Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
romansh

I versus i

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

As simply as i am able to put it the small i is the ego which takes on the identity as separate from the rest of creation and believes it is the mind, physical body and identifys with its story as who it is. It is the illusion.  The large I is the I am or creator and source of the small  i. Or what you might refer to as God or the higher Self.

I think ultimately I and "i" are descriptions and words ... Words by their very nature are dualistic ... so when we try to describe the universe or bits of it we are can get caught up of thinking of reality in a dualistic way. So whatever I and i are they are not as they seem. 

I am of the universe ... it took a whole universe to make "I" and in my excruciatingly small way "I" am shaping the universe. I and i are two sides of the same coin ... the universe.

And going back to the balloon metaphor for knowledge/understanding, ignorance and things to be understood. Our "I"s are on that surface of that balloon as the universe unfolds. This metaphor can be taken with a pinch of salt or a stiff drink. 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, thormas said:

How is it possible for the i to 'take on the identity as separate from the rest of creation?" Be it illusion (not as it seems) or not, this statement suggests that there is that which is able to 'take on a separate identity' - which seems to suggest that there is 'separation' in creation; there is a multiplicity. 

Also, why does (the large) I create in this view? For the I to be creator and source implies that there is that which is created and that which needs to be sustained (by the source). 

In short the i sees itself as separate - this is an illusion, if not a delusion. 

Why does "I" do anything? Why do we hark back to teleology? Why assume a purpose or meaning? Just because we think we can create them? Why do we flit in and out of existence? 

A more interesting question for me is how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

I think ultimately I and "i" are descriptions and words ... Words by their very nature are dualistic ... so when we try to describe the universe or bits of it we are can get caught up of thinking of reality in a dualistic way. So whatever I and i are they are not as they seem. 

I am of the universe ... it took a whole universe to make "I" and in my excruciatingly small way "I" am shaping the universe. I and i are two sides of the same coin ... the universe.

And going back to the balloon metaphor for knowledge/understanding, ignorance and things to be understood. Our "I"s are on that surface of that balloon as the universe unfolds. This metaphor can be taken with a pinch of salt or a stiff drink. 

Yet the fact is we think and know in dualistic terms. 

But, dualistic or not (and, again, I recognize the limitation of language), you are saying, in effect, I made/make "I" and "I" am shaping the universe (seemingly) to something is was not before I shaped it. The universe is shaped (in new ways) by "I" (and of course was shaped before there was "I")- which is not an I (i.e. illusion), which is not separate and which is not. 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

In short the i sees itself as separate - this is an illusion, if not a delusion. 

Why does "I" do anything? Why do we hark back to teleology? Why assume a purpose or meaning? Just because we think we can create them? Why do we flit in and out of existence? 

A more interesting question for me is how?

So, accepting the 1st sentence for argument sake, why is it that I, if it is the universe, sees itself, the only thing there is, as separate? Or, as you say, why does "I" do anything - so indeed, why? 

What is there to flit in and out if there is only the universe? 

As to how the universe does anything, how is anything done - what's your answer (even in dualistic terms)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom

I have accommodated you here - but you create new threads when interested parties are tracking the original thread to get replies. And the new thread 'covers' the old one and if someone just takes a quick glance to check on replies, they are missed. 

The I vs i was part of the earlier one and separating them is not necessary.

Or, at least ask........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thormas said:

Yet the fact is we think and know in dualistic terms. 

Well I am not sure about knowing that belongs on the agnostic thread. But science does point away from dualism.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

I made/make "I" and "I" am shaping the universe (seemingly) to something is was not before I shaped it. The universe is shaped (in new ways) by "I" (and of course was shaped before there was "I")- which is not an I (i.e. illusion), which is not separate and which is not. 

Did I say that? The universe is unfolding ... and I am part of that unfolding. Seeing myself as separate from the unfolding is the illusory bit.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

So, accepting the 1st sentence for argument sake, why is it that I, if it is the universe, sees itself, the only thing there is, as separate? Or, as you say, why does "I" do anything - so indeed, why? 

I am trying to use the same nomenclature as Joseph ... I may have gotten it wrong. Though I don't quite agree with Joseph's nomenclature. Note the lower case i in my first sentence.  Why? is a nonsense is some interpretations ... just is. Being if you like. 

