twit/Face or blogs they use your thinking as if it is their own and their conscience is completely comfortable with this hypocrisy.

I find the lack of any honesty a little strange, but as an old man it is their world they can crap on it anyway they like.

[jufa]

No one owns an idea, theory, concept. The Wright Brothers cannot claim ownership to the idea of men flying, especially when long before the Wright Brother took flight, men had over a hundred years or two, took to flight in hot air balloons. In discussion thoughts are free. When not in discussion, thoughts are free. And for one to claim others have taken their words and used them as their own, then say it is their world to do with as they please, is a surrender of one being alive, and still a member of this dimension with a task not yet finished, which will not be finished because they have given up their God given right to be who they are, what they are, when they are, where they are, and why they are in the spot they now occupy. Every individual should always "endeavor to persevere" because there is always something behind our perceptions we cannot visualize, nor apply our senses of feeling behind what we perceive to give our intellect a 'aya' instant of reality.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theilusionofgod,yuku.com

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: You usually reference logic correctly, but I think you are underestimating its role in Enlightenment, as well as in consciousness in general. We should be suspicious of how others use logic, sure, but let's remember that the misuse of it is not damaging evidence against the legitimacy of it. If someone kills another with a kitchen knife, do we blame knives?

I am not underestimating logic's role in enlightenment, it is you (and others) who are overestimating logic's role in enlightenment. My logic of why is stated below.

movingalways: And what is this true understanding of God and spirituality that logic allows?

Russell: Logic is an unavoidable, fundamental part to any and all understanding.

Although I understand the leaving out of repetitive or non critical parts of a person's post for the sake of brevity and clarity, this is not what you did here. My complete thought:

movingalways: And what is this true understanding of God and spirituality that logic allows? If you return with the answer of "causality" then tell me logic's true understanding of causality. To do so, logic must take me to the first cause of all things, or even to the true cause of one thing. Go.

While you didn't address God as the causality, you dodged the actual intent of the question which was to have you show me with your intellect how logic reveals the TRUE understanding of God by showing me the first cause of things or even of one thing. Just by saying that logic is an unavoidable, fundamental part of any and all understanding does not make it so. Where is you logic to back up this assertion?

movingalways: I agree, your intellect is the logical part of your being, however, it is not the whole of your being, something the intellect does not like to hear.

Russell: It isn't the intellect that "doesn't like to hear" anything, but the ego, which isn't intellectual, but selfish. The ego may and does misuse logic, but logic remains a perfectly viable and necessary tool regardless.

From what you say here, I can only conclude that you believe that the logical intellect has the means to absolutely know what is selfish and unselfish. Logically this conclusion is unsound. Why? Because although logic has the ability to single out things (as per the the law of identity), a car is a car, an apple is an apple, selfish is selfish, it must never be forgotten that this is an intellectual filtering process, it is not the complete or ultimate truth of car or apple or selfish. In other words the "car" that is singled out from the everything by the logical intellect so it can order its conscious world is not the car of the infinite of all the uncountable things that went into making "car." Where the first logical truth of A = A addresses conventional reality, the second truth where identity cannot be established addresses ultimate or absolute reality.

The same two truths apply to "apple". While the logical intellect single out the form "apple" so the body can eat "apple" or talk about "apple", the actual form "apple" that is eaten is made up of uncountable things of the everything of God that the intellect cannot single out. In other words, boundaries serve the logical intellect for the sake of sentience (conventional truth), but in truth, these boundaries do not exist (absolute truth). When one confuses the two truths thereby giving logic the power to absolutely understand things, they are not only overestimating the role of logic in enlightenment, they are grossly overestimating the role of logic in enlightenment. Which, for the sake of an honest personal revelation, I have done many times myself.

[Russell Parr]

While you didn't address God as the causality, you dodged the actual intent of the question which was to have you show me with your intellect how logic reveals the TRUE understanding of God by showing me the first cause of things or even of one thing. Just by saying that logic is an unavoidable, fundamental part of any and all understanding does not make it so. Where is you logic to back up this assertion?

Logical reasoning reveals that there is no first cause.

From what you say here, I can only conclude that you believe that the logical intellect has the means to absolutely know what is selfish and unselfish. Logically this conclusion is unsound. Why? Because although logic has the ability to single out things (as per the the law of identity), a car is a car, an apple is an apple, selfish is selfish, it must never be forgotten that this is an intellectual filtering process, it is not the complete or ultimate truth of car or apple or selfish. In other words the "car" that is singled out from the everything by the logical intellect so it can order its conscious world is not the car of the infinite of all the uncountable things that went into making "car." Where the first logical truth of A = A addresses conventional reality, the second truth where identity cannot be established addresses ultimate or absolute reality.

The same two truths apply to "apple". While the logical intellect single out the form "apple" so the body can eat "apple" or talk about "apple", the actual form "apple" that is eaten is made up of uncountable things of the everything of God that the intellect cannot single out. In other words, boundaries serve the logical intellect for the sake of sentience (conventional truth), but in truth, these boundaries do not exist (absolute truth). When one confuses the two truths thereby giving logic the power to absolutely understand things, they are not only overestimating the role of logic in enlightenment, they are grossly overestimating the role of logic in enlightenment. Which, for the sake of an honest personal revelation, I have done many times myself.

Logic isn't so much the act of making identifications, but the act of perceiving accurate connections between identifications, and drawing conclusions based on such connections. This goes for both conventional and absolute truths. In fact, truth cannot exist without logic, because logic is the standard by which truth is measured.

