Question on Intelligent Design

[Darkstorn]

life must be elsewise than a physic.

I don't agree.

The universe is physical. Therefore anything and everything within it, is physical.

Just a random question: What do you think energy is?

 

[shawn001]

What makes order more valuable than disorder?

I don't separate order from disorder. Though other people do.

Nothing really to the universe, other then its a law of nature that things get more disordered with time. So in regards to ID the universe isn't going from disorder to order it's going from order to disorder.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, DUH! If you agree that you are intelligent, and that you emerged from The Universe, and that there is no separation between you and The Universe, then The Universe must be intelligent.

Here is my point, to the point. We dont have intelligence. We like to think we do, but as part of the universe not The Universe, we are made up of the same atoms and so forth just like any thing and any one else living and not.

If you really really want to use the world intelligence, the universe is pretty smart in learning how to make stars and planets. The birds are pretty smart in how they form when flying based on the weather. We are pretty smart in finding connections to live that in reality does not exist in and of themselves (we have a knack for making abstract things concecrete), and so forth.

It's not intelligence. That's an illusion. It's a human label to define the pattern and nature of something ordered compared to something that is not. I don't see why either or less valuable but I do see the universe is beautifully disordered. One becuase I try not to place definitions on what I do not know. Two, I'm an artist- what artist likes things written in stone.

 

[osgart]

energy is a force of physics, no real aim to it, other than humans like Tesla harnessing it.

intelligence could be a non living force that emerged at random, or it always existed. intelligence is real.

I used to be a physical only thinker at one time, but non locality, and other things pried me away from that.

Tesla was into Vedanta philosophy.

so I took an interest in the approach.

now I see consciousness as fundamental to existence.

I also wonder if their is a non living non physical realm to reality where intelligence forms an otherwise mindless reality.

I don't think humanity has a workable language as to what consciousness is.

if your going to explain reality you must find the answers to every question life poses.

everyone here has their stances, no one has any evidence either way.

 

[godnotgod]

If there were no conscious observer to observe the universe, would the universe exist or not?

I'm not actually looking for an answer: Rather... If it DOES exist independently of the observer, then consciousness has nothing to do with it.

And there would be no intelligence involved.

Your personal view; your consciousness called 'I', is a sculpted consciousness that is not actually yours, but is being sculpted as 'you' by a Universal Consciousness. That Universal Consciousness is none other than The Universe. IOW, what you are is a total action of The Universe, just as a wave is a total action of The Ocean. The problem you are having is that you are distinguishing what you falsely think is 'my' consciousness in comparison to what you think to be an unconscious Universe 'out there'. This is further reinforced by the current scientific view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and because The Universe does not seem to have a brain, it therefore is incapable of being conscious, let alone intelligent. This is the degree to which our consciousness has been conditioned. When the conceptual discriminating mind comes to a complete halt, there no longer exists any distinction whatsoever between what we think of as 'self' and The Universe, in the same way that all distinction is dissolved when a drop of water becomes completely dissolved with the vast ocean, or as when dye is dissolved in water. The conscious intelligence with which you see the world is none other than the world itself, but your thinking mind is always busy attempting to set up conceptual barriers between you and the world in a way that says: 'I am an intelligent observer over here, observing a dead Universe 'out there'. False. You are The Universe looking at itself through your eyes. Therefore, The Universe, which is you, is intelligent. See?

 

[godnotgod]

now I see consciousness as fundamental to existence.

Yes. I think you have the cart properly placed behind the horse. Most people have them transposed, and they fail to realize it, just as you once did. Bravo!

 

[godnotgod]

Here is my point, to the point. We dont have intelligence. We like to think we do, but as part of the universe not The Universe, we are made up of the same atoms and so forth just like any thing and any one else living and not.

If you really really want to use the world intelligence, the universe is pretty smart in learning how to make stars and planets. The birds are pretty smart in how they form when flying based on the weather. We are pretty smart in finding connections to live that in reality does not exist in and of themselves (we have a knack for making abstract things concecrete), and so forth.

It's not intelligence. That's an illusion. It's a human label to define the pattern and nature of something ordered compared to something that is not. I don't see why either or less valuable but I do see the universe is beautifully disordered. One becuase I try not to place definitions on what I do not know. Two, I'm an artist- what artist likes things written in stone.

