I have Realized the Infinite

[Anders Schlander]

OMG...Anders ! i just realized you are so young !!! Man are you mature for your age !!!!!
Much respect to you !!!!

Well, yes, but i couldn't help myself, i was made to be the way i was. But still, im glad im not as deluded as my family is...

I wanted to explain not just for you but for myself(my own mind needs cleaning) and other people. Problem is, i don't think what im saying helps you much right now. But if u can genuinely use some of what i wrote, then great--



If i had a father that was 'around', i'd problably have grown comfortable with a normal life. I doubt you'd have seen me on this forum if that was the case.

He left my life when i was like 10 years old, and got me in some pretty traumatic experiences because of his alcohol. Funnily enough, it made me less comfortable with normal life and helped me go further with myself, but ive also had some very miserable times. I remember many of my dreams being shattered, luckily I had a big brother.

Most people are in their 20's or more here, which i suppose thats a more 'normal' age, to an age where people have seen alot of the conventional life in society and become slightly disturbed?. I take it that people here usually has an unusual story behind them. Ordinary people with ordinary lives, don't usually seem triggered to do anything unexpected?

edit: changing bad sentence structures etc.

[guest_of_logic]

Nick,

Like I said, any indignation is your own projection, mate. "I'm not your mate, pal." "I'm not your pal, friend." "I'm not your friend, buddy." Or we could not play that game.

Seriously, do you have any idea what a rude asshole you are?

No, sorry, I'm too fucking stupid to understand what the hell I'm actually doing. OK, sarcasm aside: yes, Nick, I realise that certain members of this forum might have been offended by my last post. I didn't post it out of malice. I was simply pointing to the elephant in the room. Sometimes people forget that it's there. Newcomers can be especially blind to it.

So yeah, I probably would reconsider if I was aspiring to emotionlessness, but unfortunately for you guys I'm not.

I see. So here are 38 matches for the word "emotion" in your posts. The first one reads:

"It's not that emotions distort clear thinking, it's the fact that any thinking that is not 100% clear (logical) will give rise to emotion."

So you don't want to be 100% clear (logical)? OK then mate (I know, I know... not your mate, not your pal, not your buddy, not your friend, etc).

Funny post Laird. Funny in an odd way.

Just making observations on a community dynamic that I've observed over the years.

What's all this talk of "declaring allegiance"? I'd rather think you let your excitement get the better of you than think you actually believe that.

Call it a reading of the subtext. Surely you can read between the lines too.

Kelly,

Thank you for sharing with me the joys of misunderstanding. Please refer to Alex's response, as he is so skilled a chess master as to be easily capable of predicting the moves in this game; and to Loki's response: "thanks for the warning, I guess". Can you guess what the key word in that phrase is?

I don't care what you do or do not buy into, frankly. :)

OK, well, frankly, that's going to make communication somewhat difficult.

I think you're mixed up. A thing which exists non-relationally would exist inherently.

Indeed. Please forgive my typo.

A thing is that which appears to consciousness

It seems like things are going to get repetitive here, when I copy and paste: "you're buying into a "logic" and set of definitions that I choose not to buy into myself." Let's try to compromise, if you so care. Here's my starting negotiating position: "a thing is that to which a noun refers, except for 'nothing', which has no referent".

Laird: And yet, on the other hand, we know that it does occur: "the Totality" exists non-relationally.

Loki: The totality, in it's entirety, cannot appear to consciousness, it cannot exist as a finite thing.

I would ask what that's got to do with non-relational existence, except that I already know the (contrived) answer: it can't exist if it doesn't appear to consciousness. You do understand why I refer to that as contrived, I hope. If not, then we can negotiate it out. Or not, as you see fit. It's your thread.

Laird: If it's relational, it's not "true".

Loki: There are things we can say about "the relational" that are true, so you are off the mark.

Ah, you took me too literally. Try this rephrasing: "If it exists relationally, it doesn't 'truly' exist".

Larid, are you trying to make a point?

Yes. A point about how much you're buying into other people's definitions and conceptualisations.

*shrug* If you would actually make a logical argument rather than just level accusations, I could make a more substantial reply, but you're not giving me much to work with.

This isn't about "logical argument" - it's about communication in commonly agreed upon terms. You're distorting terms beyond what they're commonly agreed upon. Call it "conventional thinking" if you like, but here's a challenge for you: express your thoughts in "conventional" terms.

