The two truths contradiction

[Pam Seeback]

I brought this over from the Wise Quotes Collection in case a discussion develops. My argument is with Dennis' assertions that a) the law of identity is a fuckup and b) there are two truths.

Dennis: Genesis 1.2
'without form and void'

In context:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."

Aristotle's law of identity fucks up absolutely.

The law of identity fits perfectly with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. God divides what is unformed (the light, the subject, the observer) into what is formed (the darkness, the object, the observed), A is A. "I" am tree, "I" am man, "I" am river, "I" am Adam, "I" am Eve, "I" am good, "I" am evil. A is A.

Innate characteristics like thinking, feeling, walking, talking, sitting, eating, fucking, sleeping, desiring, fighting, abiding calmly, mind on fire, meaning making etc..
these innate characteristics by no means exist inherently.
innate does not mean inherent.

I agree, innate (essence or quality) does not mean inherent (there is a self experiencing essence or quality). But innate agrees with rather than refutes the law of identity, i.e., thinking is not walking or talking, thinking is thinking just as walking is not thinking or talking, walking is walking and talking is not thinking or walking, talking is talking. A is A.

like 'the Immanent' guy discloses, causality appears conventionally,
ultimately, the notion of creation and destruction is an error in thinking.

Causality refutes the idea of absolute creation and absolute destruction (as an aside, the concept of creation and destruction as used in the bible is one of a continuum, not as an absolute) however causality does not appear conventionally AND ultimately as you state here, but rather, innately as you state above. The two truths doctrine of existence and not existence (a polarity) as presented by Naragjuna is purposed to help the mind think metaphysically, to clean out the filters of ISMs, it is not meant to explain how reality actually works. From wiki:

Nāgārjuna based his statement of the two truths on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta. In the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, the Buddha, speaking to the monk Kaccayana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the middle Way between nihilsm and eternalism: By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.

Notice that the Buddha does not speak absolutely when he speaks of a polarity, he says "by and large." Notice also that he refutes the two truths in the very next sentence for those who see with right discernment.

In conclusion, the law of identity, which transcends the two truths doctrine in understanding is not a fuckup, rather, in contrast it saves us from being fucked up by allowing us to realize that consciousness is whole, perfect, complete and pure of its innate subject-thingness unity. I am That (I am).

[Dennis Mahar]

the ultimate mode of perceiving depends on the conventional mode .can't have one without the other.
consciousness is caused by that which is not consciousness.
unconsciousness generates consciousness.
consciousness is the tip of the iceberg.
The Buddha revealed only enough to eradicate suffering.
his in order to.

law of identity copes with form.
tends to generate materialism.

You are a waking mind,
a dreaming mind
an unconscious mind

work with the unconscious mind.
command of it the deliverance of enlightened being
soon enough your dreams will be wonderful and an experience of purity in waking mind will show up.
mandala.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: consciousness is caused by that which is not consciousness.

But consciousness must also be present within that which is not consciousness or it could not be caused. Therefore your statement above is not logically true.

unconsciousness generates consciousness.
consciousness is the tip of the iceberg.
The Buddha revealed only enough to eradicate suffering.
his in order to.

Again, consciousness cannot be generated unless it is already present in unconsciousness.

law of identity copes with form.
tends to generate materialism.

But concepts are form. How does A is A generate materialism?

You are a waking mind,
a dreaming mind
an unconscious mind

work with the unconscious mind.

I am awake, is that not what the Buddha said? Why would one who is awake want to cease being awake?

command of it the deliverance of enlightened being
soon enough your dreams will be wonderful and an experience of purity in waking mind will show up.
mandala.

Enlightenment is not being, or a being, nor is it delivered, enlightenment is the product of coming to understand "the things of God" by way of philosophical reasoning. Wonderful is wonderful, but wonderful does not produce understanding. This is the choice one must make once they understand the difference between imagination and thinking: do they continue to play unconsciously in wonder, wandering and dancing eternally in the mandala (no effort required) or do they push onward for the sake of knowing what is true, dropping the mandala (effort required)?