We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it. We now know that what we call 'particles' are actually standing waves appearing as particles, as in 'virtual', being created via fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. IOW, we are ENERGY in ACTION. Everything going on in our bodies is involved in some kind of ACTION, just as everything going on in The Universe is ACTION. The Universe is not composed of things. If you had studied your Buddhism and Zen, you would have come across a little teaching called 'Sunyata', which says that all phenomena is empty of self-nature, because what we call 'things' are all interconnected with everything else, and co-arises with everything else. This the the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination. There are no such 'things' in reality. What you really are is conscious, intelligent energy manifested in a seemingly material body acting out a drama on this Earthly plane.

By intelligence I do not mean cleverness or being 'smart' as you think. It is far more compelling than that. Material reality is intelligence manifesting itself as material reality. You are the intelligence that is The Universe manifesting itself as 'Carlita', who is pretending she is not the Intelligence called 'Universe', in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it. We now know that what we call 'particles' are actually standing waves appearing as particles, as in 'virtual', being created via fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. IOW, we are ENERGY in ACTION.

Everything going in in our bodies is involved in some kind of ACTION, just as everything going on in The Universe is ACTION. The Universe is not composed of things. If you had studied your Buddhism and Zen, you would have come across a little teaching called 'Sunyata', which says that all phenomena is empty of self-nature, because what we call 'things' are all interconnected with everything else, and co-arises with everything else. This the the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination. There are no such 'things' in reality. What you really are is conscious, intelligent energy manifested in a seemingly material body acting out a drama on this Earthly plane.

By intelligence I do not mean cleverness or being 'smart' as you think. It is far more compelling than that. Material reality is intelligence manifesting itself as material reality. You are the intelligence that is The Universe manifesting itself as 'Carlita', who is pretending she is not the Intelligence called 'Universe', in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

You remind me of someone else on RF. This is a lot of tongue twisting metaphysics that is not true of reality. It's your personal belief and everyone has a right to interpret and express it as they will. You don't need to upper case words. I have to read post in sections or I will not understand it. So, I read all posts.

Though, the terminology has to be understood by both parties first.

Also, your religious label doesn't say Buddhism. So, your whole language is completely foreign not only to this Buddhist who do not study to prove points but study to practice, but also all of that talk is just saying "I know this" when Buddhism isn't about knowing but by practicing.

You know by practice. Not practice what you know.

With that said, from a Buddhist perspective life is a continuous cycle of birth and death. It is not intelligent by any means. It just means life (as you say) moves. An action (no need to caps it) Yes, there are a lot of things contained in this action just as any other action. When stars form, a lot of things are involved and form to make a star a star. Just as a baby growing in her mother's womb. Another Buddhist view is things form and change. Nothing is permanent.

That last part is completely off in the cosmos no where near Buddhism or any religion that I can think of.

How is action intelligent?

Please. In English.

 

[godnotgod]

How is action intelligent?
.

You seem to have difficulty understanding just about everything I say to you. Do you have a comprehension issue?

A kind of knowing is behind a caterpillar traveling along, moving all it's legs in unison, but without thought in doing so. The rhythmic movement and the knowing behind it are one and the same. There is not the knowing over here and the movement over there. Only the thinking mind sees them as two different things.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your personal view; your consciousness called 'I', is a sculpted consciousness that is not actually yours, but is being sculpted as 'you' by a Universal Consciousness.

No. It's being sculpted by a non-conscious universe. And my consciousness is not "i" any more than my body is "i." I am a composite thing. As are you. You cannot name a singular thing about yourself that truly defines you: ALL of you defines you. Not any single part.

And this is semantics anyway. In terms of human discourse, we must understand each other. And in terms of language, there's a definite "i" and "you" and even "us." For clarity's sake.

There's is necessity to label things by accepted terms for us to understand each other. Simple as that. I don't really care what things are called beyond that reason alone.

That Universal Consciousness is none other than The Universe. IOW, what you are is a total action of The Universe, just as a wave is a total action of The Ocean.

That's religious dogma and rhetoric at best though. You haven't shown that the universe is any more conscious than YOU are. You haven't shown that YOU are conscious. Truly.