However, I looked up infinite in the dictionary, and the 4th definition was "unbounded" anyway, so it turns out that the conventional dictionary offers a definition that I use.

What does "unbounded" have to do with "neither this nor that"?

Thanks for the laugh. Your paragraphs above hints more toward your own hunger for recognition, equality, and sensitivity to your beta status. Having a more secure ego, I really don't care about any of the things you talked about very much at all. I will take what I can from this forum and eventually move on.

I hope that you do. I can only go on what I observe, and what I observe is a buying in to a less than desirable dynamic.

Ok, thanks for the warning, I guess.

Any time.

I've been attracted to eastern philosophy and stoicism long before I came to this forum, probably due to my dabbling in mysticism and ethneogens. And I don't see how the concept of emptiness, non-inherent nature of things is unique to this forum, I've seen it described quite well elsewhere, but I find the people here to be the most level headed when reasoning about such matters.

OK, well, I hope you continue to get value out of it then. *Puts on paternal hat*: Just be aware of the dynamics that I pointed out, and don't get sucked into them.

You're in Kellys mind Alex, but her heart threw you out as it does everyone else. I think she keeps Kevin there though! He has the right poison. ;)

The sweet essence of Solway venom! Indeed, Kelly's heart can't get enough of that cobra's fang!

What strikes me as interesting about Laird's attitude to QSR "metaphysics" is that he only ever displays such attitude with respect to us. Clearly, it's not about our metaphysics at all. If it was, he'd show the same attitude towards someone like Naturyl, who shares such metaphysical views almost precisely.

Nah, Nat's response to "ultimate" metaphysical questions is "mu" or "poop on a stick". You guys are the ones who build the answers up into some kind of intellectual facade, and then (this doesn't really apply to you, Dan, except through sins of omission - you're the least of the offenders: it really applies almost exclusively to David) pronounce your judgements and evaluations as to who on the forum is conforming to that intellectual facade, thus facilitating the environment of "who's more enlightened than whom". That's mostly what - at least in the context of this thread - my "attitude" is reserved for: the intellectual facade and the artificial hierarchy.

[Dan Rowden]

Nah, Nat's response to "ultimate" metaphysical questions is "mu" or "poop on a stick".

Please. Do you have no appreciation at all for "dialectical monism"? Why didn't Nat just write "Mu"?

The acknowledgment and meaning of "mu" is that ultimate reality cannot be expressed, explicitly, in language, due to the inherent duality of language.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Nah, Nat's response to "ultimate" metaphysical questions is "mu" or "poop on a stick".

Dan: Please. Do you have no appreciation at all for "dialectical monism"? Why didn't Nat just write "Mu"?

Dialectical monism isn't an "ultimate" metaphysical position. Nat's "ultimate" position, so far as I understand it, is that rationality can only get you so far, and that after than you just have to accept that there is no further that you can go. Beyond that is only a pointer to ineffability: "mu"; "poop on a stick"; whatever. It's beyond human comprehension.

You guys are the ones who claim to have "ultimate" understanding. Nat doesn't make that claim. His claim, so far as I understand it, is that "ultimate" understanding is impossible, except in the absurd terms of certain Zen aphorisms, which point to that aforementioned ineffability. Yeah, it's a kind of understanding, but not the rational, logical one that you guys promote - more like an understanding that understanding is impossible - a kind of paradox.

And anyway, what does dialectical monism have to do with you guys? You criticised me on the basis that Nat's position was similar to yours, and yet you guys have nothing to do with dialectical monism.

[Robert]

Laird, I don't want to get between you and Dan here, but this is a little strange to me:

Nat's "ultimate" position, so far as I understand it, is that rationality can only get you so far, and that after than you just have to accept that there is no further that you can go.

Accepting there is no further you can go is perfectly rational, so I don't see how there's a problem. I can only see this being a problem if you haven't gone far enough, so to speak. Only your own mind can be the judge of that.

[guest_of_logic]

Laird, I don't want to get between you and Dan here, but this is a little strange to me:

Nat's "ultimate" position, so far as I understand it, is that rationality can only get you so far, and that after than you just have to accept that there is no further that you can go.

Accepting there is no further you can go is perfectly rational, so I don't see how there's a problem. I can only see this being a problem if you haven't gone far enough, so to speak. Only your own mind can be the judge of that.