[TheImmanent]

the ultimate mode of perceiving depends on the conventional mode .can't have one without the other.

To say that the ultimate conception of something is dependent on that something is incorrect since that something only exists as a concept in the first place (as the ultimate conception). What conventional truth depicts is not real, it does not exist. Form only exists as conceptual natures defined in relation to other conceptual natures (ultimate truth).

The ultimate truth is the reality of conventional truth. No dependence can be determined, since only ultimate truth is real. Therefore the separation is dualistic thinking, whereby one means that there is a concept (ultimate mode) and a "nonconceptual form" that is the object of a conception (this is what the conventional mode incorrectly posits). The conventional mode of perceiving is an ultimate truth. The ultimate mode of perceiving is not a conventional truth, and cannot be known through the conventional mode.

That is, conventional truth is not truth but merely the ultimate truth of conceptual mind that is ignorant.

[Dennis Mahar]

The self exists (conventional mode)
not from its own side (ultimate mode)

that avoids nihilism on the one hand and essentialism on the other which is a philosophical distinction that corrected a thicket of views prevailing that were causing suffering at the time.

Explication.

To point out ultimate there has to be a basis upon which to point it out.
that basis being the conventional mode of perceiving.

Conceptualising is imagining this or that in such and such a way.
may as well use imagination for benefit.

What people call 'God' is imputing mind.



In conversations a possibility to be shows up.
When listening to someone their possibility to be (imagined) quite clearly shows up.

note how Orenholt after intense conversation with getoriks opens up a thread declaring a possibility for herself to be 'of benefit to others'.
that is enlightenment.
melting heart
deeper and deeper

To be or not to be,
that is the question.

Pam, a round of sophistry doesn't enthuse.
you're only protecting something.
What?
don't wax on with the contents.
the context.

[Dennis Mahar]

When listening in a conversation a possibility for listening is listening to the 'possibility for being' presented thru' discursive argumentation.
all the little categories, the thises and that's, the suches and suches that 'arrived at'.... where it's at.

What can be heard is the nous.
an unspoken, unrecognised, pouring from, gushing out of.
'on the warpath?'

so the possibility for listening is the nous about the nous.
the context.

'Oh, I get it!'

then it's a question of enrolment.
to be or not to be.

[Pam Seeback]

The Immanent: That is, conventional truth is not truth but merely the ultimate truth of conceptual mind that is ignorant.

Your obvious contradiction in the first half of your statement offers up a very good reason why the idea of two truths only serves to muddy the waters.

Why not keep it simple? The causality is either ignorant or wise. It either believes it has a self or it knows it doesn't have a self.

[Dennis Mahar]

That is, conventional truth is not truth but merely the ultimate truth of conceptual mind that is ignorant.

Conventional truth is truth for that domain.

discriminating ant and elephant is a domain truth valid for conventional mind.
where it's at in that.

merely the ultimate truth of conceptual mind that is ignorant.

nice angle.

a finer reading of ignorant is 'unaware of'.

[TheImmanent]

The self exists (conventional mode)
not from its own side (ultimate mode)

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)
The limited mind exists as a conceptual nature interacting with other conceptual natures, there is no assigned self (ultimate mode, truth)

Two ideas, one truth. The fact that there is a coherrence to the misconceptions of the conventional mode does not make these misconceptions true other than as misconceptions. The term conventional truth is merely used when referring to the paradigm of an ignorant mind.

[Dennis Mahar]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

It's true that it exists.
therefore nihilism is refuted.
It is a truth.

'not from its own side' is a qualifier.
Its quality is empty.
It lacks its own essence.

One truth.

were you mentioning archetypes at one point, was that you?

[TheImmanent]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

It's true that it exists.
therefore nihilism is refuted.
It is a truth.

'not from its own side' is a qualifier.
Its quality is empty.
It lacks its own essence.

One truth.

Yes.

were you mentioning archetypes at one point, was that you?