You hiding it in the trappings of weak metaphor isn't going to reinforce your point. You having a valid point would be a start. It is not accepted or understood that the universe is conscious by any human consensus. It's you mistaking your subjective assessment of reality as the universal, objective truth. You cannot "know" things directly. You can only interpret data. And your sensory apparatuses could be faulty.

The problem you are having is that you are distinguishing what you falsely think is 'my' consciousness in comparison to what you think to be an unconscious Universe 'out there'.

I am not. You are making such a distinction. I don't think "consciousness" is an objective property. It's a bunch of separate phenomena and actions "coalescing" into a singular concept, a human concept no less. We invented what "consciousness" means. It's not a "natural property" of the universe itself. It's a descriptor for a bunch of phenomena, simple as that.

The universe itself is also a conceptualization.

The problem here is: I don't think you can show that YOU are conscious. Therefore, there's still a huge barrier you need to cross before you start making claims of universal consciousness. Because right now it sounds like new age hippy stuff. Not actual deep metaphysics.

This is further reinforced by the current scientific view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and because The Universe does not seem to have a brain, it therefore is incapable of being conscious, let alone intelligent. This is the degree to which our consciousness has been conditioned.

We literally invented the term consciousness. So yes, it's an emergent property of the brain, which itself is an emergent property of the universe. The brain is in the universe.

Who says you aren't conditioned to think a certain way? Hm? You aren't special. Remember that.

When the conceptual discriminating mind comes to a complete halt, there no longer exists any distinction whatsoever between what we think of as 'self' and The Universe, in the same way that all distinction is dissolved when a drop of water becomes completely dissolved with the vast ocean, or as when dye is dissolved in water.

I think you're confusing the teachings of Buddhism with new new age talk of universal consciousness. Buddhism makes no claims about the universe being conscious. For that matter: It barely makes claims that HUMANS are conscious. We are conditioned things. At best. ALL of us. You aren't exempt.

You are literally talking about abandoning ALL concepts: And are using such an argument in the context of HUMAN DISCOURSE. We need to understand each other if we're to have a discourse, yes? And we cannot abandon concepts in the context of discussion.

Anyway, what you are talking about sounds just like the first jhana stage of meditation... Both "the self" and "the universe" are merely composite things, using a label invented by humans. The "universe" isn't a singular property: It's composed of multiple parts. Just like the self. Both are concepts. Human concepts. Both are composite phenomenons.

The conscious intelligence with which you see the world is none other than the world itself, but your thinking mind is always busy attempting to set up conceptual barriers between you and the world in a way that says: 'I am an intelligent observer over here, observing a dead Universe 'out there'. False. You are The Universe looking at itself through your eyes. Therefore, The Universe, which is you, is intelligent. See?

That is not logical unless you ACCEPT the concept of "universal consciousness" as being true. By default. YOU are conditioned to think so.

You have the *conceptual barrier* of "universal consciousness." It's still a concept. Both the universe and consciousness itself are concepts. You are conditioned.

I literally think you went ahead and decided what "universe" means. Then you accepted your view using confirmation bias. That's far cry from abandoning concepts.

I don't think you're fit to teach people. Circular reasoning usually doesn't hold its water well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You seem to have difficulty understanding just about everything I say to you. Do you have a comprehension issue?

Yes. Actually, I do. I have Epilepsy. However, your words are very metaphysical and I don't understand (seizures or not) the concept of spirituality other than spirits of deceased people and the energy sustaining life. Outside of that, spiritual experiences are regular experiences. Nothing special to them in the wide-sense of the term.

A kind of knowing is behind a caterpillar traveling along, moving all it's legs in unison, but without thought in doing so. The rhythmic movement and the knowing behind it are one and the same. There is not the knowing over here and the movement over there. Only the thinking mind sees them as two different things.

It's just life. Why The Universe? I see why we give value to what you call intelligence but many of you raise it to a god-like point of view (caps is one way to do so, some people say The Cosmos). I find that unnecessary.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes. Actually, I do. I have Epilepsy. However, your words are very metaphysical and I don't understand (seizures or not) the concept of spirituality other than spirits of deceased people and the energy sustaining life. Outside of that, spiritual experiences are regular experiences. Nothing special to them in the wide-sense of the term.

