Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

I'm game to continue if you don't mind my adjustments, but if you're interested, it'd be better to work with the reiteration of my point, [...]:
  • you can't relate existence to the absolute, precisely because it (existence) is relative. So if the absolute is said to be real, then existence must not be.
No problem.
Which would make my argument, in its most simple form:

1. The absolute is real
2. The Infinite is absolute
3. Things are finite
4. Things are not real
What would you say if I proposed this argument instead:

1. The Infinite is absolute
2. The absolute is enduring
3. Things are/existence is finite
4. Things are/existence is non-enduring
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:Existence relies on relativity, and relativity isn't absolute. So what happens when you relate the existence of things to the Infinite? It is then revealed that existence is an illusion of causality.

I'm sure this is where I will lose you. There's a jump in logic here that can be challenging, admittedly even for me at times. I can only urge you to review the evidence until it all clicks.

To put it in another, perhaps better way, you can't relate existence to the absolute, precisely because it (existence) is relative. So if the absolute is said to be real, then existence must not be.
Existence *is* relativity, and relativity itself is the All. If finite things are unreal then so is the All, which causes them.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Leyla Shen wrote:What would you say if I proposed this argument instead:

1. The Infinite is absolute
2. The absolute is enduring
3. Things are/existence is finite
4. Things are/existence is non-enduring
That works great! In fact I'll be using that.

Context is key, but saying that "things aren't real" may be a bit extreme. It would make better sense to say that the realness of things are fleeting, and that things are "no longer real" when their dualistic appearance has no consciousness to act upon.
Last edited by Russell Parr on Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Existence *is* relativity, and relativity itself is the All. If finite things are unreal then so is the All, which causes them.
Yes, existence is relativity, but I can't see how relativity is the All. To me, relativity is dualistic, and the All is singular. Further, existence can't apply to the All because there's nothing beside it for it to contrast with. Are you sure you're not distorting the meaning of relatedness?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:To me, relativity is dualistic, and the All is singular.
The All is neither singular nor diverse.
Further, existence can't apply to the All because there's nothing beside it for it to contrast with. Are you sure you're not distorting the meaning of relatedness?
The All causes the existence of finite things, so if their existence is illusory/unreal then so is the All. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:The All causes the existence of finite things, so if their existence is illusory/unreal then so is the All. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
Indeed but this supposes that the All exists. Do you assert this?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:The All causes the existence of finite things, so if their existence is illusory/unreal then so is the All. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit
Such "All" cannot be any cause as that would become then some kind of "first cause" in itself. Any "All" can only be causality. Causality cannot be its own cause or cause to anything else. It's impossible to reason like "we need causality to have causes" as that would just equal to restating "there's causality" with more words. Hence, we arrive at "causality exists". Because it's unavoidable, cannot be escaped, opposed or contradicted by whatever sense, reason or change or perspective. Although it can be ignored of course by some temporary contradiction, like all the object shadows our subject mind keeps casting.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Saying that causality exists is not without its problems either, because there is nothing for it to contrast with.

How existence is defined exactly is one of the main issues (if not the main issue) throughout these arguments. Forgive me once more for my "appeal to authority", but in the newsletters it is said that the best definition for existence is simply "to appear". The All/Infinite cannot appear, and therefore causality, as active and relative principle of the All, also does not appear. Things, though, which are the result of causality, appear, and therefore things alone can be said to exist.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The All causes the existence of finite things, so if their existence is illusory/unreal then so is the All. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
Indeed but this supposes that the All exists. Do you assert this?
It doesn't suppose that (how?). It's the natural conclusion reached by following the logic of cause and effect (A causes not-A, not-A causes A, ergo A and not-A together - the All - cause A; and vice versa).
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Such "All" cannot be any cause as that would become then some kind of "first cause" in itself. Any "All" can only be causality. Causality cannot be its own cause or cause to anything else. It's impossible to reason like "we need causality to have causes" as that would just equal to restating "there's causality" with more words.
God causes every *thing*, not everything as a *whole* (Himself). He does so absolutely, not within time or space. You can call Him a First Cause if you want to, although "Only Cause" or "Supreme Cause" might be more appropriate terms. Unfortunately it doesn't follow from this that He exists, since there is no reason to equivocate finite causes with Me. That's right, *I* am your Father!
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:It doesn't suppose that (how?). It's the natural conclusion reached by following the logic of cause and effect (A causes not-A, not-A causes A, ergo A and not-A together - the All - cause A; and vice versa).
You can't cause existence from that which has no existence. A non-existent tree cannot bear existing fruit. So either the All exists along as its contents, or neither exist. Which is it?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

