.jpg.15d41f6b287caedc4253198f590af930.jpg)
Russell Parr
Member-
Content count
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Russell Parr
-
-
13 hours ago, Prabhaker said:How can we know ? Do you think that enlightenment can be communicated through words ?
Absolutely. But only those who have ears will hear it.
-
13 hours ago, Prabhaker said:What's the need of meditation when logic is enough to 'clear way for rational thought' and 'quiet your ego' ?
I've never said that. Logic and meditation serve different purposes. Logic doesn't silent the ego, it ensures congruent thought.
13 hours ago, Prabhaker said:Do you mean you meditate for few minutes ?
No, I mean I basically never meditate, at least not in any traditional sense. The extent of my meditation is chillin out on the back porch and taking walks through nature.
13 hours ago, Prabhaker said:How can we know what enlightenment is ?
How could we not? I don't believe enlightenment to be out of reach for everyone but Buddha. I do think that most people, even devout buddhists, don't have a clue what enlightenment really is, however.
-
18 hours ago, Nahm said:I love your post, and I'm just asking out of curiousity given your stance on thinking / logic and enlightenment....has your practice of meditation expanded to nonthinking?
Thanks
Hello Nahm,
I do not meditate much. I do like to sit quietly outside sometimes, and enjoy nature. To me, this is enough. Meditation is a means to quiet the ego, in order to clear way for rational thought. I save nonthinking for sleep.
-
21 hours ago, Pinocchio NTO-Dingu said:The carrot of enlightenment is a hoax designed to either keep you busy or content (if you fail), or destroy you (if you succeed). Either way you'll have been duped. Those who are "inspiring" others to follow them are not just dupes, but duping their followers as well.
You will be an empty husk in the end, if enlightenment is actually in the cards for you. Happy, harmless, soulless. Going through the motions under the universe's control, and zero fucks given either way.
One is not left soulless, nor harmless, and fucks are very much given after enlightenment.
21 hours ago, Pinocchio NTO-Dingu said:Anyone claiming that enlightenment is desirable for anyone who isn't fed up with the inescapable parameters of life, is talking out of their ass.
This is all too true, unfortunately. One must suffer for their delusions in order to desire enlightenment.
21 hours ago, Pinocchio NTO-Dingu said:Especially if they believe it to be about unity and love.
Couldn't agree more.
21 hours ago, Pinocchio NTO-Dingu said:Some here on this forum may be awake to some degree. Some more so than others. But nobody here is enlightened, and there are no degrees of enlightenment. And probably nobody here really knows what it really is. Those who "know" they are enlightened are the most full of shit of all.
If you don't know what enlightenment is, you can't adequately judge others declarations about it.
-
11 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:Who told you ?
Experience.
Who told you what enlightenment is?
-
@Prabhaker Only nature is perfect. Enlightenment doesn't entail a complete, permanent absence of the ego, but of a wisdom that is absent of delusion.
-
16 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:"there is no enlightenment" is a valuable spiritual teaching, it can save people from wasting their life, and can help gullible people from unnecessary trouble and suffering.
It is only valuable for those that are already on the spiritual path, in pursuit of enlightenment. The rest, on the other hand, need convincing of its existence.
-
The old "there is no enlightenment" spiritual teaching. Nice
-
32 minutes ago, SOUL said:
28 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:All knowledge of enlightenment, mysticism is without logic that's why it is not recognized by science , mainstream society.
How can knowledge be without logic? Can you give me an example?
I'm not really into mysticism.
29 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:What enlightenment you are talking about ? There is no evidence of type of enlightenment you are describing, ever happened in any human being, it is a myth propagated by some delusioned so called spiritualists, it is a big business these days.
Enlightenment can't be measured any more than any thought can. It can only be determined by logical inquiry.
What is enlightenment to you? Do you find any value in it or the idea of it?
-
18 hours ago, Ayla said:I would replace logic with maturity. Logic can be so dependent on intellect level, etc.. You can also use self-honesty as a better concept.
