relationships and ultimate reality

[Robert]

Let me rephrase that for you. --How can anything lack inherent existence for the same reason it has it?

Again, the failure to grasp deeper interpretations and defintions of terms is limiting you. As it is, I did go on to explain what I meant, as an attempt at reconciling your singular usage of the word. How foolish of me, my lesson is learned. It's possible to be right and wrong simultaneously, funnily enough.

Addressing me with condescension hardly makes your argument.

No condescension is intended, but I understand why you might think that.

So far on this board, it has only been Pye (though I shouldn't really speak for her) and I who accept "what the term fully refers to" :D I mean, we at least have put words to the matter.

Doesn't that tell you something? (insert sarcasm/irony here)

When a metaphysician dresses existence with the adjective 'ultimate', I feel a lack of inherent interest, as I do when I hear of a mountain, no mountain, and a mountain again.

Yes, I'm now sure you do. I did for a fleeting moment think you might have something, but now I see it's just the same old same old. Ah well.

[Robert]

Not only for you dejavu, but for anyone else interested, a few choice sources:

The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy
Fairly comprehensive, a little dense but easy enough to read

Nāgārjuna at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
More complete, respected source among academics (for whatever that's worth)

Emptiness
More summary, general


It's possible to skip most of the references to Buddhism in these texts and just retain what the essence is about.


A couple of exchanges from the Genius News newsletters:

Emptiness is Fatal
David Quinn exposes the dangers

Fundamental Matters
Dan Rowden covers a lot of ground and ties together a few different ideas

[longsincedead]

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).

If I missed something after this - my apologies (I only skimmed after this post)

Axiom - Primary - Fundamental (toss in A is A)

Dejavu is mostly talking about this (above - unless I skimmed through the thread too quickly) using his own expression 'inherent existence' and if memory is correct - the need for language definition. Cat = cat (A is A)
These things are essential for very important reasons (understatement). Communication being one.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
Confusing 'independent' with 'inherent' is odd to me, but then, I'm odd!

Carmel:
It is odd! (I may address this later), nevertheless, I found some useful information in those links, so thanks, Robert.

From the first link:

"Since criticism has revealed contradictions in clinging to both inherent existence and inherent non existence, in the end we can neither absolutely assert nor absolutely deny the existence of the self. We are left with the "Middle Way" passing between the two extremes"
--

The second link from Stanford was more thorough and thought provoking than the first, but both links confirm that the theory of sunyata, 'emptiness' contain inherent contradictions and is, therefore not an "absolute truth".

The third link was pretty basic. It was essentially religious doctrine, no counter arguments are presented. It was less intellectually challenging than the first two.

From the fifth link, Dan states: "Things lack non inherency as well".

Stated in the affirmative, it could be interpreted to mean that things have inherency (as well as non inherency, presumably)...Dan, if I misinterpreted your statement, please feel free to clarify.

[Nick]

Confusing 'independent' with 'inherent' is odd to me, but then, I'm odd!

So why don't you simply give us your definition of inherent? And please don't direct me to a litany of your posts to slog through, as I'm not going to be bothered with that when my request here is as straight forward as can be.

[Robert]

The second link from Stanford was more thorough and thought provoking than the first, but both links confirm that the theory of sunyata, 'emptiness' contain inherent contradictions and is, therefore not an "absolute truth".

Keep in mind that it's not really a contradiction, when you take the logic as far as possible. A quote taken from the first link I posted, the last two sentences of the conclusion:
"Through the method of criticism, extreme views are shown to lead to contradictions which reveal the truth of sunyata with regard to all things. Ultimately, even sunyata or relativity itself is denied as absolute, revealing the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of ourselves and all things."

[Nick]

Mine is important enough to be found in the dictionary Nick, you oaf.

Wow. Any philosopher worth his weight in salt would have no problem providing a simple definition on their own terms. I hope you don't consider yourself one. It's like you're trying to sustain indefinitely an altered state of mind that you experienced in the past. Quinn was dead on when he pointed out your over-riding desire to live in immediacy, and there's no doubt that immediacy played an important role in that altered state of mind you became attached to.

I guess if you ever decide to resume thinking again get back to me...

[Robert]

Mine is important enough to be found in the dictionary Nick, you oaf.