It would make better sense to say that the realness of things are fleeting, and that things are "no longer real" when their dualistic appearance has no consciousness to act upon.
I think then too, it would make better sense to say things are both real and non-real, rather than the realness of things is fleeting. Since, does it not follow; to say “the realness of things is fleeting” is to relate existence to the absolute?
you can't relate existence to the absolute, precisely because it (existence) is relative. So if the absolute is said to be real, then existence must not be.
If we define "illusory" as both real and non-real, I'm with you 100% on the illusory nature of thing/ness.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

Leyla Shen wrote:I think then too, it would make better sense to say things are both real and non-real, rather than the realness of things is fleeting.
I think we can call things real or non-real according to context. Things are real in the sense that they certainly do appear, but they aren't real in the sense that they do not inherently exist.
Since, does it not follow; to say “the realness of things is fleeting” is to relate existence to the absolute?
Again it depends on context. As long as things/existence is understood a certain way, meaning they are temporal appearances, we can say that they are real.
If we define "illusory" as both real and non-real, I'm with you 100% on the illusory nature of thing/ness.
Works for me.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Excellent.

So, we are agreed:

Things are real in the sense that they certainly do exist, but they aren't real in the sense that they do not inherently exist.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:It doesn't suppose that (how?). It's the natural conclusion reached by following the logic of cause and effect (A causes not-A, not-A causes A, ergo A and not-A together - the All - cause A; and vice versa).
You can't cause existence from that which has no existence.
Unless it's the All. The All has no existence or non-existence - those are properties of its constituent finite things. The logic of cause and effect doesn't apply to the All's causation; nevertheless, that is what the logic necessarily demonstrates.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:Things are real in the sense that they certainly do exist, but they aren't real in the sense that they do not inherently exist.
But those are two just different definitions of "real" mushed into one. Square pegs rammed into round holes while crying victory! Did baby-Leyla once play like that too? Defining "illusory" as both real and non-real can be acceptable when the real part is the fact of causality but not any fact of a raised object.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:God causes every *thing*, not everything as a *whole* (Himself). He does so absolutely, not within time or space. You can call Him a First Cause if you want to, although "Only Cause" or "Supreme Cause" might be more appropriate terms. Unfortunately it doesn't follow from this that He exists, since there is no reason to equivocate finite causes with Me. That's right, *I* am your Father!
As a figure of speech you're the Father as much as God causing everything. But that's just an illusive side-effect of having a creation in the first place.
Meister Eckhart wrote:In my birth all things were born and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God.
- source Blessed are the poor in spirit
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Unless it's the All. The All has no existence or non-existence - those are properties of its constituent finite things. The logic of cause and effect doesn't apply to the All's causation; nevertheless, that is what the logic necessarily demonstrates.
That's just not going to work, jup. You can't extract/inject existence from/into that to which existence cannot apply. You are basically saying that there is an inherent aspect to the existence of things that is obtained somewhere along the line in causality.

Only causality is inherent. Things, forms, existence.. it's all nothing! Let it go.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

