relationships and ultimate reality

[otiosedodge]

Hi All,

I was recently sitting with 2 friends, and they asked me about my insights into ultimate reality. I explained my insights, and this led to a discussion about attachment. While one of my friends believes in ultimate reality in an intuitive way (better than nothing, I guess...), both said that they were worried about the implications of this insight for relationships. For instance, if emotional bonds are truly illusory, then what was to say that over time, I wouldn't slowly detach from my emotional bonds with them? I was at a loss to answer them, and I still am.

The same sort of thing happened with a woman who I'm interested in. After a discussion about ultimate reality, she wondered what the implications were for romantic attachment. Once again, I was at a loss.

The only inkling of an answer that I can seem to come up with is that I would want to have a support network of people who will bolster me when my insight about the ultimate nature of reality ebbs, and hence attachments of this kind would be appropriate. It seems reasonable to assume that we will never be entirely comfortable with our insight, no matter how rock-solid it is, since we never know what kind of trouble life will throw our way and whether that trouble can penetrate our core of certainty about our insight, making doubt arise. Maybe that's a mistaken assumption too; I'm open to other opinions.

Thanks,
Otiose

[Robert]

Knowing that the emotional bonds you create with someone are illusory makes no difference to their validity. All things are illusory, that's really the only thing you need to keep in mind, and without making that itself an attachment. If anything, knowing this should make relationships with others easier rather than more difficult.

[otiosedodge]

Knowing that the emotional bonds you create with someone are illusory makes no difference to their validity. All things are illusory, that's really the only thing you need to keep in mind, and without making that itself an attachment. If anything, knowing this should make relationships with others easier rather than more difficult.

I'm still confused. It would seem that one would need to eliminate certain types of bonds, ones that aren't based on insight into ultimate reality. If all things are illusory (and I fully agree with you there), then shouldn't we simply dedicate our lives to helping others realize ultimate reality, and in fact not feed into other types of attachments, since they are in fact illusory? Could you elaborate?

[Ryan Rudolph]

A relationship is whole if you don't constantly find yourself missing them, feeling lonely, insecure, and anxious in their absence. You can still have intimate deep relationships with people, but the key is when they are absent in your life, your mind needs to be clear, and not thinking about particular people. Thinking about particular people is a sign that the brain has become habituated to certain emotional patterns the person gives that makes your ego feel good. Living without ego means being grounded in the present moment, rather then particular emotions given to you by particular people. That's not to say you cannot enjoy people's company in conversation, food and so on. However, when its over, its over, and you are so grounded in the infinite that those temporary emotions pale in comparison to the certain reality you find yourself on a day to day basis.

[Robert]

If what you mean by "certain types of bonds" are causing you to suffer in some way, then yes, it would be better to eliminate them. But I'm not sure what you mean by "ones that aren't based on insight into ultimate reality". I think you mean vague non-defined desires that aim for equally vague egoic satisfaction, or rooted in values that you now consider delusional.

Recognising these things for what they are doesn't necessarily mean the end of relationships, it just means you can shift your focus from falsity to truth. If you want to spend your life helping others, great, all you need to do is live your life with truth in mind.

[Kelly Jones]

Hi All,

I was recently sitting with 2 friends, and they asked me about my insights into ultimate reality. I explained my insights, and this led to a discussion about attachment. While one of my friends believes in ultimate reality in an intuitive way (better than nothing, I guess...), both said that they were worried about the implications of this insight for relationships. For instance, if emotional bonds are truly illusory, then what was to say that over time, I wouldn't slowly detach from my emotional bonds with them? I was at a loss to answer them, and I still am.

The same sort of thing happened with a woman who I'm interested in. After a discussion about ultimate reality, she wondered what the implications were for romantic attachment. Once again, I was at a loss.

The only inkling of an answer that I can seem to come up with is that I would want to have a support network of people who will bolster me when my insight about the ultimate nature of reality ebbs, and hence attachments of this kind would be appropriate. It seems reasonable to assume that we will never be entirely comfortable with our insight, no matter how rock-solid it is, since we never know what kind of trouble life will throw our way and whether that trouble can penetrate our core of certainty about our insight, making doubt arise. Maybe that's a mistaken assumption too; I'm open to other opinions.

Your friends' and the woman's intuitions were reasonable, but not complete. When one realises all things are the shifting forms of the one Infinite, there is nothing to grasp hold of. Emotional bonds are a result of mistaken perceptions of the Infinite, where one still tries to fix the Infinite into something concrete. In other words, your friends were still thinking of themselves as concrete. They were thinking of you as concrete. Their idea is that enlightenment just cuts the bonds, so that people just roam free, like solid kites with their grounding-strings cut. They haven't yet apprehended that there aren't any concrete entities to roam free. Ultimate Reality is already perfect and pure, and empty of all intrinsically existing things. We never come into existence, or come to an end.

The only thing to guard against, with having a support network, is that the very idea would work against understanding the truth about oneself. A spiritual person has no friends. Reason alone is the only reliable crutch, if one needs a crutch. One just does the best one can.

