Talking to the wall is not Genius

[jupiviv]

My motive, with my statements above, is you get you to see what the existence of things mean in context of what is absolute, i.e. that things are ultimately empty of existence, there is only the Tao, or the Infinite, to which the concept of existence cannot apply.

I haven't applied the concept of existence to the Tao. It is, in fact, you who are doing this. If you don't realise that then there is little I can do except to advise you to think about this matter in greater depth.

I didn't say that you've applied the concept of existence to the Tao, but as I plainly state, nor do I.

If one denies existence to things in order to grant more reality to the All - and that is, in fact, what you are doing - then one believes that the All is deficient. And he who thinks the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.

To put it another way, things exist by way of contrast to what they are not. Contrasts don't exist except by way of perception. Where there is no perception, there's no contrasts, and therefore no existence.

Consciousness conceives of things existing before and after it, and beyond its immediate environment. I thought we'd agreed about this.

Both statements are correct under different contexts. Mine was made in consideration of the fact that the infinitude of causality reduces the perceptions of finitudes to a conventional sense, whereas the Infinite is absolute. I.e., the second stage of the Zen story: things don't exist.

The stages in that story are meant to be a joke. Unless you get the joke, you won't understand the meaning behind it. The third and final stage, in the context of seeking truth, is the *true* stage. It follows then that the preceding two stages are false, so nobody should be bothered about them. The reason why Zen students tried to make sense of them is precisely *because* they were deluded. Their deluded minds bestowed upon the "third stage" an elusiveness which it didn't really have, because it is the only way reality can appear (even to a deluded mind, to the degree it's not deluded).

That which makes a finite thing finite does not change with a change in context from conventionality to absoluteness. If it did, then there would be an absolute distinction between the relation of one thing to everything else, and of one thing to the All.

The bastard son of a despised woman who fancies herself a virgin, spit on by all decent folk and revered amongst madmen, criminals and lepers, remains eternally just that. The Son of Man is also the Son of God.

If he was in agreement with you he wouldn't call a dying man who also said this incapable of understanding the meaning of those words even in his dreams.

What Hakuin was essentially saying was to cease any egotistical clinging to our actions. Again, this can't be done without understanding the concept of emptiness, and how it applies to existence.

You're betraying an egotistical clinging to actions and thoughts just by making such an understanding (which doesn't exist) the condition for enlightenment. Personally, I think it comes from understanding why balls are oval.

[Russell Parr]

My motive, with my statements above, is you get you to see what the existence of things mean in context of what is absolute, i.e. that things are ultimately empty of existence, there is only the Tao, or the Infinite, to which the concept of existence cannot apply.

I haven't applied the concept of existence to the Tao. It is, in fact, you who are doing this. If you don't realise that then there is little I can do except to advise you to think about this matter in greater depth.

I didn't say that you've applied the concept of existence to the Tao, but as I plainly state, nor do I.

If one denies existence to things in order to grant more reality to the All - and that is, in fact, what you are doing - then one believes that the All is deficient. And he who thinks the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.

I'll grant you this: my argument appears that way since I used the word "ultimately" in the above. But the whole point is to expose the lack of existence things have since you asserted that they do indeed exist beyond perception, which is what inherent existence is.

The stages in that story are meant to be a joke.

Not true. The stages represent the path, a transition from delusion to wisdom, in which the seeker perceives reality deludedly, then goes through a realization of the nature of his delusions, and finally reaches the true perspective.

You're betraying an egotistical clinging to actions and thoughts just by making such an understanding (which doesn't exist) the condition for enlightenment.

Are you saying we shouldn't betray egotistical clinging?

Below is from Kevin's Poison for the Heart.

From CAUSE AND EFFECT:

Q: Your whole philosophy is based on assumptions about cause and effect. You say that all things have causes, and thus lack inherent existence because all things are dependent on their causes. But how do you know all things must have causes? If you are wrong, then things can exist inherently, and your entire philosophy falls to the ground!

