Talking to the wall is not Genius

[jupiviv]

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 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 is the nature of the exalted to exalt. To the degree that something does not exalt, it is base. Thus, the most exalted exalts everything.

The "finite", as you seem to define it, cannot exist either. For it to be truely, not appearantly finite, it has to have inherit beginning and endings, boundaries which are not dependant on some ever-changing context, perspective or situation. There's no such thing!

The ever-changing context is as fantastical as the ever-constant one. If you change the beginning and ending of a thing, then you just have a different thing, which *proves* that the beginning and ending of a thing cannot change.

call thoughts, ideas and concept "physical things".

That is what they appear to be. And even if they aren't, they are still demonstrably caused by physical things in both empirical and purely logical terms.

Saying this or that is a physical thing just because it's caused by other physical things, is not advancing any thought.

But you are conveniently ignoring the point, which is - if I may paraphrase Hillary "Email" Clinton - "what difference does it make!" Let's say that thoughts are, in fact, somehow different from physical things. What would that change about them? Absolutely nothing, of course. Your obsession with finding some way of distinguishing thoughts from material things (while accusing me of believing in "inherent existence", which seems to change its meaning relative to the position you wish to spurn) is the result of your dissatisfaction with the latter.

This is false since the past indubitably appears, and cannot (by definition) be coetaneous with the mind it appears to.

Here indubitably means just strict faith in God the Father as embodiment of all things past, laws of nature and a point of creation.

What else? The lizard that lives in my left lung told me so, so it must be true. And I'm not joking either - that is, in fact, why it is true and you are a fool if you differ.

[Russell Parr]

Non-duality lies within Duality itself.

"Non-duality" as a designation is dualistic, but what it refers to is not.

Physicality may not be a dualistic designation at all, but I don't care either way since it has nothing to do with wisdom.

Physicality cannot possibly be non-dualistic because it isn't by definition. The only way to describe non-duality is by it's own very wording. What this means exactly in context of the nature of Reality is the paradox to figure out.

The past, by definition, cannot arise in the moment of consciousness. Consciousness causes the three times to exist by distinguishing them. They cause consciousness by arising before, after or concurrently with it. So each of those four things cause each other by being whatever they are.

I see what you're saying here, but I can't agree that something can arise without it also existing. There is no thing or action without existence. To me it would be better suited to say that causality necessarily precedes consciousness, but this too is a bit disingenuous because "preceding" is itself an action that requires existence, and therefore consciousness. The only way to put it is that consciousness and the things of consciousness arise together. Beyond such is simply the non-dual.

[jupiviv]

Non-duality lies within Duality itself.

"Non-duality" as a designation is dualistic, but what it refers to is not.

The boundaries of finite things unite them. A thing + everything else (duality) = Non-duality.

Physicality may not be a dualistic designation at all, but I don't care either way since it has nothing to do with wisdom.

Physicality cannot possibly be non-dualistic because it isn't by definition. The only way to describe non-duality is by it's own very wording. What this means exactly in context of the nature of Reality is the paradox to figure out.

Paradoxes are what we call truths or lies which we are reluctant to admit are truths or lies.

The past, by definition, cannot arise in the moment of consciousness. Consciousness causes the three times to exist by distinguishing them. They cause consciousness by arising before, after or concurrently with it. So each of those four things cause each other by being whatever they are.

I see what you're saying here, but I can't agree that something can arise without it also existing.

The moment consciousness defines the three times, they exist as whatever they are defined to be.

The only way to put it is that consciousness and the things of consciousness arise together.

Everything arises together in relation to the All, but this "arising together" does not mean a simultaneous existence any more than "eternity" means an extremely long duration of time. The past is still the past, and thus precedes your present consciousness.

Beyond such is simply the non-dual.

You contradicted yourself there.

[Russell Parr]

The boundaries of finite things unite them. A thing + everything else (duality) = Non-duality.

This is true, but not the whole story. Since all things are made up of attributes and boundaries, and all attributes and boundaries are nothing more than mental projections, what we're eventually left with is the realization of nothingness or emptiness. Therefore Reality isn't really made up of things, or finitudes at all. This is non-duality.

Everything arises together in relation to the All, but this "arising together" does not mean a simultaneous existence any more than "eternity" means an extremely long duration of time. The past is still the past, and thus precedes your present consciousness.

By definition. Again, Reality isn't made up of definitions, discernments, boundaries, etc.. The past, present, and future simply aren't there other than by conception.

Beyond such is simply the non-dual.

You contradicted yourself there.

Perhaps, but my point is still there.

[amerika]

Philosophy is entirely personal.

I might say instead:

The understanding of philosophy is entirely personal.

There is no such thing as a direct communication of "philosophical" understanding, all you can do is provide some pointers, some vague signs through language, and if the traveller doesn't see the direction you're suggesting, or can only see it from the viewpoint of another road, then that is all there is to it.

