My philosophical journey, methods and conclusions

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

My philosophical journey, methods and conclusions

Post by Jason »

Shardrol wrote: Jason, I find your way of thinking quite interesting. Would you mind elaborating on your philosophical methods & what conclusions you have reached? Perhaps in another thread.


I thought that since I was going to explain my methods and conclusions I would also give an overview of my philosophical journey that led to them. The story that I tell below is rather simplified and idealized version of events and not perfectly accurate, I have teased out what I see as the areas that ended up being the most important to me, the actual path I took that led to my current understanding was less focused and linear than what I describe. Also my memory of all the events and the order isn't exactly crystal clear, so with that in mind...

I began to get deeply immersed in serious philosophy around about a decade ago now. When I say serious philosophy I mean philosophy that is concerned with the most fundamental aspects of existence and reality. Before that I had always been very driven to find truth and understanding but it was focused in other areas, usually social, cultural, moral and psychological. It seems that several factors lead me towards philosophy and a search for truth, firstly, as a kid I very scientifically oriented, and as I got older I became increasingly aware of the limitations inherent in science. I think as I found more problems with science I started to look for something that could take truth and understanding further. I had also been experiencing suffering due to various problems I saw within myself, my life and the world and I was hoping that ultimate truth might be a cure for at least some of these problems. Also around the same time I had been experimenting with various substances that allowed me to eperience some very unusual and interesting states of consciousness which further led me towards serious philosophy and truth.

I don't remember ever having a single pivotal moment where I decided then and there that I was going to begin searching for truth, I think it started out slowly and gained momentum, and since I had a disposition that sought out understanding and truth it wasn't anything particularly unusual for me, just a deeper expression of what I had always done. At the start of the journey I only had vague ideas about truth and enlightenment, but I didn't have a proper method, path or even goal, so for a while I investigated various techniques and ideas and methods. Eventually the goal of my philosophy became clear to me: I wanted to find what was ultimately real and true.

I also decided that if I was to find this illusive ultimate truth and ultimate reality, what I found would have to be absolutely certain, with no ability to doubt it whatsoever. If what I found could be doubted in any way, if there was even a skerrick of uncertainty in it, then the thing I had found would always have the potential of being incorrect. But I wanted a final answer, the undoubtable ultimate truth and reality, so uncertainty wouldn't do. So from that point on I decided that absolute certainty was a necessary characeristic of ultimate truth and reality, and now my search for ultimate truth and reality became equally a search for absolute certainty.

With my focus on finding absolute certainty taking such a prime position in my search, my method and path became more obvious to me: I had to eliminate all uncertainty, and by doing so I would hopefully eventually be left with only certainty. My philosophical method now largely consisted of investigating potential ultimate truths, and seeing if I could uncover any uncertainty or doubt in them. Doubting widely held supposed truth was already familiar territory for me, but now I took this doubting to its extremes. One after another I examined possible ultimate truths, found uncertainty and doubt in them, discarded them, and moved onto the next. It seemed like I could doubt or find uncertainty in just about everything: science, billiard-ball cause and effect, consciousness other than my own, external-from-my-consciousness reality, and on it went, it was getting to the stage where I was left with very little that had not fallen to doubt and uncertainty.

Eventually I struck upon some certainy: what I perceived directly through my senses at any moment was beyond doubt. When I saw the colour green: I definety saw the colour green, when I heard a dog barking I definitely heard a dog barking, there could be no doubt of this, there was no uncertainty in it at all. Finally I had found some certainty, but this was limited in scope, so holding on to this fragment of certainty I continued with my search and my systematic doubting method.

It might sound like my method and journey were easy and abstract the way I am retelling it here, but this stage of the journey lasted for several years, it was very real and personal for me, and could be difficult and painful. The uncertainties I found were not always kept at a distance, they frightened me to death at times. To give one example: when I considered that the world might be a dream, hallucination or other type of illusion this seriously scared me, really paralysing fear. I felt like my world may crumble at any minute, my sanity collapse, I felt horrible pressure in my head and other psychosomatic sensations caused by the great fear and stress that some of my doubting had caused. I used to have recurring nightmares in which my senses were scrambled horrificially upon finding enlightenment.

Somewhere along the line my doubting-method turned back onto itself. I started thinking "I can doubt my method of doubting itself. What makes my method of doubting valid?" I began to wonder why maybe it wasn't just as valid to not doubt, but to instead just simply accept things as certain and inherently justified - the opposite of what I had been doing. Or perhaps I could try to justify my doubting method, but then I would have to justify that justification and then justify that justification and so on into infinite regress. Likewise I could doubt any further justification I made, or justify any doubt, or doubt any doubt, and on and on and on and on into infinite regress.

It seemed like I was at a dead end, I couldn't see how I could find a fundamental base from which to work, there was always a possible further level of justification, or a further level of doubt - even being in this current predicament was the result of a series of previous justifications and doubts. It was self-referencing infinite regress hell. I'm not sure what preceded it exactly, maybe I wore myself out from the endless doubt-justification-doubt-justication cycle of thoughts I was stuck in, but eventually I realized that I simply did what I did. I couldn't escape it: if I doubted I doubted, if I didn't doubt I didn't doubt, and that was that.

Then I had another realization about certainty: that which appears directly to me is certain.

It was an expanded version of the earlier realization that my sense perceptions were certain, but this time it also extended to my thoughts and my feelings and everything else that appeared directly to my consciousness. When I experienced a thought: it was certain I was experiencing a thought. When I experienced a feeling: it was certain I was experiencing a feeling. Now I realized that all direct appearances: thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions, were beyond doubt. It was absolutely certain that I was experiencing these appearances to my consciousness as I experienced them.

But it went further than that. Earlier I had decided that any reality beyond my direct experience was uncertain(some of my earlier doubting had come to this conclusion), and now I saw that that in actual fact my personal consciousness and direct experiences made up nothing less than the totality of reality and existence, and my consciousness and experiences were composed entirely of direct appearances. Taken together, this meant that at the most fundamental and all-encompassing level, the entirety of my existence and reality were direct appearances and certain and beyond doubt.

Finally I had realized fundamental and all-encompassing absolute certainty, and it was so utterly simple and obvious. Absolute certainty was before me at all times everywhere, it was in fact right in front of my eyes so to speak, and had been all along. The only difference was that I now consciously understood and acknowledged it.

As these realizations sunk in my understanding became more refined. Understood fully, in essence I could not doubt what simply is, and I expressed it also with the words "Things are just as they are", "Suchness" or "Isness".

It took a while for these realizations to really integrate into my thought patterns, I had so habitually searched for truth and doubted everything that I had a tendency to keep grasping at and doubting things. When I caught myself doing this I realized that no matter what I grasped at or doubted that this too was simply what is, Suchness: it was inescapable.

So my conclusion: that which is absolutely, ultimately, certainly and all-encompassingly real and true is: just simply and exactly what Is.
Tharan
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Tharan »

Yep, it seems a common path taken to arrive at the understanding that reality is created subjectively, and that we begin to understand reality, as children, through demonstrations of Cause and Effect. It is only later that we get polluted with fears and delusions of our particular culture and temporal frame of reference.

Unfortuantely, these pollutions take place at our most vulnerable moments and are often insurmountable obstacles for some people to overcome. There is a certain level of personal identification with these "truths" and to break through these barriers would be to render some weaker individuals unstable. Often they fight fiercely to protect their stability. It is understandable. But it is also delusional.
Carrotblog
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:16 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Post by Carrotblog »

So my conclusion: that which is absolutely, ultimately, certainly and all-encompassingly real and true is: just simply and exactly what Is.
Hi there,

Perhaps this is an anti-climax, after such a promising start on your journey.