A: "Existence" is a human concept. If you perceive or conceive of a thing, then you cause its existence. Thus there is no way a thing can be without causes. Also, a thing cannot exist without having parts, and these parts constitute causes. In nuclear physics there are some particles which arguably have no parts. However, they do have characteristics, or attributes, and these too constitute causes. Again, things must have causes.

In addition, we live in a world where time is a demonstrable reality. The passage of time necessitates change, and change is made of cause and effect. Thus, where there is time there is causation. When our minds created time, they created causation too. The one cannot exist without the other.

Q: Your argument defeats itself: if nothing truly exists, then cause and effect doesn't truly exist. Yet you use it to support your philosophy! Similarly, why do you think time is real?

A: It is incorrect to say that cause and effect doesn't exist, for while things lack inherent existence, they also lack inherent non-existence. Because cause and effect is a useful concept it is a valid and useful tool. Without tools, we can do no work.

As for time, it is real if we make it real. If we made time not real, through conceiving of it in a different philosophical manner, then, once again it would be impossible for an inherently existing self to exist.

Q: Why?

A: Because a self can only exist in relation to other selves. Relations are causes, which are not possible when there is no time.

Q: Why so?

A: Because relations are human concepts and concepts require time. No time means no concepts which means no relations which in turn means no existence.

Q: Given the existence of time, why does the passage of time necessitate change?

A: Because time is measured by change. If there were no change, there would be no time.

Q: You have given me a circular argument! You say that change is a reality because time exists; and then you say time is measured by change!

A: Yes, the argument is circular, but this does not make it false. You see, we are speaking from the aspect of relative truth. In the end, all dealings in the relative world turn out to be self-referential, and circular. This is because all things exist only in relation to each other.

If you want ultimate truths you will have to look behind and beyond all these words.

[Russell Parr]

jupiviv, this crux of the debate is over who is asserting inherent existence and who isn't, and I'm pretty sure that neither of us really are. As Kevin says above, Ultimate truth is behind and beyond the relativities that language portrays. We are getting hung up on words!

[jupiviv]

If one denies existence to things in order to grant more reality to the All - and that is, in fact, what you are doing - then one believes that the All is deficient. And he who thinks the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.

I'll grant you this: my argument appears that way since I used the word "ultimately" in the above. But the whole point is to expose the lack of existence things have since you asserted that they do indeed exist beyond perception, which is what inherent existence is.

No, inherent existence is unconditional. The quality of being beyond the perception of a single person's mind is not unconditional and therefore not equivalent to inherent existence.

The stages in that story are meant to be a joke.

Not true. The stages represent the path, a transition from delusion to wisdom, in which the seeker perceives reality deludedly, then goes through a realization of the nature of his delusions, and finally reaches the true perspective.

To the degree he actually perceives anything, he perceives it perfectly. So his perception, to the degree it exists, is already in the "third" stage. His delusions, however, prevent the perception from being consistent throughout all aspects of his life.

jupiviv, this crux of the debate is over who is asserting inherent existence and who isn't, and I'm pretty sure that neither of us really are.

The original issue was about conscious awareness being identical to the objects of such awareness, and also (I guess) the "reality" of the physical/material world. Granted, these ideas are dependent on certain definitions, and changing those definitions will change the truths themselves; the problem is that you want to *retain* those definitions and yet change the ideas into something they aren't and were never meant to be.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not sure why or how I have to prove a negative.

Because your negative proposition relies on a positive premise, viz., a thing is identical to the awareness of itself.

Yes indeed, or in other terms A=A: a premise underlying anything you could ever state, affirm or deny. It doesn't need further affirmation or denial.

This is a cheap trick, using which you can prove anything. But who is really being deceived here?

Yes, I forgot you have your own interpretation of what identity means. That's why it looks like a "trick" to you but it's really unavoidable that every discussion we return to this mater. Like here, where I said many similar things, such as: "Appearances do not have any existence, unless we say existence is another word for appearance". Or as you are doing more recently: equal existence or reality with "physical things" or the "physical".

