The nature of non-duality, terms for it

[Sapius]

David wrote:

There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't. This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

While there is no ‘rational’ alternative to conceptualization as a means of understanding the nature of things, nevertheless, there is an alternative, and one that is all to frequently taken: the alternative being to merely accept that things are as they appear; regardless of the logical inconsistencies that such a view entails.

No, 'things are (exactly) as they appear' is not merely an irrational acceptance, but rests upon the fact that they couldn't possibly be any different, as per causally created conditions.

However, "appearance", according to me, itself does not mean 'illusory', since that is the only reality, that we are already experiencing; but that’s a different story.

[Sapius]

Jehu, just thought that I might make a different point with the back and white discs.

If we take a black or a white disc surrounded by an opposite or say any other contrasting colour, and imagine that these two together form a Totality in an absolute sense, then that too is wrong, because the contrasting background is infinitely open ended, and the moment one thinks of these two things as a “whole”, automatically draws a limitation to the extent of the background, where there really cannot be one, except of me adding up the two conceptually and considering it as say even a “unity” of some kind. Their causal nature as against each other is the only commonality between them, but that does not at anytime or anywhere make them one and the same thing, unless one is talking about unity as in marriage, which is but poetical in essence, and does not result in a literal amalgamation.

Hence, I believe that this open ended-ness of that which is not me, is what facilitates infinite possibilities without any absolute deterministic restrictions, otherwise diversification could not be possible. “I” is the zero point of infinity in either or any which dimensional or conceptual directions, and that zero point IS by the virtue of all that that point is not.

As far as I can see, One is not the ten thousand and the ten thousand can’t be One, but rather that and the ten thousand (or infinity) stands against One, which is me, or any one, or any thing for that matter, otherwise existence isn’t, and who or what can really deny that or not be it.

“I don’t inherently exist” in no way removes that fact of “I” being there in and of a temporarily caused condition. The “I” is not the infinite, nor the infinite is the “I”, and THEY can never ever be ONE, except in a poetical sense, which is but ego pampering, and I too feel the same when I look at nature, but it is just that, a feeling, but cannot literally occur. One can feel one with nature, but nature offers more than one that I may feel one with any other thing at all, including “nature” itself. If I am one with nature, then so are other ten thousand things, and ‘nature’ itself cannot exist without at least any two things being around.

Well, I do understand it is but a matter of perspective, and I’m simply expressing mine.

[Jehu]

Sapius wrote:

No, 'things are (exactly) as they appear' is not merely an irrational acceptance, but rests upon the fact that they couldn't possibly be any different, as per causally created conditions.

It is most certainly not a ‘fact’ that 'things are (exactly) as they appear', for it has never been logically demonstrated that they must necessarily be, and besides, a great deal of things have turned out to be other than how they appeared. For example, the Earth appears to be flat when in fact it is not, and the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, when in fact this is not the case; just to name a couple.

As you appear to have missed the point of my previous analogy, which was intended only to help you understand the nature of a relative entity, let me see if I can get my point across by another. Are you familiar with the optical illusion wherein two black vases are placed together in such a way as to give the ‘appearance’ that there is a white vase in the intervening space? This is how all relative entities come into being: extrinsic causes are brought into a relationship, and then, because the cognizant agent does not recognize the extrinsic causes, it erroneously take the relationship to be an entity itself, with its own intrinsic causes (properties).

Now, with respect to your use of the term ‘infinite’, the term rightfully means ‘beyond completion’ and so it may only be used with respect to a process, such as takes place within the field of time, but cannot reasonably be applied to an entity, for an entity is spatially extended. An entity, if it is real, must contain within itself that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence (i.e., its own intrinsic causes), and so is necessarily ‘complete’; and therefore, nothing may be added to or taken away for an entity without the it changes the entity into something else.

[brokenhead]

Jehu:

Consequently, we must abandon terms such as ‘non-being’ or non-existent’, for these terms have no existential referent, and every meaningful term must signify some existent.

But doesn't this mean anything we can conceive of must exist? I think the term "non-existent" is valid for something that is imagined only as opposed to something that exists independently of anyone's imagination. Or are you saying that its only the imagined things that are real, since even if something "exists" apart from it being perceived and therefore imagined, it does not coincide with its "reality" in the imagination or ideation of the perceiver?