Here are some rabbit reflections:

"When I say serious philosophy I mean philosophy that is concerned with the most fundamental aspects of existence and reality. "

You aren't....are you not....perhaps....is it possible? Are you ..... a "genius"??


What philosophy is disconnected from its core of existence - the love of knowledge in all disciplines? Scholastic philosophy questioned the nature of things [essence]; 2,000 years later, that question materialises in existentialism to question the nature of man's own essence in more a rigorous form
. Later, such truths were located in a context: for example, the social, cultural, political, or psychological context.

Before that I had always been very driven to find truth and understanding but it was focused in other areas, usually social, cultural, moral and psychological.
Various disciplines have access to specific aspects of truth: psychological truth does not have a corollary in other disciplines. Does each discipline not inform a mind to discover more facets of his own version of the truth?
Also around the same time I had been experimenting with various substances that allowed me to eperience some very unusual and interesting states of consciousness which further led me towards serious philosophy and truth.
Do you mean....you did drugs? If so, have you anything to add, that Aldous Huxley did not, in "The doors of perception to heaven and hell"?

Aldous Huxley was a genius by the way. Unlike other male genius'es, he didn't suffer from syphillis.
I wanted to find what was ultimately real and true.
The advocate of the Cartesian devil (from his seminal "Discourse on Method") would ask: why did you want to find out what was real and true? Why not find out what was meaningful in life? Why not find out what love was? Why not find out the significance of asking such a question, instead of being stuck in the question?
I also decided that if I was to find this illusive ultimate truth and ultimate reality, what I found would have to be absolutely certain, with no ability to doubt it whatsoever. If what I found could be doubted in any way, if there was even a skerrick of uncertainty in it, then the thing I had found would always have the potential of being incorrect. But I wanted a final answer, the undoubtable ultimate truth and reality, so uncertainty wouldn't do. So from that point on I decided that absolute certainty was a necessary characeristic of ultimate truth and reality, and now my search for ultimate truth and reality became equally a search for absolute certainty.
Certainty is a psychological quality; it has nothing to do with truth, and to relate a psychological state of mind [being certain] with belief [this is true] is an example of fallacy. Every rabbit learns this in first year logic classes: 1+1 carrots = plenty. Unless you are talking about validity, which is a philosophical construct, one in which there is absolute validity, or perhaps, probabilistic validity?

The search for absolute certainty is not a difficult one: this has been proven time and again by countless fundamentalists who are 100% certain of their beliefs, willing to lay down their lives (literally) for this certainty. It may be a hard question, although one which needs to be asked: "Are you?"
It seemed like I could doubt or find uncertainty in just about everything: science, billiard-ball cause and effect, consciousness other than my own, external-from-my-consciousness reality, and on it went, it was getting to the stage where I was left with very little that had not fallen to doubt and uncertainty.
It seemed? Everything hinges on..."It seemed?" I hold my carrot with abaited breathe for the conclusion......:

When I experienced a thought: it was certain I was experiencing a thought. When I experienced a feeling: it was certain I was experiencing a feeling. Now I realized that all direct appearances: thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions, were beyond doubt. It was absolutely certain that I was experiencing these appearances to my consciousness as I experienced them.


A non-philosophical approach may be to counter: where you dreaming? How would you know if you weren't? Perhaps there is an answer, however you have not offered one for this argument yet....
Earlier I had decided that any reality beyond my direct experience was uncertain(some of my earlier doubting had come to this conclusion), and now I saw that that in actual fact my personal consciousness and direct experiences made up nothing less than the totality of reality and existence, and my consciousness and experiences were composed entirely of direct appearances. Taken together, this meant that at the most fundamental and all-encompassing level, the entirety of my existence and reality were direct appearances and certain and beyond doubt.
And what of the experiences, you were not aware of? That is to say, the experiences which you take for granted, like the rest of us?
Finally I had realized fundamental and all-encompassing absolute certainty, and it was so utterly simple and obvious. Absolute certainty was before me at all times everywhere, it was in fact right in front of my eyes so to speak, and had been all along. The only difference was that I now consciously understood and acknowledged it.
I may not be the only bunny to notice that in order to reach this step, you have imputed "a leap of faith" from the method, to the conclusions. This leap of faith, in itself, is not an absolute leap of faith, but one that is contingent. It seems your method shares some debt to contemporary influences (Descartes and his modern influence being one), however risks falling into solipsistic all or nothing thinking.

Certainty defends man from anxiety; absolute certainty is a greater defence yet. Both are features of the closed mind, with a closed sense-data field. There is no problem with this, however on a public forum, such faith in 'The absolute" is not only idealistic, in terms of being an 'idea", but also completely untangible, unless the richness of the mind closes down possibilities: by narrowing down truth, it grasps falsehood and proclaims falsehood as the truth.

Don't know if that helps at all :)

Lots of love,

Miffy

xoxoxoxo

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

For God's sake, I came up here for a breath of fresh enlightened air.

May as well have stayed down under in the noxious fumes.

No difference at all.

XOXXXOOOO and so forth.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I have a dog named Miffy. Another dog named Cato.

Along about the third or fourth -- could be fifth or sixth -- step to enlightenment is getting over yourself, Jason.

Once you complete contemplating your navel, the rest kind of falls in line.

Could be the seventh or eighth step. I forget.

XXOOXXXXOO

Faizi
suergaz

Post by suergaz »

Do you mean....you did drugs? If so, have you anything to add, that Aldous Huxley did not, in "The doors of perception to heaven and hell"?

Aldous Huxley was a genius by the way. Unlike other male genius'es, he didn't suffer from syphillis.
Nietzsche was greater than Huxley. Huxley was Agnostic.
Did Nietzsche have syphillis? Did he ever write of it?
The advocate of the Cartesian devil (from his seminal "Discourse on Method") would ask: why did you want to find out what was real and true? Why not find out what was meaningful in life? Why not find out what love was? Why not find out the significance of asking such a question, instead of being stuck in the question?
:D

Certainty is a psychological quality; it has nothing to do with truth, and to relate a psychological state of mind [being certain] with belief [this is true] is an example of fallacy. Every rabbit learns this in first year logic classes: 1+1 carrots = plenty. Unless you are talking about validity, which is a philosophical construct, one in which there is absolute validity, or perhaps, probabilistic validity?
Just plain old validity.

:D

Love, Zag.re:us
suergaz

Post by suergaz »

For God's sake, I came up here for a breath of fresh enlightened air.

May as well have stayed down under in the noxious fumes.

No difference at all.

XOXXXOOOO and so forth.

Faizi

God gets people in the end.

:D
R. Steven Coyle
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Badly Drawn Boy

Post by R. Steven Coyle »

Today the Tao said:

"When the doors of perception are cleansed, everything appears as it truly is, infinite."

No joke.

So, thanks, Carrot.

You remind me a lot of a girl I used to call bunny.

No joke.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Thank you for the explanation, Jason. I found it very interesting, as I had expected I would. This realization of 'suchness' or 'as it is' or 'instantaneous ordinariness' is what is spoken of in Dzogchen, the [Buddhist] vehicle of self-liberation. Your process was different but your conclusion is similar.

I am now wondering how your realization has affected you. Is it sufficient to have found this truth for yourself? Do you feel drawn to communicate it to others? Has it changed the way you behave in any way? Are you satisfied that this is the end of your journey of seeking truth?

What stands in the way of your experiencing the awesomeness of nature (& everything), that you described in another post, at all times? Does your realization ebb & flow in its significance?

