relationships and ultimate reality

[Is.]

Here you are not talking about the material (existents / existence). You are talking about abstracts.

Let's take something material. How about the chair you're sitting on? Is not our conception of what a chair is completely arbitrary? What can we say about the chair? It is this big, and it has this kind of shape, and it weighs this much, etc etc. Are not all these attributes all made in relation to something else? That is, the chair is a medium-size because the room is a big-size. And is the big-size of the room inherently big? Or, is it a designation which we simply make up in an arbitrary fashion in our minds, in relation to other arbitrary designations?

Does the room exist independently? Does the chair exist independently? How can we make objective observations if they do not exist independently?

Rather, I say we mutually agree on something in a completely arbitrary manner, and then build on that agreement. For example, one base-agreement could be that we exist as individuals, and that we can then build on that assertion. This makes all assertions arbitrary, and not ultimately true.

1: I am not saying there is just utter nothingness. Why? Because saying that would be a fallacy. I of course agree that Ultimate Reality exists. I just say that there's nothing we can say about it that is actually correct. I am fond of this quote from the Old Testament:

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
Exodus 33:20

2: I am not saying objective claims are therefore meaningless. Why? Because they are conventionally valid within the perspective-world of mutual agreement in which we all live our lives. And we can arrange these mutual agreements in an hierarchy of conventional validity because we can note how many contradictions and how much dissonance one mutual agreement or perspective generates when using it. For example, the perspective that "the world is flat" generates dissonance when we use it researching what we call "the planet". The perspective that "the world is round" does in comparison not generate the same degree of dissonance and contradiction. Therefore, it is conventionally more valid than the former. Yet, neither perspectives are reporting on the objective state of affairs of Reality.

This is a loaded statement - referred to as argument via intimidation.

If you personally don't like my use of language, just tell me and I'll change it.

[longsincedead]

dejavu you are doing fine.

Is you are still mistaking abstract and material. I have no more time for this, so I will keep this simple (for anyone else confused about this): Chair is a concept / abstract / idea. What it is constructed of, is material. Now refer back to the letter swap example in previous post. We can say a chair is now a table .... etc. etc.

On beliefs - what you quoted: I do not deal in beliefs (for a reason).

[otiosedodge]

Hi Is,

If your definition of enlightenment is one of permanent, unshakeable awareness of the ultimate nature of reality (as it seems to be), then no, I'm certainly not enlightened, and I never claimed to be. All I claimed was to have had a deep insight into the nature of reality, which I still hold. In fact, I don't know how anyone can claim to have reached a permanent enlightenment, since they never know what life will throw at them that may make them regress into deluded perception. Of course, all this is being said from the conventional level, since ultimately speaking, we are all enlightened already.

As for your contention that right and wrong are merely conventional constructs: I think you're on a slippery slope to nihilism. There is no question in my mind that ultimate reality is characterized by peace, which is undoubtedly positive, or right. So you can't deny the "rightness" of trying to steer someone who is deluded in that direction.

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

[Is.]

What it is constructed of, is material.

I question this belief. My point is that when you assert a thing like this, you are still dealing in abstractions. You are not talking about Reality from an objective viewpoint completely free from personal bias. This is a natural due to our biological, social and cultural background. Therefore, the quoted statement above is arbitrary, and not ultimately true. (Which is not to say it can't be conventionally more or less true compared to other illusory-like statements.)

What is a chair constructed of? What is this material essence?

If your definition of enlightenment is one of permanent, unshakeable awareness of the ultimate nature of reality (as it seems to be)...

This definition makes no sense to me. First of all, permanence is a fiction of the mind. Second, awareness is a fiction of the mind. Third, even if there were such a thing as a permanent awareness of the ultimate nature of reality, who would be the witness of such a reality? I question the basis of person-hood and ownership of things or experiences.

As for your contention that right and wrong are merely conventional constructs: I think you're on a slippery slope to nihilism.

I can understand why you think that. However, conventional validity doesn't equal meaninglessness. I would never in a million years say that to kill a kitten in sacrifice to a Sacred Goddess is a moral expression that is equal to the moral expression of, say, the earnest wish in seeing all beings free from suffering. Why? Because morals exist in the thought-world. And since the thought-world is where we live as persons, morals do matter, as long as we agree on attaching ourselves -- consciously or unconsciously -- to illusory-like persons demarcated in time and space. Because it does matter, we can arrange moral expressions hierarchially, based on our values.

