Why I Am So Clever

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:... existing causality has necessarily remained exactly as it is regardless of the fact that your vision is blurred by something else.
Yes, only causality is but cannot be compared, even with itself. Like with your quote: it doesn't allow to be denied because even to determine "remaining" or "as is" one is already employing it. There's nothing else to conclude about it. Only causality exists but not in terms of self-existence, and therefore not inherently either.
Logic relies precisely on the assumption that a thing is what it is (A=A).
No, logic doesn't rely on that assumption. It just keeps demonstrating its own logic. Therefore a=a does not describe the nature of actual "things" which would always be in motion ("everything changes") but it describes the nature of logic, thought and perception. Reality however is not logical or illogical.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And no, things are never as their being because that reflection is a logical action and tells something about your logic, your reason and cognition itself. It's doesn't tell you much about something existing. Causality exists. The absolute. But reflecting on that starts with a mirror. And not always a clean one either.

If you are arguing that reasoning cannot tell us whether things are what they are, then you are contradicting yourself. The mere fact that things appear to our mind would be enough to debunk this argument, since if the things that appear were *not* as they are, it means that things other than them appear (which are as they are).

Seeker's problem, like Leia's problem, and that of most other members on this forum, is that they use the "argument from things being exactly what they are" as a polemical tactic for diverting the opponents attention away from all the other crap they say. As if "accepting" A=A is a ticket to an incontrovertible enlightened perspective.

A=A is no more a description of logic than the taste of chocolate. It is merely a convenient way of indicating the process of reasoning. Weininger's point in that quote was that one cannot reason about reasoning. One must accept the validity of one's reasoning without any prior reasoning (and thus, proof).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:If you are arguing that reasoning cannot tell us whether things are what they are, then you are contradicting yourself. The mere fact that things appear to our mind would be enough to debunk this argument, since if the things that appear were *not* as they are, it means that things other than them appear (which are as they are).
The truth is not a "thing" and therefore if reasoning would lead to truth finding, it doesn't have to lead to asserting more things (in and of themselves). Truth comes in the form of a binding and unbinding, a nature and a realization. Nothing to grasp at or to capture under a simple name or concept. Not even a law of identity.

And yes other things do appear the moment one tries to ascertain that something would be "as itself". Once it's understood things are nothing but their ever-changing causes, it's easy to see how the thing is just a mirage, a concoction. It's not even "itself" as that would introduce some inherent form, being or self-identity.
Seeker's problem, like Leia's problem, and that of most other members on this forum, is that they use the "argument from things being exactly what they are" as a polemical tactic for diverting the opponents attention away from all the other crap they say. As if "accepting" A=A is a ticket to an incontrovertible enlightened perspective.
Yes. And it's rather worn out (as even mountains do over the ages) but this idea of progress in Zen still holds truth: 1. seeing mountains as mountains 2. seeing mountains are no mountains 3. seeing mountains as mountains.

Before understanding the illusionary nature of the world one might claim that things are as they are (since they're there as sense). Even after understanding the illusionary nature and understanding there's not really "mountain", one still might clench at the absoluteness of what is experienced as consciousness, reality, bliss or even raw sense, often dismissing all the names and forms as contamination. But the next step in my view is to open the clench and giving up this imagined "absolute" sense of self, consciousness or reality. If one is capable of course, I think for many people it might be suicidal to go that far, too much riding on it.
A=A is no more a description of logic than the taste of chocolate. It is merely a convenient way of indicating the process of reasoning. Weininger's point in that quote was that one cannot reason about reasoning. One must accept the validity of one's reasoning without any prior reasoning (and thus, proof).
But like everything else one term might be more simple and communicative than others. Others stick with the sense "i am" because that also arises through this.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

Deibert: Before understanding the illusionary nature of the world one might claim that things are as they are (since they're there as sense). Even after understanding the illusionary nature and understanding there's not really "mountain", one still might clench at the absoluteness of what is experienced as consciousness, reality, bliss or even raw sense, often dismissing all the names and forms as contamination. But the next step in my view is to open the clench and giving up this imagined "absolute" sense of self, consciousness or reality. If one is capable of course, I think for many people it might be suicidal to go that far, too much riding on it.
Where you perceive someone contemplating suicide if they had to re-dress their empty mountain with the contaminated names and forms they "left behind", it was my personal experience that had I not re-dressed my mountain with the absolute necessity of names and forms, I would have at the least become severely depressed and at the most, gone mad. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would exalt bliss as the ultimate goal of enlightenment. As a stage of healing, yes, but as the be-all and end-all? I shudder at the thought! One thing my mother said to me as a child which stuck was "if heaven is all harps and love and joy and bliss, please, please, send me to hell!" I have found nothing in my journey to understand myself that contradicts her wisdom.