Wow. Any philosopher worth his weight in salt would have no problem providing a simple definition on their own terms. I hope you don't consider yourself one. It's like you're trying to sustain indefinitely an altered state of mind that you experienced in the past. Quinn was dead on when he pointed out your over-riding desire to live in immediacy, and there's no doubt that immediacy played an important role in that altered state of mind you became attached to.

I guess if you ever decide to resume thinking again get back to me...

To be fair, he did give his definition a couple of times. It boils down to everything (all things) have inherency because nothing is empty of itself, and since nothing is not existence (outside of existence, sayeth he) everything is inherent. Existence is equal to inherency, and vice versa, because of the assumption of infinity. Like the chair example in the other thread, the chair is inherently a chair because of, um, infinity. Without infinity, there would be no chair, ergo, the chair inherently exists. Faultless logic, genius is born.

Dictionary definition indeed, the one used in elementary school.

[Robert]

Emotive tripe.

If I were to make a robot machine that was perfectly logical, perfectly rational and totally emotionless, it would come to the same conclusion as the one I quoted. I'd name it BuddhaBot.

[Robert]

It would kill all humans, starting with you. (<joke. And this thread is headed for worldy matters)

[Nick]

Like the chair example in the other thread, the chair is inherently a chair because of, um, infinity. Without infinity, there would be no chair, ergo, the chair inherently exists.

That's like saying the infinite = a thing; there's no real logical connection there, and it's a violation of A=A. It's no wonder he's never really fleshed out the reasoning behind it, because there doesn't appear to be any. He's just saying it, and convincing himself of it so he can interact with things in a way that allows his ego to thrive. By making other things out to be more than what they are, he makes his own self out to be more than what it is.

[Carmel]

Robert:
Keep in mind that it's not really a contradiction, when you take the logic as far as possible.

Carmel:
On the contrary, It's the height of contradiction when you take the logic "as far as possible."

Robert:
A quote taken from the first link I posted, the last two sentences of the conclusion:
"Through the method of criticism, extreme views are shown to lead to contradictions which reveal the truth of sunyata with regard to all things. Ultimately, even sunyata or relativity itself is denied as absolute, revealing the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of ourselves and all things."

Carmel:
Yes, sunyata is not absolute. That was the point I was tryting to make. This quote further confirms that, but the following "conclusion" tries to reconcile the extreme contradictions:

From the link:
"revealing the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the nature of all things."

definition of "unconditioned"(Random House dictionary): not subject to conditions, natural or innate.

...innate reality which is not subject to conditions...?

The clear inference here is essentialism. (or what I might term "inherent existence".)

[Carmel]

Robert:
Like the chair example in the other thread, the chair is inherently a chair because of, um, infinity. Without infinity, there would be no chair, ergo, the chair inherently exists.

Carmel:
Do you have a quote to confirm that he said a chair is inherently a chair. I don't recall him saying this, but I could be mistaken.

While we're on this topic.
Of course, a chair isn't inherently a chair, it merely temporarily possesses the properties of a chair, but the chair, however does inherently exist. If the Whole(Totality) inherently exists, so do its parts/components. It can't be otherwise.

Also, there's no reason to include the term "inherent properties" when discussing "inherent existence" or "unconditioned reality", if you prefer.

edit: mizzpelyn'

[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.

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.

Hi Is,

I get the feeling that you're mixing conventional and ultimate levels of perspective. While I understand that, strictly speaking, one can't communicate the ultimate directly, I firmly believe that certain teachings can point to ultimate reality, the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. Also, I firmly believe that one can think that they are suffering, as if they were in a nightmare, and I think we can all agree that nightmares are unpleasant. So therefore, while I agree that on the ultimate level ignorance doesn't exist, I think that it can clearly exist on the conventional level, and that we can help others to wake up from the nightmare.

OD

[Nick]

Of course, a chair isn't inherently a chair, it merely temporarily possesses the properties of a chair,

That's not really the whole story. The chair exists by virtue of an observer having formed for himself a definition of what a chair is, and when a thing is caused to arise that pretty much fits within that definition, it's called a chair.

but the chair, however does inherently exist. If the Whole(Totality) exists, so do its parts/components. It can't be otherwise.

Nobody is saying things don't exist, obviously they do. What I'm saying is that they don't inherently exist (big difference).

On the contrary, It's the height of contradiction when you take the logic "as far as possible."