[longsincedead]

My last response on this. Last word will be yours.

I question this belief.

I do not deal in beliefs (second time). I adhere to scientific methodology.

My point is that when you assert a thing like this, you are still dealing in abstractions. You are not talking about Reality from an objective viewpoint completely free from personal bias. This is a natural due to our biological, social and cultural background**.

The proper identification of existence (material) and abstraction (proper*) is pretty simple. **Most people are tangled up from years of bad influence. Amazingly enough, some people make there way through it. Everyone is an individual.
*Proper abstraction adheres to / reflects reality.

Therefore, the quoted statement above is arbitrary, and not ultimately true. (Which is not to say it can't be conventionally more or less true compared to other illusory-like statements.)

Faulty conclusion based on faulty assumption etc.

What is a chair constructed of? What is this material essence?

First part: material (existent)
Second part: Reading the definitions below you will see the second question is invalid.

material = The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made.
essence = The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

This leads me to say that you are still confused about the nature of abstraction and existence / material.

Chair = abstract idea - something to sit on. To add convenience in some circumstances.
Design of said chair = concept (abstract idea)
Material used - whatever the designer wishes to use, with the idea of function and technological capabilities.
The finished product is the material / physical form of the abstract idea.

Biases (cultural and social) do not alter reality of existence, or of proper abstraction.
It is irrelevant in identifying reality. Any individual is capable of rising above social /cultural influence.

[Is.]

I adhere to scientific methodology.

Science too is a belief, as the people who created this forum will tell you. Science is a set of beliefs that simply result in less conceotual dissonance and contradiction when investigating reality from higher illusory-like perspectives.

Proper abstraction adheres to / reflects reality.

A statement of ignorance. Abstraction is a way of organizing our experience in a dualistic manner. Since Reality is not dualistic, abstraction simply can not reflect it.

Material used - whatever the designer wishes to use, with the idea of function and technological capabilities.

And this material intrinsically exist by way of its own character, from its own side? Can you point to the exact time when the material first came into existence?

Any person locked into the mind and its concepts will talk in this way.

[longsincedead]

And this material intrinsically exist by way of its own character, from its own side? Can you point to the exact time when the material first came into existence?

Any person locked into the mind and its concepts will talk in this way.

The rest of your post (most of it is part of a popular, self contradicting, philosophical dogma), I will not directly address (the last word was yours). The above I will address.

Consciousness presupposes existence.

Existence is the sum total of existents.

Something can never come from nothing.

Existence is a primary.

p.s. the old science is beliefs is fallacious. Beliefs are the act of accepting without proof. Science is the opposite. People love to use theory as an equivalent to belief. Check definitions. That some scientists act like a pet theory is fact, without conclusive evidence is just a sign of immature thinking.

[Tomas]

.


-otiosedodge-
The same sort of thing happened with a woman who I'm interested in.

-tomas-
Do your soul-searching with your buddies and pals. Skip the heavy stuff with the lady friend. If you two will click, it will occur without all the heavy "head" stuff. Lighten up already, you'll have a lifetime of discussions down that road with her.


-otiosedodge-
After a discussion about ultimate reality, she wondered what the implications were for romantic attachment.

-tomas-
Well, duh already. If the two of you haven't been sharing each others bodily fluids (including kissing), keep the juices flowing with a walk in the park, or the zoo (but avoid the smelly monkeys) and instead, concentrate (on) whether there is a spark between the two of you. Celibacy is clearly a losers' route to enlightenment. Be yourselfr, not a walking dictionary about this and that. There'll be plenty of time to discuss "ultimate reality" when doing the dishes, laundry chores, dropping off and picking up the kids from school, changing diapers at 3 in the morning etc.


-otiosedodge-
Once again, I was at a loss.

-tomas-
Book smart - street stupid? If you physically masturbate, cut it out! You want the girl? - be real.


-otiosedodge-
Thanks, Otiose

-tomas-
No problem, inquire anytime :-)

PS - If the lady is still accepting your dating come-ons, you've to be somewhat-romantic. Bring flowers, chocolate, write a letter "longhand" etc .. leave the condoms for the perverts. Cool, calm and collected... opera tickets.