No.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes.

That means it is transformable.
Is a possibility.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam, a round of sophistry doesn't enthuse.
you're only protecting something.
What?
don't wax on with the contents.
the context.

I am not waxing, I was challenging your false (illogical) statements. Logical truths matters because they clear away the debris of context so the conscience is uncovered and righteous (logical) choices can be made.

[TheImmanent]

Yes.

That means it is transformable.
Is a possibility.

Nothing is a possibility, nothing is transformable.

Possibility and transformation are concepts.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam, a round of sophistry doesn't enthuse.
you're only protecting something.
What?
don't wax on with the contents.
the context.

I am not waxing, I was challenging your false (illogical) statements. Logical truths matters because they clear away the debris of context so the conscience is uncovered and righteous (logical) choices can be made.

And when logical choices do not need to be made, the debris-free conscience is opened to the free feeling flow of love and joy concepts.

Righteous or beneficial conceptualizing via stilled mind or conceptual heart embracing the universe via free flowing mind, it's all about getting rid of the garbage of the contradicting self.

[Pam Seeback]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

Immanent, here's where logic shines. It is illogical to think that there is any separation between the origin of concepts (that which is hidden) and the use of concepts (that which is revealed). To put it bluntly, if God ain't thinking your concepts, you ain't thinking at all.

Your buffer zone of self, even of its negation, is keeping you from seeing the logical truth that when the causality thinks, it immediately experiences its effects (mirror wisdom, karmic law). The problem with having the buffer zone of self in place is that it produces effects of clouded emotional thinking which prevents one from living their conscious, subject-object, unified life.

Having said this, I understand that dropping the filter of self is a part of the fire of reasoning. This is what I believe Dennis is referring to when he speaks of the possibility of transformation, he can correct me if I am missing his mark.

[TheImmanent]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

Immanent, here's where logic shines. It is illogical to think that there is any separation between the origin of concepts (that which is hidden) and the use of concepts (that which is revealed). To put it bluntly, if God ain't thinking your concepts, you ain't thinking at all.

There is no separation anywhere. There are distinctions.

[Dennis Mahar]

A distinction could be:
Night and day are not the same and not different.

2 truths.

not the same is abiding as the lesser truth
not different is abiding as the higher truth
2 paths

the most important word around is:
nevertheless
which is the path of transformation
nous

the possibility of logic shows up in discursive argumentation for making a case.
'pin the tail on the donkey'

stick with nous.

[TheImmanent]

A distinction could be:
Night and day are not the same and not different.

2 truths.

Not two truths, two different concepts, for which you use the same words.

You use the word night for the distinction of night (conventional sense) and for the distinction of the distinction (ultimate truth).

The conventional mode sees separation. The ultimate mode sees distinction.

The conventional mode does not distinguish that what it sees are distinctions. Therefore it experiences them to be concrete and separate self-existing natures, even though they do not have an essence of their own.

The ultimate mode distinguishes its distinctions as such, and thus knows them correctly. In the ultimate mode, a self cannot be assigned to a particular distinction other than conceptually, as a reference point, since there is no separation of essence.

Night and day are not the same distinctions, not different in essence. One truth.

[Dennis Mahar]

How about logic which requires a who, how, when, where, what, why to get an it.
a conceptual scheme?

scheming?

What’s an orange?

What do we actually perceive?
We only perceive through one sense at a time, so if I look, what I perceive is an orange sphere, an orange shape.
An orange, a fruit, is not an orange circle or an orange sphere.
If I smell it, it’s a smell
if I taste it, it’s a taste
if I close my eyes and hold it in my hand, I get a physical sensation.
What’s the orange? It’s none of those, is it?
So how do we know an orange as a commonsense object?
Is it a mental construct, a commonsense orange, that we construct conceptually on the basis of one or more of our senses.

some kind of functional scheme is goin' down 'big time'.
Bliss.

may as well turn it to advantage.