Robert is right in saying it's not really a contradiction. The infinite nature of the totality simply makes it so we can't form conceptions of it like we do a finite object, so it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a contradiction just because it doesn't work they way we're used to things working. The problem is when we try to pin the Totality down like we do with finite appearances. As soon as you attempt do this, you've lost it. Or as they used to say, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao". No contradiction really, it's just a different kind of beast.

[Robert]

Robert:
Like the chair example in the other thread, the chair is inherently a chair because of, um, infinity. Without infinity, there would be no chair, ergo, the chair inherently exists.

Carmel:
Do you have a quote to confirm that he said a chair is inherently a chair. I don't recall him saying this, but I could be mistaken.

The example was given by DHodges. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5009&start=50#p104071

Robert:
Keep in mind that it's not really a contradiction, when you take the logic as far as possible.

Carmel:
On the contrary, It's the height of contradiction when you take the logic "as far as possible."

Robert:
A quote taken from the first link I posted, the last two sentences of the conclusion:
"Through the method of criticism, extreme views are shown to lead to contradictions which reveal the truth of sunyata with regard to all things. Ultimately, even sunyata or relativity itself is denied as absolute, revealing the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of ourselves and all things."

Carmel:
Yes, sunyata is not absolute. That was the point I was tryting to make.

To me, the furthest logical step I was thinking of was 'sunyata of sunyata', which "the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of ourselves and all things" points to (in terms of speaking about it, putting it into words). I'd say it's more a paradox than a contradiction, but as soon as you see it the paradox is resolved. We are nature, don't forget.

Yes, sunyata is not absolute. That was the point I was tryting to make. This quote further confirms that, but the following "conclusion" tries to reconcile the extreme contradictions:

From the link:
"revealing the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the nature of all things."

definition of "unconditioned"(Random House dictionary): not subject to conditions, natural or innate.

...innate reality which is not subject to conditions...?

The clear inference here is essentialism. (or what I might term "inherent existence".)

It's context and perspective, which often get mixed up or lost track of. "Unconditioned" in this sense of condition-less, unbounded, non-relative, yet as son as we talk about it we necessarily use terms that evoke the relative and value based judgments, so what you term here inherent is also non-inherent, and neither.

[Carmel]

Robert:
The example was given by DHodges. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5009&start=50#p104071

Carmel:
ok, thanks, he did qualify his statement, but I think it's better to let him speak for himself...

Robert:
To me, the furthest logical step I was thinking of was 'sunyata of sunyata',

Carmel:
Yes, I assumed that's what you meant, that's why I called it the height of contradiction.

Robert:
which "the unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of ourselves and all things" points to (in terms of speaking about it, putting it into words). I'd say it's more a paradox than a contradiction,

Carmel:
Either term works for me "contradiction" or "paradox", but ultimately "reality" is "unutterable", so let us have a moment of silence... :)

Robert:
but as soon as you see it the paradox is resolved. We are nature, don't forget.

Carmel:
Relatively speaking, it is resolved.

Robert:
It's context and perspective, which often get mixed up or lost track of. "Unconditioned" in this sense of condition-less, unbounded, non-relative,

Carmel:
I would agree with this and your definition of "unconditioned" is not incongruent with mine.

Robert:
yet as son as we talk about it we necessarily use terms that evoke the relative and value based judgments,

Carmel:
yes, this call for another moment of silence and contemplation...

Robert:
so what you term here inherent is also non-inherent, and neither.

Carmel:
precisely, it's simultaneously both and neither, the middle path between them and/or some combination thereof. In sum, I think we're essentially on the same page...which rarely happens around here. This calls for another moment of silence... :)

edit: ty%!po

[Robert]

Alleluia! An illusion!

Maybe otiosedodge will get his thread back...

[longsincedead]

Mine is important enough to be found in the dictionary Nick, you oaf.

Wow. Any philosopher worth his weight in salt would have no problem providing a simple definition on their own terms. I hope you don't consider yourself one. It's like you're trying to sustain indefinitely an altered state of mind that you experienced in the past. Quinn was dead on when he pointed out your over-riding desire to live in immediacy, and there's no doubt that immediacy played an important role in that altered state of mind you became attached to.

I guess if you ever decide to resume thinking again get back to me...