This seems to me one of the basic tenets of esotericism: people can only understand what they recognize. There are also language issues, language ability issues, and Dunning-Kruger to contend with.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jupiviv,

The ever-changing context is as fantastical as the ever-constant one. If you change the beginning and ending of a thing, then you just have a different thing, which *proves* that the beginning and ending of a thing cannot change.

Ever-changing or ever-constant, it would only ever have the appearance of either. Logically however beginning and endings themselves are "finites" and do not exist. They change indeed as the thing and its definition changes. For you the impossibility would be to catch the moment or place it actually "is existing". All you think you have are fleeting sensations, associative memories and some faith-based theories "it" really was there. And to deal with this we have language which expresses this very thing, reinforces and even for us can become iconic: the thing being its wording. This is why the "eternal" word is not the word being spoken or written. Or any eternal "thing" cannot be anything here or there, not even a bunch of them combined all together in some abstract mega-collection of everything plus more. And yet all we can know is that the infinite exists, is real but the finite does not, in any way. Appearances exist as causality and would be infinite in their nature but it turns out impossible to say any of them actually "is" anything at any given moment, that some definite nature can be established beyond the infinite causality at play. Which would be what "existing" means, wouldn't it, actual being; be "real", subsist, persist, to be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur. But deeper contemplation leads to the realization it doesn't "persist" even for a moment, and if we make it so, just as a result of how we're defining the circumstance and context, which in themselves do not persist in any way, only as a result of how we're believing the circumstances and context are persistent and true. A whole house of cards or in other words: metaphysical and religious foundations of a world-view.

Let's say that thoughts are, in fact, somehow different from physical things. What would that change about them? Absolutely nothing, of course. Your obsession with finding some way of distinguishing thoughts from material things (while accusing me of believing in "inherent existence", which seems to change its meaning relative to the position you wish to spurn) is the result of your dissatisfaction with the latter.

You might have misunderstood my point here. Which was that things cannot exist despite the tendency to mistake them for having some absolute, inherent existence just because they appear to "us". All you are doing is trying to call everything "physical thing" instead of finite, appearance or "not all". Although I don't find that very helpful (are there "non-physical things" somewhere?) my reply was that they still could not exist and are fleeting appearances: you will never know or find the "thing". And yes that would mean appearances are not "there" either. Neither are "illusions" as that would mean they would be deceiving things or elements, still something somewhere, giving rise to a fake world. But the delusion here is that they are not even there unless you believe as a result of a desire to call them into some ethereal, inconsistent, impossible being. They were never there, are not somewhere being there now and will not be there in the future.

[jupiviv]

Ever-changing or ever-constant, it would only ever have the appearance of either. Logically however beginning and endings themselves are "finites" and do not exist. They change indeed as the thing and its definition changes. For you the impossibility would be to catch the moment or place it actually "is existing". All you think you have are fleeting sensations, associative memories and some faith-based theories "it" really was there.

What basis do you have for saying that all we have are fleeting sensations or faith-based theories? Whatever you might advance as proof is condemnable as faith-based sublimation of fleeting and vague elements of mind/consciousness, according to your own premiss.

things cannot exist despite the tendency to mistake them for having some absolute, inherent existence just because they appear to "us".

You're conflating "existence" and "inherent existence". They mean completely different things. Existence is not synonymous with appearance. In fact, the term "appearance" is kind of confusing because it means different things and none of those meanings are very clear or wise. For example, people often differentiate between appearance and reality, which is wrong in the context of the GF dialectic (a thing is what it appears to be, or, a thing exists as whatever we are aware of it existing as). Moreover, even in the GF dialectic they are used in different ways, for example variously meaning the thing that appears to the mind and the mind's awareness of the thing.

Like I've said before, pointing out that things *appear* in consciousness is not an argument for the proposition that they are identical to *their* appearance *to* the mind. And pointing out that consciousness is required for the existence of things other than consciousness is not an argument against the proposition that the appearances *of* things *in* the mind require the actual things that appear *to* it.

But the delusion here is that they are not even there unless you believe as a result of a desire to call them into some ethereal, inconsistent, impossible being. They were never there, are not somewhere being there now and will not be there in the future.

The most obvious problem here is the same as the one I pointed out at the beginning. It really boils down to your willingness to accept certain simple logical facts. I'm can't see this discussion helping you or indeed anyone unless you come up with a better response than this crap.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What basis do you have for saying that all we have are fleeting sensations or faith-based theories? Whatever you might advance as proof is condemnable as faith-based sublimation of fleeting and vague elements of mind/consciousness, according to your own premiss.

Not sure why or how I have to prove a negative. Show me a sense which is unchanging and constant or show me a thing which I can relate to outside the senses or contemplating theoretical models with axioms based on assumptions. Assuming of course that you are asserting that something limited, physical does exist. Are you?

things cannot exist despite the tendency to mistake them for having some absolute, inherent existence just because they appear to "us".

You're conflating "existence" and "inherent existence". They mean completely different things. Existence is not synonymous with appearance.