Particle physicists believe the "void" is actually a tapestry full of virtual particles, entities that come into existence then proceed to annihilate each other immediatey thereafter. A particle and its anti-particle that come into contact annihilate each other. They are there one moment and not there the next. If they can be said to exist before annihilation, then must they also not be able to be called "nonexistent" thereafter? What would the alternative be? "Formerly existent"? "Nonexistent" does not imply "formerly existent," especially if you are disallowing its usage; but surely "formerly existent" does imply "nonexistent," does it not?

[Jehu]

Brokenhead wrote:

But doesn't this mean anything we can conceive of must exist?

Yes, this is exactly what it means. It means that regardless of whether a thing is considered to be real, or to be only an illusion, it still ‘is’ (exists), for its ‘stands’ before the mind - as its object. In fact, the ancient essentialists would have defined existence as ‘that which may be either perceived or thought about (imagined)’.

I think the term "non-existent" is valid for something that is imagined only as opposed to something that exists independently of anyone's imagination.

Yes, this is how the vast majority of people today interpret the term, however, this is because our language has been distorted by nearly two and a half millennia of predominantly materialistic/physicalistic thought. In fact, what people really mean when they say that something ‘does not exist’, is that it does not partake of a ‘real’ existence, but only an ‘imaginary’ one; but this is not the same as saying that the thing does not exist at all. Further, I do not deny that there are these two modes of existence, but merely question whether that we generally hold to be real truly is, and I believe that reason tells us that it is not.

Or are you saying that its only the imagined things that are real, since even if something "exists" apart from it being perceived and therefore imagined, it does not coincide with its "reality" in the imagination or ideation of the perceiver?

No, what I am actually saying is that there is nothing whatsoever that is ‘real’ (absolute), for all things are composites and partake of only a ‘relative’ (apparent) existence. Nevertheless, there cannot be a relative without that there is also an absolute, but that which is absolute (real) is not a ‘thing’. Rather, it is as the ancient Hindus said, “It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see, that is the true reality.” In other words, it is not the objects of mind (things) that are real, but the mind itself; and by this I don’t mean my mind, or your mind; for we are like all things, merely apparent, and so whatever characteristics we may appear to exhibit, including cognizance, are not our own, but belong to that one absolute, independent and immutable entity that is the origin and cause of all.

Particle physicists believe the "void" is actually a tapestry full of virtual particles, entities that come into existence then proceed to annihilate each other immediately thereafter. A particle and its anti-particle that come into contact annihilate each other. They are there one moment and not there the next. If they can be said to exist before annihilation, then must they also not be able to be called "nonexistent" thereafter? What would the alternative be? "Formerly existent"? "Nonexistent" does not imply "formerly existent," especially if you are disallowing its usage; but surely "formerly existent" does imply "nonexistent," does it not?

Perhaps the terms ‘manifest’ and ‘non-manifest’ would be more appropriate to this particular situation.

If it were true that there was something that did not exist, then it would be impossible that this something could ever come to exist, for a thing must either be or not be [law of excluded middle], and so becoming is quite impossible; unless of course, that which is coming and going are merely apparent.

[brokenhead]

Jehu:

If it were true that there was something that did not exist, then it would be impossible that this something could ever come to exist, for a thing must either be or not be [law of excluded middle], and so becoming is quite impossible; unless of course, that which is coming and going are merely apparent.

Virtual particles come into and go out of existence spontaneously. It apparently is something that happens all the time, ceaselessly.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

J: While there is no ‘rational’ alternative to conceptualization as a means of understanding the nature of things, nevertheless, there is an alternative, and one that is all to frequently taken: the alternative being to merely accept that things are as they appear; regardless of the logical inconsistencies that such a view entails.

S: No, 'things are (exactly) as they appear' is not merely an irrational acceptance, but rests upon the fact that they couldn't possibly be any different, as per causally created conditions.

J: It is most certainly not a ‘fact’ that 'things are (exactly) as they appear', for it has never been logically demonstrated that they must necessarily be, and besides, a great deal of things have turned out to be other than how they appeared. For example, the Earth appears to be flat when in fact it is not, and the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, when in fact this is not the case; just to name a couple.

It is pretty obvious that you are taking “appearances” to mean in an empirical sense, whereas that statement as I understand it, is purely a philosophical one. And I personally don’t recommend or generally use the word “appears” in such contexts. I have pointed that out many a times because it does not convey what the speaker really means, and creates further confusion rather than clarity; and ironically, all in the name of presenting clarity of mind. But at times I may use it because it makes sense to those that state it philosophically.