4 hours ago, thormas said:

What is there to flit in and out if there is only the universe?

An illusion. It is like an eddy as an oar strokes the surface of the water. 

4 hours ago, thormas said:

As to how the universe does anything, how is anything done - what's your answer 

Cause and effect.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom

I have accommodated you here - but you create new threads when interested parties are tracking the original thread to get replies. And the new thread 'covers' the old one and if someone just takes a quick glance to check on replies, they are missed. 

The I vs i was part of the earlier one and separating them is not necessary.

Or, at least ask........

Thormas

When you start asking is it OK to derail threads?

But I am glad I could accommodate you and start a thread that is on topic that you wanted to discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, romansh said:

 

I really have no interest and don't find helpful this back and forth on each sentence and comments like "did I say that?"  I'll do it on occasion but not endlessly as it has shown in the past to not get anywhere in furthering understanding. I accept that you have not thought this topic through.

If it is clear to one that s/he has been misunderstood, then take the time to better explain it and allow another to process and respond. Otherwise we go endlessly back and forth. If one can't explain themselves or they have not yet followed through on where their thinking leads - that is fine. We move on.

 

Finally, in spite of what you think or think you know, I do not (intentionally) derail threads: I ask questions, follow up and go with the flow, Nor did I have an overwhelming desire or need to discuss this particular topic, I merely followed up. Actually Joseph introduced the topic (did you say to him, "start asking is it OK to derail threads") and I said to him since it was his comment that it might be a topic for an interesting thread but responded to him on the thread (as appropriate). Again, no need to accommodate what I didn't ask for or expressed a desire to discuss.

There is no problem starting a new thread but, as mentioned, we were having a conversation on the original thread and your new one was unnecessary, at that time.  All I'm saying is tell people what you're thinking of doing and perhaps go the extra mile and ask them if they want their comments moved by you - as it does or could interrupt the flow of a conversation. Not a big thing Rom, just a courtesy and not a hard thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a video of Bruce's The Self Illusion but I do recommend his short book.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That explains fully why the older I get, the better I was! :)

But seriously, very informative video which makes complete sense to me.  It certainly helps better understand why we may think there is a 'more' to our existence, and why we think 'I' may be more than what it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 6, 2018 at 12:13 AM, romansh said:

 

Cause and effect.

Cause and effect is the illusion. There is nothing in the universe causing anything anything else. Such as a this causing that. This is merely a precondition of that. All observed phenomena arise out of the totality of the evolution of Creation as it unfolds to perception as progressive observation .

PS The cause of anything is not an identifiable single element. It is rather a composite that constitutes the actual source that accounts for observed phenomenon .

Edited by JosephM
Added P S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaulS said:

That explains fully why the older I get, the better I was! :)

But seriously, very informative video which makes complete sense to me.  It certainly helps better understand why we may think there is a 'more' to our existence, and why we think 'I' may be more than what it really is.

Simply and most briefly put the i is content and the I is context. 

The small i or ego which is illusion, imagines itself as the thinker behind thoughts and the doer behind deeds, so that all which occurs becomes a reference to self (i ). It then sees itself as a supposedly independent sole entity.

Context is the totality of everything or Rom might say the total universe.

Edited by JosephM
Added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Simply and most briefly put the i is content and the I is context. 

The small i or ego which is illusion, imagines itself as the thinker behind thoughts and the doer behind deeds, so that all which occurs becomes a reference to self (i ). It then sees itself as a supposedly independent sole entity.

Context is the totality of everything or Rom might say the total universe.

Joseph,

What I'm trying to get is that even if the i or ego is illusion (not as it seems), it is 'something' that imagines itself as thinker and doer. So, it is!

For you, is the i singular or many and, simply, what is the i? Illusion seems to suggest that 'something' (sorry, language) is - although it is, it imagines itself to be more whereas it is not what it imagines, it is not what it seems to be. Now, if you are saying that, for example, man sees himself as a 'supposedly independent sole entity' but that this is not what it seems because man is one with/in context, consciousness/universe, that makes sense. 