I hope you don't mind all these questions. I remember you from back when you were saying (on the Genius list) that nothing existed outside of your mind. It is interesting to see where this has led you.
.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

If God can get people, I reckon we need God about now. Can God get demons, too?

Houston, we've got a problem.

Faizi
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Jason wrote:
So my conclusion: that which is absolutely, ultimately, certainly and all-encompassingly real and true is: just simply and exactly what Is.
How do you see this as being any different than most people's experience of the world? My point being that most people live in ignorance of the Truth exactly because they never examine anything about their experiences or what occurs to their minds.

Instead they just accept that their emotionally driven lives are 'normal'. They say things like, "Life is what it is", "You just have to accept what comes your way", and "Don't fight it, go with the flow". Aren't you joining in with your, "Just simply and exactly what it is"?
-
Sue
suergaz

Post by suergaz »

By end I meant rump Marsha. By God I mean nothing at all.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Carrotblog,
J: I wanted to find what was ultimately real and true.

C: The advocate of the Cartesian devil (from his seminal "Discourse on Method") would ask: why did you want to find out what was real and true? Why not find out what was meaningful in life? Why not find out what love was? Why not find out the significance of asking such a question, instead of being stuck in the question?
Sure, and then I could question the questions you pose, and so on into a loop of asking questions about previous questions, and you'd still be "stuck" in some question the moment you stopped that and followed a question through to its conclusions. Why even the need to ask questions of my goal? Read a bit further down in my post and you'll see that I did get to the stage of question upon question, doubt upon doubt, justification upon justification.

At the end of the day I can only follow the motivations, reasons and justifications for my choice of search back so far, then I reach a point where I simply have to say "That's just what happened, I don't know why."
J: I also decided that if I was to find this illusive ultimate truth and ultimate reality, what I found would have to be absolutely certain, with no ability to doubt it whatsoever. If what I found could be doubted in any way, if there was even a skerrick of uncertainty in it, then the thing I had found would always have the potential of being incorrect. But I wanted a final answer, the undoubtable ultimate truth and reality, so uncertainty wouldn't do. So from that point on I decided that absolute certainty was a necessary characeristic of ultimate truth and reality, and now my search for ultimate truth and reality became equally a search for absolute certainty.

C: Certainty is a psychological quality; it has nothing to do with truth,
Are you certain that certainty is a psychological quality and has nothing to do with truth? And are you saying that truth in general has nothing to do with a psychological quality?
C: and to relate a psychological state of mind [being certain] with belief [this is true] is an example of fallacy.
Are you saying that belief is not a "psychological state of mind"? I think you might be getting caught up in your own definitions, and then thinking I share them and thus seeing problems that don't exist.
C: Every rabbit learns this in first year logic classes: 1+1 carrots = plenty. Unless you are talking about validity, which is a philosophical construct, one in which there is absolute validity, or perhaps, probabilistic validity?


You seem to be trying to read what I wrote with academic philosophy definitions in mind, but I'm writing in plain english, I mean "certainty" just as it is commonly defined.
C: The search for absolute certainty is not a difficult one: this has been proven time and again by countless fundamentalists who are 100% certain of their beliefs, willing to lay down their lives (literally) for this certainty.


Not everyone uses the same methods, or measures of certainty.
C: It may be a hard question, although one which needs to be asked: "Are you?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you mean? Am I a fundamentalist? Not the type that blows stuff up(much).
J: It seemed like I could doubt or find uncertainty in just about everything: science, billiard-ball cause and effect, consciousness other than my own, external-from-my-consciousness reality, and on it went, it was getting to the stage where I was left with very little that had not fallen to doubt and uncertainty.

C: It seemed? Everything hinges on..."It seemed?" I hold my carrot with abaited breathe for the conclusion......:
Hello! Carrot breath! That was not meant to be taken philosophically literally, I was simply explaining my feeling of suprise after I found I could doubt so many things.
J: When I experienced a thought: it was certain I was experiencing a thought. When I experienced a feeling: it was certain I was experiencing a feeling. Now I realized that all direct appearances: thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions, were beyond doubt. It was absolutely certain that I was experiencing these appearances to my consciousness as I experienced them.

C: A non-philosophical approach may be to counter: where you dreaming? How would you know if you weren't? Perhaps there is an answer, however you have not offered one for this argument yet....
You think posing that something might be a dream is a non-philosophical approach? Why isn't it a philosophical approach? It's a quintessential philosophical approach as far as i am concerned.

To answer your question: it doesn't matter if I am dreaming or awake, in either state the bare fact that thoughts, feelings and perceptions appear to my consciousness is the same.
J: Earlier I had decided that any reality beyond my direct experience was uncertain(some of my earlier doubting had come to this conclusion), and now I saw that that in actual fact my personal consciousness and direct experiences made up nothing less than the totality of reality and existence, and my consciousness and experiences were composed entirely of direct appearances. Taken together, this meant that at the most fundamental and all-encompassing level, the entirety of my existence and reality were direct appearances and certain and beyond doubt.

C: And what of the experiences, you were not aware of? That is to say, the experiences which you take for granted, like the rest of us?


What experiences are you not aware of? Give me some examples.
J: Finally I had realized fundamental and all-encompassing absolute certainty, and it was so utterly simple and obvious. Absolute certainty was before me at all times everywhere, it was in fact right in front of my eyes so to speak, and had been all along. The only difference was that I now consciously understood and acknowledged it.

C: I may not be the only bunny to notice that in order to reach this step, you have imputed "a leap of faith" from the method, to the conclusions.
What is the leap of faith you see?
C: Certainty defends man from anxiety; absolute certainty is a greater defence yet. Both are features of the closed mind, with a closed sense-data field.
Are you certain of what you wrote above? It looks to me like you might be teetering on the edge of contradiction, post-"nothing is certain"-modernism style.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Shardrol wrote:Thank you for the explanation, Jason. I found it very interesting, as I had expected I would. This realization of 'suchness' or 'as it is' or 'instantaneous ordinariness' is what is spoken of in Dzogchen, the [Buddhist] vehicle of self-liberation. Your process was different but your conclusion is similar.
I find similarities with some Zen, but then you could interpret anything in some of that stuff, and I'm not very well versed in it.

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are." - Zen proverb

"Everything you do is Zen" - Bodhidharma

"If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?" - Dogen Zenji

(These guys would probably wack me with their Zen staffs if we met and talked. Apologies for re-interpreting your work guys.)
Shardrol wrote:I am now wondering how your realization has affected you. Is it sufficient to have found this truth for yourself? Do you feel drawn to communicate it to others?
I feel drawn to communicate it to others who are on the same journey I was. The reason for that is empathy and compassion: I have a desire to help people find the final understanding, and overcome the struggle and suffering of the search. My understanding didn't bring an end to all suffering, desire, ego or self though.