I don't think metaphysics is necessarily spiritual. I think we're actually using metaphysics in common parlance when talking about stuff like consciousness and the universe in themselves. I say they are metaphysical concepts, or at best, philosophical ones.

We are after all talking about composite concepts, "soiled" by human subjectivity. I.E we all have our separate opinions of it.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. Actually, I do. I have Epilepsy. However, your words are very metaphysical and I don't understand (seizures or not) the concept of spirituality other than spirits of deceased people and the energy sustaining life. Outside of that, spiritual experiences are regular experiences. Nothing special to them in the wide-sense of the term.

Yes, The Miraculous is none other than The Ordinary itself. Nothing Special, precisely why so many overlook it. It's right under our noses in plain sight, but most are looking elsewhere for the experience, somewhere 'over there' and 'beyond' in some 'other' realm.

Nothing Special, true, but life is not a reductionist view of just so many molecules bumping into one another in blind chance. As I said, it is far, far more compelling than what Logic, Reason, and clinical sterile Analysis can come up with.

It's just life. Why The Universe? I see why we give value to what you call intelligence but many of you raise it to a god-like point of view (caps is one way to do so, some people say The Cosmos). I find that unnecessary.

True, it IS just life, but it is not just life, if you get my gist, which I don't think you do. Maybe you need more time to grow spiritually. Here is how Zen sees it:

"Before I became enlightened, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees; once I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees"

Sounds quite simple, but in reality is very profound, because a radical transformation of consciousness has occurred, in which what one thought was the case via conditioned awareness, is not actually the case. And now, this is what Quantum Physics is all about: instead of the Newtonian view of atoms and molecules bumping into one another, the world is now seen as a 'superposition of possibiility'.

Why 'The Universe'? Because, as the great Vedantic mystic, Vivekenanda tells us:

"The Universe IS The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

If you try to understand this intellectually, you will miss it's compelling meaning. It must be seen, rather than intellectualized.

No, I am not superimposing a creator-God into the mix. The Absolute is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think metaphysics is necessarily spiritual. I think we're actually using metaphysics in common parlance when talking about stuff like consciousness and the universe in themselves. I say they are metaphysical concepts, or at best, philosophical ones.

We are after all talking about composite concepts, "soiled" by human subjectivity. I.E we all have our separate opinions of it.

Exactly why I am trying to get people to SEE what is, rather than conceptualize it. Reality is beyond philosophy and metaphysics. It is not a matter of opinion. Those are just possible pathways toward Reality, but there is a jumping off point. This was the lesson of the Raft Sutra, in which the Buddha asked his monks whether they should leave the raft behind after they reached the other shore, the raft being a metaphor for the teaching.

 

[Darkstorn]

Exactly why I am trying to get people to SEE what is, rather than conceptualize it.

I don't think you are qualified to do that though. At least not yet. You are still mistaking first steps as the end of the journey. I think you've only recently learned to abandon concepts, and think that's all there is to it.

Incorrect.

You live within a conceptualized society. In order for you to function as a CONSTRUCTIVE part of said society, rather than destructive, you need to work within its existing parameters. Otherwise you are taking short cuts and that might lead to more suffering. I simply do not think your method of "teaching" is correct, or constructive enough.

Way too many assumptions taken as is with you. You make claims and assertions that haven't been proven logically, or evidenced by known phenomena. You believe too much...

Reality is beyond philosophy and metaphysics.

Reality is relative. And not beyond concepts.

It is not a matter of opinion.

Every single mental fabrication you construct is always a matter of opinion. You cannot know directly.

Those are just possible pathways toward Reality, but there is a jumping off point.

Everything is impermanent. Remember it. Even your eventual... "reward" will be. For you to cling onto the idea of permanence is bound to end up with more suffering.

This was the lesson of the Raft Sutra, in which the Buddha asked his monks whether they should leave the raft behind after they reached the other shore, the raft being a metaphor for the teaching.

The raft is a metaphor for concepts actually. For you to abandon the "raft," you have to have a raft in the first place. You are using concepts to come to an eventual conclusion. It's necessary. But in the end, the raft(concepts) must be abandoned.

But again, everything is impermanent. Your abandoning of the raft therefore is as well. You might still actually need it later.

The parable is used as an example of "right effort." A balanced approach. Neither over-exert, or under-exert. Exert only as much as is necessary.