To be fair, he did give his definition a couple of times. It boils down to everything (all things) have inherency because nothing is empty of itself, and since nothing is not existence (outside of existence, sayeth he) everything is inherent. Existence is equal to inherency, and vice versa, because of the assumption of infinity. Like the chair example in the other thread, the chair is inherently a chair because of, um, infinity. Without infinity, there would be no chair, ergo, the chair inherently exists. Faultless logic, genius is born.

Dictionary definition indeed, the one used in elementary school.

There is no such thing as "outside of existence". That is a faulty statement.
Existence is a primary.

The statement that "existence* (noun) is (verb) inherent** (adjective) " is just an acknowledgment. There is no vice versa here.

(clips from dictionary)
*Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Function: noun

**Main Entry: in·her·ent
Function: adjective

The point being: proper usage of words and definitions is critical.

Carmel:
Either term works for me "contradiction" or "paradox", but ultimately "reality" is "unutterable", so let us have a moment of silence... :)

Contradictions do not exist, except in the form of faulty thinking.

[longsincedead]

Just a temporary visit, combating faulty though processes.

In this thread: No point in letting you be the proverbial tree that falls in a forest, with no one around to hear if it makes a sound.

[Is.]

You've claimed to be enlightened, therefore, you shouldn't see any need to be frustrated at others incapacity to understand whatever arbitrary concept of Reality which you are currently entertaining. Why? Because from the perspective of Reality, there are no rights and there are no wrongs. These are mind-based conventionalities, and have no other existence. I.e. they don't inherently exist even conventionally. Therefore, you can care about people, but your mind isn't disturbed in the slightest with either success or failure.

Yes, since so called sentient beings are trapped in the belief that various dualities do inherently exist, you can help them from within that belief. Descend as an illusory-like Avatar into their complex mind-matrix and point here are an there to help relieve suffering, if you're so inclined. Still, that doesn't make the belief in, for example, right views or wrong views true.

The ability to see how phenomena have no intrinsic existence neither ultimately nor conventionally, yet, that they still can be meaningful, functioning and valid is the mark of the Superior Being.

“This combination of the following two [factors] barely occurs - (1) refuting, without residue, the object of negation [inherent existence] through reasoned analysis and (2) the feasibility of positing, as left after the negation, without loosing anything, all the functionalities of dependently arisen causes and effects as like illusions. Therefore, it is very difficult to gain the view of the Middle Way.”
-Tsongkhapa

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.

Hi Is,

I get the feeling that you're mixing conventional and ultimate levels of perspective. While I understand that, strictly speaking, one can't communicate the ultimate directly, I firmly believe that certain teachings can point to ultimate reality, the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. Also, I firmly believe that one can think that they are suffering, as if they were in a nightmare, and I think we can all agree that nightmares are unpleasant. So therefore, while I agree that on the ultimate level ignorance doesn't exist, I think that it can clearly exist on the conventional level, and that we can help others to wake up from the nightmare.

OD

[longsincedead]

You've claimed to be enlightened, therefore, you shouldn't see any need to be frustrated at others incapacity to understand whatever arbitrary concept of Reality which you are currently entertaining. Why? Because from the perspective of Reality, there are no rights and there are no wrongs. These are mind-based conventionalities, and have no other existence. I.e. they don't inherently exist even conventionally. Therefore, you can care about people, but your mind isn't disturbed in the slightest with either success or failure.

Yes, since so called sentient beings are trapped in the belief that various dualities do inherently exist, you can help them from within that belief. Descend as an illusory-like Avatar into their complex mind-matrix and point here are an there to help relieve suffering, if you're so inclined. Still, that doesn't make the belief in, for example, right views or wrong views true.

The ability to see how phenomena have no intrinsic existence neither ultimately nor conventionally, yet, that they still can be meaningful, functioning and valid is the mark of the Superior Being.

I am not sure who this is addressed to, but the are problems in this response.

1) "arbitrary concept of Reality"

2) "Because from the perspective of Reality, there are no rights and there are no wrongs.These are mind-based conventionalities, and have no other existence."

3)"Still, that doesn't make the belief in, for example, right views or wrong views true."

1) There is no arbitrary concept of reality. A is A. A person understands or they do not (measure by degrees).

2) First half of the first sentence is faulty structure. Reality has no perspective. "Reality" is the true nature of existence.