There is also an ego and pride component in having "attained" the understanding, but on the other hand I have felt embarassed about how utterly simplistic and intellectually unstimulating it is.
Shardrol wrote:Has it changed the way you behave in any way?
It has lessened my obsessive habit of searching for the ultimate reality and truth. But I still search sometimes for a few seconds before realizing my understanding over again "This is it fool. Right here, right now, everything, it's inescapable." So I am still integrating my understanding into the depths of my mind and thus overcoming old habits. Other than that, not all that much. It has focused me on other methods of finding great happiness/fulfillment, as this understanding does not provide those things, and I was hoping for them at the beginning of my search. The new methods for chasing fullfilment are not what I would call philosophy.
Shardrol wrote:Are you satisfied that this is the end of your journey of seeking truth?
What is, is what is. Where can you go from there? Nowhere and anywhere!? I think there might be some consequences of my understanding that I haven't fully grasped. But then just as I have written that, I have once again gone back to the "This is it fool. Right here, right now, everything, it's inescapable." :)

My consciousness is constantly changing, maybe I'll forget my understanding when I get alzheimers in my senior years? Who knows. But I think "If you do not understand: things are just as they are." covers that too.
Shardrol wrote:What stands in the way of your experiencing the awesomeness of nature (& everything), that you described in another post, at all times? Does your realization ebb & flow in its significance?
From the perspective of my understanding, Suchness, there is no significance in those experiences I described about nature. Experiencing awesomeness of nature - Suchnes. Experiencing normal boring everyday reality - Suchness. It's all Suchness. Suchness being Everything, you'd expect that wouldn't you?
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Jason wrote:So my conclusion: that which is absolutely, ultimately, certainly and all-encompassingly real and true is: just simply and exactly what Is.
sue hindmarsh wrote:How do you see this as being any different than most people's experience of the world? My point being that most people live in ignorance of the Truth exactly because they never examine anything about their experiences or what occurs to their minds.
One primary difference is that I am conscious of the understanding that I have described and most people are not. I don't believe that the average person thinks that every instant of their life is ultimate reality. Most of the people I've spoken to are more likely to say things like "No one will ever find the ultimate answer."
sue hindmarsh wrote:Instead they just accept that their emotionally driven lives are 'normal'. They say things like, "Life is what it is", "You just have to accept what comes your way", and "Don't fight it, go with the flow". Aren't you joining in with your, "Just simply and exactly what it is"?
-
Sue
I doubt most people think in a similar way to what I have described in my understanding. You also seem to be saying that my understanding suggests a certain way that a persons life should be, whereas I see it as the way life (and existence) is. I'm not proposing an ultimate motivation like "go with the flow" or "accept what comes your way." The sayings you have quoted also seem to have a sort of defeatist or passive tone to them. "Things are just as they are" does not imply any specific way "things are", it just expresses a conscious understanding that ultimately things are just as they, whatever that may be at any instant.

Do you think "Things are just as they are" doesn't apply to you?
Last edited by Jason on Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Jason wrote:
Shardrol wrote:Thank you for the explanation, Jason. I found it very interesting, as I had expected I would. This realization of 'suchness' or 'as it is' or 'instantaneous ordinariness' is what is spoken of in Dzogchen, the [Buddhist] vehicle of self-liberation. Your process was different but your conclusion is similar.
I find similarities with some Zen, but then you could interpret anything in some of that stuff, and I'm not very well versed in it.
The word dharma is sometimes translated as 'as it is', the idea being that this is how you discover reality, rather than taking on a system of beliefs. 'As it is' doesn't mean it's anything special, either, just exactly as it is.
My understanding didn't bring an end to all suffering, desire, ego or self though.
That's okay - I'm not one of the ones who expected it would.
There is also an ego and pride component in having "attained" the understanding, but on the other hand I have felt embarassed about how utterly simplistic and intellectually unstimulating it is.
Really? Embarrassed? What were you hoping for?
It has focused me on other methods of finding great happiness/fulfillment, as this understanding does not provide those things, and I was hoping for them at the beginning of my search. The new methods for chasing fullfilment are not what I would call philosophy.
What are these methods?
My consciousness is constantly changing, maybe I'll forget my understanding when I get alzheimers in my senior years? Who knows. But I think "If you do not understand: things are just as they are." covers that too.
I'm not sure how you can project your understanding into the future, since it depends on the immediacy of direct experience. Things are as they are because your experience is all that you can know, right? So if your experience is not 'things are as they are', how can this be asserted?
From the perspective of my understanding, Suchness, there is no significance in those experiences I described about nature. Experiencing awesomeness of nature - Suchnes. Experiencing normal boring everyday reality - Suchness. It's all Suchness. Suchness being Everything, you'd expect that wouldn't you?
Yeah in a way, but I think there is a kind of intensity to the experience of realizing that everything is 'as it is'. Probably intensity is the wrong word. Sorry, it's late. Profundity? Something like that. It is not a small thing.

I could swear that when I read your post before it had something at the end about my having said I remembered you from Genius-L when you used to say that nothing existed outside of your own mind but now it's gone from your post & I don't see any indication that you've edited it. Woo-woo, mysterious.
Carrotblog
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:16 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Post by Carrotblog »

Hello Jason!
Carrotblog,

Quote:
J: I wanted to find what was ultimately real and true.

C: The advocate of the Cartesian devil (from his seminal "Discourse on Method") would ask: why did you want to find out what was real and true? Why not find out what was meaningful in life? Why not find out what love was? Why not find out the significance of asking such a question, instead of being stuck in the question?


Sure, and then I could question the questions you pose, and so on into a loop of asking questions about previous questions, and you'd still be "stuck" in some question the moment you stopped that and followed a question through to its conclusions. Why even the need to ask questions of my goal? Read a bit further down in my post and you'll see that I did get to the stage of question upon question, doubt upon doubt, justification upon justification.
By all means question Jason. But you are not an idiot, so let's not pretend you are. By posing a sceptical retreat, you are not stuck in a loop of "asking questions". You are in fact, excluding remote and fanciful thinking, comparing and contrasting one option of truth, version another of possibly non-truth. Congratulations! You are already one step closer to the truth when one more falsehood is eliminated.
When even the need to ask questions of your goal?
Why indeed.....for one's man's goal, is another end in sight. If you have no grasp of your own heuristic, what is the point in thinking at all?

Read a bit further indeed; if only you can see a little further...

Quote:
J: I also decided that if I was to find this illusive ultimate truth and ultimate reality, what I found would have to be absolutely certain, with no ability to doubt it whatsoever. If what I found could be doubted in any way, if there was even a skerrick of uncertainty in it, then the thing I had found would always have the potential of being incorrect. But I wanted a final answer, the undoubtable ultimate truth and reality, so uncertainty wouldn't do. So from that point on I decided that absolute certainty was a necessary characeristic of ultimate truth and reality, and now my search for ultimate truth and reality became equally a search for absolute certainty.

C: Certainty is a psychological quality; it has nothing to do with truth,


Are you certain that certainty is a psychological quality and has nothing to do with truth? And are you saying that truth in general has nothing to do with a psychological quality?

Quote:
C: and to relate a psychological state of mind [being certain] with belief [this is true] is an example of fallacy.


Are you saying that belief is not a "psychological state of mind"? I think you might be getting caught up in your own definitions, and then thinking I share them and thus seeing problems that don't exist.

Quote:
C: Every rabbit learns this in first year logic classes: 1+1 carrots = plenty. Unless you are talking about validity, which is a philosophical construct, one in which there is absolute validity, or perhaps, probabilistic validity?


You seem to be trying to read what I wrote with academic philosophy definitions in mind, but I'm writing in plain english, I mean "certainty" just as it is commonly defined.
What rabbit would have a hare-brained notion of "Academic" philosophy? Plain English is not always truth; in the confusion of 'certainty' as a state of 'truth', whatever truth you may know will be distorted by your own uncertainty...... thus the concluding uncertainty which your method demonstrates for you....


Quote:
J: It seemed like I could doubt or find uncertainty in just about everything: science, billiard-ball cause and effect, consciousness other than my own, external-from-my-consciousness reality, and on it went, it was getting to the stage where I was left with very little that had not fallen to doubt and uncertainty.