Maturity, responsability and clarity are the only ways one can see truth from shit. Now it remains to be seen how much self-honesty goes around its tail like this... Your mind will never be able to discern truth, but somehow You will know truth once you are being VERY VERY honest with yourself
Maturity, responsibility, clarity are indeed key, but without logic, there is no knowledge. Logic is what holds knowledge together, and makes it coherent.
15 hours ago, SOUL said:Thinking and believing one knows the truth is a delusion.
Is this a truthful statement?
14 hours ago, Dingus said:@Russell Parr You are trying to derive the absolute from the relative.
It just doesn't hold up.
You're trying to uphold consciousness, a thing, which only exists when perceived, as the absolute. It just doesn't hold up.
Emptiness simply reveals the ultimate truth about existence. Don't get hung up on it.
-
23 hours ago, Dingus said:I guess where we actually differ is that you seem to think that truth is found in interpretation, whereas my own interest is in the thing itself that is being interpreted (and doing the interpreting).
I wouldn't say that I find truth in interpretation. Interpretation is either truthful or it isn't. Truthfulness is a quality of interpretation, it isn't found within it.
My interest is in the nature of consciousness as well.
23 hours ago, Dingus said:That's what I thought too and that's why I was stuck in buddhist emptiness (which is equivalent to dependent origination, which is equivalent to David's description of causality). It's a tough one to get out of.
There is no doubt in my mind either, that when you start interpreting perception, you will certainly end up where you and David ended up. And indeed it's a mental certainty, maybe even the only one available to it.
But what took me a while to realize is that this doesn't actually show you the true nature of reality, it shows you the false nature of "reality". It shows you exactly why "reality" is absolutely impossible, even absurd.That's what causality is, and that's what emptiness is. It's a reductio ad absurdum of "reality". That's the hint Buddha left us with when he talked about impermanence, and Nagarjuna when he elaborated on it and called it emptiness. What they hinted at was not the truth, but the absolute impossibility of change and finiteness.
You're on the right track, or you were. I think what you are missing is that emptiness and the Infinite are one and the same. Infinite causality doesn't negate the existence of things, but reveals that existence is entirely dependent on relativity. Emptiness, or the concept of emptiness, reveals the truth about existence in the ultimate sense.
Enlightenment is the understanding of the difference between the relative and the Absolute. The Absolute is like a dark room, and relativity is like a lit room. Where there is consciousness, there is relativity, and therefore things exist. As for the Absolute, there is no relativity, that is to say, no consciousness to perceive of separation, of things, of itself.
Of course, saying "the Absolute is like _____" causes problems because the Absolute isn't a "thing".. the mere mention of a "dark room" invokes the perception of things that are defined by relativity.
This of course begs the question, if there is no existence in the Absolute, where or what does consciousness and its appearances come from? The answer to this cannot be properly understood without first grasping the truth that consciousness is itself an appearance. That isn't to say that its existence isn't true, but that its existence is just as dependent on it appearing to consciousness as is everything else.
This goes to show that existence itself is another appearance. Existence is dualistic; to exist or to not exist. It only has meaning to and for consciousness.
So where does consciousness come from? It comes from where everything else comes from and that is the Tao, or Infinite Reality, or Nature.
23 hours ago, Dingus said:What it does is show you exactly why "reality" can't be anything OTHER than a dream. And it leaves you with only one candidate for truth, the thing that dreams, the only self-evident thing that DOES exist inherently, does NOT rely on the ephemeral mind, has no boundaries and never changes: Consciousness itself.
The reality of things is like a dream. It is certainly real, in as far as it could possibly be real; as an appearance to consciousness. It isn't ultimately real, and that's because existence relies on relativity. This isn't to say that without consciousness, absolutely nothing is there. The Tao is still there. Infinite causality is still there. But the appearance of shape and form is a property of consciousness.
-
8 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:You seem to have a good understanding of it.
Have you ever asked yourself what you can truly know? What the fundumental parts to your experience is?
There is the five senses and thought. That is all you can ever experience. And can a thought ever be true?
Sure, why not?