You're confusing here mostly your own mind with this crooked terminology and slippery logic: perhaps a consequence of your own realization of emptiness, as subject, invoking subsequently all appearances as being objective, as the final ultimate reality?

Except you haven't proven that any reflexivity *even exists*. Well, apart from "but you can't get a hold of a thing beyond your awareness of it", blissfully ignorant of the fact that I am not trying to "get a hold of it beyond awareness" because I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I suspect that neither do you or anyone else asserting the same.

Are you asking me to prove A exists so you can verify A=A?

... "absolute change" is a hokey chimera meant to trivialise realities that are *actually* uncomfortable, like death, suffering and guilt.

Uncomfortable only when a certain constancy (life) is taken as comfortable and now contrasted with a change to that (death).

What you claim as "reality" and "actuality" are nothing but the realities invoked by a mind (mind is that invocation if nothing else) preferring a constant over change, an attachment over everything else. It would be wise starting to understand how that works as to address suffering and ignorance.

The stages in that story are meant to be a joke. Unless you get the joke, you won't understand the meaning behind it. The third and final stage, in the context of seeking truth, is the *true* stage

You have fallen for the joke just as well by introducing some thing which not even mentioned, to "make sense" of it. There's no special "third stage" since it's described exactly as the first stage. It's not a "world seen through different eyes"- which would still be the second stage (change disapearance shift upside down etc).

There are appearances. Which turn out not having inherent existence ("there is no..."). Therefore there are still only appearances. Of course one could argue that some new orientation or "understanding" would be in place. But even that will be appearance, the world still appears through the same eyes, the world still rises and falls with desire. What is dropped here is any superfluous notion of self, or other, as anything absolute.

[Russell Parr]

No, inherent existence is unconditional. The quality of being beyond the perception of a single person's mind is not unconditional and therefore not equivalent to inherent existence.

The belief that things had form and retain form, before and after conscious perception, is the belief that things have inherent form. As causality is infinite, or boundless, the forms that things take on is, in a sense, an illusory appearance.

Yea I know, contradictory terms. That doesn't make it untrue.

The original issue was about conscious awareness being identical to the objects of such awareness, and also (I guess) the "reality" of the physical/material world. Granted, these ideas are dependent on certain definitions, and changing those definitions will change the truths themselves; the problem is that you want to *retain* those definitions and yet change the ideas into something they aren't and were never meant to be.

Or you're just clinging to one way of defining/explaining things. There is more than one way to skin a cat, you know. (edit: Actually, I change my mind. You must have not yet fully understood the implications of infinite causality. The non-inherent existence of things refers to more than just the fact things are always changing.)

But since you're determined to call me wrong, tell me, what did Kevin mean by this, specifically the bolded sentence:

"Existence" is a human concept. If you perceive or conceive of a thing, then you cause its existence. Thus there is no way a thing can be without causes. Also, a thing cannot exist without having parts, and these parts constitute causes. In nuclear physics there are some particles which arguably have no parts. However, they do have characteristics, or attributes, and these too constitute causes. Again, things must have causes.

[jupiviv]

Yes indeed, or in other terms A=A: a premise underlying anything you could ever state, affirm or deny. It doesn't need further affirmation or denial.

This is a cheap trick, using which you can prove anything. But who is really being deceived here?

Yes, I forgot you have your own interpretation of what identity means.

I've already stated my reasons for denying the identity of awareness with its objects, none of which you have addressed.

That's why it looks like a "trick" to you but it's really unavoidable that every discussion we return to this mater. Like here, where I said many similar things, such as: "Appearances do not have any existence, unless we say existence is another word for appearance". Or as you are doing more recently: equal existence or reality with "physical things" or the "physical".

And yet I've changed my views over the years, which has been reflected in my discussions with you and others on this forum and elsewhere. Indeed, it seems that, since my views underwent a radical revision, I've been disagreeing on the *same* issue with long-time forum members; viz., the *specialness* of consciousness and the exaggerated *non-specialness* of anything that isn't consciousness.