C: It seemed? Everything hinges on..."It seemed?" I hold my carrot with abaited breathe for the conclusion......:


Hello! Carrot breath! That was not meant to be taken philosophically literally, I was simply explaining my feeling of suprise after I found I could doubt so many things.
Well done non-vermin! I too can be surprised by farmer's tackles; barbed wire, and logic-resistant thinking (as well as logical rigidity). All fence in. Thereafter, what is doubt?

You think posing that something might be a dream is a non-philosophical approach? Why isn't it a philosophical approach? It's a quintessential philosophical approach as far as i am concerned.

To answer your question: it doesn't matter if I am dreaming or awake, in either state the bare fact that thoughts, feelings and perceptions appear to my consciousness is the same.

Your answer is unsatisfactory: for your dreams are subjective, and you may be as wet as you so desire. Descartes in the Discourse on Method had explored dream states and considered the possibility of truth. Why? Thoughts, feelings an particularly consciousness in a semi-conscious state, are distinct from the awake state. Why? You are not an island; within the intersubjective field, there is hope for your escape from the solipsistic trap - your consciousness is informed by others. For instance: "don't be such a prick, Jason!"

Did you just dream that, or has someone, outside of your consciousness informed you that you are in danger of being a prick?"

Okay - you win: you dreamed it ;)

Prick! Wake up?!

Did you still dream that there was no difference between being told you were something, and dreaming that you were told?


What experiences are you not aware of? Give me some examples.
Earlier, I was not aware of typing on this computer. Now as I reflect on what I have been doing (aimlessly naturally, on a genius forum like this), I am aware of typing. Experience is not an all or nothing form of awareness. As I type that I am now aware of typing, I am also aware that I am breathing. Was I aware I was breathing earlier? I know I was breathing earlier, otherwise you would not have been able to detect my carrot-breath. Yet, how was it I was not aware of breathing, breathing all the same?

Selective awareness; filtering; foregrounding consciousness; filtering out distraction, focussing one's awareness; attending to a task; concentration. Processes enhance degrees of awareness, rescinding others, conferring priority on others. Back to munching carrots..


Quote:
J: Finally I had realized fundamental and all-encompassing absolute certainty, and it was so utterly simple and obvious. Absolute certainty was before me at all times everywhere, it was in fact right in front of my eyes so to speak, and had been all along. The only difference was that I now consciously understood and acknowledged it.

C: I may not be the only bunny to notice that in order to reach this step, you have imputed "a leap of faith" from the method, to the conclusions.


What is the leap of faith you see?

From your methods to your conclusions. The lack of logic; extrapolation of faith in your method. To the conclusion which Sue Hindmarsh challenges as a non-philosophical attitude.

Quote:
C: Certainty defends man from anxiety; absolute certainty is a greater defence yet. Both are features of the closed mind, with a closed sense-data field.


Are you certain of what you wrote above? It looks to me like you might be teetering on the edge of contradiction, post-"nothing is certain"-modernism style.

Why should I need to be certain? It is valid: clearly, if you doubt everything, you doubt even what you write; therefore nothing you write makes any sense. On the other hand, a system of differentiating what might be true, from what is completely implausible, leads to a concept of validity. What is valid, may be true; you are entitled to believe in what is untrue, and you can certainly be certain of your certainty, being wrong all the time.

Why do you fear contradiction, when all you may grasp are appearances? In doubting everything, contradiction may be your only verisimilitude to grasping the irony in your statement of doubt.


Dig! :)
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Jason wrote:
Jason: So my conclusion: that which is absolutely, ultimately, certainly and all-encompassingly real and true is: just simply and exactly what Is.

Sue: How do you see this as being any different than most people's experience of the world? My point being that most people live in ignorance of the Truth exactly because they never examine anything about their experiences or what occurs to their minds.
One primary difference is that I am conscious of the understanding that I have described and most people are not. I don't think the average person believes that every instant of their life is ultimate reality. Most of the ones I've asked are more likely to say things like "No one will ever find the ultimate answer." *
* Yes, I’ve heard that one many times too. When you point out that they do indeed believe there is an ultimate answer, because they have just concluded what that answer is - they just look at you like stunned mullets.

I questioned your ‘understanding’ after reading of the methods you used to come by it. You describe your use of logical steps to come to your idea, but then, when you began testing it you found the going got very tough, and finally you convinced yourself that you need not go any further. It is in that conclusion where your method becomes ordinary, and therefore casts doubt upon it. This would not be a problem if you weren’t after certainty, but you say you are. An untested idea cannot be described as ‘ultimate’ unless all doubt has been eliminated – something you have yet to apply to your "Things are just as they are" idea.

As you say, what appears to the mind must be “real and true”. But this is not the whole picture. What appears to the mind is just that – an appearance. Knowing that all we have is appearances, informs us of an even deeper truth: that even our ideas about ultimate reality must also be an appearance. As you can see, this knowledge presents us with a radical new challenge.
Sue: Instead they just accept that their emotionally driven lives are 'normal'. They say things like, "Life is what it is", "You just have to accept what comes your way", and "Don't fight it, go with the flow". Aren't you joining in with your, "Just simply and exactly what it is"?
I doubt most people think in a similar way to what I have described in my understanding. You also seem to be saying that my understanding suggests a certain way that a persons life should be, whereas I see it as the way life (and existence) is. I'm not proposing an ultimate motivation like "go with the flow" or "accept what comes your way." The sayings you have quoted also seem to have a sort of defeatist or passive tone to them. "Things are just as they are" does not imply any specific or inherent way "things are", it just expresses a conscious understanding that ultimately things are just as they, whatever that may be at any instant.
Christians think that God exists because it says so in the bible. They don't doubt it, because to do so would cause them suffering. Are you really any different than they are when you have come to your “things are just as they are” because you considered doubting it too stressful?

You wrote in your history that you asked yourself, “What makes my method of doubting valid?". And that you then “began to wonder why maybe it wasn't just as valid to not doubt, but to instead just simply accept things as certain and inherently justified - the opposite of what I had been doing”. This acceptance of what you consider to be the Truth is okay if you value your perception of what is true over Truth itself. Like I wrote above, Christians and most other people hold on to beliefs because they serve the purpose of making life livable.

The philosopher has a totally different agenda, because he values the Truth over his own life. But, really, how could it be any other way! Look at the simple completeness of the truth of cause and effect. Applying it to everything, including you, and your concept of what you considered to be ‘your life’ changes dramatically. Use it further to see that even the concept of cause and effect is caused and once again, as I said above, we are poised to take on a radical new challenge.
Do you think "Things are just as they are" doesn't apply to you?
Yes, I am in full agreement with you that what appears to us in each moment is real. But what you see as an ending, I see as just a beginning.
-
Sue
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Shardrol,
J: My understanding didn't bring an end to all suffering, desire, ego or self though.

S: That's okay - I'm not one of the ones who expected it would.
That's a bit of an unusual response, I wasn't trying to appeal to you with that description of my understanding. How is it okay? Okay in that you agree with it?

Also, aren't you seeking an end to suffering, ego, desire or self with philosophy?
J: There is also an ego and pride component in having "attained" the understanding, but on the other hand I have felt embarassed about how utterly simplistic and intellectually unstimulating it is.