Robert, I'm only interpreting Nat - you'd have to ask him directly to get the real low-down. I don't feel comfortable trying to interpret him any more than I already have done. If you (or Dan) like, I can let him know about this thread.

[chikoka]

I dont see how emptiness (0) has the same cardinality as something infinite.

If you state that "causes are everywhere and nowhere" then i could use that statement as a "proof by contradiction" (or reducto absurdum) that causes cannot exist , negating this whole excercise.

Maybe i'm missing something...

[Alex T. Jacob]

Kelly wrote: "If Truth refers to what is absolutely true and reliable, i.e. the Infinite, then ........"

Okay. Maybe you have committed an 'enlightenment typo' in which case you do have the right to correct it and to re-establish 'enlightenment of nomenclature'.

A couple of things: Given the world you describe, how ever could there be anything 'absolutely true and reliable'? True and reliable to what? To whom? By your definitions there is nothing (that I can see) that is 'reliable'. It would seem to my struggling mind that by nature what is 'infinite' is infinitely unreliable.

You said: "The self is a construct of consciousness, not something other. The enlightened person's self is consciously related to the Truth, so there is no ego. The unenlightened do not know the Truth, and so their self remains a deluded construct."

There are problems here. I am going to ask that you work with me through this.

Let's start again: there is only the world and universe of matter. It is infinite in two basic senses: forever expanding and unbounded is one, and the other is that there is really no singular object. 'The ebb and flow of the Infinite' is how you described it. All things are really nebulous things. Within this eternal ebb and flow our biological entity arise. Consciousness arises and constructs the self, or in any case they reinforce each other. But, it is really a 'false construct' with no inherant core or even existence. In death, this structure utterly dissolves into the 'field' (or ocean as you say) iwhich is the eternal ebb and flow of matter, atoms, etc. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon as is the self. There is no 'other' substance from which the self or the 'soul' is made.

But, you have pretty clearly identified a thing or an element that must pre-exist epiphenomena, and you call it Truth. However, consciousness is constructed within 'dead matter' (if you will permit me) which is just that: dead, swirling, infinite substance. Consciousness arises and it dissolves, and therefor Truth must dissolve with the dissolving entity.

It seems to me that you have performed a little bit of a Trick. You seem to have placed an impossible or inordinate emphasis on 'Truth' and yet you have deomnstrated that it comes into existence with the false structure of the self. Yet it seems to act as a vessel for a great deal that you perhaps can't explain or don't want to. As you know I am of the theory that 'take away a man's Gods and they have a funny way of worming their way back into the picture'.

Is Truth just understanding material reality? Is the effect of Truth basically a question of 'correct definitions'? A group of axioms? It sounds to me that you are essentially describing the materialist's model of the universe. Or the biologist's. 'Egolessness' would be just resignation to the strict facts---no argument, no struggle.

[jupiviv]

The map is the same as the actual area. We're all reading maps in the territory itself.

You just said in an earlier post that reality is not based on propositions and concepts.

In other words, you are distinguishing propositions and concepts apart from reality. And that's precisely what I did in my first post, I used propositions and concepts (map) to point to Reality (territory).

Reality itself cannot be based on(dependent upon) any concepts, but the concepts are there only because there is reality. And it's also impossible to talk of reality without concepts, because then we would simply be talking about another concept(dividing up Reality.) Does that make it clearer?

In other words, my statement "what appears can't be other than how it appears" can be interpreted wisely and isn't wrong in any absolutist sense, despite your seemingly willful attempts to force it as wrong.

Of course, we can think of appearances in whatever way we want - that's what I was trying to say. I'm trying to point out the major flaw in your understanding - finite thinking. You're thinking of appearances as inherently existing. This is understandable, as you’re just beginning to understand all this. My intention is not to belittle your understanding, but to point out where it’s flawed.

Things that have appeared, or will appear eventually don't have the quality of can't appear. Things that have happened or will happen can appear by definition.

Things that have appeared and may appear are not appearing now, so they are not appearances by definition.

This is why it can be said that things that do not appear cause us, or we cause them. Because time is causality - the past is our causes, and the future our effects.

I'd actually say the opposite. I would say that "timelessness" cannot happen, it cannot be experienced, it cannot appear to consciousness as a sensory appearance, but it can be confirmed through logic. Timelessness is a part of Reality, it makes causality possible, even though it doesn't appear to our senses directly (it literally can't).