By the way, "troubles" are spiritually helpful.

.

[Nick]

otiosedodge,

Just because things aren't inherently real, doesn't mean they aren't in fact real, and should be treated as such. The important thing to understand and remember is that everything has causes, and all things and boundaries are momentary appearances that are constantly shifting based how our minds are carving up reality. So by understanding this we can consciously (wisely) interact with reality and the things contained within it in the most effective and efficient manner and really play an active role in shaping our karma (fate). Naturally this will cause one to become less prone to emotional attachment, and relationships based solely on attachment are likely to fade, but any relationships you have with someone based on a shared understanding will likely persist and are in a deeper sense much more meaningful.

[Nick]

You don't think everything has a cause and gains it's meaning, and thus it's existence, within consciousness at the discretion of the observer? If so this is what you must logically disprove. Or do you mean something else by inherently real? If you do mean something else by inherently real; what is it?

P.S. - If you want to have a serious discussion about this, cool. If not, don't bother responding to me because I'm done dealing with your silly middle school bullshit.

[Dan Rowden]

Actually, things 'are in fact real' because they're inherently real.

What do you mean by "inherent"?

[Robert]

Everything is inherent. I don't expect Nick to understand this as he hasn't so far. He thinks 'everything gains existence within consciousness' lol

dejavu, I suspect Nick understands perfectly what you mean, as I do, but I think the problem is that you seem to be preferring your definition whilst acknowledging the almost opposite definition (emptiness, sunyata). They can be (and are) both right depending on the context in which they're used, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, which is what you seem to be implying - insisting that only one meaning of the word/concept has validity. You're not offering a correction or superior understanding by doing this, and leads to this circular argument that you've gotten caught up in.

[Robert]

You've just pretty much proved my point with your response there, sticking with the one conception of the term as if it were written in stone, and using it like a large brush to whitewash all other possibly useful and helpful definitional constructs. Fair enough, but I don't see the point in playing a rigged game.

[Robert]

They are still seen because they're valid, contrary to what you seem to believe. I've re-read the thread you linked to, do you still hold steadfast to your preferences of defintions that you made at the time? If so, I can't really offer anything else other than what DHodges, Elizabeth and jupiviv already covered with you. To me, it's like you've taken a freeze-frame slice of existence, like you've taken a photograph of the Totality, placed youself on the exterior, and are looking in on it as if separate from it.

What other definition did you have in mind Robert?

Like I already said, emptiness. This was also pointed out by DHodges.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kelly,

The only thing to guard against, with having a support network, is that the very idea would work against understanding the truth about oneself. A spiritual person has no friends. Reason alone is the only reliable crutch, if one needs a crutch. One just does the best one can.

I agree that support networks are problematic because they weaken the self, but I disagree that a man of reason has no friends. Having no friends can easily lead to insanity, and worsen ones emotional problems, just ask Nietzsche. human beings need some degree of social interaction, that is our makeup. I think one needs a balance of solitude and social interaction with others, preferably high quality intellectual discussion, but sometimes any conversation is necessary when one has been living in ones own head for months, relying solely on reason as you say. Its a dangerous game I say.

[Steven Coyle]

how to 2nd power up... diatriylaba

random tag

[Robert]

It's like teaching the piano to a Thalidomide victim. Not entirely impossible, but the handicap is huge. I can't be arsed with the attitude dejavu, honestly. Good luck.

[Robert]

ha, not bad.

If you want to start a new thread, go for it. I'm a little busy right now, but I'll try and check in. It might encourage others to respond too.

btw, emptiness (in terms of non-inherent) doesn't mean nothing.

[otiosedodge]

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

It seems to me that there are three primary modes of social interaction left as a result of my analysis, with all of your help. The first is social interaction just for fun. The second is helping others in some way, no matter where they are on their path (ie, whether they need some food or whether they need insight into the ultimate nature of reality). The third is interaction with others for mutual support related to or based on insight into the ultimate nature of reality, or with people who share my values even if they don't share them as a result of insight into ultimate reality. Does this seem right to people? I find that lately I have less and less time for non-fun conversation with people who haven't developed proper insight. I just recognize their personality disorders (assuming that I can't help them in some way) and am bored and/or frustrated.

[Robert]

This is where I say: What does emptiness mean Robert?

I say: There is nothing empty of itself. There is nothing outside of existence, everything is inherent.

I assume infinity, and therefore equate inherency with existence.

I think I get what you mean, and it makes sense when put in a certain context. Here's the but. That context isn't the whole story, but only half of it. The fuller context is not to ignore the other side, using the same words and language to see the opposite. To "assume infinity, and therefore equate inherency with existence" is to take the fragment for the whole. The whole, the Absolute, ultimately itself can be said to have neither inherent nor non-inherent existence. It is non-relative, by definition, hence it escapes this kind of conditioned/non-conditioned description. It is Absolute, yet to describe it creates division. This is, to me, what emptiness and sunyata ultimately means, all perceptions, all experience, whatever they are of, are dependent on these divisions of what they are and what they are not to give them meaning - they cannot have meaning if they are non-dependent, it's unimaginable, impossible, there is no ultimate end for the potential to divide. So yes, in a sense all things are inherent since they depend on each other to give their existence identity, they inherit their identity from the whole, yet they lack inherent existence for the very same reason. All we really do is identify shifting aspects of the unbounded form, and it's the form of emptiness that we see.

