Samadhi and dreamworlds

[suergaz]

Quote:
Suergaz: all things are an infinity.

Sapius: How?

Suergaz: Since infinity is all, everything is infinite, irrespective of forms.

Sapius: That is too vague. Could you give an example of any one particular thing?

Suergaz: Since I take it you mean any one particular thing that is not the universe itself, take any one particular thing.

Sapius:You can take that, but please tell me what do you mean ‘any one thing that is not the universe’?

Garfield, for instance.

Was my saying ‘any one particular thing’ too complicated for your understanding? Please enlighten me… Is there any particular thing that is the universe? Or should we change certain definitions here?

No.
Yes, the universe.
And no, there's no need.

Any ways, I pick Garfield (the cat), who I consider not to be the Universe, unless I garble the English language.

Garfield is finite and infinite. It's funny....isn't it?!

[Sapius]

Quote:
Suergaz: all things are an infinity.

Sapius: How?

Suergaz: Since infinity is all, everything is infinite, irrespective of forms.

Sapius: That is too vague. Could you give an example of any one particular thing?

Suergaz: Since I take it you mean any one particular thing that is not the universe itself, take any one particular thing.

Sapius:You can take that, but please tell me what do you mean ‘any one thing that is not the universe’?

Garfield, for instance.

Was my saying ‘any one particular thing’ too complicated for your understanding? Please enlighten me… Is there any particular thing that is the universe? Or should we change certain definitions here?

No.
Yes, the universe.
And no, there's no need.

Any ways, I pick Garfield (the cat), who I consider not to be the Universe, unless I garble the English language.

Garfield is finite and infinite. It's funny....isn't it?!

No. What's funny about it?! Many express the same thing over here and you are no different in that respect. Only that they explain it logically, and I would like to hear your side of it.

[suergaz]

Suergaz wrote:

Quote:
DQ: Let's change tack a bit: Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

suergaz: Of course I agree. I have no argument with the inherency of causation.

DQ: Well, causation is no more inherent than "things" are. Causation is really just a conceptual tool to break things down and dispell the illusion that they objectively exist. Once that is done, the concept of causation no longer has any use and can be dispensed with. Indeed, it automatically disappears with the disappearance of things. Okay, my next question is, do you agree that the shadow lacks objective existence? Keep in mind that a thing can only "objectively exist" if it has the capacity to exist all by itself, without the help of anything else.

Nothing has the capacity to exist all by itself save the infinite, hence everything objectively, inherently, exists. It is subject to itself alone.

It is primarily because your view on life depends on words having certain fixed meanings. Your understanding is still wrapped up in a lattice of words. Your mind lacks the freedom to see beyond the words and discern the intended meaning of what other people are saying.

Words have certain meaning, but not 'fixed'. Their meaning depends entirely on what we can make them mean. My understanding is not wrapped in words, but to make it understood in words how could I not wrap it in words?
Have you understood what it is to seek the most meaning of expression?

An example is the concept of "inherent existence". You don't seem capable of using the term in any other way than the narrow fixed sense which supports your world-view. You even try to turn this limitation into a virtue by pretending that your fixed meaning is the one "true" meaning.

It is not fixed, nor is it narrow, but certain. It encompasses all of what can possibly be meant in its use.

It has gotten to the stage where I can't even use "inherent existence" with you any more, because of your inability to deal with it in the way I want to use it. I have to use other terms, like "objective existence", instead.

Only because you have conceded my meaning supercedes your own.

Quote:
suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

How could all be empty of itself?

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

DQ: No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

suergaz: Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without the assumption that there is a challenge.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you think the word "assumption" means?

When one assumes something, one takes it for granted.

Quote:
suergaz: Perhaps you really mean 'nothingness'

DQ: Definitely not. Even nothingness doesn't objectively exist.

suergaz: Then your meaning, in words, is rendered ultimately unintelligible.

Well, this is your inability to think with other meanings coming through here. I assure you that what I am saying above is perfectly intelligible and full of truth. As with anything else, "nothingness" cannot exist in and of itself.

Your assurances mean more to me than your truths funnily enough. For instance, you ruined your third sentence (for me) with "As with anything else".

Quote:
DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

suergaz: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

DQ: Whatever Nature wills.

Suergaz: Nature doesn't will anything! It is everything.

DQ: Yes, it is everything. And because it is everything, there is nothing that happens which Nature isn't fully involved in.

s: I'm still not certain 'wills' is the right term for what the universe does.

I was using the word in a poetic sense to refer to the reality of cause and effect.