If at all, I would use the word “presents” rather than ‘appears’, since “appear” implies that that appearance itself is ILLUSORY, which has actually nothing to do with how or what “I” KNOW about THINGS, or consider it to be their nature. (I personally don’t consider ‘things’ to be “illusory”, which is a different story). A thing ‘presents’ its self irrelevant of my prior knowledge of it, and what is its nature is a later realization. But in every moment of when and what is, it IS. Which is what ‘existence’ is all about, and not what “you” or “I” may think about it.

‘Appearances’ in a philosophical sense are exactly the moments in which absolutely anything that “appears”, appears, in and off a causal condition, which according to me is basic awareness, and in our case that makes up the mind itself, which could not be any different unless the causal conditions were different. So, it appeared that “the Earth is flat” when it did, and it appeared that “the Earth is a sphere” when it did, and it appeared that “the Earth is Pear (or egg) shaped” (as we know of it now). In each instances it “appeared” (presented) to be what that moment was.

However, you will have to ask the experts if what I said isn’t clear enough. One of them is…

JEHU: Yes, this is exactly what it means. It means that regardless of whether a thing is considered to be real, or to be only an illusion, it still ‘is’ (exists), for its ‘stands’ before the mind - as its object. In fact, the ancient essentialists would have defined existence as ‘that which may be either perceived or thought about (imagined)’.

In other words… 'things are (exactly) as they appear'. And if not from what I tried to explain in my layman’s term, then you can at least see what the ancient essentialists meant or understood but that, or are you simply presenting it for the sake of argument, since it seems to imply that it is TEHM that say it, not Jehu. Do you simply understand what that means, or do you affirm that that is true? Is the question.

Do you think we have come a full circle, Jehu; or would you like to further explore this issue?

Are you familiar with the optical illusion wherein two black vases are placed together in such a way as to give the ‘appearance’ that there is a white vase in the intervening space?

Yes, and many more. For example a better example of what Existence really is… since it IS in 3-D and not 2-D, so a 2-D example does not really suite the porpose… (Scroll down a bit… and click “Watch the video”) ...one... ...two...

This is how all relative entities come into being: extrinsic causes are brought into a relationship, and then, because the cognizant agent does not recognize the extrinsic causes, it erroneously take the relationship to be an entity itself, with its own intrinsic causes (properties).

I am aware of that, but relative entities are all necessarily relative to the mind too, otherwise absolutely nothing could come into being THEN, nor would the mind itself. More over, one mind does not relate in the same manner that another could or does. I know I might not make sense to you, which is one of the proofs how different minds do not relate in the same manner to existence.

Now, with respect to your use of the term ‘infinite’, the term rightfully means ‘beyond completion’ and so it may only be used with respect to a process, such as takes place within the field of time, but cannot reasonably be applied to an entity, for an entity is spatially extended. An entity, if it is real, must contain within itself that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence (i.e., its own intrinsic causes), and so is necessarily ‘complete’; and therefore, nothing may be added to or taken away for an entity without the it changes the entity into something else.

Well said, but I’m not talking about an “entity” really, unless you consider ‘relativity’ to be an entity, which I consider a process that incorporates causality as well as that which is caused, (including the mind, which I consider to be at a different level than awareness), otherwise causality isn’t. However “illusory” one may consider “things” to be, but they are REALLY there, as and when they are. There is no other "realiy" other than that, and that requires two (Awareness AND things) to interdependently and interactively tango, and neither one of them could be any more "non-real" than the other. All we can really do, is be and enjoy the dance. BE as a thing, and ENJOY as an awareness. However, best conforming to reason and humility, for it is WE who have the power to think, and should use that tool appropriately.

This is how “I” relate to existence, whereas somebody else may not. So it still remains relative you see. So how unreal or worthless is 'relativity' or a realtive "thing" itself?

Each moment experienced is out of this world, so to speak; no miracle could impress me more.

(you can disregard the last sentence; it is but an expression of how "I" realte to existence; just felt like expressing it in this moment.)

[Sapius]

Jehu:

If it were true that there was something that did not exist, then it would be impossible that this something could ever come to exist, for a thing must either be or not be [law of excluded middle], and so becoming is quite impossible; unless of course, that which is coming and going are merely apparent.

Virtual particles come into and go out of existence spontaneously. It apparently is something that happens all the time, ceaselessly.

