True stuff

[Dennis Mahar]

I am my thoughts, which appear as language.

Aha,
dwelling.
superb.

and perspicacious they are.

[jupiviv]

I am my thoughts, which appear as language.

Aha,
dwelling.
superb.

and perspicacious they are.

No, identity.

[Dennis Mahar]

How does that sit with sunyata?

[jupiviv]

How does that sit with sunyata?

If you say a glass is either absolutely full or absolutely empty, without specifying what it is either full or empty of, then what is the probability of its being empty?

a> 2
b> 1
c> 0

[Dennis Mahar]

That doesn't work out.

sunyata is a quality not a quantity.

empty of inherent existence.

[jupiviv]

sunyata is a quality not a quantity.

Quantity measures one quality against another. I added "absolutely" to avoid this confusion.

empty of inherent existence.

If all things are empty of inherent existence, then inherent existence is absolutely nothing whatsoever. Therefore, a specific thing(e.g a glass) is empty of absolutely nothing whatsoever. And also, absolutely everything.

The answer is b> btw.

[Dennis Mahar]

that word absolutely is a bit tricky.

the glass is empty of the quality of inherent existence hence it can be absolved of existing from its own side. It is not guilty of deceiving us and yet we can deceive ourselves in respect to its true nature. In that case it is given complete absolution and we are to stand trial for a crime against truth.
it is produced out of causes/conditions.
it has an identity in appearance that differentiates it from a cat and yet both appearances are produced out of causes/ conditions.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

[jupiviv]

it has an identity in appearance that differentiates it from a cat and yet both appearances are produced out of causes/ conditions.

The causes and conditions that produce an appearance are themselves produced by that appearance, so ultimately the appearance is produced by itself plus everything else, i.e the All. If everything is an appearance then appearances themselves are solid reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

the task is eliminating suffering OK.

A=A is the fundamental basis of knowledge.
A=A is also the ontology of consciousness.
Consciousness identifies, differentiates, reacts.

When someone asks Dan or Quinn what A=A means, they say 'you are doing it now' as a heads up.

The Buddha in his 12 links of causation focused on 'reactivity' as that which something could be done about.

Considering the appearance arising is empty of itself, ultimately of no substance, what is the point of running around like a headless chook.


News journalists cash in on reactivity by blowing up out of all proportion any situation they come across and quickly move on to tomorrow's 'news'.


It's empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless
you provide the meaning.

meaning maker

[jupiviv]

the task is eliminating suffering OK.

That's up to you. The sage only eliminates suffering when it hampers rationality.

A=A is the fundamental basis of knowledge.
A=A is also the ontology of consciousness.

A=A is just a formula. It is just as much or as little fundamental as, say ax^2+bx+c=0 or "rabbits are cute".

Considering the appearance arising is empty of itself, ultimately of no substance

A thing can't be empty of itself, and since appearance is all there is, things are ultimately of whatever substance they appear to possess.

It's empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless

It's empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless..../0

Get a new catchphrase plox.

[Dennis Mahar]

the appearance is the appearance.
it is what it is.

there are no grounds for complaint.

groundlessness

[jupiviv]

there are no grounds for complaint.

There are if such grounds appear.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

the task is eliminating suffering OK.

Yeah "enlightenment", a reference to suffering, its causes and its end. Yet they don't seem to get it.

[Dennis Mahar]

of course there are.
if you're always/already disposed to 'get in to it'.
much ado about nuthin'.
in particular afflictive emotions are brain dead as Sherlock would venture.

philosophy is understood to be carried out in a mood of astonishment that ultimately there are no grounds,
groundlesslness,

philosophy then, ostensibly, constructs grounds in order to for the sake of

[Dennis Mahar]

it can't be said philosophy doesn't entail motive and opportunity.

in order to for the sake of.

[jupiviv]

much ado about nuthin'....in particular afflictive emotions

Indeed.

grounds in order to for the sake of

That's pretty much obvious. When are you going to say something?

[Dennis Mahar]

put your hand on a hot stove.

ouch!
astonishment, anxiety, perplexity.
mood.

motive and opportunity for Inquiry.
in order to for the sake of something about suffering.

[jupiviv]

in order to for the sake of something about suffering.

If you think eliminating suffering is the goal of enlightenment then you are no better than the next guy. Suffering, like enlightenment, doesn't cease any more than it arises. Or in other words, it arises and ceases whenever it is caused to. If you use whatever understanding you have to try to block suffering then you will end in utter ignorance.

[Dennis Mahar]

you're doing it.

made a move.

in order to for the sake of something about suffering.

[jupiviv]

Ignorance. Not just suffering.

[Dennis Mahar]

mover and shaker.
really big moves.

suffering as contingent.
a wedge between suffering and the experience of suffering.
reversals of fortune lack intrinsic meaning.
pass by without comment.
strength of character.

[jupiviv]

a wedge between suffering and the experience of suffering.

Suffering is the experience of negativity combined with fear.

[Dennis Mahar]

Suffering is the experience of negativity combined with fear.

can these pair of afflictive, crippling coping mechanisms be seen to generate out of desire.
it's not unreasonable to postulate 'an air of negativity' came to be out of a series of thwarted ambitions and failed purposes.
fear is expecting loss so that links to desire.

we can't just say 'suffering'.
the background has to be filled in.

granting its arising is contingent begs the question contingent upon what.
the what proposed here is desire.

[jupiviv]

Suffering is the experience of negativity combined with fear.

can these pair of afflictive, crippling coping mechanisms be seen to generate out of desire.

Fear itself is (directly/indirectly)experienced as being negative, desire as positive, but this need not be the case. Sometimes indifference or stoicism is experienced as being better than both fear and desire, but it need not be. Ignorance of these things is the "suffering" or karma of Buddhism. Most people are aware that they have/lack emotions, but not of much else. To the degree they are unaware, they "suffer".