Perhaps the key word here is "contamination." For me, I had to reconcile the idea that anything that is caused could possibly be contaminated.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:... I have found nothing in my journey to understand myself that contradicts her wisdom. Perhaps the key word here is "contamination." For me, I had to reconcile the idea that anything that is caused could possibly be contaminated.
Yes, it's the love for wisdom, those sound principles which, while facing opposition and challenge, when given enough space by a grace of fate, can develop and grow into some fruit, some "right view" and other pathways . It keeps coming back to that word "philosophy", ironically such a wordy word! But yes, the contamination, the problem of evil, ignorance and limitation of knowledge and faultiness of reason. First one rejects it but perhaps a bit later, it's picked up and seen for the rare, odd, beauty it is. But this is also a "double-edged sword": all knowledge has this light and darkness. And because of that the ability to contain light is directly linked to the ability to contain darkness. But submitting mindlessly to any of it will always remain ignorance.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:... existing causality has necessarily remained exactly as it is regardless of the fact that your vision is blurred by something else.
Yes, only causality is but cannot be compared, even with itself. Like with your quote: it doesn't allow to be denied because even to determine "remaining" or "as is" one is already employing it. There's nothing else to conclude about it. Only causality exists but not in terms of self-existence, and therefore not inherently either.
Logic relies precisely on the assumption that a thing is what it is (A=A).
No, logic doesn't rely on that assumption. It just keeps demonstrating its own logic. Therefore a=a does not describe the nature of actual "things" which would always be in motion ("everything changes") but it describes the nature of logic, thought and perception. Reality however is not logical or illogical.
Seriously. What the fuck are you talking about, Diebert?

That's literal nonsense.
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And imagine I'd walk with you today during all your mundane activities. And I'd point out all the things you do for "your self" or for egotistic pleasure or relief, I guess you'd give me "left-over habits" or "limitations of my life situation" or "irrelevant"? This is what I mean with you-in-action. Your person arises for others and in any mirror because your actions distinguish themselves from nothing through their various interpretations. Or as smoke screen perhaps.
"And I'd point out all the things you do for "your self" or for egotistic pleasure or relief"

You are not the body, you are not those transient manifestations or appearances, so they aren't "left-over habits", they were never habits at all, they were never attributes of any permanent self-identity because none exists.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Hey, you told me to read things ("re-read Tao" and other shit I was pooping before you were born)! And now you oppose your own words by saying I should instead meditate. Make up your mind. Gain wisdom. Get some sense. Hurt your brain. Don't flee in hiding places for comfort. Won't last for ever, either, so why reside there?
I never said "instead meditate". Do both!
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Hurt your brain.
The body/brain is not the source of your being, you were never born, you are not a person.

Try getting over that conformity, that says the real world is "out there" and all experience is only a reflection of that physical and more substantial world we peak into.

You are utterly egoless, without self-substance, not bound up in form,the world which is transient and like "an image or vision miraculously projected" exists only "as it is seen of the mind itself".

Of course, "mind, dream-like, consciousness" are meaningless terms, designations, since they are essentially comparing reality to its own nature.

The existence you know is the essential nature of reality, it will always be, it is "the unborn", "the tao", not subject to passing away. It does not require a "Where does it come from?" or "How did it come to be?", it is as you see it.