"If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first be clear in his thoughts, and if any would write in a noble style, let him first possess a noble soul"--Goethe

[suergaz]

Garfield is finite and infinite. It's funny....isn't it?!


Sapius: No.

Case closed.

What's funny about it?!

Open again. I guess you had to be there, or rather here, but in any case, he's a cat that owns his owner, and his mortal immortality is the icing on the cake.

Many express the same thing over here and you are no different in that respect. Only that they explain it logically, and I would like to hear your side of it.

My brothers and sisters! Lead me to them, and their logical explanations.
My side is splitting.

[Sapius]

My brothers and sisters! Lead me to them, and their logical explanations.
My side is splitting.

hahhahaha now that's funny... haha

[David Quinn]

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: Let's change tack a bit: Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

suergaz: Of course I agree. I have no argument with the inherency of causation.

DQ: Well, causation is no more inherent than "things" are. Causation is really just a conceptual tool to break things down and dispell the illusion that they objectively exist. Once that is done, the concept of causation no longer has any use and can be dispensed with. Indeed, it automatically disappears with the disappearance of things.

Okay, my next question is, do you agree that the shadow lacks objective existence? Keep in mind that a thing can only "objectively exist" if it has the capacity to exist all by itself, without the help of anything else.

S: Nothing has the capacity to exist all by itself save the infinite, hence everything objectively, inherently, exists. It is subject to itself alone.

So do you agree, then, the shadow doesn't objectively or inherently exist? For example, if we take away all the causal factors - the source of light, the object casting the shadow, etc - then the shadow will automatically disappear. It lacks the capacity to generate its own existence. Yes?

suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

Suergaz: How could all be empty of itself?

It isn't empty of itself. It is empty of all the false qualities that deluded people project onto it - such as objective existence, permanency, solidity, materialism, dreaminess, beginnings and ends, nothingness, etc.

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

DQ: No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

suergaz: Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without the assumption that there is a challenge.

DQ: This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you think the word "assumption" means?

suergaz: When one assumes something, one takes it for granted.

So your sentence above becomes, "Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without taking it for granted that there is a challenge." It still doesn't make any sense to me.

If a person is conscious challenging the nature of his experiences, then that is what he is doing. There is no question of his having to take it for granted. He doesn't have to assume that he is doing it. He *is* doing it.

It would seem that you are trying to manufacture the existence of assumptions in order to support a belief that the philosopher necessarily depends on assumptions.

-

[suergaz]

-edit-double post

[suergaz]

DQ: Let's change tack a bit: Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

suergaz: Of course I agree. I have no argument with the inherency of causation.

DQ: Well, causation is no more inherent than "things" are. Causation is really just a conceptual tool to break things down and dispell the illusion that they objectively exist. Once that is done, the concept of causation no longer has any use and can be dispensed with. Indeed, it automatically disappears with the disappearance of things.
Okay, my next question is, do you agree that the shadow lacks objective existence? Keep in mind that a thing can only "objectively exist" if it has the capacity to exist all by itself, without the help of anything else.

suergaz: Nothing has the capacity to exist all by itself save the infinite, hence everything objectively, inherently, exists. It is subject to itself alone.


DQ:So do you agree, then, the shadow doesn't objectively or inherently exist? For example, if we take away all the causal factors - the source of light, the object casting the shadow, etc - then the shadow will automatically disappear. It lacks the capacity to generate its own existence. Yes?

Yes, but we cannot "take away" all the causual factors, hence the shadow,
and everything else along with it inherently, objectively exist.

suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

Suergaz: How could all be empty of itself?

DQ:It isn't empty of itself. It is empty of all the false qualities that deluded people project onto it -...

And so, like I said, it is never empty.

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

DQ: No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

suergaz: Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without the assumption that there is a challenge.

DQ: This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you think the word "assumption" means?

suergaz: When one assumes something, one takes it for granted.

DQ: So your sentence above becomes, "Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without taking it for granted that there is a challenge." It still doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok. Let's take it apart.

If a person is conscious challenging the nature of his experiences, then that is what he is doing.

So far so good.

There is no question of his having to take it for granted.

This is correct.

He doesn't have to assume that he is doing it. He *is* doing it.

Whoah..stop. He has to assume he is doing it if he is in fact doing it consciously Consciousness is always of something.

It would seem that you are trying to manufacture the existence of assumptions in order to support a belief that the philosopher necessarily depends on assumptions.

What it seems to you I am doing should not be as important as what you can actually determine me to be doing if you are a philosopher.