So me and you are quite at odds on this issue.

I didn’t say anything about timelessness in that quote, so I don’t know why you’re talking about it. But to address what you said, I think you’re referring to one of David Quinn’s ideas here – that of time existing in contrast to timelessness. Although it’s a vague idea that can be interpreted in many ways, it can have a wise meaning. The present itself can be thought of as “timeless”, as all of time(past and future – cause and effect) is juxtaposed around it.

[Nick]

yes, Nick, I realise that certain members of this forum might have been offended by my last post. I didn't post it out of malice. I was simply pointing to the elephant in the room. Sometimes people forget that it's there. Newcomers can be especially blind to it.

Maybe the reason it's so hard for everyone to see, (yourself excluded of course) is because the elephant is of your own making.

So yeah, I probably would reconsider if I was aspiring to emotionlessness, but unfortunately for you guys I'm not.

I see. So here are 38 matches for the word "emotion" in your posts. The first one reads:

"It's not that emotions distort clear thinking, it's the fact that any thinking that is not 100% clear (logical) will give rise to emotion."

So you don't want to be 100% clear (logical)?

Let me be clear, becoming emotionless has never been a stated goal of mine, and never will be. I place an extremely high value on understanding what is absolutely true, and I am extremely adverse to being ignorant of the things which I value highly. It's pretty simple in that regard. Being that I have gained an understanding of what is absolutely true, I also know the consequences of it and how it can affect one's behavior; namely how and why emotions arise.

So if you want to consider it a shortcoming of mine because I get emotional, I have no problem with that, but we all have a few of those; am I right? I'm sure you know the saying "he who loves in a glass house...". Besides, me getting emotional doesn't make what I say any less true.

[Dan Rowden]

guest_of_logic: Nah, Nat's response to "ultimate" metaphysical questions is "mu" or "poop on a stick".

Dan: Please. Do you have no appreciation at all for "dialectical monism"? Why didn't Nat just write "Mu"?

Dialectical monism isn't an "ultimate" metaphysical position.

Er, yes it is - at least in the sense of that which can be expressed through language.

Nat's "ultimate" position, so far as I understand it, is that rationality can only get you so far, and that after than you just have to accept that there is no further that you can go.

His position, like mine, is that Ultimate Reality is beyond any specific concepts, but that rationality is built upon concepts. However, this fact about reality is known through that very rationality. It doesn't place UR beyond reason, it just means that UR isn't captured in any specific concept. This is exactly what the term "neti neti" attempts to indicate.

Beyond that is only a pointer to ineffability: "mu"; "poop on a stick"; whatever. It's beyond human comprehension.

No it isn't; we couldn't talk about it if it was. It is merely beyond the natural dualism of language and conceptualisation. That does not place it beyond understanding.

You guys are the ones who claim to have "ultimate" understanding. Nat doesn't make that claim.

That's just his false humility. Such a claim is explicit in what he says.

His claim, so far as I understand it, is that "ultimate" understanding is impossible, except in the absurd terms of certain Zen aphorisms, which point to that aforementioned ineffability.

I'm pretty sure you contradicted yourself there.

Yeah, it's a kind of understanding, but not the rational, logical one that you guys promote - more like an understanding that understanding is impossible - a kind of paradox.

New Age waffle.

And anyway, what does dialectical monism have to do with you guys? You criticised me on the basis that Nat's position was similar to yours, and yet you guys have nothing to do with dialectical monism.

We have our own lexicon. DM is Nat's. There aren't multiple ways to correctly understand: form is formlessness; formlessless is form. Our points of philosophical departure have to do with the exact nature of enlightenment and various points of psychology.

[David Quinn]

Hi Loki,

Kudos to you for not only the way you have started this thread, but also for the way you have handled the embarrassingly graceless remarks which have been directed your way. Now that you have openly declared your transition from the status of the "bumbling idiot" (i.e. the average human being whom everyone pats on the back for being harmless) to the "evil villain" (i.e. someone who knows what they are talking about and cannot be swayed by human pleading), expect a lot more graceless insults to come your way.

Anyway, to business:

According to my own evaluation, I have attained a clear understanding of how Reality has an Infinite nature. A month ago I was very confused, but now I am seeing clearly.