S: Really? Embarrassed? What were you hoping for?
I was hoping to find Ultimate Reality and Truth, which I found, and that's not the problem. It's embarassing, sometimes at least, in terms of sharing my understanding with others, because it is just so simple, so obvious, so lacking in anything special. People want more. I think most people have the assumption and desire that the deepest understanding of reality should be amazing in form and effect, and be non-obvious(which in a funny way does make it non-obvious I suppose). Considering that I spent years and a huge effort, and plenty of suffering, it can be offputting to tell people that Ultimate Reality is "things just as they are" and then get reactions along the lines of "And? So what? That changes nothing."
J: It has focused me on other methods of finding great happiness/fulfillment, as this understanding does not provide those things, and I was hoping for them at the beginning of my search. The new methods for chasing fullfilment are not what I would call philosophy.

S: What are these methods?
I don't really want to go into great detail about those methods here and now, I want to focus on philosophy, I might PM them to you if you really want to know. But amongst other things I want to overcome irrational social, cultural and upbringing effects that interfere with what I see as a more authentic me. There's more, but here's something someone else wrote that I think captures some of it:
"You know what everyone's greatest fear is? It is that all the dreams we have, all the crazy ideas and aspirations, all the impossible romantic longings and utopian visions can come true, that the world can grant our wishes. People spend their lives doing everything in their power to fend off that possibility: they beat themselves up with every kind of insecurity, sabotage their own efforts, undermine love affairs and cry sour grapes before the world even has a chance to defeat them... because no weight could be heavier to bear than the possibility that everything we want is possible. If that is true, then there really are things at stake in this life, things to be truly won or lost. Nothing could be more heartbreaking than to fail when such success is actually possible, so we do everything we can to avoid trying in the first place, to avoid having to try.

For if there is even the slightest possibility that our hearts' desires could be realized, then of course the only thing that makes sense is to throw ourselves entirely into their pursuit and risk that heartbreak. Despair and nihilism seem safer, projecting our hopelessness onto the cosmos as an excuse for not even trying. So we remain, clutching our resignation, as safe as corpses in coffins... but this still cannot ward off that dreadful possibility. Thus in our hopeless flight from the real tragedy of the world, we only heap upon ourselves false tragedy, unnecessary tragedy, as well. "

"Nothing could be more tragic, and more ridiculous, than to live out a whole life in reach of heaven without ever stretching out your arms."
J: My consciousness is constantly changing, maybe I'll forget my understanding when I get alzheimers in my senior years? Who knows. But I think "If you do not understand: things are just as they are." covers that too.

S: I'm not sure how you can project your understanding into the future, since it depends on the immediacy of direct experience. Things are as they are because your experience is all that you can know, right? So if your experience is not 'things are as they are', how can this be asserted?
"Things are just as they are" can include projecting my understanding into the future, I just did it after all. Suchness is all-inclusive, so there are no limits on it.*

I think what I wrote in the essay at the beginning of this thread may have been a bit confusing towards the end of it. I really need more practice explaining my conclusions. The final move to Suchness actually goes beyond direct experience too, in a certain way. Essentially, consciousness(direct experiences) is encompassed within Suchness, but not the other way around. Suchness is the bedrock upon which everything rests, including consciousness. Suchness could be described as the the whole, and consciousness is a part, the whole holds the part, the part doesn't hold the whole. Since I got to a stage where I considered consciousness to be everything it was a relatively easy step from that to Suchness.

So it is even possible to believe in an external reality(and not just in the sense that it is simply a directly experienced thought) and realize that this too is Suchness, because believing in an external reality can be just as as much "how things are" as anything else. In the same way, Suchness also goes beyond certainty, because both certainty and uncertainty are encompassed within Suchness.

But Suchness is not beyond these things in that it is seperate from them. Suchness is expressed perfectly within every thing. It literally is things.

*Suchness itself is not limited, but the understanding of suchness is a limited thing. It's like other understandings - a collection of thoughts residing in the mind. Thus the understanding of Suchness can come and go, but the Suchness itself cannot. This is where my favourite Zen saying makes another showing: "If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."
J: From the perspective of my understanding, Suchness, there is no significance in those experiences I described about nature. Experiencing awesomeness of nature - Suchnes. Experiencing normal boring everyday reality - Suchness. It's all Suchness. Suchness being Everything, you'd expect that wouldn't you?

S: Yeah in a way, but I think there is a kind of intensity to the experience of realizing that everything is 'as it is'. Probably intensity is the wrong word. Sorry, it's late. Profundity? Something like that. It is not a small thing.
The way I see it, attaining an understanding of Suchness doesn't inherently or necessarily lead to any specific effect(unless it does :p) other than attaining an understanding of Suchness. Everything is Suchess, therefore it doesn't matter what happens. But there can be effects that are not Ultimate Truths themselves, for example one effect it had was to stop me searching for Ultimate Reality. But that is only because of the way my mind works - I tend not to keep searching for something that I have found. The fact that I do not generally search for something I have found is not itself Ultimate Truth, it's just your average relative human behaviour. Continuing to search for something even though you have found it, would be just as much Suchness as stopping the search. So in this way I think it can have effects, but they are just relative human reactions.

I think the depth of my realization wavers, and when I have really deeply realized "reality is just as it is" it has been a profound experience for me, "Of course! How could it be any different! How obvious!". It's funny that the very same ideas that sometimes embararass me when I'm not really deeply realizing Suchness e.g. "It's so obvious, it changes nothing!" are EXACTLY the same things that I find very profound when I more deeply realize Isness.

I don't think those altered consciousness experience I described in the other thread are linked to my Suchness realization even in the relative way I am describing here.
S: I could swear that when I read your post before it had something at the end about my having said I remembered you from Genius-L when you used to say that nothing existed outside of your own mind but now it's gone from your post & I don't see any indication that you've edited it. Woo-woo, mysterious.
Actually I did edit it. What I wrote was explaining how "nothing existed outside of your own mind" was trancended in the final understanding of Suchness. I explained the same thing earlier in this post.

You seem so open to simply letting me explain my journey and conclusion without much challenge, how interested are you in my conclusions in a philosophical way as opposed to just a personal "Oh so that's what old Jason from Genius-l has been up to lately" way? What do agree with? What do you disagree with?
Tharan
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Tharan »

In the end, it really is an emotional understanding.

To some, "emotional understanding" is an oxymoron. But all emotions have a purpose. And to understand the root of all desires, is to undestand the root of all emotions.

It is more control than servitude. It is the foundation of any "understanding," and it is always subjective and local.

IT exists in every point.

I describe the Gateway, not the land beyond.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Beingof1 »

Jason,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts very much sir.
I think what I wrote in the essay at the beginning of this thread may have been a bit confusing towards the end of it. I really need more practice explaining my conclusions. The final move to Suchness actually goes beyond direct experience too, in a certain way. Essentially, consciousness(direct experiences) is encompassed within Suchness, but not the other way around. Suchness is the bedrock upon which everything rests, including consciousness. Suchness could be described as the the whole, and consciousness is a part, the whole holds the part, the part doesn't hold the whole. Since I got to a stage where I considered consciousness to be everything it was a relatively easy step from that to Suchness.
Suchness is as suchness does ;)

It is amazing to behold and realizing we do not effect anything, yet we effect everything. We do not do anything, yet we do everything.

Suchness is the allowing of it to take place without projecting our own demands on its state of perpetual grace - yet we ask everything from it.

Such is the conundrum of allowing it to be itself. As you said the initial realization seems to be in the understanding that consciousness encompasses the All - encompasses consciousness. Suchness picks us up and carries us with its own unfinite stream of union with the awareness of experience being swallowed by the Great Tao. It allows us to behold its breathtaking momentum all the while allowing us to participate. It seems to be a partnership. It allows us and we allow it. Only then can we see its true beauty.

Suchness does depend on your experience I would say, as it would have nothing to transcend without you having experience ;). Mutual expansion of the One great Totality.