Also, I thought you thought the content was consciousness, not the physical universe.

Finally, and again, why do you think the I, the context, allows or creates or manifests as i?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Cause and effect is the illusion

Possibly  ... but the nature of that illusion is debatable. Does pressing keys on the keyboard cause letters to come up on my screen?

Possibly it is all set at the formation of this particular universe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thormas said:

Joseph,

What I'm trying to get is that even if the i or ego is illusion (not as it seems), it is 'something' that imagines itself as thinker and doer. So, it is!

For you, is the i singular or many and, simply, what is the i? Illusion seems to suggest that 'something' (sorry, language) is - although it is, it imagines itself to be more whereas it is not what it imagines, it is not what it seems to be. Now, if you are saying that, for example, man sees himself as a 'supposedly independent sole entity' but that this is not what it seems because man is one with/in context, consciousness/universe, that makes sense. 

Also, I thought you thought the content was consciousness, not the physical universe.

Finally, and again, why do you think the I, the context, allows or creates or manifests as i?

That's correct.

As I said the i presents itself as an individual with a name and story. But of course it is not singular nor is it really many.... It is one.

Content is not consciousness.

Good question. The  i    cannot know the I / God / Reality because it has inherent limitations and its dualistic nature projects the vagaries of the ego. God is the absolute subjectivity that underlies existence and the capacity for awareness is beyond time, place and all human characteristics. There is no why. Life is its own meaning. Context is not subject to content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JosephM said:

That's correct.

As I said the i presents itself as an individual with a name and story. But of course it is not singular nor is it really many.... It is one.

Content is not consciousness.

Good question. The  i    cannot know the I / God / Reality because it has inherent limitations and its dualistic nature projects the vagaries of the ego. God is the absolute subjectivity that underlies existence and the capacity for awareness is beyond time, place and all human characteristics. There is no why. Life is its own meaning. Context is not subject to content.

 

So, I think you said that the i, the ego, that which imagines itself as thinker and does, that although this imagining is illusion, still the i is. 

The i or the I present itself? Yet there appear to be many in the one or rather than one. To me this is a paradox - and it can be true (many in one, yet still one).

"Content is not consciousness." I have no idea what you mean by this, can you try again?

It seems to me you allow for the paradox (above) with statements like " The  i    cannot know the I / God / Reality." You seem to  speak of the many in the One at the same time asserting there is One, not many.

I agree that "God" is absolute subjectivity but seems to me there is a why.  There is part of me that agrees with the idea that man can say nothing about God (Spong and others hold to this) yet, if man is of God, then I suspect that we can say something about God as we reflect on ourselves. After all, we are subject (not absolute) also .... and object.

Life has its own meaning - which is what for you?

"Context is not subject to content." Again, can you rephrase?

I appreciate the effort and the conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thormas said:

So, I think you said that the i, the ego, that which imagines itself as thinker and does, that although this imagining is illusion, still the i is. 

The i or the I present itself? Yet there appear to be many in the one or rather than one. To me this is a paradox - and it can be true (many in one, yet still one).

"Content is not consciousness." I have no idea what you mean by this, can you try again?

It seems to me you allow for the paradox (above) with statements like " The  i    cannot know the I / God / Reality." You seem to  speak of the many in the One at the same time asserting there is One, not many.

I agree that "God" is absolute subjectivity but seems to me there is a why.  There is part of me that agrees with the idea that man can say nothing about God (Spong and others hold to this) yet, if man is of God, then I suspect that we can say something about God as we reflect on ourselves. After all, we are subject (not absolute) also .... and object.

Life has its own meaning - which is what for you?

"Context is not subject to content." Again, can you rephrase?

I appreciate the effort and the conversation.

 

Yes you could say the i is, however ,  an old school Buddhist might say no , that only absolute changeless reality is , and all else is fabricated like a coat of many colors and is delusion.

In my view, the  ego structure is not  consciousness , it is more unconsciousness in dualistic terms. Content is an arbitrary point of focus as in the amount of data or for that matter form that is included. Consciousness is context which is the totality of that which is in the case of God or the entire universe with no boundaries.