Thanks goes out to those forum members who have given me their time and patience since my inception. You know who you are.

This is my take on your latest accomplishment:

I can see that you have made a significant breakthrough, one made possible by a radical shift in perspective (which you are probably still undergoing). This shift in perspective involves a dissolution of the conventional belief in objective existence and an immersion in the understanding that reality is formless. The realization that existence can never be anything more than an appearance, and that all appearances are illusory, leads inevitably to the conclusion that reality has no form. Provided, of course, that one allows the mind's perspective to undergo this radical shift.

As you have acknowledged, this breakthrough isn't a breakthrough into enlightenment proper - your new understanding is still purely intellectual in nature - but it is one which, if you keep pushing it, will create the platform from which you can spring into enlightenment.

In effect, you have graduated from the realm of forms to the realm of the formless. This alone is a very rare accomplishment. Already, you have left most of the human race far behind. You are getting close to the threshold of enlightenment. You should be rightly proud of your achievement.

So what does the next step involve? Well, like all steps to enlightenment, it is a perfectly obvious and natural one to make, and no doubt you have started this process already. But I'll articulate it all the same.

The next step is to deepen and broaden this new understanding as far as it can go. This involves things like: refining the understanding inwardly so that it becomes increasingly more profound; resolving all remaining philosophic questions; integrating it with every experience that you have; examining every movement in your mind to determine when and where it it is still spellbound by the illusion of objective existence, examining everything in your life to determine which activities cause you to affirm the reality of formlessness and which cause you to remain trapped within objective existence; and so on.

The other important thing, which I see you have already begun, is to study all the great spiritual texts, such as the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu's writings, The Diamond Sutra, Huang Po's writings, Hakuin's writings, etc. These texts were specifically written for those who are in your current position. I'm sure you will have noticed by now that you are able to see far more clearly into their inner meaning. These texts will help you flesh out this new understanding and encourage you to push on towards the ultimate prize.

The goal now is to utilize this new understanding to free your mind of all concepts and categories (all of which are rooted in the belief in objective existence), so that it can start experiencing the formlessness of reality more directly. In time, this process will involve another radical shift in perspective, in which things are no longer seen as appearances, but as exactly what they are. It is here that the real benefits of spirituality will start to emerge, in terms of perfect freedom, utter certainty, pure spontaneity, fearlessness, immeasurable peace, etc.

-

[David Quinn]

]That's the game you're going to be playing from here on in, now that you've declared your affiliation in this thread. "None of us will ever be as enlightened as the Mighty QRS, but I'll fight to be recognised as more enlightened than you!!!" And that's the thing: you never will be recognised as an equal with QRS. You will be the perpetual "beta" male, fighting it out with the other "betas" (which include not only men, but also a couple of women) for some scraps of enlightenment-recognition, all the while reinforcing your "beta" status by conforming to the definitions and "logic" handed on down from the alphas.

Thanks for the laugh. Your paragraphs above hints more toward your own hunger for recognition, equality, and sensitivity to your beta status. Having a more secure ego, I really don't care about any of the things you talked about very much at all. I will take what I can from this forum and eventually move on.

Good answer. Does Laird really imagine that Dan, Kevin and I give a cahoot about the whole QRS thing? It was never our creation to begin with, and I for one couldn't care less about it.

One of the many joys of opening up to reality is no longer being weighed down by concerns about how one fits into the scheme of things and other similar kinds of ego nonsense. There are far more interesting things in the world to explore. Let's leave it to the "beta-males" to obsess about ant politics and their place within the social hierarchies.

I consider anyone to be my equal who, through their intelligence and wisdom, no longer cares about whether they are equal or not. In other words, anyone who is a free being with true individuality. The rest are still ants.

-

[David Quinn]

David to Loki:

The realization that existence can never be anything more than an appearance, and that all appearances are illusory, leads inevitably to the conclusion that reality has no form. Provided, of course, that one allows the mind's perspective to undergo this radical shift.

I disagree. I think the natural conclusion one comes to is that reality has endless form. Infinity as opposed to "nothing".

Also, I can't see how it makes any sense to say appearances are illusory.

As an analogy, let's compare reality to water. Water can be shaped and reshaped into endless forms, even though water itself has no form. Indeed, it is precisely because water has no form that it can be shaped into endless forms.

The same is true of reality itself. It is only because reality has no form that it can manifest into countless forms. Without formlessness, there can be no forms.