The truth that the Infinite cannot be identified, or said to exist, is due to the impossibility of contrasting the Infinite with anything else. I suspect this is where you are getting the idea that absolute truths aren't logical. But just because the Infinite is non-dualistic doesn't mean it can't be explained or understood dualistically. Explanations and understanding are inherently dualistic anyway. We just have to keep in mind that our discussions and naming of the Infinite are always and only symbolic of it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In other words the "car" that is singled out from the everything by the logical intellect so it can order its conscious world is not the car of the infinite of all the uncountable things that went into making "car."

You're making a needless distinction between a finite car and some infinite "reality" of the car. They are no different. All the uncountable things are merely being singled out as "infinite" or "causality". But sometimes it's singled out as just "car" in more specific situations. We do not call every notion infinite just as we cannot call every thing a car. It just shows that some descriptions are simply better than others. That's how we arrive at definitions, the name giving, the consistence and coherency of language instead of voicing random sounds each and every time. We're engaged into the same process with every word, every thing, every conception or impression on our senses.

So this "car of the ininite" and even just "the infinite" is still a singling out by the logical, mystical, symbolizing and sensing intellect so it can order ones conscious world. This is not just language, it's all we do -- it's all or nothing! The intellect expressing the infinite like nothing else. Without this move one cannot even have any notion of the infinite.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, what is clear to me is that there are two very different understandings of God or Life or Existence or the Universe (pick your term):

1. That God is absolutely sense consciousness and being as such, is wholly dependent on logic to order his or its things. Which because you said "This is not just language, it's all we do -- it's all or nothing! The intellect expressing the infinite like nothing else. Without this move one cannot even have any notion of the infinite" I can only conclude is your view. While I understand that the intellect is the vehicle by which one has the notion of the infinite, I also understand that what the word "infinite" suggests to the awakened intellect is not an intellectual understanding. In other words, the all you believe is the intellect -- or there is nothing -- is not the all of God that appears as nothing to the intellect. Which leads me to the second understanding of God, which to me, is the only logical understanding of God:

2. That the sensing, logical consciousness that must order its things is a part of God that is, was and always will be absolutely ordered.

A literal, logical mind that brings order to one's conscious sense world will always have problems opening up to concepts that are metaphorical pointers to the God that is already ordered (the absolute). While I acknowledge my metaphorical pointers might have been clumsy, it was in this spirit that I used the concept "car of the infinite of uncountable things."

[Pam Seeback]

Russell, I selected the paragraph below as I believe it contains the essence of your entire post:

The truth that the Infinite cannot be identified, or said to exist, is due to the impossibility of contrasting the Infinite with anything else. I suspect this is where you are getting the idea that absolute truths aren't logical. But just because the Infinite is non-dualistic doesn't mean it can't be explained or understood dualistically. Explanations and understanding are inherently dualistic anyway. We just have to keep in mind that our discussions and naming of the Infinite are always and only symbolic of it.

I didn't mean to suggest that absolute truths such as "form is impermanent" are not logical, rather, that logic cannot determine the absoluteness of a dualistic concept such as "selfish".

The nitty gritty for me with regards to the limitations of logic can be found in my post to Diebert above which can be summarized by saying that while logic serves its purpose to order one's conscious world, it is beyond the scope of logic to understand the "already" ordered world of -- and I'm borrowing your language here -- the perfection of God.

[crow]

Is the guy in the video experiencing Reality? No.
On the other hand, a guy like that wouldn't ever be experiencing Reality, no matter what his situation was.
At best, he would be experiencing his notion of reality, having no actual Reality for a comparison.
To a crow, the VR was truly nightmarish. I have more fun than that just sleeping.

[throughthemud]

We are approaching a singularity and unless the human race as a whole graduates from these kindergarten mind sets, it is doomed to recessing into Neanderthal design board time.

You may think what you want and I do not care at this point but I have meditated more than any human being I have ever known. I have more understanding than any human being I have ever met and I have more - shall we say - hyper human abilities than anyone I have ever met. It is a travesty that those that think they know are still barely crawling out of the muck and smack the hand away that is trying to pull them to safer ground.

But what do I know? I have an unbroken lineage of Christian ministers for hundreds of years that I have descended from. I have only changed all of physics, seen more non ordinary events(miracles) and communed face to face with the meta mind of the universe in an audible voice.

But again, what do I know, right? I am sure most will spin this as ego flexing because they cannot seem to wrap their noodle around the idea that I actually exist.

The unlearned have no idea I almost never, ever talk like this but the density of the human race is choking out true wisdom and understanding.

Oh the luls of self-aggrandizement.

Normally I wouldn't post to something like this, but I found it too funny. Your use of "neanderthal" was quite incorrrect, and then to top it off with the cherry of complaining of "choking out wisdom and understanding."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=were+neanderthals+ ... an+sapiens

Thus, it seems that the ultimate reason behind Neanderthals extinction was not due to their mental capacities but to the shape of their larynx.

On the Internet Age, the Neanderthal model is not decidedly inferior to the homosapiens model, as communication can be done without need of larynx.
But maybe I'm wrong though, maybe the research is wrong and Neanderthals were dumber even though they had larger brains.

I just find it slightly important to correct slang. For example, when someone says "Oh the humanity" or "those inhuman monsters" I say "What is inhuman about them?" "Can't you just say, human monsters?" Little things, like spreading annoying lies and untruths because they are popular, get to me for some reason. Anyway, carry on, minister. What are these hyper human abilities you have? I am eager to learn of them.