Russell Parr

Member
  • Content count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Russell Parr

  1. Logic is the linguistic representation of cause and effect, which is an absolute principle of reality. The enlightened mind is fully logical and unencumbered by egotism, which causes the logical processes of the mind to stutter due to a clinging to ideas, concepts, people, and things. Be careful not to decry logic. It is an essential ingredient to enlightenment.
  2. 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.
  3. Absolutely. But only those who have ears will hear it.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Experience. Who told you what enlightenment is?
  8. @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.
  9. 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.
  10. The old "there is no enlightenment" spiritual teaching. Nice
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. @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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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. 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.
  19. Thoughts and time equally exist, in relativity. Ultimately, they are but mirages.
  20. Reality is infinite. Appearances are finite chunks of reality that are perceived by and according to consciousness, for its sake and purposes. Passing back through the tunnel would be the realization that consciousness is also merely an appearance. You misunderstand causality.
  21. Enlightenment is about making proper use of identification, not the ceasing of identifying. 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. I assure you, I am not mistaking thinking or talking about enlightenment for enlightenment itself.
  22. Are you saying that you have no use for any dualistic mindset? Does logic has anything to do with your intellectual experience? No, because enlightenment, as I understand it, does not apply to it.
  23. 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.
  24. 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. 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.
  25. So there are incorrect thoughts, you just don't think about incorrect thoughts... right? On that note, do you think at all? Is an Amoeba is enlightened?