[Robert]

I guess either you see it or you don't, and I'm probably not the best pedagogue. I like to spend more time here to learn than to teach others. To me, I don't get why you insist on dismissing what not possessing 'inherent existence' signifies in terms of non-absolute and dependent, caused and contingent, finite and non-permanent. All you're saying is that things exist because they're given the quality of existence through their simple fact of existence, and that that this existence is inherent since you equate inherency with existence. All this has been covered in the other thread already, it's like you're taking the meaning of the mountain/not-mountain/mountain saying, and adding another mountain at the end (which is why I said your logic is circular). Or worse, you're not even apprehending the not-mountain (but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, cos I'm a nice guy).

[Robert]

No, I'm saying that everything is inherent because existence is all there is.

Is that "everything" mountain #1, or #3 ?

[Robert]

J'avais raison de douter, de toute évidence.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
No, I'm saying that everything is inherent because existence is all there is.

Carmel:
I'm not convinced that existence is all there is, but all existence(and 'non existence') is inherent, in the Aristotlean sense, i.e Univeral, of the Totality.

--
Robert:
Is that "everything" mountain #1, or #3 ?

Carmel:
It's both. If mountain #1 is an appearance, and therefore an illusion, then #2; 'no mountain' is also an illusion which is why #3 appears again ...and it cycles thusly.

[Robert]

So yes, in a sense all things are inherent since they depend on each other to give their existence identity, they inherit their identity from the whole, yet they lack inherent existence for the very same reason.

How could anything lack existence for the same reason it has it? Why can't you explain this? Effectually, all you keep saying is: "There must be a sense
in which things don't exist for things to exist at all!"

By your confusion, this is where you show you have no real understanding of the term 'inherent existence'. You ask "how can anything lack existence for the same reason it has it?" What I actually said was "they lack inherent existence for the very same reason". An important distinction there that you fail to make because your apparent ignorance of what the term fully refers to and that runs counter to the one-sided myopic definition you keep insisting on, which is also leading you to invent problems for yourself. This can be fixed, links to reading matter have been provided.

When I said "in a sense all things are inherent since they depend on each other to give their existence identity", I'm referring to the identity of the thing, the qualities that we give it as it appears to us, and as opposed to everything else it's not. You could argue that identity and existence are equivalent, but I'm making a qualitative difference here between the two, as much as in an attempt to reconcile your use of 'inherency' but also to highlight the difference between mundane and ultimate existence. I have the feeling you don't like making the distinction, or think it possible to see one.

[Robert]

Robert:
Is that "everything" mountain #1, or #3 ?

Carmel:
It's both. If mountain #1 is an appearance, and therefore an illusion, then #2; 'no mountain' is also an illusion which is why #3 appears again ...and it cycles thusly.

The question is what number is it for dejavu, is it du déjà vu, or du jamais vu ?

[Is.]

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

It seems to me that there are three primary modes of social interaction left as a result of my analysis, with all of your help. The first is social interaction just for fun. The second is helping others in some way, no matter where they are on their path (ie, whether they need some food or whether they need insight into the ultimate nature of reality). The third is interaction with others for mutual support related to or based on insight into the ultimate nature of reality, or with people who share my values even if they don't share them as a result of insight into ultimate reality. Does this seem right to people? I find that lately I have less and less time for non-fun conversation with people who haven't developed proper insight. I just recognize their personality disorders (assuming that I can't help them in some way) and am bored and/or frustrated.

Hey, Otiose! The reason you get frustrated is because your insight is still shallow. You think that there is one "right way" to live, and "wrong ways". Being enlightened isn't personal. Can't you see that ignorance is the Infinite? There's nothing wrong with it. It only becomes "wrong" when one is suffering and aspire to end that suffering. Yet, that "wrongness" is mind-made and therefore still not real, even when it has conventional validity.

Ask yourself why you are trying to convince people, and what you are trying to convince them of. You obviously have a dogmatic view of what ultimate reality is, and feel the need to convert people. How can anyone have a view of the ultimate? How can someone possess knowledge about it, which can then be handed down? The Infinite is a different fish.

Chinese Zen master Shido Munan Zenji had only one successor he considered worthy, a monk by the name of Shoju. One day Munan called Shoju into his room and started to hand him an ancient, well-worn book saying, "I am getting old and as far as I know you are the only one to carry on this teaching. This book has been handed down from master to master for seven generations, in it I have added many points according to my understanding. It is very valuable and I am giving it to you to represent your successorship."

Shoju replied, "If the book is so important and valuable you should keep it, as I have received your Zen without writing and satisfied with it as it is."

The two were standing beside a brazier of hot coals as they talked. Munan continued to insist that Shoju take the book and placed it in his hands. The instant Shoju felt the book in his hands he thrust it into the fire.