... "absolute change" is a hokey chimera meant to trivialise realities that are *actually* uncomfortable, like death, suffering and guilt.

Uncomfortable only when a certain constancy (life) is taken as comfortable and now contrasted with a change to that (death).

What you claim as "reality" and "actuality" are nothing but the realities invoked by a mind (mind is that invocation if nothing else) preferring a constant over change, an attachment over everything else. It would be wise starting to understand how that works as to address suffering and ignorance.

It's actually you who prefer constancy, since you want the mind to have the power to invoke ("create" in other words) reality. Me, I'm fine with whatever appears to be the case at any given moment.

[jupiviv]

But since you're determined to call me wrong, tell me, what did Kevin mean by this, specifically the bolded sentence:

"Existence" is a human concept. If you perceive or conceive of a thing, then you cause its existence. Thus there is no way a thing can be without causes. Also, a thing cannot exist without having parts, and these parts constitute causes. In nuclear physics there are some particles which arguably have no parts. However, they do have characteristics, or attributes, and these too constitute causes. Again, things must have causes.

He meant that consciousness causes that which is not it, which I agree with. However I also hold the reverse to be true, but apparently you have a problem with *that*. Kevin Solway also said, elsewhere in the book, that consciousness is caused by things that are not consciousness (or words to that effect). For example, here's a quote from the chapter "Consciousness":

Material consciousness

Modern Buddhists use the "preservation of type" argument to maintain their belief in literal reincarnation. The argument says that consciousness cannot die at death, for just as nothing can be created, nor can it be destroyed: all must be preserved.

But I tell you consciousness is material and therefore dies with the body . . . inasmuch as a body can die. Why is consciousness material? Because if it were non-material it would not be able to know about the material. Consciousness must either be separate from the material, and necessarily isolated, or the same as material, and sharing its properties. There is no alternative.

If the preservation of type argument were strictly true, then it would not be possible to make milk into butter, as milk is of a different type to butter. Similarly, it would be impossible for a child to grow into an adult, they being different types.

[Russell Parr]

He meant that consciousness causes that which is not it, which I agree with. However I also hold the reverse to be true, but apparently you have a problem with *that*.

Except he says both conceive and perceive. The source of consciousness is causality. With consciousness, things come into existence, including consciousness itself.

Look at it this way, each of your senses is a tool that interacts with infinite reality in a finite way, creating finite things. In the same way your eyes are used to narrow down the electromagnetic spectrum into a finite sliver of visible light, every sense apparatus converts infinite reality into finites, or things.

I don't disagree that it logically follows that what precedes consciousness is must be things themselves, but a more profound point is that all things are necessarily appearances, and in a sense an illusion, whereas reality is fundamentally non-dualistic. It follows here that the things that precede and proceed consciousness also exist only by way of conscious awareness, and are thus illusory.

In the end it is and isn't this nor that. But we must understand both in order to understand ultimate truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've already stated my reasons for denying the identity of awareness with its objects, none of which you have addressed.

But that negation or denial didn't need any "addressing". It's what you asserted instead which I zoomed into. But it tends to slip away now from the discussion. Perhaps it was never there to begin with? Which kind of was my point, as well :)

I've been disagreeing on the *same* issue with long-time forum members; viz., the *specialness* of consciousness and the exaggerated *non-specialness* of anything that isn't consciousness.

Nobody develops without ending up disagreeing fundamentally with peers, influences and teachers. It all needs to be burned down at some point. Although in this case I think you're just reaching a bit here perhaps to make your self feel "special" in your personal quest to get some better understanding or formulation? Again, in every reply I've objected to what you asserted like "Whatever appears to consciousness is real". Although you have now changed that into blaming me for invoking a "mind".... something tells me you are in a very fluid state of defining things for yourself right now...

It's actually you who prefer constancy, since you want the mind to have the power to invoke ("create" in other words) reality. Me, I'm fine with whatever appears to be the case at any given moment.

