Russell Parr

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.

Absolutely. But only those who have ears will hear it.

I've never said that. Logic and meditation serve different purposes. Logic doesn't silent the ego, it ensures congruent thought. 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. 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.

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.

One is not left soulless, nor harmless, and fucks are very much given after enlightenment. This is all too true, unfortunately. One must suffer for their delusions in order to desire enlightenment. Couldn't agree more. If you don't know what enlightenment is, you can't adequately judge others declarations about it.

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.

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

How can knowledge be without logic? Can you give me an example? I'm not really into mysticism. 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?

Maturity, responsibility, clarity are indeed key, but without logic, there is no knowledge. Logic is what holds knowledge together, and makes it coherent. Is this a truthful statement? 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.