What makes a thought true or false? Isn't it congruence with reality? If one were to think, "I perceive a sunny day outside," this is a true thought. It takes into account that there is inherent uncertainty within any empirical observation (I.e. there's the chance, however slim, that I'm dreaming or I'm tapped into the Matrix), while accurately stating one's honest observation.
But of course, it would be a bit tiresome to change one's thoughts from something like "it's sunny outside" to "I perceive a sunny day outside." That's not the goal. Rather it is to simply change one's fundamental understanding of reality to that of an awareness of the true nature of all thoughts and experiences.
-
20 hours ago, Dingus said:@Russell Parr I appreciate your thoughtful response. But it seems to me that we're not speaking the same language. To you, I seem to misunderstand your paradigm, and to me, you seem to misunderstand mine. And we're both trying to discuss eachother's paradigm from the perspective of our own. I don't see this going anywhere.
For the record, I have not found any doubt in myself for several years about my conclusions of what reality is and isn't. I asked you my question simply to allow for the possibility that some doubt might yet be introduced. After all, our precious logic itself relies on faculties of mind that we can never be sure are trustworthy. Nor can we ever prove that our logic has any validity at all in this matter.
But, to borrow your words, I don't see anything that would change my mind. Regardless of anything else, the bottom line is that all we have is perception, and that all beliefs masquerading as knowledge are distorting filters on it. To me, that means delusion.
Thanks
Thanks for the discussion Dingus.
However, I have to respectfully disagree. There is a perfectly logical way to interpret reality that does not require beliefs. Once one has discovered it, it is known with certainty. Once had, there is no doubt in one's logical faculties. Yes, all we have is perceptions, but there are facts about perception that, once grasped, can liberate the mind from ego-driven beliefs.
-
@Dingus Thanks for sharing. I've read the first three of McKenna's books some time ago, and I remember finding them entertaining and insightful.
That said, it's clear to me doesn't understand causality. First, what causality entails:
1. All things are caused. Nothing can arise without a cause, and all things are comprised of causes.
2. All things are causally connected. All things are part of the same totality, and are therefore in causal relation to each other. A thing is caused by all that isn't that thing.
3. All things are equal under causality.I'd be happy to examine these further if you'd like.
To address McKenna in your quotes:
I don't have much of problem with the first quote you provided, except I would change "consciousness and reality are interwoven" to "consciousness and the existence of things are interwoven."
In the second quote, it doesn't make sense to me that beyond consciousness, as we experience it, must necessarily be more consciousness. To assume there is an "overlighting intelligence" that unpins reality is totally unnecessary.
In the third and fourth quotes he admits that he made up this "overlighting intelligence" which makes him more honest than religious people, but it is still an admission of an agnostic type belief in a God entity with "infinite intelligence." If he understood causality, he would realize that even if there were such an intelligence, it or He couldn't be infinite, nor could He could be God (where "God" signifies some sort of ultimacy and absoluteness), because causality undermines absolutely everything about His actions and existence. Such an understanding would necessarily render the belief in a higher being to be an irrational fallacy conjured up and clung to by egotistical desire. In other words, belief in a higher being is perfectly compatible with egocentric thought, which is why it is so commonly adhered to. Jed is rational enough to see that people make up this "higher being", but is egotistical enough to sustain a belief in this higher being. If only he had insight into the causal nature of things.
In the fifth quote he again reasserts that we cannot know in any certainty what lies beyond consciousness, despite his great effort to project his speculations onto what lies beyond it.
As for your experience, to me it appears you have found a way to quiet the ego to a degree that allows your natural, intuitive intelligence to roam more freely, without certain inhibitions. While this is part of enlightenment, it is also not uncommon amongst regular religious folk either. Yes, even irrational beliefs can calm and free the mind, but only for those that do not, cannot, or refuse to inquire further, to look at their beliefs with a more keen eye, to examine one's integrity with the utmost sincerity.
Having said all of that, I want to make it clear that I am not promoting the philosophy of causality as a doctrine or some mantra to be adhered to. It is instead merely a useful tool in helping to clear away delusion.
-
3 minutes ago, Dingus said:Only if you assume that it perceives anything other than itself. That there even is anything other than itself to perceive.