[Pam Seeback]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

Immanent, here's where logic shines. It is illogical to think that there is any separation between the origin of concepts (that which is hidden) and the use of concepts (that which is revealed). To put it bluntly, if God ain't thinking your concepts, you ain't thinking at all.

There is no separation anywhere. There are distinctions.

Exactly! Distinctions of sense and value being revealed from the concealed: light from the darkness. No self, limited or otherwise, to be found anywhere.

[Pam Seeback]

How about logic which requires a who, how, when, where, what, why to get an it.
a conceptual scheme?

scheming?

Wise reasoning is not "getting an it", it is "getting (valuing) it." This is why content is important and context can lead one astray. One little word is removed and the vision changes from one of grasping at an object (ignorance) to placing an object in its rightful place, as value contrast for the thinking causality.

What’s an orange?

What do we actually perceive?
We only perceive through one sense at a time, so if I look, what I perceive is an orange sphere, an orange shape.
An orange, a fruit, is not an orange circle or an orange sphere.
If I smell it, it’s a smell
if I taste it, it’s a taste
if I close my eyes and hold it in my hand, I get a physical sensation.
What’s the orange? It’s none of those, is it?
So how do we know an orange as a commonsense object?
Is it a mental construct, a commonsense orange, that we construct conceptually on the basis of one or more of our senses.

The reason for reasoning: subjective being cannot, as you suggest above, know a thing absolutely.

some kind of functional scheme is goin' down 'big time'.
Bliss.

may as well turn it to advantage.

Thinking (reasoning) gives evidence that no concept can stand alone.

What opened my eyes to the reason for reasoning is that I realized that while I was busy negating/preaching reasoning as "the way "God" thinks" I realized that I was reasoning my negating/preaching of reasoning. Can you give me a scenario of "advantage of bliss" that is not, in actuality, your reasoning of bliss?

[Dennis Mahar]

Cognition,
the aha moments.

that perfect feeling when time just slips away.
there were no grounds for whatever it was that 'carried away' by determining it so with a stack of reasons.
pissing in the wind.
so what.

it was castles in the air.
bliss.

[TheImmanent]

How about logic which requires a who, how, when, where, what, why to get an it.
a conceptual scheme?

The conceptual natures are defined in relation to each other. This is what they are, after all. Thus they are coherrent, i.e., logical.

scheming?

Finite in space and finite in time is the same thing. A limited body is designated. Observed over a temporal distance, one may speak of a process, an action. Yet the conceptual nature is timelessly true in its own present, and has only changed in relation to other present moments.

What’s an orange?

What do we actually perceive?
We only perceive through one sense at a time, so if I look, what I perceive is an orange sphere, an orange shape.
An orange, a fruit, is not an orange circle or an orange sphere.
If I smell it, it’s a smell
if I taste it, it’s a taste
if I close my eyes and hold it in my hand, I get a physical sensation.
What’s the orange? It’s none of those, is it?
So how do we know an orange as a commonsense object?
Is it a mental construct, a commonsense orange, that we construct conceptually on the basis of one or more of our senses.

There is no orange-essence. The orange exists as a concept interacting with other concepts, but it has no essence of its own. It is empty as a thing, but has shared essence as a concept.

some kind of functional scheme is goin' down 'big time'.

There are infinite conceptual natures, but none of them have an essence of their own. The infinity of the formless knower and the infinity of conceptual natures is the same infinity. It is your essence.

Bliss.

Yes, because essence is in eternal self-fulfillment.

[TheImmanent]

The limited mind is a self, interacting with other existing selves and objects (conventional mode, not truth)

Immanent, here's where logic shines. It is illogical to think that there is any separation between the origin of concepts (that which is hidden) and the use of concepts (that which is revealed). To put it bluntly, if God ain't thinking your concepts, you ain't thinking at all.

There is no separation anywhere. There are distinctions.

No self, limited or otherwise, to be found anywhere.

Strictly speaking there is nothing at all but the true self, the essence of all distinctions. Your essence. Perfect, timeless and pristine.