Fair enough but you're just displacing and renaming issues without much reason to it! Now we have magical "moments" as canvas for appearances. Not even a sign of what might be ignorance or not. Does that really provide clarity to assert a (non-existing) appearance rising in a (non-existing) context? It's just logic, a way to start conceiving of the nature of "things" and how our thoughts and attachments develop. It doesn't make any claim on what the mind is or which "powers" it might have. That's a different discussion altogether.

In the end the discussion on "what is real" can be held in two ways: to define reality in terms of absolute and axiomatic truths which will be abstract and for that reason deceptive as words and ideas in themselves are never "real" (unless they all are). Or we can discuss reality as a function, like connectivity and verification. The ability (and desire) to know when you’re dreaming and when you're actually awake. Or when one is truthful and when deceptive. This is purely about internal subjectivity. One which is also causing illusive objects to arise externally.

[Leyla Shen]

Sorry folks, but finite things are not illusory. The appearance of finite things as permanent objects is illusory.

[Russell Parr]

Resounding argument Leyla, you almost converted me there.

Jokes aside, here's a couple more transactions from the old newsletters featuring Quinn. The second one is a bit lengthy but more entertaining and informative. Note that the way "existence" is defined and understood is the key element here.

Philip: The presentation of an appearance is nothing more than that, the presentation of an appearance. Whatever you call it doesn't change universal realities.

David Quinn: In what way can a thing be said to exist beyond its appearance?

Philip: A thing may have properties that are impercievable.

David Quinn: Well, every object under the sun could have properties that are imperceptible. The chair that I'm sitting on could well have the brain the size of a planet for all I know, and a beautiful voice to match. It doesn't really mean anything.

If all of a thing's properties are imperceptible, then the thing itself would be imperceptible. If a thing isn't being perceived by anyone or anything, not even by its own self, then in what sense does it exist?

Philip: In what sense? It exists independent of consciousness, it's an unknown quantity, for a time. I can't prove it's true, and you can't prove it isn't.

David Quinn: But I can, and have, proven that it isn't true. The key point is that if a thing has no form then it cannot exist. And a thing can only have form if it is presenting an appearance to an observer of some kind. Therefore, nothing can exist beyond consciousness.

Thom Adams: I've said it before, but a thing has form even if it's not being observed. Or are you saying that a thing fluctuates between form and formlessness depending on whether or not someone is watching it? That it blinks in and out of existence depending on whether it's being watched? And if it's non-existent, how does it know to pop back into existence when it's being watched. And how can it be watched if it's non-existent?

Jason: You still don't understand the argument. You continually transport David's, and similar arguments, into the materialistic-external-reality realm. David's arguments apply to bare perception, without any assumptions of an external (or non-external) reality. David's arguments and definitions intentionally avoid uncertainties, like materialism, because his arguments seek absolutes, and material reality cannot give absolutes. So, if we take the typical materialistic viewpoint and get rid of everything that is non-absolute in it, we are left with bare sense perception, and mind perception (thought). The apodictic as it is sometimes known. This is where the arguments proceed from - a position of certainty. Bare perception and conception are certain. Asserting any reality behind or beyond bare/direct perception and conception is an uncertain assumption.

With your above argument you have taken David's arguments and assumed that he means that physical/materialistic objects like chairs and people disappear when we do not observe them, and re-appear when we observe them once again. Not so. Because David's argument does not assume that the chairs or people are material. Or for that matter or non-material either. They are merely perceptions. Therefore, when one looks at an object and then looks away, all that is happening is that sense perceptions are changing. First one has a perception of chair, then one does not have a perception of a chair. Does the chair cease to exist? Well, the perception of the chair ceases to exist. If one desires certainty, one will not enter into uncertainty by asserting that the chair exists beyond perception. However that doesn't mean it doesn't exist independently of the perception either. It is just uncertain. David, feel free to correct my views of your argument.

David Quinn: No, I'm definitely saying that the chair itself doesn't exist beyond consciousness. The perception of the chair is the chair. There is no other chair beyond this. That it seems to appear and disappear depending on when we're looking at it is a significant pointer to the nature of existence. It informs us that there is a lot more to matter than meets the eye.