I do not require meaning other than life itself which is its own meaning ( not has its own meaning) , self evident and self-effulgent which is experiential and not conceptual. How can I say more?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Yes you could say the i is, however ,  an old school Buddhist might say no , that only absolute changeless reality is , and all else is fabricated like a coat of many colors and is delusion.

In my view, the  ego structure is not  consciousness , it is more unconsciousness in dualistic terms. Content is an arbitrary point of focus as in the amount of data or for that matter form that is included. Consciousness is context which is the totality of that which is in the case of God or the entire universe with no boundaries.

I do not require meaning other than life itself which is its own meaning ( not has its own meaning) , self evident and self-effulgent which is experiential and not conceptual. How can I say more?

Not merely illusion but delusion? Yet, whether illusion or delusion, there is the one to whom it is not as it seems, the one to who all is delusions. If not, then the illusion/delusion belongs to the I, to the absolute changeless reality - which is a contradiction and cannot be.

There is the context - absolute changeless reality. And there is content: as you said "(small) i presents itself as an individual with a name and story."  The I (God. absolute reality) does not present itself for that would be a change in changelessness.

Joseph, I am not trying to be difficult, actually the opposite: I am trying to get what you are saying but the terms change or are just repeated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

Consciousness is context which is the totality of that which is in the case of God or the entire universe with no boundaries.

I do not require meaning other than life itself which is its own meaning ( not has its own meaning) , self evident and self-effulgent which is experiential and not conceptual. How can I say more?

I get the boundlessness of God but the universe seems to be bound on one side by the Big Bang and on the other side it expands, yet that which came 'earlier' is said to not exist (example stars whose light we see but that are no longer) and the expected end of the earth and the sun, etc. I assume one might argue that this is illusion or the matter, the energy is repurposed but there is still the Bang? There was nothing, no universe: if there was a beginning - the universe is bound. 

Is the life, which is its own meaning, that you speak of content or context?  But, self-evident or not and it is not to all - what is life's own meaning?

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thormas said:

Not merely illusion but delusion? Yet, whether illusion or delusion, there is the one to whom it is not as it seems, the one to who all is delusions. If not, then the illusion/delusion belongs to the I, to the absolute changeless reality - which is a contradiction and cannot be.

There is the context - absolute changeless reality. And there is content: as you said "(small) i presents itself as an individual with a name and story."  The I (God. absolute reality) does not present itself for that would be a change in changelessness.

Joseph, I am not trying to be difficult, actually the opposite: I am trying to get what you are saying but the terms change or are just repeated. 

No problem Thomas,

By the way, that was just me quoting an old school Buddhist. Anyway absolute reality is changeless. The Bible confirms that God is the same , yesterday, today and tomorrow and numerous other passages saying basically God is changeless.

 Change is an illusion of time. In reality nothing is happening. When the illusion of duality collapses , there remains only the state of the infinite I which is the manifestation of the Unmanifest as the Self. No subject, no object. There is no distance, time, duration or locality. All is self-evident, self aware and self-revealing. Form is merely an expression of the potentially of consciousness. The formless / Unmanifest is the substrate of form. Form and creation are merely an observation. Don't expect to fully understand this as a concept as it is a subjective experience or some might say realization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, thormas said:

 

I get the boundlessness of God but the universe seems to be bound on one side by the Big Bang and on the other side it expands, yet that which came 'earlier' is said to not exist (example stars whose light we see but that are no longer) and the expected end of the earth and the sun, etc. I assume one might argue that this is illusion or the matter, the energy is repurposed but there is still the Bang? There was nothing, no universe: if there was a beginning - the universe is bound. 

Is the life, which is its own meaning, that you speak of content or context?  But, self-evident or not and it is not to all - what is life's own meaning?

 

Thomas, 

Life is meant to be lived. You can put whatever meaning you want to it. Philosophers and theologians among others have been debating it for centuries .

For me it is an unanswerable question except to say that life is its own meaning. What is life's own meaning? Speaking of existence in this physical realm perhaps we could say life's meaning is simply to unfold. But I can not speak for life because i can only live it. Life speaks for itself as it unfolds. In my experience, in reality there is no subject or object and the question of meaning disappears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, thormas said:

but the universe seems to be bound on one side by the Big Bang and on the other side it expands, yet that which came 'earlier' is said to not exist

Personally I don't know how and if this universe is bound. It might be infinite is some shape or form, it might not. It makes no difference in the "now".