3) Right and Wrong are abstract concepts denoting the validity of other concepts. Proper abstraction adheres to reality. Right and wrong is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of facts.

[Is.]

1) There is no arbitrary concept of reality. A is A. A person understands or they do not (measure by degrees).

Everything you say about Reality or anything else for that matter is arbitrary. The appearance on my keyboard which looks like this: "R" immediately causes your mind to think of the sound: Rrrrrrrr. Yet upon rational analysis, there is nothing in the squiggle-appearance which indicates that the sound rrrrrr is in any way linked objectively to that appearance. It is an arbitrary assumption, because it can easily be something else, if we mutually/subjectively agree upon it.

That which is subjective is always arbitrary.

(And please note that the words arbitrary and meaningless are not synonymous.)

2) First half of the first sentence is faulty structure. Reality has no perspective. "Reality" is the true nature of existence.

Nothing you say about Reality or anything else is free from being made through the lens of a perspective. If you believe this is not the case you are an inferior, primitive being. Such beings believe things exist out there by themselves, and that we are simply recieving this information and reporting in a non-biased fashion on their objective, independent existence. This is called ignorance.

In other words, what I wrote above is not me commenting on the objective state of affairs of Reality, but rather it is an illusory-like perspective, which can be more or less accurate only in relation to other illusory-like perspectives.

3) Right and Wrong are abstract concepts denoting the validity of other concepts. Proper abstraction adheres to reality. Right and wrong is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of facts.

Right and wrong is a fact? Is it right or wrong to eat meat? Do you seriously believe there is an objective answer to this question?

[longsincedead]

Everything you say about Reality or anything else for that matter is arbitrary.

This is going in a few directions.
arbitrary = "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction"
Being is that we are talking about the nature of existence (my topic), we are using the word judgement. The last part is not true. If one wants to gain knowledge on a subject, one must adhere to reality. That is: One must test, and check, to make sure they are being objective (rather then subjective). If not, they will never understand the nature of the subject.

The appearance on my keyboard which looks like this: "R" immediately causes your mind to think of the sound: Rrrrrrrr. Yet upon rational analysis, there is nothing in the squiggle-appearance which indicates that the sound rrrrrr is in any way linked objectively to that appearance. It is an arbitrary assumption, because it can easily be something else, if we mutually/subjectively agree upon it.

Here you are not talking about the material (existents / existence). You are talking about abstracts. Language, and the alphabets that are used as constructs for communicating concepts / ideas. You could say the letter "R" is now "Q" and have a vote in favor and R becomes Q. In such case you might see something that resembles the shape of the letter Q and a phonetic sound comes to mind.
My point - all though what is said about abstract constructs is true - we decide what they will be - You took a leap from material to abstract. In defining the material, one needs to be objective for the sake of accuracy. The other is a matter of agreement of terms

Nothing you say about Reality or anything else is free from being made through the lens of a perspective. If you believe this is not the case you are an inferior, primitive being. Such beings believe things exist out there by themselves, and that we are simply recieving this information and reporting in a non-biased fashion on their objective, independent existence. This is called ignorance.

This is a loaded statement - referred to as argument via intimidation. First a claim is made, followed by the part designed to make a person feel pressure to agree. I.E. I agree or I am inferior, primitive, ignorant etc.
This is almost as cheap as Ad Hominem

That said; the first part is true, with condition. The condition is as explained above - being objective when studying the material.

2) "Because from the perspective of Reality, there are no rights and there are no wrongs.

On perspective - from the original statement; I commented "reality has no perspective"

Right and wrong is a fact? Is it right or wrong to eat meat? Do you seriously believe there is an objective answer to this question?

I said right and wrong is a matter of facts. But here again, you resort to trickery (invalid argument set up). I suggest you look into this one yourself. You only hurt yourself with this, and my patients ran out, explaining the other parts. Or maybe someone else will step in and explain.

[divine focus]

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.

Choosing to be with a romantic partner is fine, just don't expect to be with them at peace all the time. If you can't be at peace with yourself all the time, you can't be at peace with anyone all the time. Tensions can get heated, but the romance keeps the relationship going while sex calms the situation. Peace isn't even the issue, though. The only thing that matters is either helping yourself to grow, or helping another to grow. If you go for self, you don't even need a relationship. The relationships you get into and then leave help the both of you and whoever. I can't speak on the other class of being. (Translation later).