I agree with you that a person like Thom approaches this issue empirically and materialistically, which greatly limits his outlook. He objects to my "idealistic" thinking because he perceives a conflict between the idea of chairs appearing and disappearing and his preconceived notions of how matter is supposed to behave. To him, matter is a fixed solid thing which stays put until physically moved. He doesn't take into account the higher metaphysical realities of the situation.

As you point out, chairs are not not really material in nature. They are illusory, momentary manifestations of formless Reality. As with all things, they appear and disappear according to causal conditions. And part of those conditions is consciousness itself. Hence, they continually blink in and out of existence depending on whether anyone is looking at them.

That fact that things disappear when no one is looking at them is, to me at least, a very interesting phenomenon. It's vital that people explore this issue thoroughly if they want to gain a proper understanding of Reality.

Thom Adams: You're insane. Absolutely certifiable. You know, babies love to play peek-a-boo. They genuinely believe that something is gone, nonexistent if you will, when they can't see it or that they can't be seen if they cover their eyes.

"Peekaboo! Davie wavie! Ats a goodie woobie widdle doobie! Where's Davie? There he is! Peekaboo!"

David Quinn: Baby's minds are purer, you know. They sometimes see things more clearly than adults do.

The infant and I differ quite considerably in our positions, though. The infant comes to the conclusion that things only exists when he sees them because he lacks the experience and brain-power to conceive of the world objectively. His is a faulty conclusion derived from a lack of information. By contrast, while I can conceive of the world objectively, I can also see the inherent limitations of such a conception.

I'm not denying that conceiving the world as an objective entity is useful to the practical business of survival. As far as our everyday lives are concerned, we have no alternative but to think of it in this way. It works because that is the way Nature has caused it to be. There is nothing around to upset the apple-cart, not so far at least. But who knows what could happen in the future? Things could suddenly start behaving strangely for no apparent reason. The cosmos could suddenly dissolve into a sea of randomness. A flick of a switch could turn off the computer simulation that is our universe. The dreamer who is dreaming this world could wake up. Or whatever. That the world seems solid and three-dimensional and reliable and objectively real is purely due to the workings of causation. There is no other basis to the world than that.

[Russell Parr]

Once the above is thoroughly understood can one grasp the true meaning of emptiness, to which wisdom cumulatively leads. That things exist *is* the ultimate joke.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sorry folks, but finite things are not illusory. The appearance of finite things as permanent objects is illusory.

But when things appear as finite they simply become such "permanent objects". Yes, with beginnings and endings but still permanent and solid as far as apparent thingness and object-being goes. That permanency lies in our conceptualization and belief of what we're experiencing and possibly how object-memory is processed. And it's probably for the best to assume constancy, otherwise we need to nail down all the furniture to prevent stuff from flying away through the windows, for example. The illusionary aspect here is how our self is nailed to the stuff, the other and all the made-up things. WIthout it, out of the window it would flee, like a puff of white smoke.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, they simply be come. Of course!

Well, that explains the ultimate nature of everything then.

[Leyla Shen]

And the moral of the story is: when realitae's be cometh, a wise man all ways watcheth outeth.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Once the above is thoroughly understood can one grasp the true meaning of emptiness, to which wisdom cumulatively leads. That things exist *is* the ultimate joke.

Nice quotes, they clearly outline the materialistic assumption Jupiviv's reasoning is based on, and contrast it well to a more accurate view (I only say 'more accurate' because at first glance I wouldn't agree with minor parts of his wording, but it'd be impossible to tell without having read further definitions).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh, they simply be come. Of course!

Let me put it this way, when you mention "finite things", that is what I understand and always have understood at this forum to mean the same as "permanent objects". Since the game of peekaboo we already understand things appear and disappear, slow or suddenly. Nobody needs to explain that really to convince anybody that there's no "really permanent" objects, as those few things which do not move and change already, it's taught to us that they won't last forever either. We do tend to get to grow attached to stuff in our immediate surroundings, as part of a "self", nevertheless. Then when we examine the causes of that, it becomes clear that our self functions that way, as a belief in its own existence and all its relative meanings and appearances, which needs to be "propped up" endlessly, as not to collapse.