The "appearances are illusory" bit refers to the mistake of grasping hold one of these forms in the belief that one has discovered the one true form of water. In order to understand the nature of formlessness one has to look beyond all the momentary forms, as it were, and observe the underlying process.

-

[David Quinn]

David: As an analogy, let's compare reality to water. Water can be shaped and reshaped into endless forms, even though water itself has no form. Indeed, it is precisely because water has no form that it can be shaped into endless forms.

Water has form: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _2.svg.png

You're missing the point of the analogy.

Let's leave out analogies. I don't think they'll really help us here.

I apologize if they tax your brain too much.

The same is true of reality itself. It is only because reality has no form that it can manifest into countless forms. Without formlessness, there can be no forms.

Is the vacuum of space the formlessness you speak of, the "nothingness" "emptiness" "void" of existence?

No. Things like "vacuums" and "nothingness" are appearances/forms as well. I refer you back to the water analogy to get an idea of what I mean by formlessness, should you be in the mood for a spot of thinking.

You say existence is never anything 'more' than appearance, how could it then be 'less' than appearance?

It is nothing more and nothing less than appearance.

-

[jupiviv]

It may be said that reality is that which gives birth to both form and formlessness, if we choose to distinguish it like that.

[David Quinn]

Your analogy doesn't work for me, I'm sorry. There's no need to be rude.

So you're saying that you're unable to imagine how the flow of Nature isn't frozen into a particular form?

You say formlessness is required for form, but only form is required for form.

One can infer the endlessness of form as one infers infinity, ie. logically. One cannot infer formlessness from anything at all.

Your assertion that reality is formless is based in nothing that could be considered 'real'.

Loki has explained it well enough, by pointing that nothing can inherently exist. There is more than enough information on this thread for you to put 2 and 2 together and make the necessary connection. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

-

[SANDEEP]

at first define the term infinite.....if infinite means countless by human being but realy has its own dimension in true sense ...then you cannot realize infinite its just the imagination of your mind about the concept of infinity ..as man cant realize infinite as you said it is infinite means un realizable quantity by us....right?.......

now....by comparision of two quantities only u think u have realised infinite nature..if infinite things are present to compare then
infinite - infinite + (1 dot + a whitespace) power infinite is not realizable.......mathematics developed by us has an excuse called infinite...if it cannot define a term or ometinig or quantity....man is logical at the same time an escapist.....

[jupiviv]

It may be said that reality is that which gives birth to both form and formlessness,

Sure, if you don't know what you're saying. Nothing is formless.

Formlessness is a concept, which exists in contrast to the concept of form.

[David Quinn]

dejavu:
Your analogy doesn't work for me, I'm sorry. There's no need to be rude.

David: So you're saying that you're unable to imagine how the flow of Nature isn't frozen into a particular form?

Not at all. What you call "formlessness" is just endless form.

Endless form is one aspect of formlessness, but not the only aspect. The empty nature of all forms is another aspect. The timelessness of formless reality is yet another.

To understand these points, you need to start thinking in terms of what is permanently and absolutely real.

dejavu: A finite thing, distinguished from all else through perception, exists inherently because existence itself is inherent. Its passing does nothing to change its inherency.

I don't know what you mean by "existence itself is inherent". The phrase doesn't seem to have any content. Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "existence" and "inherent".

From my point of view, a thing's temporary nature isn't the only issue of relevance here. Also relevant is that a thing, in the very moment of its existence, has no existence of its own, but is sustained by countless factors beyond it.

A shadow, for example, gains its existence (and form) from things like the sun, the ground, an object standing in the way of the sun, and so on. Without such things, the shadow cannot possibly exist. In other words, the shadow, in the very moment of its appearance, doesn't inherently exist, even though we can distinguish it from other things.

All things are like this, including ourselves.

So Loki is right in saying that all things are empty and infinite.

-

[jupiviv]

It is infinity that is 'contrasted' with form, not "formlessness".

Then why is it called "infinite" instead of "formless"? I wonder if you have the ability to realise how foolish this argument is. To demonstrate how foolish it is, I'll use this argument in a different context, "it is superstition that is contrasted with reason, not false beliefs."

[David Quinn]

Talk about deja vu. You remind me of another fellow, dejavu, who was on here a few years who had exactly the same views on this issue. suergaz, I think his name was. He also found it impossible to fathom what I was talking about, so attached was he to his "existence is inherent" concept.