L: Things are real in the sense that they certainly do exist, but they aren't real in the sense that they do not inherently exist.
Case in point:
Ding Dong: Square pegs rammed into round holes while crying victory!
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Defining "illusory" as both real and non-real can be acceptable when the real part is the fact of causality but not any fact of a raised object.
An illusion is by definition both real and non-real. Your literacy problems have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a statement, notwithstanding your ego's incapacity when it comes to paradox.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:God causes every *thing*, not everything as a *whole* (Himself). He does so absolutely, not within time or space. You can call Him a First Cause if you want to, although "Only Cause" or "Supreme Cause" might be more appropriate terms. Unfortunately it doesn't follow from this that He exists, since there is no reason to equivocate finite causes with Me. That's right, *I* am your Father!
As a figure of speech you're the Father as much as God causing everything. But that's just an illusive side-effect of having a creation in the first place.
Meister Eckhart wrote:In my birth all things were born and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God.
- source Blessed are the poor in spirit
I cause other things to be whatever they are. I don't, however, cause myself and other things to cause myself and other things. Or as Master Eckhart said earlier in the sermon:
As long as a man is so disposed that it is his will with which he would do the most beloved will of God, that man has not the poverty we are speaking about: for that man has a will to serve God's will and that is not true poverty! For a man to possess true poverty he must be as free of his created will as he was when he was not. For I declare by the eternal truth, as long as you have the will to do the will of God, and longing for eternity and God, you are not poor: you want something for yourself; for a poor man is one who wills nothing and desires nothing.
In the portion you quoted, I don't think Master Eckhart was using the word "cause" in the modern or the Buddhist sense but in the sense of necessity. His meaning seems to me identical to that of Ramkrishna when he said, "there is no Infinite without finite things". The will of God cannot be something beyond your own existence and nature. You are God precisely as you are; if what you (or anyone else) are is not God then God is also not God.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:You can't extract/inject existence from/into that to which existence cannot apply.
Unless it's the All.
You are basically saying that there is an inherent aspect to the existence of things that is obtained somewhere along the line in causality.
An inherent aspect that is...what exactly? You're using a word to disqualify people who disagree with you. Can you guess what kind of people tend to do that?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:
Russell wrote:You can't extract/inject existence from/into that to which existence cannot apply.
Unless it's the All.
So existence doesn't apply to the whole but it does it's constituents? How's that cake?
An inherent aspect that is...what exactly?
In your case, you think that existence has some sort of enduring aspect that transcends your perception. You are unwittingly attempting to will your perspective of form beyond its limits. You haven't yet understood how the infinite nature of causality obliterates the existence of things into formlessness, and destroys the illusion of duality, in the grand scheme. Simply put, you are clinging to finiteness.
You're using a word to disqualify people who disagree with you. Can you guess what kind of people tend to do that?
I'll use whatever word it takes to expose you to your inconsistency!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:An illusion is by definition both real and non-real.
A paradox is never a logical contradiction, this is just about an appearance looking self-contradictory or logically untenable while still based on some valid deduction from acceptable premises. Any suggestion of a paradox of a statement like "illusion being real and unreal" becomes a valid deduction only when it's found to be real in terms of causality -- "something is caused to happen" -- which can be deduced as having no self-nature, no permanence and always meaning something else to anyone relating to it.

There's some confusion perhaps on the shifting context, so lets try this:

1. to exist as causality and not to exist as anything else.
2. to hold truth, meaning or reality or be false, meaningless or unreal

These are two different categories. Truth, meaning and the sense of reality do not even arise yet as notions when it comes to absolute existence.
And yet when they do, it seems a function of connection, character, subject and experience. To name a few.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

So, your definition of "real" is (arbitrarily) absolute existence - sort of like...absolute philosophy?

What's your definition of existence?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:So, your definition of "real" is (arbitrarily) absolute existence - sort of like...absolute philosophy?

What's your definition of existence?
Perhaps "that which is known to objectively persists independent of one's presence"?

As for reality, it has never been much different than how Quinn, Solway and their many sources have described. Here's from Kevin's Poison of the Heart.
  • Q: What is Reality?

    A: I know, but if I have to tell you, then I don't know.

    Q: You say God is Reality. Can you prove this God of yours is real?

    A: This I cannot do. How can I prove reality exists? The unreal never is; reality never is not.

    Q: Why can't you tell me what Reality is in words?

    A: If you understood my words I could tell you in the single word "Buddha". As you do not, I could talk for a thousand years and you would be no closer to my meaning.

    Q: Can you tell me something concrete about Reality? For example, can you tell me whether things really exist?

    A: Which is more real, the object or its shadow?

    --

    It is clear enough that names are merely labels stuck onto forms. What desperately needs to be understood is that forms too are labels - stuck onto Reality.

    --

    Nothing is "real", as all things arise out of causes. Neither can anything be "illusory", as there is nothing real to make them illusory. So you need not expend effort projecting reality or illusoriness onto things. Simply accept things for what they are.
This is in my view all not really different from saying causality it the reason we can indeed say finite objects "exist" but only because we're looking at causality. The observing itself is as well the causality which consists (as "aggregation") of causal and illusionary, conveniently labelled elements like subject and object which can be split further in various processes, atoms, the ten thousand things and so on, which are never constant or fixed. The closer you get, the further they run!
Locked