Logic Is Part And Parcel To Enlightenment

[Russell Parr]

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.

[Dodo]

11 minutes ago, Russell Parr said:

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.

I like these precise answers. 

Thoughts exist in time, time does not exist. 

Thoughts proven unreal. They're only real in time.

Now you can be free to jump over them.

Your identification, unless you are enlightened, is with a time bound self. This identification may be (and most likely is) made subconsciously in the past and you're carrying it. (Even a Soul is time bound)

Jump over thoughts and you're the timeless Self. Bam, easy, done.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Dodoster

[Russell Parr]

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. 

[Russell Parr]

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. 

 

 

[Dodo]

18 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.")

The world is not made of mind, the world is made of the most subtle element, consciousness. Consciousness is not mind, it's not something and it's not nothing. It's the bridge. It's the deepest you, it's pure gold. The world is made of mind if you still live in illusion that mind is real and who you are. Mind is just a word and we might not even have the same definitions, but still.. I think you understand me.

Consciousness is the blank sheet and the mind is the ink. You can have an empty page, but can you write on no paper? The paper/world will remain real and it will be more real if you stop reading the bullshit story written on top of it and see it for what it is. A paper with ink, no story no interpretation. The now is blank. There is no content. It's emptiness.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Dodoster

[Dodo]

11 minutes ago, Russell Parr said:

Thoughts and time equally exist, in relativity. Ultimately, they are but mirages. 

 

 

Thoughts only exist in time and time only exists in thoughts. Two entities that we now have derived through this discussion give each other existence, you drop one, the other will drop too. This is the root and what samsara is made of. 

[SOUL]

51 minutes ago, Russell Parr said:

Are you saying that you have no use for any dualistic mindset?

Does logic has anything to do with your intellectual experience?

Some things exist as a duality in nature but not everything does yet a dualism mindset views everything as a dualism even if they aren't it so is a logically flawed mindset to use as a basis of perspective.

I think you would appreciate recognizing this.

If something is a duality, see it for what it is if something isn't a duality see it for what it is.

Why default the mindset to dualism then, wouldn't that be one of those delusional perspectives you were hoping to enlighten from?

My intellectual experience has many expressions, logic included sure, but not logic dominated.

[Russell Parr]

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.

[Russell Parr]

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?

[SOUL]

Assumptions are not reality.

The observer and the observed are not the environment that the observation takes place in.

Dualism delusion....

Edited May 11, 2017 by SOUL

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Russell Parr said:

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.

I agree with most of this. And logic certainly helps to bust through delusions which are a barrier to accurate perception and to unedited awareness. However, my experience has been that dis-identification is a big part of accurate perception and to ego-transcendence, as dis-identification allows for greater objectivity beyond labels in terms of perception. Also, there was a clear letting go of the concept of a self, that enabled me to see the entirety of reality for what it was without editing out anything from my experiences or needing my experiences to conform to my worldview. 

[SOUL]

Consciousness is the initial cause of all being.... it's the because.

[Russell Parr]

@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.

[alyra]

"logic is part and parcel to enlightenment" 

 

duh, nonduality much? awareness is ego. delusion is truth. this is such a silly debate! 

 

(and, well, silly is serious)

 

wait, was anything said with this post? 

[WelcometoReality]

On 2017-05-09 at 8:33 PM, Russell Parr said:

What is delusional - the belief that things and/or the self exist independently from the rest of reality. The ego is delusional.

What is real - the Tao, infinite reality, causality.

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?

[Russell Parr]

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.

[Russell Parr]

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.

[Russell Parr]

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.

[Ayla]

On 5/3/2017 at 5:49 PM, Russell Parr said:

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.

 

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

 

[SOUL]

Thinking and believing one knows the truth is a delusion.