[otiosedodge]

I think my definition makes no sense to you because you're confusing ultimate and conventional reality. While I understand that permanence, awareness, and the self are fictions of the mind on the ultimate level, they clearly exist on the conventional level, and we need conventional description of ultimate truth as the finger pointing at the moon.

As for your statement about moral conventions: while I agree that, for the vast majority, morality is conventionally constructed, you haven't addressed the basic "rightness" of ultimate reality that I brought up. Clearly the peace that we are on the ultimate level is right or good. So doesn't that go against a totally conventional view of what's right or wrong?

If your definition of enlightenment is one of permanent, unshakeable awareness of the ultimate nature of reality (as it seems to be)...

This definition makes no sense to me. First of all, permanence is a fiction of the mind. Second, awareness is a fiction of the mind. Third, even if there were such a thing as a permanent awareness of the ultimate nature of reality, who would be the witness of such a reality? I question the basis of person-hood and ownership of things or experiences.

As for your contention that right and wrong are merely conventional constructs: I think you're on a slippery slope to nihilism.

I can understand why you think that. However, conventional validity doesn't equal meaninglessness. I would never in a million years say that to kill a kitten in sacrifice to a Sacred Goddess is a moral expression that is equal to the moral expression of, say, the earnest wish in seeing all beings free from suffering. Why? Because morals exist in the thought-world. And since the thought-world is where we live as persons, morals do matter, as long as we agree on attaching ourselves -- consciously or unconsciously -- to illusory-like persons demarcated in time and space. Because it does matter, we can arrange moral expressions hierarchially, based on our values.

[otiosedodge]

Hi Tomas,

Damn it, where were you two weeks ago?

:)

I'll admit I'm not the most romantic guy in the room. But I have to say that I find brains sexy in a woman. Why can't it work the same way the other way around too? But then again, I have to say that I'm so nervous at the beginning of a tryst/relationship that I crowd out light-hearted stuff (see my recent post, "enlightening" up).

All that said, I can't say that I'd wanna be changing diapers for the baby of a woman that may not share my views on ultimate reality. I'd consider that putting the cart before the horse.

But in any case, preach on, Obi Wan.

.


-otiosedodge-
The same sort of thing happened with a woman who I'm interested in.

-tomas-
Do your soul-searching with your buddies and pals. Skip the heavy stuff with the lady friend. If you two will click, it will occur without all the heavy "head" stuff. Lighten up already, you'll have a lifetime of discussions down that road with her.


-otiosedodge-
After a discussion about ultimate reality, she wondered what the implications were for romantic attachment.

-tomas-
Well, duh already. If the two of you haven't been sharing each others bodily fluids (including kissing), keep the juices flowing with a walk in the park, or the zoo (but avoid the smelly monkeys) and instead, concentrate (on) whether there is a spark between the two of you. Celibacy is clearly a losers' route to enlightenment. Be yourselfr, not a walking dictionary about this and that. There'll be plenty of time to discuss "ultimate reality" when doing the dishes, laundry chores, dropping off and picking up the kids from school, changing diapers at 3 in the morning etc.


-otiosedodge-
Once again, I was at a loss.

-tomas-
Book smart - street stupid? If you physically masturbate, cut it out! You want the girl? - be real.


-otiosedodge-
Thanks, Otiose

-tomas-
No problem, inquire anytime :-)

PS - If the lady is still accepting your dating come-ons, you've to be somewhat-romantic. Bring flowers, chocolate, write a letter "longhand" etc .. leave the condoms for the perverts. Cool, calm and collected... opera tickets.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
Carmels is a different case. Her confusion lies in her sense of diplomacy
;D

Carmel:
That's partially true, but worse yet, I tossed the blanket of non duality upon the inherent paradox of the "sunyata of sunyata", a intellectually lazy maneuvre that many Buddhists rely upon. That's the only way to resolve the paradox. It can't be done using logic because of the circular nature of the argument. That being the case, this is essentially a religious issue, not a philosophical one...and for that reason, it seems pointless to discuss it.

We haven't and never will get a logically viable argument for "non inherent existence" because there isn't one. The entire argument rests upon pre-conceived assumptions of Buddhist and Taoist doctrine, not upon logic.