There's a quote from Diebert "we do not experience reality".
Reality is obviously what we experience, try and see that.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Some selected wisdom, which is very relevant to "Why I am so clever", for your consideration.
And if at all you find it "ridiculous nonsense", feel free to answer him, Where? :)

19.2
Where is meditation, pleasure,
prosperity or discrimination?
Where is duality?
Where even is Unity?

19.3
Where is past and future,
or even present?
Where is space, or even eternity?

19.4
Where is Self?
Where is not-Self?
Where is good and evil, confusion and clarity?

19.5
Where is sleeping, dreaming, waking,
or even the fourth state?
Where is fear?

19.6
Where is close or far,
in or out,
gross or subtle?


19.7
Where is life and death?
Where is the world and worldly relations?
Where is distraction and stillness?

Where are the elements, the body,
the organs, the mind?
Where is the void?
Where is despair?
My nature is transparent clearness.

20.2
Where is scripture?
Where is Self-knowledge?
Where is no-mind?
Where is contentment and freedom from desire?

20.3
Where is Knowledge and ignorance?
Where is “I”?
Where is “this”?
Where is “mine”?
Where is bondage and liberation?
Self has no attributes.

20.4
Where is the unfolding of karma?
Where is liberation-in-life,
or even liberation at death?

Where is the doer or enjoyer?
Where is the origin or end of thought?
Where is direct or reflected knowledge?
There is no person here.
20.6
Where is the world?
Where is the seeker of liberation”
Where is the contemplative?
Where is the man of Knowledge?
Where is the soul in bondage?
Where is the liberated soul?


20.7
Where are creation and destruction?
Where is the end and the means?
Where is the seeker?
Where is attainment?

20.9
Where is distraction, concentration,
knowledge or delusion?
Where is joy or sorrow?
I am Stillness.

20.10
Where is the relative?
Where the transcendent?
Where is happiness or misery?

20.11
Where is illusion?
Where is existence?
Where is attachment or non-attachment?
Where is person?
Where is God?

20.12
Where is activity or inactivity?
Where is liberation or bondage?
I am timeless, indivisible.
I am Self alone.

20.13
Where are principles and scriptures?
Where is the disciple or teacher?
Where is the reason for life?
I am boundless, Absolute.

20.14
Where is existence or non-existence?
Where is Unity or duality?
Nothing emanates from me.
No more can be said.

-Ashtavakra Gita
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: Seeker, if you want to live a spirited life you have no choice but to take up your dust and walk. I assume your question about explaining the reasoning of the appearance is a rhetorical question as I am quite certain that you are aware that no such absolute reason can be found. What a relief it is to finally let go of this metaphysical first-cause albatross! I also assume that you are aware that the appearance is not despite/separate, rather it is the ontological subjective, two-in-one nature of consciousness: I am That I am.

You may feel at ease at the moment at leaving your dust on the ground, but as Job discovered "I was at ease, but he hath broken me asunder: he hath also taken me by my neck, and shaken me to pieces, and set me up for his mark." Interesting that once upon a time you believed that suffering does not end, and now you seem to be asserting the opposite. Not picking on you because as you know, I too once rode this very same yes and no see-saw.
"rather it is the ontological subjective, two-in-one nature of consciousness: I am That I am."

How do you consider the above quotes, or the text in general if you've read it?

"Interesting that once upon a time you believed that suffering does not end, and now you seem to be asserting the opposite. Not picking on you because as you know, I too once rode this very same yes and no see-saw."

Very true, I guess the differences stem from logical thinking which says obviously one cannot avoid something so simple as pain, compared to the truth that this would not be occurring to me.

"aware that no such absolute reason can be found."

Exactly, hence the uselessness of "Where did it all come from?".
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways: "rather it is the ontological subjective, two-in-one nature of consciousness: I am That I am."
Seeker: How do you consider the above quotes, or the text in general if you've read it?
I read all of what you posted plus more of the Gita I found online, but it seems to me that what is being said can be summarized in the last two lines:
Nothing emanates from me.
No more can be said.

-Ashtavakra Gita
Obviously given the recent philosophical treatise you posted you don't believe a word he says and obviously given my statement above, neither do I.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Then consider, perhaps for a while, the apparent contradiction:

2.4
As waves, foam and bubbles
are not different from water,
so the universe emanating from Self
is not different from Self.