[David Quinn]

Suergaz wrote:

DQ:So do you agree, then, the shadow doesn't objectively or inherently exist? For example, if we take away all the causal factors - the source of light, the object casting the shadow, etc - then the shadow will automatically disappear. It lacks the capacity to generate its own existence. Yes?

s: Yes, but we cannot "take away" all the causual factors, hence the shadow, and everything else along with it inherently, objectively exist.

We are perfectly capable of mentally taking away these causal factors, and thus demonstrating to ourselves that the shadow doesn't exist in and of itself.

But even more than this, we can physically watch a shadow disappearing when, say, the sun goes behind a cloud. Things are constantly disappearing all around us, due to changes in the causal circumstances supporting them.

The important point is that nothing is permamently embedded in the fabric of Reality. Things arise and disappear, leaving not a trace behind. They are like shadows in this regard. The fabric of Reality itself is a void. It contains no forms and hence is empty.

In any case, I've come to the concluson that you have no interest in engaging in philosophic discussion and developing your thinking in any way. You know what you like and you like what you know - and that's it, it would seem. You like to revel in immediacy, and to preen yourself with the notoriety of it, and you make it plain that nothing is going to budge you from it.

That's fair enough, it's your choice. But it does make you uninteresting, at least to me. So this marks the end of my giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you like an intelligent adult.

One last thing. I'd be very careful about filling up the forum with wisecracks. I've noticed that you are starting to spew these out more and more of late, which I consider to be spam. You were asked to leave once before because of this spamming, because you were ruining too many threads, and if you don't restrain yourself, it's only going to happen again.

If I understand correctly, Kevin also warned you about this matter when you came back on this time, so take heed.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

The is important point that nothing is permamently embedded in the fabric of Reality. Things arise and disappear, leaving not a trace behind. They are like shadows in this regard. The fabric of Reality itself is a void. It contains no forms and hence is empty.

Are you suggesting that the void contains no forms, but manifests temporary interconnected forms into this world?

Is improving ones logic the cultivation of involuntary contemplation?

What distorts involuntary contemplation? The imagination, speculation into the future, speculation into the supernatural, emotional investment/attachment into something, not seeing A as A, pride, trying to be something, compulsively deriving self-gratification through humor.

Is the only way to improve ones logic by seeing what is distorting it? This is the only way, no?

What is mediation to your mind? Sitting with what is. If one sits in silence and there is anxiety, isn’t this a possible indicator that one is attached to something? Shouldn’t the goal be to be able to sit in silence without anxiety?

What is your opinion on this matter of sitting in silence without any occupation to the mind?

[suergaz]

Quote:
DQ:So do you agree, then, the shadow doesn't objectively or inherently exist? For example, if we take away all the causal factors - the source of light, the object casting the shadow, etc - then the shadow will automatically disappear. It lacks the capacity to generate its own existence. Yes?

s: Yes, but we cannot "take away" all the causual factors, hence the shadow, and everything else along with it inherently, objectively exist.

DQ: We are perfectly capable of mentally taking away these causal factors, and thus demonstrating to ourselves that the shadow doesn't exist in and of itself.

For what?! The realization that the universe exists in and of itself renders this little mind-closing game utterly laughable. The untruth "Nothing inherently exists" opposes this realization. Your metaphysics is dead.

But even more than this, we can physically watch a shadow disappearing when, say, the sun goes behind a cloud. Things are constantly disappearing all around us, due to changes in the causal circumstances supporting them.

Motion speaks of infinity, not emptiness.

The important point is that nothing is permamently embedded in the fabric of Reality. Things arise and disappear, leaving not a trace behind. They are like shadows in this regard. The fabric of Reality itself is a void. It contains no forms and hence is empty.

Reality is embedded in itself. Formlessness contains forms.

In any case, I've come to the concluson that you have no interest in engaging in philosophic discussion and developing your thinking in any way. You know what you like and you like what you know - and that's it, it would seem. You like to revel in immediacy, and to preen yourself with the notoriety of it, and you make it plain that nothing is going to budge you from it. That's fair enough, it's your choice. But it does make you uninteresting, at least to me. So this marks the end of my giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you like an intelligent adult.

And so we go our separate ways.

One last thing. I'd be very careful about filling up the forum with wisecracks. I've noticed that you are starting to spew these out more and more of late, which I consider to be spam. You were asked to leave once before because of this spamming, because you were ruining too many threads, and if you don't restrain yourself, it's only going to happen again. If I understand correctly, Kevin also warned you about this matter when you came back on this time, so take heed.