And from what i gather, you seem to think that you've used enough effort, and no longer need to; That you are done, ready to give your full knowledge to others. I don't see this as true... Sorry.

Again, everything is impermanent.

/E: I don't think right effort ever ceases. You don't get to "stop" working towards the common good and imagine yourself to be on a pedestal. The work is never complete. It's impermanent. You are now under-exerting and working on belief and short cuts, and have stopped looking for more answers. You hold the view that you are done. But everything is impermanent. A human mind even more so.

I feel that you are clinging to permanence, and permanent ideas. You assert too much. You make absolute statements. That's folly.

 

[shawn001]

Were you to attempt to photosynthesize your own food, an action, would any intelligence be necessary on your part? Even if you could do it automatically as a blade of grass can do, you would still have an initial setup of all parameters and requirements. IOW, you would have to program it, which requires intelligence.

I will say it again, and if you don't get it, that is unfortunate: the action and the intelligence are one and the same. Can you SEE that, or not? The question you should be looking at is not whether the action is intelligent or not, but whether the notion that there exists an agent of action is the case.

You notice that I use the word 'That' with a capital T, indicating that it is The Absolute.

If we could pull all our energy straight from the sun, like photosynthesis, it would have been a better design if any designer was involved at all.

"program it, which requires intelligence."

Explain to me if you would the physical process of "intelligence" behind the evolution of photosynthesis?

 

[shawn001]

We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it. We now know that what we call 'particles' are actually standing waves appearing as particles, as in 'virtual', being created via fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. IOW, we are ENERGY in ACTION. Everything going on in our bodies is involved in some kind of ACTION, just as everything going on in The Universe is ACTION. The Universe is not composed of things. If you had studied your Buddhism and Zen, you would have come across a little teaching called 'Sunyata', which says that all phenomena is empty of self-nature, because what we call 'things' are all interconnected with everything else, and co-arises with everything else. This the the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination. There are no such 'things' in reality. What you really are is conscious, intelligent energy manifested in a seemingly material body acting out a drama on this Earthly plane.

By intelligence I do not mean cleverness or being 'smart' as you think. It is far more compelling than that. Material reality is intelligence manifesting itself as material reality. You are the intelligence that is The Universe manifesting itself as 'Carlita', who is pretending she is not the Intelligence called 'Universe', in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

"We are NOT made of atoms as once thought; we are not 'made' at all. That is the old materialist paradigm, and you are still attached to it."

Were are made of atoms and elements and those elements were formed in stars. That has not changed at all. Those atoms can be broken down further into subatomic particles. If we enter the QM world it gets stranger than anything we can imagine.

"The Universe is not composed of things."

Yes, it is although it's all connected!

You also stated in one of your thread the universe is all there is, that may or may not be the case, but for know, it is the case.

Just another quick observation. Consciousness comes from our brains and because we are all different are perceptions of life can be different.

Within you and without you The Beatles
"Try to realise it's all within yourself
No one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small
And life flows on within you and without you"

 

[shawn001]

FYI
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain
Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain

Although the last study was only one person it's still interesting.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

True, it IS just life, but it is not just life, if you get my gist, which I don't think you do. Maybe you need more time to grow spiritually. Here is how Zen sees it:

I can't conversate in this manner. We all believe in different things, grow different spiritually, and have different perspectives of each other's beliefs. Your concepts of truth in Buddhist language is very particular. I know many of Buddhist and they pretty much have common sense ways of describing life. It's usually the New Agers that makes what is not complex, complex.

"Before I became enlightened, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees; once I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees"

Sounds quite simple, but in reality is very​

Simple IS profound. That is my point. You're making this more than what it is. When you're enlightened, things become clear. They don't become complicated but simplistic. The Buddha was enlightened to this and that is how he knew what suffering is (the nature of life in his view), the cause, that there is an end, and how. His language can be confusing but the concepts behind his repetitions and analogies are not.

But I leave it there. It's best to understand the simplicity of life by meditation and sharpening your awareness to the nature of life. When you shed the labels (Zen Buddhism) and language, you see things clearly. You understand things in a sharp manner. Your view is more crisp and direct.