What I can’t believe (not really though) is that with all the advancement and knowledge that we have accumulated up until now, and even after experiencing “reality” this close (as in Quantum mechanics), how can we not understand that the comparison between the apparent and the absolute is an artificial one? The “apparent” IS necessarily all that there is, and whatever that we may consider as the absolute, has to necessarily be reliant on “appearances” itself, otherwise the “absolute” couldn’t be. It is easy to say that that is not a “thing”, but not without contradicting ones self, otherwise you don’t know what you are talking about, except expressing personal poetic imaginations.

Can a mind be a mind or “exist” if there were no appearances? Does the mind create the appearances, or do appearances create the mind? Is it not clear enough that BOTH have to necessarily be reliant on each other? So which ONE of them could or should I consider as ABSOLUTE? Or should I consider the “realization” itself as absolute? In which case, that too is reliant on a thing and its awareness.

Can one even imagine the “absolute” without the relative being there to begin with? Our infatuation with the ‘absolute’ is what I think pulls us down into an imaginary world that the ‘relative’ is actually worthless, when it is exactly just that that supports any idea of the ‘absolute’. Appearances are real, and so is awareness of it, and they both feed off AND support each other. There is no Emptiness, but absolute Fullness, in any given point of the NOW. And there possibly couldn’t be any thing beyond that, or any more a real (absolute) realm of which this --- NOW---- is a “manifestation” OF.

Otherwise….. there isn’t any “otherwise” possible as far as Existence is concerned; so in my opinion, we should stop conning ourselves, which seems to be the most difficult task at hand.

No disrespects to UB, Brokenhead, for I believe that true knowledge resides within, and it doesn’t really matter where you find the inspiration from, and I find that from life and existence itself. All the best to you, and all.

[Jehu]

Jehu:

If it were true that there was something that did not exist, then it would be impossible that this something could ever come to exist, for a thing must either be or not be [law of excluded middle], and so becoming is quite impossible; unless of course, that which is coming and going are merely apparent.

Virtual particles come into and go out of existence spontaneously. It apparently is something that happens all the time, ceaselessly.

Yes, that is the current physicalistic hypothesis, however, from the view of the absolute idealist, there is no need to posit the existence of a virtual force carrying particle, for there is no actual transfer of energy from one thing to another, there is only the appearance of such a transfer.

The principle logical impediment facing the materialist/physicalist is to explain how two real particles, each partaking of an absolute existence, can possibly interact with one another, and particularly at a distance. If these two particles are indeed real, then they must be possessed of their own intrinsic causes (properties), and so cannot be related to anything extrinsic; for to be related is to be connected to and dependent upon some other thing; in which case, they would have only a relative existence. Now, how can one absolute, independent and immutable particle affect another, without that some aspect of itself be lost, and how can the other particle be effected, without that some aspect enters into it? But if this is the case, then both particles must need have been altered by the interchange, and so neither particle is precisely what it was before the exchange took place. But this would violate the immutability of the absolute entity, and thus arises the need to posit the existence of a ‘virtual’ particle. However, if this force carrying particle is only ‘virtual’ (i.e., not real), how then can it possibly have an effect on that which is real; for an effect cannot arise without a cause or out of a cause that is not real?

Absolute idealism does not entails such paradoxes, for it is understood that things are not real, and therefore, do not interact directly with one another, just as the objects in a dream do not directly influence one another. Rather, it is the cognizant mind of the dreamer that is the cause and origin of all dream entities, along with their apparent properties and activities, and not the dream entities themselves, which are mere illusions.

[Dave Toast]

Hi Sap, nice to see you back.

A quick recap for you:

Sap: Well, I do understand that all things have only a relative existence, and also that no other kind of existence is possible, hence there is nothing else needed for existence to exist, as it is.

DT: That doesn't really make sense Sap. As you say, all things have only a relative existence and no other kind of existence is possible. So for existence to exist, it must be relative - to not-existence. Either that or existence cannot exist.

Sap: There isn’t an alternative to Existence itself except you or me looking at it through definitions.

DT: There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't. This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

This definition of existence is the only one that remains consistent. Any other leads into the kind of contradictions you're elaborating above.

Sap: Well, Dave, tell that to a Cow who Exists irrelevant of me defining it a “Cow”. BTW, would a cow itself be any different if I called it a woc, or would different names in different languages make a difference to its nature or what it IS? A definition is actually nothing unless it points to something, be it even that what IT ---> means. Are you telling me that a Cow that horns me into a corner is because of how I conceptualize the event? I think this is where a Zen stick is desperately needed. ;)

Ok, here it comes then!