(from the same text http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/upl ... -ebook.pdf)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: don't believe a word
Just pointing out, based on your wording, I fully agree. I don't believe a word of anything I read. Endless delusion is caused by simply believing in what has been put forth. Most being incapable of understanding that language by itself is utterly meaningless. For example, take something as well known as the theory of evolution, it could be written the same way every time, yet there would be completely different ideas from each considering it and also each new time they consider it, but so many would say they believe in it. The same is true with belief in god and a thousand other things. It is only through experience that the truth is realized, (or the nature of delusion is realized) not through words, which are pointers.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You are not the body, you are not those transient manifestations or appearances, so they aren't "left-over habits", they were never habits at all, they were never attributes of any permanent self-identity because none exists.
I don't think Diebert ever said anything about *permanent* self-identity. Self-identity lasts as long as its causes, like consciousness, last.
Try getting over that conformity, that says the real world is "out there" and all experience is only a reflection of that physical and more substantial world we peak into.

You have merely replaced one kind of "out there" with another. At least physical things can be spoken of cogently, which is more than can be said for your "reality". Sadly, the fact that you're no longer capitalising that word or those related to it speaks more about your philosophy than anything else you've written.
Of course, "mind, dream-like, consciousness" are meaningless terms, designations, since they are essentially comparing reality to its own nature.

So "mind, dream-like, consciousness" are meaningless terms, but not "reality" and "own nature"? If you just said "all is meaningless", you'd be saying something infinitely more meaningful.
The existence you know is the essential nature of reality, it will always be, it is "the unborn", "the tao", not subject to passing away. It does not require a "Where does it come from?" or "How did it come to be?", it is as you see it.

The essential nature of reality does not manifest itself separately from existences, and all existences arise and pass away. There is no infinite without finite things.
Reality is obviously what we experience, try and see that.
We only experience the parts of Reality, thus we only ever experience Reality in part. While a part is not the whole, the knowledge of any part of an *infinite* whole (there's only one of the kind) is also the knowledge of the whole. Unlike a finite whole, an infinite whole cannot have big and small parts. Sure, the parts can be big or small in relation to *each other*, but not in relation to the *whole*. When it comes to the whole, all parts are equal and identical. And yet, this equality doesn't lie beyond/within/despite the many differences between the parts, but precisely *as* those differences. It is precisely difference and inequality that unites all things.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The truth is not a "thing" and therefore if reasoning would lead to truth finding, it doesn't have to lead to asserting more things (in and of themselves).
Assuming that by 'the truth' you mean 'the All' - it is made up of finite things. So when one finds the former, the latter is also necessarily found.
Truth comes in the form of a binding and unbinding, a nature and a realization. Nothing to grasp at or to capture under a simple name or concept. Not even a law of identity.
Truth comes in the form of whatever it is that comes to you, whether a simple concept, a law or a mystical emotion. The main thing is to make sure that you are there to greet it, and not busy planning or telling others about how you will do so.
And yes other things do appear the moment one tries to ascertain that something would be "as itself". Once it's understood things are nothing but their ever-changing causes, it's easy to see how the thing is just a mirage, a concoction. It's not even "itself" as that would introduce some inherent form, being or self-identity.
The All is the ultimate cause of things, and it doesn't change. So things are 'as themselves' because there is no other way for the All to cause them.
Yes. And it's rather worn out (as even mountains do over the ages) but this idea of progress in Zen still holds truth: 1. seeing mountains as mountains 2. seeing mountains are no mountains 3. seeing mountains as mountains.
The deepest meaning of that koan is that the various types of 'seeing' are interchangeable, but their validity depends on the stage. Deluded people can't see anything properly.
Before understanding the illusionary nature of the world one might claim that things are as they are (since they're there as sense). Even after understanding the illusionary nature and understanding there's not really "mountain", one still might clench at the absoluteness of what is experienced as consciousness, reality, bliss or even raw sense, often dismissing all the names and forms as contamination. But the next step in my view is to open the clench and giving up this imagined "absolute" sense of self, consciousness or reality. If one is capable of course, I think for many people it might be suicidal to go that far, too much riding on it.
It could easily be the other way around. Someone can start without a sense of self or reality, where nothing is related to anything else.

Then one day, he listens to Bach's B-minor Mass, and is filled with wonder at the intricate interwoven patterns of sound when the sopranos sing 'Christe Eleison'.