Permanence at least as Buddhist terminology points to being compounded, constructed and "fabricated" being in contrast with unconditioned, uncompounded and unfabricated. So by talking about the illusion of "permanent objects" you are just as well talking about all the illusion of finite things, as they are as well caused and compounded, in a state of flux which only make them seem to be briefly in some fashion, within some context. See also impermanence. They can even appear to be crucial, hard and unavoidable to our senses. Philosophy in that sense defies all programmed response and conviction, against overwhelming tendencies to assume otherwise.

[Leyla Shen]

God damn it, Diebert. You're so long-winded.

If the thing and the appearance are the same, then if the appearance is a solid object the thing is a solid object. What’s illusory about that?

[jupiviv]

He meant that consciousness causes that which is not it, which I agree with. However I also hold the reverse to be true, but apparently you have a problem with *that*.

Except he says both conceive and perceive. The source of consciousness is causality. With consciousness, things come into existence, including consciousness itself.

Consciousness cannot be a *special* cause of things for reasons previously stated. But that's the idea you want to defend. I can assure you it is impossible to do so.

As for the quotes, it doesn't really matter what David Quinn or anyone else not involved in this discussion says.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the thing and the appearance are the same, then if the appearance is a solid object the thing is a solid object. What’s illusory about that?

It depends what someone believes "to exist" means or actual, non-illusionairy "reality". Something just showing up, as appearance, sense or impression, even as end of a long line of internal deductions or associations, doesn't say anything about that. This was my objection to Jup in this discussion: if "everything" is real, distinctions are lost since nothing is then illusionary any more. It's not a kind of "real" that seems useful to assert.

[jupiviv]

I've already stated my reasons for denying the identity of awareness with its objects, none of which you have addressed.

But that negation or denial didn't need any "addressing". It's what you asserted instead which I zoomed into. But it tends to slip away now from the discussion. Perhaps it was never there to begin with? Which kind of was my point, as well :)

Why didn't it need addressing? If you need some motivation for answering this question, here are a few instances of "zooming in" on your part:

It's hard to even start denying your concept of physicality since you are describing it as some property-less aspect of everything.

Where? All I said was that all the finite things I know of appear to be physical, i.e., what is conventionally defined as being "physical". I didn't introduce a *new* concept of physicality. Perhaps the current concept of physicality is erroneous or at least too vague, but that is a *scientific* question.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't care either way! The real issue here is a deluded notion of consciousness.

What is conventionally defined as physical, that is "relating to the body", "sexual interest or activity" or "relating to material things" even "matter and energy " -- perhaps, but it has nothing to do with wisdom.

It isn't "meaningless" to distinguish between what can appear and what cannot. Even falsehood appears as a mental process or a deception evincing ignorance or denial of truth, which is itself real. The only thing that doesn't appear, yet is real, is the source of the real. It has to be believed in; a belief in anything else is necessarily a lie - conscious or otherwise.

How do you determine "what cannot appear"? Couldn't it appear to do so anyway, as falsehood?

As for the "source of the real", it's really undefined isn't it? A whole universe of causes which "cannot appear" but are real to you. Since you cannot distinguish between real appearing effects and real non-appearing causes, such distinction would become meaningless. It would me more consistent to say that cause and effect is real: appearance here being effect, the source being cause.

No one has said anything about an object existing "in itself", but it does exist as something, and that something can appear either directly or indirectly. The appearance itself, in consciousness, might be caused by sensations or by deductive reasoning.

"Exist as something" is another way of saying an object would be existing "in itself" or inherently. Sometimes I wonder if you really get the notion of inherent existence and what it would mean to drop the illusion of that to be real in any way.

Again, in every reply I've objected to what you asserted like "Whatever appears to consciousness is real". Although you have now changed that into blaming me for invoking a "mind".... something tells me you are in a very fluid state of defining things for yourself right now...