14 hours ago, thormas said:

the matter, the energy is repurposed

But that energy has a reduced capacity to do stuff. Second Law of thermodynamics.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

There was nothing, no universe: if there was a beginning - the universe is bound. 

Why is nothing the default state? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JosephM said:

Change is an illusion of time. In reality nothing is happening. When the illusion of duality collapses , there remains only the state of the infinite I which is the manifestation of the Unmanifest as the Self. No subject, no object. There is no distance, time, duration or locality. All is self-evident, self aware and self-revealing. Form is merely an expression of the potentially of consciousness. The formless / Unmanifest is the substrate of form. Form and creation are merely an observation. Don't expect to fully understand this as a concept as it is a subjective experience or some might say realization.

Sounds like the Beatific Vision.  

I touched on this in the Original Sin thread:

if, as is clear, we are saying there is illusion, then there are only two possibilities: 

1. Absolute Reality does not see/know itself as it is (i.e. Reality) but only as illusion. If this is so, then the Absolute is not Reality because it admits to illusion in itself and Reality is not Absolute because it admits to knowing what is not Real. Or

2. There must be that which is not Absolute Reality, yet is and, as such, is limited (not Absolute) in its knowing as it is capable of only seeing/knowing what seems to be rather than what is (Beatific Vision).

We are admitting that there is the' illusion of duality' that collapses or passes away. But, again, it cannot be the illusion of Reality itself, so it must be the illusion of that which is not reality itself but which is, nonetheless, real. So, man (even though his vision of reality and of himself might not be as it seems) is real.

I agree there is no object and even that there is no subject: there is IS, and knowing is not of a thing but doing which is being or IS (for example, running is not something to be known, the only knowing of running is (doing) running and in the doing, one is (the) running: there is no separation; 'it' is self-evident, self aware and self-revealing, simply, 'I AM' the running). As with running, it is with Reality.

I never expect to fully understand (conceptually) but I 'press' you because I press myself. I know that it is not the contemplation of Reality but the doing of Reality that is Be All and End All.

Perhaps it is the limitation of language, but where we differ (at least I think, at this time) is that if Reality is the 'substrate,' it is the substrate of form or mode of being. There is nothing else and Absolute Reality need not be a substrate to itself, so it is the substrate of 'other.' But 'other' is being (since there is nothing else). To borrow from the poetry of John's gospel: this is indeed light of light, being of being, begotten/created not made;  the multiplicity of persons in Being. I think there is, for lack of a better way to phrase it, a graciousness in Absolute Reality or what in religion is God in himSelf and there is creation (different in kind from making because with the former, the creator is in the creation). And as to why: is it the very essence of Absolute Reality that it not hoard being but that it go out (figuratively speaking) of Itself as the creative and sustaining mode of all that is?

Again, perhaps it is language but ' the formless / Unmanifest' seems to be the the same as nothing(ness). Yet we are: #1 (above) is not, so it is the 2nd option and we are it. Reality/Being is the substrate, the ground of form, the ground of the modes of reality, of being that is man (and all).

Again, I too, accept the idea of the 'illusion of duality' collapsing with only the Self/theAbsolute/Being remaining. But illusion, 'seeing as it seems,' is our way of knowing (through a glass darkly); it is also our way by which we might glimpse 'What Is,' have moments of insight 'into' Reality - not as object or subject - and, just like running, give ourselves to it and know Reality/God. In the knowing (it is experiential) that is doing, there is no separation: 'I AM' what Absolute Reality IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

Personally I don't know how and if this universe is bound. It might be infinite is some shape or form, it might not. It makes no difference in the "now".

But that energy has a reduced capacity to do stuff. Second Law of thermodynamics.

Why is nothing the default state? 

Now or not, if the Bang is the beginning, the universe has a boundary.

As I said, I was allowing that the idea put forth above (however, pedestrian it might have been phrased) might be what another person might say. 