Then he becomes a Christian and starts reading C.S Lewis, going to the local RCIA, and arguing with atheists on the internet. Although Lewis' apologetics and the intriguing theological discussions with the born-again stripper at the RCIA fill him with a sense of purpose and belonging, he suspects something is amiss.

He searches for something less mainstream, and discovers Kierkegaard after a stint with some New Agers. Within the context of Kierkegaard's concept of Christianity, the words 'Christe Eleison' strike him as being immensely profound. It is the lowborn, bastard Christ who is asked for mercy, not the crucified muse of the apologist. The God that united the highest with the lowest is not the God worshipped by paradise seekers. Suddenly, everything he experiences seems to be interwoven in the same way as the voices of those two sopranos. Now, all things hold the utmost meaning and purpose for him, since each of them is a voice in the eternal fugue.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Then consider, perhaps for a while, the apparent contradiction:

2.4
As waves, foam and bubbles
are not different from water,
so the universe emanating from Self
is not different from Self.

(from the same text http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/upl ... -ebook.pdf)
Consider this, perhaps for a while, that for the non-conceptual, unconscious Self/causality of water and its waves, foams and bubbles, nothing is perceived as different. But for the conceptual, conscious Self/causality, water and its waves, foam and bubbles are perceived as being different. This is why and how a surfer can surf or a boater can boat safely or a fisherman can determine when and where is the best time and place to fish. So where Ashtavakra's contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.

Would you rather be unconscious water or a conscious thinking being that is aware of unconscious water?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

jellyfish wrote:
A=A is no more a description of logic than the taste of chocolate. It is merely a convenient way of indicating the process of reasoning. Weininger's point in that quote was that one cannot reason about reasoning. One must accept the validity of one's reasoning without any prior reasoning (and thus, proof).
Rubbish.

Weininger's point is that valid reasoning is the proof and not a proposition.
Between Suicides
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
movingalways wrote: don't believe a word
Just pointing out, based on your wording, I fully agree. I don't believe a word of anything I read. Endless delusion is caused by simply believing in what has been put forth. Most being incapable of understanding that language by itself is utterly meaningless. For example, take something as well known as the theory of evolution, it could be written the same way every time, yet there would be completely different ideas from each considering it and also each new time they consider it, but so many would say they believe in it. The same is true with belief in god and a thousand other things. It is only through experience that the truth is realized, (or the nature of delusion is realized) not through words, which are pointers.
The words of others are pointers but one's own words are things-as-they-are, or as I like to call them, the living word. For example, you reasoned the contradiction in Ashtavakra's Gita. In order for you to do this, unless your intent was to deceive me or puff up your ego, you must have known contradiction's meaning to you.

Let's look at the more concrete or body-pleasure example of bliss. When someone tells you about bliss and you have not experienced it, you are hearing a pointer. Perhaps, however, their pointer of bliss has convinced you to know, first hand, the experience of bliss. You find bliss. Now you have the means to call forth bliss at will, just speak the word. And, if a circumstance comes up where you have to reason with someone about bliss you are reasoning with your truth of bliss. If the person you are reasoning with has also experienced bliss then bingo, both of you are immersed in a subjectively truthful, objectively reasonable conversation or mutual experience of bliss.