David: Endless form is one aspect of formlessness, but not the only aspect. The empty nature of all forms is another aspect. The timelessness of formless reality is yet another.

Endless form is not an aspect of "formlessness". How could anything be an aspect of something that essentially 'isn't'?

Formlessness isn't nothingness or non-existence. Your conception of formlessness is very crude and deluded.

How could form be empty of itself?

It isn't empty of itself. It is empty of inherent existence.

There is no such thing as formless reality.

True, formless reality isn't a thing. It is all things, and yet no-thing.

dejavu: A finite thing, distinguished from all else through perception, exists inherently because existence itself is inherent. Its passing does nothing to change its inherency.

David: I don't know what you mean by "existence itself is inherent". The phrase doesn't seem to have any content. Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "existence" and "inherent".

I rather think it is you who need to, but here you go:
Existence = Everything, infinity, the universe.
Inherent = In itself, of itself, ie. the universe.

I agree that the universe is inherent (as there is nothing else apart from it). And this means that I agree with your point that all things share in that kind of inherency. All things are real in that sense. They are direct expressions of reality.

So yes, I'm on the same page as you here. However, what you don't seem to realize is that the points I have been making don't contradict this view. Instead, they point to an entirely different perspective of the universe, one that is very interesting and has enormous ramifications. I wonder if you are open-minded enough to see this other perspective?

From my point of view, a thing's temporary nature isn't the only issue of relevance here. Also relevant is that a thing, in the very moment of its existence, has no existence of its own, but is sustained by countless factors beyond it.

From mine, a thing, irrespective of the countless factors beyond it, nevertheless has its own existence.

Yes, they share in the basic reality of the universe, but nonetheless their existence is as empty as a shadow or a mirage.

Is your mind dialectical enough to be able to hold together and reconcile these differing perspectives?

-

[David Quinn]

[To dejavu] Is your mind dialectical enough to be able to hold together and reconcile these differing perspectives?

Evidently, the answer is no.

-

[chikoka]

Loki:

Where do you get infinity from?

Heres my take on what you say:

1. Duality

A thing is caused by what it is not there fore there should be no things because you cannot sepparate a thing from its causes, therefore there should be ONE (1) "thing" (the totality being the universe), not an infinity of things because you just said you cant separate them.

2. To exist is to appear

The mind is the thing that survives by its ability to pretend that a thing is separate from what it is not so that is the only place where things can exist.
Since humans are finite ,there can only appear a finite number of things to them so even here appearances have to be finite in number.

If you say that the possible number of apearances is infinite that cannot be true since the human brain is finite in construction and so there are "parts" of the totality that cannot appear to it since they were not made to and you can only be certain that what has shown itself to be able to appear are probably the only things that can possibly appear.

You are also mixing the two by saying since a things causes are infinite (infinite from possible no of appearances) then the totality must be infinite.

No.

There can only be two causes at a time.
A thing and its compliment.

You can have part causes which themsleves have to be things but they can only be things once they appear and then by definition have to be finite in number so this doesnt work either.

The conclusion is that the totality has to be one thing and cannot be considered to be infinite in any respect since there can only be one totality by definition and maybe if you clarify what its is a *total of* we could get somewhere.

[Loki]

Loki:

Where do you get infinity from?

Heres my take on what you say:

1. Duality

A thing is caused by what it is not there fore there should be no things because you cannot sepparate a thing from its causes, therefore there should be ONE (1) "thing" (the totality being the universe), not an infinity of things because you just said you cant separate them.

I'm definitely not claiming there are an infinite quantity of things. But I am saying that the one thing is sizeless. It is neither big nor small, it has no form, it has no relationship, it is not finite.

2. To exist is to appear

The mind is the thing that survives by its ability to pretend that a thing is separate from what it is not so that is the only place where things can exist.
Since humans are finite ,there can only appear a finite number of things to them so even here appearances have to be finite in number.

If you say that the possible number of apearances is infinite that cannot be true

But I do not say that! I am only saying that a particular appearance has an essence that is formless, without size, boundary, finitude.

The conclusion is that the totality has to be one thing and cannot be considered to be infinite in any respect

It can be infinite in a certain respect. And that respect is that it has no boundary, no size, no capacity for appearing to consciousness.