The infinite loves to play on itself - it keeps expanding and transcending its own suchness. Every moment transcends the previous moment in brand new suchness.

Truly - keep writing, you are helping us all as you help yourself
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Carrotblog, most of what you wrote doesn't have much relevance to my current understanding aka Suchness, instead it relates to my past journey. My conclusion of Suchness was a sort of realization, and it transcended and thus kind of disconnected with the previous journey in a way. So I've answered your points how I might have if I were at the stage in my path that your writing applies to, and also played the devil's advocate.
J: Sure, and then I could question the questions you pose, and so on into a loop of asking questions about previous questions, and you'd still be "stuck" in some question the moment you stopped that and followed a question through to its conclusions. Why even the need to ask questions of my goal? Read a bit further down in my post and you'll see that I did get to the stage of question upon question, doubt upon doubt, justification upon justification.

c: By all means question Jason. But you are not an idiot, so let's not pretend you are. By posing a sceptical retreat, you are not stuck in a loop of "asking questions". You are in fact, excluding remote and fanciful thinking, comparing and contrasting one option of truth, version another of possibly non-truth. Congratulations! You are already one step closer to the truth when one more falsehood is eliminated.
How do you decide when a previously posed question or answer should itself not be questioned? In your previous post you seemed to be opposed to fundamentalism, yet here you think there is a point reached where the questioning can stop, and the answers go unchallenged?
J: You think posing that something might be a dream is a non-philosophical approach? Why isn't it a philosophical approach? It's a quintessential philosophical approach as far as i am concerned.

To answer your question: it doesn't matter if I am dreaming or awake, in either state the bare fact that thoughts, feelings and perceptions appear to my consciousness is the same.

C: Your answer is unsatisfactory: for your dreams are subjective, and you may be as wet as you so desire. Descartes in the Discourse on Method had explored dream states and considered the possibility of truth. Why? Thoughts, feelings an particularly consciousness in a semi-conscious state, are distinct from the awake state. Why? You are not an island; within the intersubjective field, there is hope for your escape from the solipsistic trap - your consciousness is informed by others. For instance: "don't be such a prick, Jason!"

Did you just dream that, or has someone, outside of your consciousness informed you that you are in danger of being a prick?"

Okay - you win: you dreamed it ;)

Prick! Wake up?!

Did you still dream that there was no difference between being told you were something, and dreaming that you were told?


Do I think I'm dreaming now? No I don't. But I'm not absolutely sure of it. I question the philosophic abilities of anyone who thinks they can prove that life is not a dream. What you wrote above is no reason or proof that life is not a dream.
J: What experiences are you not aware of? Give me some examples.

C: Earlier, I was not aware of typing on this computer. Now as I reflect on what I have been doing (aimlessly naturally, on a genius forum like this), I am aware of typing. Experience is not an all or nothing form of awareness. As I type that I am now aware of typing, I am also aware that I am breathing. Was I aware I was breathing earlier? I know I was breathing earlier, otherwise you would not have been able to detect my carrot-breath. Yet, how was it I was not aware of breathing, breathing all the same?

Selective awareness; filtering; foregrounding consciousness; filtering out distraction, focussing one's awareness; attending to a task; concentration. Processes enhance degrees of awareness, rescinding others, conferring priority on others. Back to munching carrots..
The only way you know of these supposed past unaware states is by being aware of them now. "There are things beyond my current awareness" is nought but a thought that appears to current awareness.
J: What is the leap of faith you see?

C: From your methods to your conclusions. The lack of logic; extrapolation of faith in your method. To the conclusion which Sue Hindmarsh challenges as a non-philosophical attitude.
There is no faith in the understanding that "Things are just as they are."
C: Certainty defends man from anxiety; absolute certainty is a greater defence yet. Both are features of the closed mind, with a closed sense-data field.

J: Are you certain of what you wrote above? It looks to me like you might be teetering on the edge of contradiction, post-"nothing is certain"-modernism style.

C: Why should I need to be certain?
Because you want to rise above mediocrity? Because truth without certainty may as well be falsity. We're still banging up against differences in our definitions I think.
C: It is valid: clearly, if you doubt everything, you doubt even what you write; therefore nothing you write makes any sense. On the other hand, a system of differentiating what might be true, from what is completely implausible, leads to a concept of validity. What is valid, may be true; you are entitled to believe in what is untrue, and you can certainly be certain of your certainty, being wrong all the time.
My philosophical goal was not to find what "might be true", it was to find what was definitely true, your system of validity does't seem to offer that. Are you content to work within the confines of a system that only allows you to discover what might be true? Have you found anything that is definitely true?

Is your system of validity itself valid? If so how do you come to that conclusion? Seems like the situation is ripe for infinite regress. Do you even question or doubt your system of validity? If not then perhaps this is your fundamentalism.
C: Why do you fear contradiction, when all you may grasp are appearances?
My conclusion of "suchness" transcends/encompasses contradiction, I would now describe contradiction as valid an expression of ultimate reality as anything else.
C: In doubting everything, contradiction may be your only verisimilitude to grasping the irony in your statement of doubt.
English. Talk it. Or even speak it.
C: Dig! :)
Shouldn't that be "burrow!"?
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

sue hindmarsh wrote:I questioned your ‘understanding’ after reading of the methods you used to come by it. You describe your use of logical steps to come to your idea, but then, when you began testing it you found the going got very tough, and finally you convinced yourself that you need not go any further.
I don't agree that that's what happened. I did use logical steps, I did use reasoning, but the final conclusion was had through a sudden realization that "Things are just as they are." It could be seen as a break from the preceding methods and journey. I didn't have to convince myself of it, what is the need in convincing oneself of what simply is?
S: It is in that conclusion where your method becomes ordinary, and therefore casts doubt upon it. This would not be a problem if you weren’t after certainty, but you say you are. An untested idea cannot be described as ‘ultimate’ unless all doubt has been eliminated – something you have yet to apply to your "Things are just as they are" idea.
What I "found" is so certain that it transcends certainty, it encompasses certainty. "Things are just as they are" aka Suchness, is probably similar to what you would call "the Infinite", it is literally everything. Testing and doubt only make sense when applied to limited things, but testing/untested and doubt/certainty are all contained within Suchness.
S: As you say, what appears to the mind must be “real and true”. But this is not the whole picture. What appears to the mind is just that – an appearance. Knowing that all we have is appearances, informs us of an even deeper truth: that even our ideas about ultimate reality must also be an appearance. As you can see, this knowledge presents us with a radical new challenge.


My understanding went beyond thinking that all things are appearance. "Things are just as they are" doesn't propose that all things have any certain or specific quality or characteristic, such as being an appearance, rather things are nothing other than exactly what they are.
J: I doubt most people think in a similar way to what I have described in my understanding. You also seem to be saying that my understanding suggests a certain way that a persons life should be, whereas I see it as the way life (and existence) is. I'm not proposing an ultimate motivation like "go with the flow" or "accept what comes your way." The sayings you have quoted also seem to have a sort of defeatist or passive tone to them. "Things are just as they are" does not imply any specific or inherent way "things are", it just expresses a conscious understanding that ultimately things are just as they, whatever that may be at any instant.

S: Christians think that God exists because it says so in the bible. They don't doubt it, because to do so would cause them suffering. Are you really any different than they are when you have come to your “things are just as they are” because you considered doubting it too stressful?
I don't think doubting it is too stressful, I think doubting it makes no sense. Doubting would be just as much a part of Suchness as anything else. Why do you even pose the question when you agree with me that things are just as they are?