A very simple demonstration of a living word and a pointer: To you, erection is a living word. To me, it is a pointer. To me, childbirth is a living word. To you, it is a pointer. Can we have a subjectively truthful conversation about either word? No. Can we have a subjectively reasonable conversation about either word? Yes.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote: If the person you are reasoning with has also experienced bliss then bingo, both of you are immersed in a subjectively truthful, objectively reasonable conversation or mutual experience of bliss.
The problem is often that "X" is experienced by one and "Y" by another but the conversation labels it just the same. People sometimes are assuming or even desiring that it's the same. At the surface there's similarity: a V at the top! This is the desire to agree and assume unison. But in reality I think the experiences will be as different as ones past and future is. For most practical conversations similarity or "weak reference" is sufficient though. For philosophy and science it becomes hard!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You are not the body, you are not those transient manifestations or appearances, so they aren't "left-over habits", they were never habits at all, they were never attributes of any permanent self-identity because none exists.
So you deny being responsible for any of your actions? It seems to me a matter of you denying the mountain while you're climbing it all the same. Well, if it makes you feel better! As long as you know the only reason you are denying the mountain never was a mountain at all is still for selfish reasons.
I never said "instead meditate". Do both!
Let me first start with one at the time please ;-) But please give only advice on diets to the people asking for it.
The body/brain is not the source of your being, you were never born, you are not a person.
In my view you've not explored this far enough, probably because that would hurt whatever you think you are instead.
The existence you know is the essential nature of reality, it will always be, it is "the unborn", "the tao", not subject to passing away. It does not require a "Where does it come from?" or "How did it come to be?", it is as you see it.
My Tao is bigger than yours. Mine includes as well change, birth, death, questions and philosophy. All the things you don't like but they are the shadows cast by everything you just named.
Reality is obviously what we experience, try and see that.
Every dreamer thinks that, until the moment he wakes up and realized he has woken up.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote: If the person you are reasoning with has also experienced bliss then bingo, both of you are immersed in a subjectively truthful, objectively reasonable conversation or mutual experience of bliss.
The problem is often that "X" is experienced by one and "Y" by another but the conversation labels it just the same. People sometimes are assuming or even desiring that it's the same. At the surface there's similarity: a V at the top! This is the desire to agree and assume unison. But in reality I think the experiences will be as different as ones past and future is. For most practical conversations similarity or "weak reference" is sufficient though. For philosophy and science it becomes hard!
I agree that neither experience is identical to the other, ergo I said "subjectively truthful" not "objectively truthful." Perhaps the word truthful should never be used if one wants to be truthful. :-) I agree then that the two experiences can only ever be similar.

It would appear that the only time two people might have identical experiences of a thing in a conversation is when it there is no analysis present or no analysis expected, for example, I say to you "pass the salt" and you pass the salt. But oh how boring would be this shared life of "pass the salt."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Assuming that by 'the truth' you mean 'the All' - it is made up of finite things. So when one finds the former, the latter is also necessarily found.
Nobody will ever find a finite thing but there's the realization they're not finite to begin with because of causation. When truth is found, ignorance is understood.
So things are 'as themselves' because there is no other way for the All to cause them.
There's no way of knowing all the ways the totality can cause an appearance or a perspective to occur. The only thing you can be sure of here is that there's causation. Only the mind conceives of things "as themselves" otherwise it could not think reasonably about anything at all.
It could easily be the other way around. Someone can start without a sense of self or reality, where nothing is related to anything else.

Then one day, he listens to Bach's B-minor Mass, and is filled with wonder at the intricate interwoven patterns of sound when the sopranos sing 'Christe Eleison'.

Then he becomes a Christian and starts reading C.S Lewis, going to the local RCIA, and arguing with atheists on the internet. Although Lewis' apologetics and the intriguing theological discussions with the born-again stripper at the RCIA fill him with a sense of purpose and belonging, he suspects something is amiss.

He searches for something less mainstream, and discovers Kierkegaard after a stint with some New Agers. Within the context of Kierkegaard's concept of Christianity, the words 'Christe Eleison' strike him as being immensely profound. It is the lowborn, bastard Christ who is asked for mercy, not the crucified muse of the apologist. The God that united the highest with the lowest is not the God worshipped by paradise seekers. Suddenly, everything he experiences seems to be interwoven in the same way as the voices of those two sopranos. Now, all things hold the utmost meaning and purpose for him, since each of them is a voice in the eternal fugue.
You say it might be "the other way around" but it seems to me you're illustrating what I meant to say. It also sounds a bit like my life in a slightly altered universe :-)

There is I think at the start a low level of meaning, purpose and integration. But normally attachments will hinder any development so we get to meaninglessness, lack of purpose and disintegration to further open up. But there can be no doubt that liberation becomes then an explosion of meaning and interelation of a different kind. The discussions here revolve mostly about people claiming that a little meaning and integration, some technique or belief means actual liberation or that the lack of purpose and meaning is. For me they both come as naturally as breathing but still form no true philosophy.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Then consider, perhaps for a while, the apparent contradiction:

2.4
As waves, foam and bubbles
are not different from water,
so the universe emanating from Self
is not different from Self.