Kevin let me back in here because he understands I am reasonable. I can't speak for him, but perhaps also he is not of the opinion I should have been banned in the first place. I am not really a threat to your forum. You'll be hard-pressed to prove me to be one.

[David Quinn]

As long as you interact with the forum intelligently, respect it for what it is trying to achieve, and keep those gratuitious wisecracks to a minimum, there won't be a problem.

-

[Sapius]

As long as you interact with the forum intelligently, respect it for what it is trying to achieve, and keep those gratuitious wisecracks to a minimum, there won't be a problem.

-

I’m quite disappointed seeing an enlightened person getting irritable through boredom and lack of patience. Not that it really matters though.

.

[sue hindmarsh]

Sapius,

I think it does matter to you that Suergaz is on this forum, because I think you wonder as I do, why a chap with the mental ability of a 12 yr old and the emotional stability of a pubescent female would think this the appropriate place for him to play.

This forum is for intelligent people with a deep interest in understanding Truth. It is not a place for Suergaz (or Frank, or anyone else) to use as their personal playground. If these sprats want to annoy the grown-ups they can go to another forum that appreciates being interrupted by naughty children – there are an abundance of them out there that would welcome the likes of Suergaz and Frank. For example: the forum called Common Ascent loves its participants to run freely in the mire of feminine irrationality, so much so they would find Suergaz and Frank’s writing inspirational. I see that on their Philosophy tread there is a section called ‘Wittgenstein on the law of identity’, which is perfect for you, Suergaz, as every participant has sprouted your idea of “everything inherently exists” – so you will feel right at home.

* * *

Truth is important. It is not a difficult concept to grasp for those who have emotional and mental maturity. For those who do not possess these attributes, the choice is simple: you stay quietly in your deep, dark hole; or you strive to scramble up and out into the light.

Sue

[unwise]

Susan,

Your reply sounds feminine and childish itself. You are engaging in inappropriate name calling and requesting banishment. Your assessment of Frank is way off. Yes, he pokes fun of this forum, but his posts are clearly written by an intelligent man who has a very deep understanding of the issues here. You may not appreciate that he is making known what other philosophers have said before him - that this is a meaning-making sphere we are in, but that is no reason to call him a child. Mr. Quinn does this also. It is bad form.

It seems that Suergaz is trying to make a point that is important - a point that is at the very heart of this cult.

[It seems to be a cult because it has authoritative figureheads, devotees who seek banishment of outsiders, and a ridged system of doctrine that has tuned on the outside world.]

You may not agree with Suergaz' argument, but it seems to be a genuine idea he is presenting. A little ribbing keeps things fun. Can adults have some fun? Is fun a sign of delusion also?

[Sapius]

Sue,

S: I’m quite disappointed seeing an enlightened person getting irritable through boredom and lack of patience. Not that it really matters though.

Sue: I think it does matter to you that Suergaz is on this forum,

No, not necessarily. When I said that is really does not matter, I was talking about my disappointment, because that wouldn’t matter to David.

because I think you wonder as I do, why a chap with the mental ability of a 12 yr old and the emotional stability of a pubescent female would think this the appropriate place for him to play.

I don’t think even David actually thinks of him as such. If it were so, I have seen the wise sense in him of ignoring someone after clarifying his position to a certain extant, rather than threatening a ban.

With all due respects, I would leave it at that, but since you bring it up, I do not see any big difference in the style of Suergaz’s one liner responses from that of Kevin’s. But Kevin’s one liners are supposed to make perfect sense because it conforms to established understandings here, and Suergaz’s doesn’t. Where does he come from, that is, how has he concluded what he has, is the question?

This forum is for intelligent people with a deep interest in understanding Truth.

Sure, I do know that, but would that mean that the Truth that has already been established and taught here cannot be challenged? Just understood? If understanding were so simple, it wouldn’t be challenged. It is a necessary exercise to take things to its extremes when Truth is in question.

It is not a place for Suergaz (or Frank, or anyone else) to use as their personal playground.

I’m sure he has better things to do, but he has already said that he is here for the intelligence he finds in this place, which at times may be laughable according to him, but why get upset? In fact that places a greater responsibility of clarifying it. If our patience runs out, simply ignore. Is that difficult?

Truth is important. It is not a difficult concept to grasp for those who have emotional and mental maturity. For those who do not possess these attributes, the choice is simple: you stay quietly in your deep, dark hole; or you strive to scramble up and out into the light.