Consciousness can perceive itself only in reflection, never directly. Therefore the source of consciousness cannot be directly perceived, only deduced upon. How do you account for this?
-
5 minutes ago, Dingus said:Only if you define consciousness as perception, while excluding the source of perception. If you claim the source of perception to be of a different nature than consciousness, then you are claiming that duality is true (and thereby differentiation, finiteness and contingence, which are all its equivalent). You can't build a philosophy of "this" on a foundation of "not-this".
Wherever consciousness perceives anything, duality is assumed. So when talking or thinking about a thing or the source of a thing, the assumption of duality is being made automatically, within the thought itself. In fact, consciousness cannot work in any other way. The very sensation of "this" and "other" describes its function, and makes it what it is.
11 minutes ago, Dingus said:To even entertain the question of causality, let alone to understand or misunderstand it, requires first that you take appearance (perception, relative individuated consciousness) at face value, and continue your deduction from there, without ever questioning the validity of your point of departure.
As you said, causality appears dualistic to our consciousness. Your deduction starts from that dualistic appearance to then arrive at a "nondual" interpretation of a dualistic appearance. It already assumes that our perception of it is actually representative of anything outside of perception, and that such interpretation gets you closer to the underlying truth of it.
Rather, the deduction leads to a dualistic interpretation of non-duality. Again, consciousness must perceive perceive reality in a dualistic manner, or it could not be said to be functioning at all.
-
20 minutes ago, Dodoster said:Thoughts exist in time, time does not exist.
9 minutes ago, Dingus said:Actually time exists in thought, not the other way around. Thought is more real than time. There is nothing other than thought. Not just the little thoughts in your supposed head. Thought is the "substance" of all apparent (illusory) reality.
("We are such stuff as dreams are made on.")
Thoughts and time equally exist, in relativity. Ultimately, they are but mirages.
-
59 minutes ago, Dingus said:Depends on what you think reality is. Appearance isn't reality, and there is only one thing that appearance is permeated with. And that's consciousness.
Reality is infinite. Appearances are finite chunks of reality that are perceived by and according to consciousness, for its sake and purposes.
1 hour ago, Dingus said:Yes it does. That article I linked to doesn't go into it (like he said it's only the starting point of inquiry not the end), but the illusory nature of self-existence is the appearance of identity. The true nature of self-existence is consciousness.
I-Am is not truth, it's knowledge, and it's the only knowledge possible. Your "logical deduction" is based in appearance only and as such inadmissible as evidence of truth. The only truth to appearance is the mere fact of it.
The I-Am pronouncement is itself only an appearance, but it is the only one that directly refers back to its own true nature. And it's the "portal" you pass through on your way back (so to speak). All of apparent reality is projected out through that portal.
If you haven't passed back through it yet, you're only dreaming that you're awake. Just like David Quinn. And if you have passed through it, you wouldn't be arguing for causality.
Passing back through the tunnel would be the realization that consciousness is also merely an appearance.
You misunderstand causality.
-
21 minutes ago, Dodoster said:Enlightenment is about disidentifying. Who would you be without your neural pathways? Without your identity generated from thoughts you've learned. Anything based on thoughts is built with clouds. The stripping away of identities is the way to Enlightenment and logic can be used to see that this is true.
Enlightenment is about making proper use of identification, not the ceasing of identifying.
26 minutes ago, Dodoster said:If you are highly logical you can see how the stripping away of thought based identity is a good thing if you want to discover truth and not something built on clouds (thoughts). No thought is real. Wow.
Thoughts are just as real, or unreal as everything else, in the end. But even this doesn't negate the subjective reality of thoughts, or of self, identity, etc., in which all of these concepts retain meaning.
22 minutes ago, Dodoster said:Literally exactly like books are not the things the books are talking about. There's a difference between reading something and experiencing it, between thinking about who you truly are and experiencing who you truly are. The experiencing of who you truly are happens by peeling layers of identities which you are not and seeing what remains. And what that one has observed..
I assure you, I am not mistaking thinking or talking about enlightenment for enlightenment itself.