Also, you're comparing limited things(writings in the bible) with that which is not limited(Suchness).
S: The philosopher has a totally different agenda, because he values the Truth over his own life. But, really, how could it be any other way! Look at the simple completeness of the truth of cause and effect. Applying it to everything, including you, and your concept of what you considered to be ‘your life’ changes dramatically. Use it further to see that even the concept of cause and effect is caused and once again, as I said above, we are poised to take on a radical new challenge.
This radical new challenge doesn't escape Suchness.
J: Do you think "Things are just as they are" doesn't apply to you?

S: Yes, I am in full agreement with you that what appears to us in each moment is real. But what you see as an ending, I see as just a beginning.
-
Sue
Again, just to be clear, "thing are just as they are" doesn't impose the limit that everything is appearance.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Jason wrote:Shardrol,
J: My understanding didn't bring an end to all suffering, desire, ego or self though.

S: That's okay - I'm not one of the ones who expected it would.
That's a bit of an unusual response, I wasn't trying to appeal to you with that description of my understanding. How is it okay? Okay in that you agree with it?
Well I guess I was being a bit flip, because you seemed to believe that what you said was going to be disappointing to me. I didn't ask you about your philosophical process because I was looking to you for answers, I was just interested in how you reached the conclusion you stated.
Also, aren't you seeking an end to suffering, ego, desire or self with philosophy?
What interested me, & continues to interest me, in philosophy is the idea of knowing Reality. No, I was not seeking an end to suffering, ego, desire or self - I just wanted to understand everything. It did not seem obvious to me that knowing Reality would mean an end to suffering, ego, desire or self, but I have learned that suffering, ego, desire & self seem to take on a more ephemeral transparent quality the more I understand.
I was hoping to find Ultimate Reality and Truth, which I found, and that's not the problem. It's embarassing, sometimes at least, in terms of sharing my understanding with others, because it is just so simple, so obvious, so lacking in anything special. People want more.
I don't. I guess that's what I was trying to tell you when I said it was 'okay'.
I think most people have the assumption and desire that the deepest understanding of reality should be amazing in form and effect, and be non-obvious(which in a funny way does make it non-obvious I suppose).
It is amazing, if you ask me.
Considering that I spent years and a huge effort, and plenty of suffering, it can be offputting to tell people that Ultimate Reality is "things just as they are" and then get reactions along the lines of "And? So what? That changes nothing."
I think that if they say that they are not understanding the profundity of things being just as they are.
I think the depth of my realization wavers, and when I have really deeply realized "reality is just as it is" it has been a profound experience for me, "Of course! How could it be any different! How obvious!". It's funny that the very same ideas that sometimes embararass me when I'm not really deeply realizing Suchness e.g. "It's so obvious, it changes nothing!" are EXACTLY the same things that I find very profound when I more deeply realize Isness.
Yes. This is why I said that people who say, dismissively, "it's obvious" are not actually understanding it deeply.
What I wrote was explaining how "nothing existed outside of your own mind" was trancended in the final understanding of Suchness. I explained the same thing earlier in this post.
I didn't mean that I thought you believed that nothing exists outside of your own mind now. I just remembered that when you were on Genius-L you used to talk about that idea & tell us we were all just things in your mind. I remembered it because you were so young & so courageous about asserting this somewhat ridiculous concept so adamantly. I thought you would probably get to something interesting so I was happy to see you here on this forum & find out what you were thinking now.
You seem so open to simply letting me explain my journey and conclusion without much challenge,
Yes. I found what you said about things being as they are very interesting & meaningful to me in terms of what I've realized myself. I am not particularly interested in challenging people's ideas but I am very interested in understanding how they came to know what they know, believe what they believe. This is instructive to me.

I am not interested in arguments anymore, however philosophical they may be. I disagree with too many people about too many things here to find it useful to debate them. I don't want to be some sort of sniper gadfly like Suergaz or Unwise. Even though I don't post much I do read some of the forum with interest, especially you & Scott, who both strike me as extremely honest & nondefensive; & David Quinn, who is an excellent writer.
how interested are you in my conclusions in a philosophical way as opposed to just a personal "Oh so that's what old Jason from Genius-l has been up to lately" way? What do agree with? What do you disagree with?
What would it mean to be interested in your conclusions in a philosophical way? I was interested in your conclusions because they are similar to what I have found myself, so I was interested in whether or not your process was similar (it was not). Thank you for your explanation.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Jason wrote:I think most people have the assumption and desire that the deepest understanding of reality should be amazing in form and effect, and be non-obvious(which in a funny way does make it non-obvious I suppose).
Shardrol wrote:It is amazing, if you ask me.
How or why exactly do you think it is amazing, personally?
Jason wrote:Considering that I spent years and a huge effort, and plenty of suffering, it can be offputting to tell people that Ultimate Reality is "things just as they are" and then get reactions along the lines of "And? So what? That changes nothing."
Shardrol wrote:I think that if they say that they are not understanding the profundity of things being just as they are.
That's quite possible and likely, but I also think that in certain ways the average person is closer to Suchness than the philosopher who has filled his head with complicated abstract ideas. That saying "Before Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. During Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. After Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers." Suchness is like coming full circle, but now having the knowledge that everyday reality is ultimate reality.
Jason wrote:I think the depth of my realization wavers, and when I have really deeply realized "reality is just as it is" it has been a profound experience for me, "Of course! How could it be any different! How obvious!". It's funny that the very same ideas that sometimes embararass me when I'm not really deeply realizing Suchness e.g. "It's so obvious, it changes nothing!" are EXACTLY the same things that I find very profound when I more deeply realize Isness.
Shardrol wrote:Yes. This is why I said that people who say, dismissively, "it's obvious" are not actually understanding it deeply.
I have wondered if it becomes less profound and amazing after you know it for a while. Perhaps seeing it as profound is just a passing phase, an initial reaction which is caused by comparing Suchness to the kind of silliness that there is in searching for that which is everything and everywhere, and also the euphoria of attaining a long sought after goal. Maybe that is also why it seems more profound to the philosopher than the everyday person, because they have not searched and contorted their minds with philosophy.

But that is just outlining a possible relative outcome(less amazement at Suchness) that your average human might have after understanding Suchness for a while. Prolonged profundity is as good an expression of Suchness as anything. In fact, it is a great and enjoyable expression of Suchness, continue your profundity, and I'll try to access some too.
Jason wrote:What I wrote was explaining how "nothing existed outside of your own mind" was trancended in the final understanding of Suchness. I explained the same thing earlier in this post.
Shardrol wrote:I didn't mean that I thought you believed that nothing exists outside of your own mind now. I just remembered that when you were on Genius-L you used to talk about that idea & tell us we were all just things in your mind. I remembered it because you were so young & so courageous about asserting this somewhat ridiculous concept so adamantly. I thought you would probably get to something interesting so I was happy to see you here on this forum & find out what you were thinking now.
I would still generally hold to the idea that only that which appears to my consciousness is certain, but I see it as a relative or conventional truth, not ultimate truth, not the understanding of Suchness. But it is another expression of Suchness. I do however feel in my bones that external material reality is real and concrete 99.9% of the time, only in that 0.1% of the time do I seriously entertain that it might be a dream or hallucination, and it often scares the crap out of me when I do.
Shardrol wrote:I was interested in your conclusions because they are similar to what I have found myself, so I was interested in whether or not your process was similar (it was not). Thank you for your explanation.
No worries. Thank you for asking me, it's done me some good to just lay it out on the table like that. I'm interested to know what your process and conclusions are, if you'd like to explain them.
Locked