The light itself is being challenged here, but the actual choice given seems to be either you stay to agree, keep quiet and listen, or leave. Is this a place for a herd gathering? Considering what’s been discussed here, this place should actually be on fire, not a sweet tranquil haven with ‘do not disturb’ hung out, and more the fuel the merrier, and that’s how it should be in my opinion. If wisdom cannot help handle children, ban them! That’s wise I guess.


.

[David Quinn]

Unwise wrote:

Your assessment of Frank is way off. Yes, he pokes fun of this forum, but his posts are clearly written by an intelligent man who has a very deep understanding of the issues here.

I haven't seen any evidence of this. I think his understanding of things lacks content and is mostly generic.

If you were to ask frank to describe the last movie he saw, his response would probably be (given his Form on this forum): "Well, the movie had a beginning, the actors followed a script, action happened, meaning was created, speech occured, a climax was reached and then the movie ended."

That's more or less the extent of his philosophical understanding of the world. While it is focuses heavily on form, it lacks content.

To be honest, I find the lack of content in frank rather eerie. He almost seems like a ghost to me.

-

[David Quinn]

cosmic-prostitute wrote:

DQ: The is important point that nothing is permamently embedded in the fabric of Reality. Things arise and disappear, leaving not a trace behind. They are like shadows in this regard. The fabric of Reality itself is a void. It contains no forms and hence is empty.

cp: Are you suggesting that the void contains no forms, but manifests temporary interconnected forms into this world?

Firstly, the void isn't really a void. It is a bit of a misnomer. Even the void-form has to be abandoned. The void is so lacking in form that it doesn't even have the form of a void.

Secondly, it shouldn't be thought that the void is a kind of empty container in which forms reside. The forms *are* the void. What you experience in each moment is literally the void. The fact that your experiences are changing each moment and that nothing is ever the same over two consecutive moments is a pointer to the formlessness of the void.

Indeed, it is only because of the sheer formlessness of the void that forms can arise at all - just as it is only due to the formlessness of water that countless different water shapes can arise within a fountain.

Is improving ones logic the cultivation of involuntary
contemplation?

What distorts involuntary contemplation? The imagination, speculation into the future, speculation into the supernatural, emotional investment/attachment into something, not seeing A as A, pride, trying to be something, compulsively deriving self-gratification through humor.

Is the only way to improve ones logic by seeing what is distorting it? This is the only way, no?

In part. It's a combination of ruthlessly questioning everything, learning how to reason properly, learning how to get to the heart of a matter with maximum efficiency, intuitively knowing what is important to an issue and what is merely tangental, having an intuitive insight into the direction of where Truth must reside, being whole-heartedly disgusted with lies and falseness, being dissatified with anything less than absolute certainty and truth, knowing how to think without assumptions, mentally detaching oneself from whatever attachments one has, etc.

What is mediation to your mind?

Consciously immersing oneself in the nature of Reality.

Sitting with what is. If one sits in silence and there is anxiety, isn’t this a possible indicator that one is attached to something? Shouldn’t the goal be to be able to sit in silence without anxiety?

The problem is, it is very easy to train the mind into suppressing the anxiety or dispelling it through mental trickery and illusions, which can give a false sense of spiritual accomplishment.

Anxiety naturally fades away from one's life as one comes to understand Reality and the lack of one's self-existence more clearly. So as a rule, I always recommend that people work on their intellectual understanding of Reality and everything else will follow from that.

What is your opinion on this matter of sitting in silence without any occupation to the mind?

I think it is useful if your mind is agitated or you have trouble focusing on philosophical lines of thought. It can be relaxing if you are habitually anxious by nature. It can help clear the head and create space for some philosophical work.

I often like to lie down on a couch for an hour or two, or lie down in a park, and do nothing else but focus my mind on Reality. Sometimes I might imagine that I am just a stone in the park, or a cushion on the couch, and just allow myself to merge passively into the rest of the environment - just one dead object among countless other dead objects. The insights and experiences these sorts of exercise sometimes generate can be very interesting indeed.

At other times, I might focus on the issues raised on this forum or elsewhere, turning them over and over trying tease out new ways of seeing things. It just depends on my mood.

-

[frank]

If you were to ask frank to describe the last movie he saw, his response would probably be (given his Form on this forum): "Well, the movie had a beginning, the actors followed a script, action happened, meaning was created, speech occured, a climax was reached and then the movie ended."

How Frank would describe it is thus....(roughly)

A Scriptwriter developed Character, Plot, Costume, Drama.
Presented the result to a Producer who liked it.
The Producer assembled Director, Cast, Musician to Score it.
A Theatre Chain Invested in it.
They sold a Ticket to Frank.
Frank watched it.

dumb frank