I'm simply talking about the physical universe and the idea of the Big Bang. Seems there was nothing and then something or there was something, teeny, tiny that Banged and here we are. I'm good either way. If the latter though, then we can asked what was the cause of the Bang. But this is really not important to me in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, thormas said:

Now or not, if the Bang is the beginning, the universe has a boundary.

It could be that it is just a beginning?

30 minutes ago, thormas said:

As I said, I was allowing that the idea put forth above (however, pedestrian it might have been phrased) might be what another person might say

And yet it has implications for how we view existence. 

31 minutes ago, thormas said:

I'm simply talking about the physical universe and the idea of the Big Bang. Seems there was nothing and then something or there was something, teeny, tiny that Banged and here we are. I'm good either way. If the latter though, then we can asked what was the cause of the Bang. But this is really not important to me in this thread.

So the universe might be finite? So what? Again I suggest Krauss's video. Nothing is not what it seems. We think we can imagine nothing. But what do you envisage when you imagine nothing? Me? I can see a blackness and there is me perceiving it. Not exactly nothing. In Krauss's words (sort of) physicists deal with the real nothing, not some imagined nothing. Here's a nice video of Krauss explaining "nothing".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

It could be that it is just a beginning?

And yet it has implications for how we view existence. 

So the universe might be finite? So what? Again I suggest Krauss's video. Nothing is not what it seems. We think we can imagine nothing. But what do you envisage when you imagine nothing? Me? I can see a blackness and there is me perceiving it. Not exactly nothing. In Krauss's words (sort of) physicists deal with the real nothing, not some imagined nothing. Here's a nice video of Krauss explaining "nothing".

A beginning is a boundary for what was not.

If nothing is something, then it is not nothing (in spite of one calling it nothing). It is something and we are back to some-thing that is the cause of some-thing else. Which is fine, for now.

I imagine .........nothing, because it is not. To see or imagine nothing as blackness is to imagine .......something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas,

The problem with questions and our words such as context, content , reality, meaning of life ,  Unmanifest, why , I, i , etc is that they need  so much more elaborate defining and even when this is done for every answer 2 more questions will pop up. It may be interesting but It seems to me one could spend a lifetime trying to understand what we are trying to convey and still not get a subjective glimpse of reality . Perhaps we would get only concepts that keep us in the same illusion of perception. The thinking mind seems to loves  to get bogged down in thinking and concepts. It may make one feel more alive as an i but mentations such as these reinforce attachments to the the i as ones identity making it more difficult for seeing that which we have created concepts for.

For what it is worth here is a bit of what seems to me wisdom. Truth / Reality is always present with each of us, just as in allegory , the sun is always present but may not be seen if it is obscured by clouds, the earth, trees , mountains or any other obstructions to its light. Truth is in my experience like light in many ways. Christ (not a man) is that light that lights every man/ woman that comes into the world  (John) You can equate that with Life and Truth. But to know it  at least in a radical subjective manner, you need to see it clearly.

The biggest obstacle to seeing is in my experience the ego ( identity with the thinking mind as self ) . You have to lose your life (self ) to find it. Most major religions speak of this although one has to dig deep to find it among that which has been corrupted of the original teachings. To me, these are the biggest axiomatic positionalities of the thinking mind that obscure us from such a seeing. They all are positions/opinions/beliefs and represent attachments..........

The good need to be rewarded and the bad punished

People can be different than they are

Things are either good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair

The mind is capable of recognizing and comprehending truth from falsehood 

Life is unfair because the innocent suffer while the wicked go unpunished

It is critical and necessary to be right

It is necessary to win

Rightiousness must prevail

Perceptions represent reality

wrongs must be righted

Things happen by accident or else they are someone else's fault 

As you can see it involves letting go of all cherished positionalities because nothing one believes is true. These axioms are illusions that create suffering and destruction. They are to an extent barriers to Reality because they create a multitude of dualities that arise from linear perception which is flawed. None of the axioms above are true. All these beliefs are wishful thinking of a make-believe world. Absolute justice is intrinsic to creation but invisible to human perception. In my experience, surrendering such axiom positions as well as the fate of the world to God results in an experience whether briefly or permanently of clarity of vision that resolves all questions and illusions.

Just gazing,

Joseph

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×