-
23 hours ago, SOUL said:Thinking that there are correct or incorrect thoughts is just dualism mindset which I have no use for.
Are you saying that you have no use for any dualistic mindset?
23 hours ago, SOUL said:I have a fulfilled and intellectual emotions experience but that is a result of awakening and enlightening my consciousness, it doesn't contribute to it being that way.
Does logic has anything to do with your intellectual experience?
23 hours ago, SOUL said:Can an amoeba be endarkened?
No, because enlightenment, as I understand it, does not apply to it.
-
23 hours ago, Emerald said:Logic is the primary measuring tool of the human lens, and it is an important part of our functioning as a human being. It's an amazing tool that humans have at our disposal which is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness as a species. But to believe that enlightenment has to do with logic in a direct way, is to make a big mistake. Logic is a thinking-based function, and enlightenment is something that occurs that reaches beyond the scope of thinking. It's the same mistake that many believe that "I think, therefore I am." Many people believe that they are their thoughts and forget the infinite nature of their being. So, thought is really only one small facet of what we actually are. The only relationship thought shares with enlightenment is if one has the ability to disidentify with thoughts and become aware of the self beyond thought. So, logic and enlightenment are quite different. Think of logic like you phone and enlightenment like your house. You may be addicted to your phone and be on it non-stop. But if you put your phone down, you realize there's a much larger reality that you live within (the reality of the house). You've always been in the house, but you're so distracted by the usefulness and busy-ness of your phone that you forget where you are.
Hi Emerald,
While logic and enlightenment are not the same, logic remains a fundamental part of consciousness. We use it any time we think. In terms of enlightenment, logic is both a tool used to attain it, as well as an attribute that describes the mind of the enlightened.
Enlightenment is not about disidentifying. It doesn't create dichotomies between the self and thoughts. It merely the taking of the whole of reality, ourselves including, into consideration and seeing it for what it is.
-
17 hours ago, Dingus said:Or maybe that's just a belief with no external counterpart and no justification, other than appearances.
What would you say to this: http://www.wisefoolpress.com/the-whole-truth/
It takes just a bit of logical deduction to see that causality is infinite, meaning, there's no possible part of reality that isn't utterly permeated with it.
"I am" is a truth but not a very useful one. It does nothing to reveal the illusory nature of self existence, for example.
17 hours ago, Dingus said:So I'll speak for myself then. I initially accepted his version when I first encountered it because it's basically just a rephrasing of the buddhist emptiness philosophy. And I was stuck on the "emptiness view" for a number of years, as are most of its adherents. I even asked David on his blog about some doubts I had, see the comment section here (I'm Mark):
http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=535
Interestingly that was the last I ever heard of him even though he said he would address my questions in an upcoming blog post. And I have not been able to find anything written by him after this exchange. Any idea what happened to him? I'm amused to think that maybe he became enlightened while contemplating my questions
and decided that he had been wrong all along.
I don't see anything there that would change his mind. We can discuss your concerns here or you can try contacting David, he's been around the forum a bit more lately.
-
5 minutes ago, SOUL said:Yup.
So there are incorrect thoughts, you just don't think about incorrect thoughts... right?
On that note, do you think at all?
13 minutes ago, SOUL said:Awareness is all that is needed, I don't need anything else to awaken or enlighten consciousness.
Your idea that enlightenment cannot be had or sustained without your logic and wisdom is why you cannot have or sustain enlightenment.
Have you considered it is thoughts and perspectives about logic you are believing that prevents you from simply exercising your awareness to be present in realizing enlightenment?
Your own words explain it clearly how your ideas and concepts are the stumbling blocks.
Is an Amoeba is enlightened?
-
Causality as is appears to consciousness is dualistic, while ultimately, it is infinite.
Who told you I lapped it up uncritically?
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
The realization of nonduality comes after the fact of experiencing duality. You cannot experience non-duality (to 'experience' is dualistic), you can only know of it, so the only way to experience the truth is through realization.
Breaking the belief, as with other beliefs, is a matter of habit. Find ways to remind yourself of the truth regularly, via meditation, reading insightful spiritual works, etc.