Why this need to complicate disagreement? I'm always in a fluid state of defining things, because things can be defined in countless ways. The mental rigidity created by an adherence to certain definitions is precisely what led me to reject the idea of consciousness being somehow special.

It's actually you who prefer constancy, since you want the mind to have the power to invoke ("create" in other words) reality. Me, I'm fine with whatever appears to be the case at any given moment.

Fair enough but you're just displacing and renaming issues without much reason to it! Now we have magical "moments" as canvas for appearances.

Magic is the belief in some *thing* beyond appearances that shape those appearances. I prefer to call things permanent or changing based on how they appear to me, whereas you call them absolutely changing *regardless* of how they appear to you or anyone else. Who is thinking magically?

In the end the discussion on "what is real" can be held in two ways: to define reality in terms of absolute and axiomatic truths which will be abstract and for that reason deceptive as words and ideas in themselves are never "real" (unless they all are). Or we can discuss reality as a function, like connectivity and verification. The ability (and desire) to know when you’re dreaming and when you're actually awake. Or when one is truthful and when deceptive. This is purely about internal subjectivity. One which is also causing illusive objects to arise externally.

Of course the *latter* discussion would itself require a version of itself applied to itself, and another version applied to that version---ad infinitum. At some point, you have to admit the former discussion into the latter discussion anyway. So perhaps it isn't wise to separate them to begin with?

[Leyla Shen]

If the thing and the appearance are the same, then if the appearance is a solid object the thing is a solid object. What’s illusory about that?

It depends what someone believes "to exist" means or actual, non-illusionairy "reality". Something just showing up, as appearance, sense or impression, even as end of a long line of internal deductions or associations, doesn't say anything about that. This was my objection to Jup in this discussion: if "everything" is real, distinctions are lost since nothing is then illusionary any more. It's not a kind of "real" that seems useful to assert.

I think such a statement would have to be examined in its context, and I don’t know where or in what context Jupiviv made or implied “everything is real”. However, it seems to me that the issue here for you has more to do with truth than it does with reality; the distinction is subtle, but exists nevertheless.

We all necessarily act on or presume that what appears to us exists—or, if you like, is actual, non-illusory reality. Since it does so, it is actual, non-illusory reality. We generally don’t run around checking with other people whether or not a cliff’s edge exists before we refrain from walking off it because we’ve concluded that we’ll likely die if we do, for example.

The trouble always begins when we try to convince others who haven’t experienced or reasoned the same thing as we have—and right on this point, we risk finding ourselves with at least one foot in the heart of the burning pits of Sartre’s Hell; that realm where self is objectified in the consciousness of the other. You know, like talking to walls...

What's even more surprising is when those walls simply talk back, no?

Truth bears no such hallmark.

[Russell Parr]

Consciousness cannot be a *special* cause of things for reasons previously stated.

I claim no such thing. Revising this straw man over and over again accomplishes nothing.

But that's the idea you want to defend.

Seeker might, but not me.

[jupiviv]

Consciousness cannot be a *special* cause of things for reasons previously stated.

I claim no such thing. Revising this straw man over and over again accomplishes nothing.

Ah but you do; the reason you don't use words like "special" and "exclusive" is because they would contradict the rest of your statements. For example:

The source of consciousness is causality. With consciousness, things come into existence, including consciousness itself.

Notice how you begin by saying that the source of consciousness is causality, but omit things other than consciousness from this premise. You then state that consciousness causes *everything*. So it's obvious that you think consciousness as a consequence of causality is somehow more special than unconsciousness as the same.

You are unable to perform what Kierkegaard called a "dialectical redoubling". You can reason that no boundaries can exist without consciousness, and that it therefore follows that only with consciousness do boundaries, and therefore things, come to be. But you don't go the one step further and conclude that before consciousness *was*, the All *is*! This tenth step is crucial; it's like a lame tortoise bouncing up and down in a glass jar suddenly assuming the form of a dragon that could swallow up the world and then flying home. The other nine are worthless if one falters here.