The Buddha's discourses were long and they became shorter and more to the point as he taught. Then he spoke the Lotus Sutra that wrapped up all his teachings, and even though the language was complex, you really get a gist of how his disciples interpret his teachings; since it was his disciples that wrote The Buddha's words, not The Buddha himself.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think you are qualified to do that though. At least not yet. You are still mistaking first steps as the end of the journey. I think you've only recently learned to abandon concepts, and think that's all there is to it.

Incorrect.

You live within a conceptualized society. In order for you to function as a CONSTRUCTIVE part of said society, rather than destructive, you need to work within its existing parameters. Otherwise you are taking short cuts and that might lead to more suffering. I simply do not think your method of "teaching" is correct, or constructive enough.

Way too many assumptions taken as is with you. You make claims and assertions that haven't been proven logically, or evidenced by known phenomena. You believe too much...



Reality is relative. And not beyond concepts.



Every single mental fabrication you construct is always a matter of opinion. You cannot know directly.



Everything is impermanent. Remember it. Even your eventual... "reward" will be. For you to cling onto the idea of permanence is bound to end up with more suffering.



The raft is a metaphor for concepts actually. For you to abandon the "raft," you have to have a raft in the first place. You are using concepts to come to an eventual conclusion. It's necessary. But in the end, the raft(concepts) must be abandoned.

But again, everything is impermanent. Your abandoning of the raft therefore is as well. You might still actually need it later.

The parable is used as an example of "right effort." A balanced approach. Neither over-exert, or under-exert. Exert only as much as is necessary.

And from what i gather, you seem to think that you've used enough effort, and no longer need to; That you are done, ready to give your full knowledge to others. I don't see this as true... Sorry.

Again, everything is impermanent.

/E: I don't think right effort ever ceases. You don't get to "stop" working towards the common good and imagine yourself to be on a pedestal. The work is never complete. It's impermanent. You are now under-exerting and working on belief and short cuts, and have stopped looking for more answers. You hold the view that you are done. But everything is impermanent. A human mind even more so.

I feel that you are clinging to permanence, and permanent ideas. You assert too much. You make absolute statements. That's folly.

My goodness! I was not attempting to 'teach' any doctrine or concept about Reality. I was merely pointing to the moon, but instead of looking at the moon, you decide to attack the pointing finger. Pointing to the moon is non-conceptual, but because YOU still cling to the conceptual mind, you have overlaid the notion that I am pushing concept. If that is what I am doing, kindly define the concept or doctrine you imagine me to be pushing as a teaching. To shift the mind from thinking how things are to seeing things as they are is what I am pointing to. I wonder if you even understand this difference.

You are incorrect about permanence/impermanence. While the Buddha noticed this world to be filled with effervescence, he did not stop there. What he realized was the permanence of the background to existence, against which all impermanence occurs. But the focus of his teaching to man was not about the background, but about the foreground of suffering, and how to resolve it.

Yes, we live in a world of concepts. The ordinary man thinks this to be reality, while the enlightened see the true Reality behind the conceptualized world. However, the enlightened must still live in this world, but he does so with the understanding of its true nature. Yes it is relative reality, because it is based upon perception, but it is not Ultimate Reality.

You are incorrect about the raft sutra. The Buddha said:

"In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma [dharma] compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

READ: The Raft and the Other Shore: Exploring the Buddha's Raft Parable

The sutra is about the Dharma and clinging to the Dharma, not about concepts or even right effort, and no, one does not save it for later.

Whether I have used enough effort or not is not the point; the point is whether what I am saying is true or not. If what I have stated is untrue, then point it out and provide a meaningful argument. All you are doing is to provide your opinion, having leapt to conclusions.

Where you are mistaken, my friend, is to see this impermanent world as true reality. Your comments tell me you still have not pierced through it's facade. I don't hold the view that 'I am done'; Reality is done. I am merely pointing it out, without a concept about what it is. Your attention is still caught by the impermanence of this world. But if you stop to reflect a moment, you will see clearly that, for you to even know of impermanence, you are actually speaking from a state of consciousness that is that of permanence, and no, I do not mean your individual consciousness called 'I'; I mean Universal Consciousness, which is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned. To know what impermanence is, one must simultaneously see it from a state of permanence.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, within all of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"
Shunryu Suzuki