Well, Dave, tell that to a Cow who Exists irrelevant of me defining it a “Cow”.

Strange as this sounded to me, I decided nonetheless to go find me a cow. I told it that existence can only ever be born of conceptualisation and asked it what this therefore means of its existence. The reply that came back was so profound, I'm no longer sure of the intelligence level of cows. All it said was Moooooo! I presume this to be a peculiarity of its accent and that what it actually meant was 'Mu'. Obviously it must have been referring to the koan: "A monk asked Jōshū, a Japanese Zen master: "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?", Jōshū answered: "Mu".

BTW, would a cow itself be any different if I called it a woc, or would different names in different languages make a difference to its nature or what it IS?

Definition isn't about the word used to refer, it's about the definition's relationship to the referent, as you're about to say.

A definition is actually nothing unless it points to something, be it even that what IT ---> means.

Exactly, so changing the label makes no difference whatsoever to the definition, the conception.

Are you telling me that a Cow that horns me into a corner is because of how I conceptualize the event?

Nope, I'm telling you that the only way you will know anything about this event and its existence is through conceptualisation. Also, were you to ask the cow what it knows of existence, the answer would come back: Moooooo!

[Sapius]

It's good to be back, Dave.

S: Well, Dave, tell that to a Cow who Exists irrelevant of me defining it a “Cow”

D: Strange as this sounded to me, I decided nonetheless to go find me a cow. I told it that existence can only ever be born of conceptualisation and asked it what this therefore means of its existence. The reply that came back was so profound, I'm no longer sure of the intelligence level of cows. All it said was Moooooo! I presume this to be a peculiarity of its accent and that what it actually meant was 'Mu'. Obviously it must have been referring to the koan: "A monk asked Jōshū, a Japanese Zen master: "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?", Jōshū answered: "Mu".

Haaahaahaha…. Sorry for the trouble I put you through… it’s my bad English you see. It seems you took my rhetorical remark literally.

What I meant was, go "tell" that to a cow who exists irrelevant of the concept, or "tell" that it exists by the virtue of YOUR concept, and that its Mooing back is by the virtue of YOUR concept of what Mooing is. It's not just your ears ringing.

Sap: There isn’t an alternative to Existence itself except you or me looking at it through definitions.

DT: There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't.

So for a cow existence isn’t? I think as far as the cow goes, it simply IS, unconcerned about a “conceptualised and meaningful existence” as you or me are aware of, but it does exist and operates through its own sensual “conceptualisation” and does things coherently. No?

Does Existence itself exist before we conceptualise it or after?

Does Existence itself does not exist for a new born child?

This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

Yes, verbally only, and I'm talking about Existence as in IS, in and of a dynamically alive NOW, which cannot die, so there is no alternative to IT.

S: BTW, would a cow itself be any different if I called it a woc, or would different names in different languages make a difference to its nature or what it IS?

D: Definition isn't about the word used to refer, it's about the definition's relationship to the referent, as you're about to say.

And the referent exists by the virtue of the relationship of the word that I conceptualize? Unless I don’t sensually detect a “cow” first, how can I define it? Cow itself is not the word, or an abstract symbol like ‘and’. “AND”, a purely abstract symbol that does not exist except me conceptualizing it abstractly, and I can see that, but the thing... COW... itself!??

S: A definition is actually nothing unless it points to something, be it even that what IT ---> means

D: Exactly, so changing the label makes no difference whatsoever to the definition, the conception.

But a “cow” itself is NOT a concept like ‘and’ ‘it’ or ‘for’. We simply need to agree on their meanings and it works, but if I have never seen a cow, there is no way that you could describe it to me through your “conception” alone and I get it right! Try it! Imagine any kind of an animal and try to describe it, you cannot help but give me some reference of some other animal that I must have SEEN to even come close to your conception.

S: Are you telling me that a Cow that horns me into a corner is because of how I conceptualise the event?

D: Nope, I'm telling you that the only way you will know anything about this event and its existence is through conceptualisation.

Ah! I forgot to tell you, I was attacked from behind, so somehow I felt the pain before I got a chance to conceptualise the event.

What good is the knowing of an event and its existence through conceptualisation when I cannot live to know it when shot in the back of my head? This alone tells me Existence is not dependant on my KNOWING or conceptualising of it as so.