(from the same text http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/upl ... -ebook.pdf)
Consider this, perhaps for a while, that for the non-conceptual, unconscious Self/causality of water and its waves, foams and bubbles, nothing is perceived as different. But for the conceptual, conscious Self/causality, water and its waves, foam and bubbles are perceived as being different. This is why and how a surfer can surf or a boater can boat safely or a fisherman can determine when and where is the best time and place to fish. So where Ashtavakra's contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.

Would you rather be unconscious water or a conscious thinking being that is aware of unconscious water?
The fisherman determining when and where is the best time and place to fish is "the universe" emanating from self, it is not any self-in-action, there is no effort of the self in that experience. I don't see any denial of "conscious differentiating consciousness" only a discussion of the nature of "conscious differentiating consciousness". There are literally dozens of purposely made language contradictions in the text, which are again only pointers toward self-realization, the obvious one here being "the universe emanating from Self"---"Nothing emanates from me".

You do not intentionally create whatever experience or thought arises, you are not picking and choosing meaning/perception as you see fit, and are in no way bound to the world of appearance which arises and fades as if it were nothing more than a vision or dream(pointers to) that nature, "consciousness" or "the mind", which is the essential nature, and is not produced by any means. That experience, erection, childbirth, is not an accomplishment, not an invention of free-will, it is nothing more than emptiness, void, the world is appearance(pointer to that which you know now) and exists only as such. There is no denial of discrimination, people, differentiating, fishing, discussions, etc, there is only the denial of any delusion which imagines these to exist as "more" or to be any kind of self-identity.
movingalways wrote:the non-conceptual, unconscious Self/causality of water and its waves, foams and bubbles, nothing is perceived as different. But for the conceptual, conscious Self/causality, water and its waves, foam and bubbles are perceived as being different.
Is this the two-in-one referred to? It appears as if you are implying two selves. The conscious and unconscious.

movingalways wrote: So where Ashtavakra's contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So you deny being responsible for any of your actions? It seems to me a matter of you denying the mountain while you're climbing it all the same
Would you, and Diebert, say that these two points are pointing out the same contradiction?

Your similar points basically being that a line such as "you are not the body, you are not a person" (which has been typed via the body/person) is a contradiction, aka, "denying the mountain while climbing it" or "denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny it". Just summing up the repeated point so it can be addressed as I assume it appears it is being overlooked.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:[
My Tao is bigger than yours. Mine includes as well change, birth, death, questions and philosophy. All the things you don't like but they are the shadows cast by everything you just named.

Every dreamer thinks that, until the moment he wakes up and realized he has woken up.

Just so you know, you do this extremely often. " you need to take into account questions, thinking, philosophy, like I have". It is basically internet trolling to point out a perceived flaw without providing an alternative/explanation. Like being on a mathematics forum and saying someone's calculations are fundamentally flawed, over and over, without a sentence of explanation. Elaborate if you would, rather than mysteriously alluding to this greater knowledge in one sentence metaphors.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: In my view you've not explored this far enough,
See what I mean? Perhaps by pointing it out you will recognize that what you say appears foolish since you almost never elaborate, you just say how it will hurt my brain. I'm not suggesting you can't, just that you never do, and one wonders.

Ask anyone else on the forum, jupiviv, moving, leyla, whoever else uses it, you do it extremely often, almost never explaining. Are we just supposed to take it on faith that our brains would hurt if you did try?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
movingalways wrote: So where Ashtavakra's contradiction lies is in his denial of the conscious differentiating consciousness while he uses the conscious differentiating consciousness to deny the conscious differentiating consciousness.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So you deny being responsible for any of your actions? It seems to me a matter of you denying the mountain while you're climbing it all the same
Would you, and Diebert, say that these two points are pointing out the same contradiction?
They are quite similar since for saying "you" are not this, or not that, you're already passing by the truth that any "you" was already there in your actions and context, forever being born and dying. The opposition to the attachment or the inherent existence of a self tends to create a shadow identity "elsewhere". But since it's not there either, we still have left what I called "self-in-action" or perhaps "self-in language". In some way, despite any deeper understanding, not that much has changed for anyone dealing with you, constructing persons out of your context. This includes the moment anyone reflects upon his own behaviour, evaluating. Perhaps you can do it wiser or lighter but not without, just as you keep breathing no matter the awareness of it.
Locked