How am I doing that when all I say is that the absolute, the infinite or "causality" exists. For anything else to exist it needs to exist somehow inherently or in a limited fashion, which it really can't unless it appears to exist, which is what "appearance" means.

the context of the GF dialectic (a thing is what it appears to be, or, a thing exists as whatever we are aware of it existing as).

Assuming there is such a dialectic or vocabulary, are you agreeing now that a thing is what it appears to be, which is just another way of saying appearance. the appearance of something actually existing somewhere in some fashion ("as is") while it's not really the case, upon examination with some deeper reasoning and observation.

The most obvious problem here is the same as the one I pointed out at the beginning. It really boils down to your willingness to accept certain simple logical facts. I'm can't see this discussion helping you or indeed anyone unless you come up with a better response than this crap.

Can we just first agree not to speak of physical things when addressing everything that can appear as or in a limited sense? Because that's just an attempt to confuse things for your self...

[jupiviv]

What basis do you have for saying that all we have are fleeting sensations or faith-based theories? Whatever you might advance as proof is condemnable as faith-based sublimation of fleeting and vague elements of mind/consciousness, according to your own premiss.

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. *That* is your onus probandi.

Show me a sense which is unchanging and constant

Red herring. I know you Dutch folk love them but come on! Like I've said, constancy is no more absolute than fugacity.

or show me a thing which I can relate to outside the senses or contemplating theoretical models with axioms based on assumptions.

Well, in a purely logical sense all things are caused by what they are not, so there's that. But this is again a red herring, because I haven't made the claim you're asking me to demonstrate. The fact that the mind relates to certain things in a certain way does not change the distinctions between them.

things cannot exist despite the tendency to mistake them for having some absolute, inherent existence just because they appear to "us".

You're conflating "existence" and "inherent existence". They mean completely different things. Existence is not synonymous with appearance.

How am I doing that when all I say is that the absolute, the infinite or "causality" exists. For anything else to exist it needs to exist somehow inherently or in a limited fashion, which it really can't unless it appears to exist, which is what "appearance" means.

Existence and non-existence *are* limited by definition, so the All can neither exist nor not exist.

the context of the GF dialectic (a thing is what it appears to be, or, a thing exists as whatever we are aware of it existing as).

Assuming there is such a dialectic or vocabulary, are you agreeing now that a thing is what it appears to be, which is just another way of saying appearance. the appearance of something actually existing somewhere in some fashion ("as is") while it's not really the case, upon examination with some deeper reasoning and observation.

From Google:

appearance
əˈpɪər(ə)ns/
noun
noun: appearance; plural noun: appearances

1.
the way that someone or something looks.
"she checked her appearance in the mirror"
synonyms: look(s), air, aspect, mien, outward form
"she was conscious of her slightly dishevelled appearance"
an impression given by someone or something.
"she read it with every appearance of interest"
synonyms: impression, air, (outward) show, image; More
semblance, facade, veneer, guise, pretence, front, illusion
"Martha took care to keep up an appearance of respectability"
2.
an act of performing or participating in a public event.
"he is well known for his television appearances"
3.
an act of arriving or becoming visible.
"the sudden appearance of her daughter startled her"
synonyms: arrival, advent, coming, coming into view, emergence, materialization, surfacing
"the sudden appearance of her daughter startled her"
antonyms: disappearance, departure
a process of coming into existence or use.
"the appearance of the railway"
synonyms: occurrence, manifestation, development
"the appearance of these symptoms"

There is a difference between the event of a thing appearing *to* consciousness and the consciousness being aware *of* that thing, even though both of those things can be called appearances. In the GF dialectic, the idea that "something is exactly what it appears to be" was most likely intended to oppose any idea that assumed that consciousness is somehow incapable of understanding absolute truths.

Can we just first agree not to speak of physical things when addressing everything that can appear as or in a limited sense? Because that's just an attempt to confuse things for your self...

I remember qualifying that statement with an admittance of the vagueness of the concept of physicality.

[jupiviv]

Sorry, I didn't see your post.

The boundaries of finite things unite them. A thing + everything else (duality) = Non-duality.

This is true, but not the whole story. Since all things are made up of attributes and boundaries, and all attributes and boundaries are nothing more than mental projections, what we're eventually left with is the realization of nothingness or emptiness. Therefore Reality isn't really made up of things, or finitudes at all. This is non-duality.

If you separate your mind from everything except your mind, then the boundary between the two cannot be mental projection.

The past, present, and future simply aren't there other than by conception.

And conception isn't there other than by the past, present and future.

[Russell Parr]

If you separate your mind from everything except your mind, then the boundary between the two cannot be mental projection.

You realize this is one way of saying that the mind inherently exists, right?

In Reality the existence of the mind is illusory. No boundaries actually exist.

The past, present, and future simply aren't there other than by conception.

And conception isn't there other than by the past, present and future.

Again, they are all illusions, conceptualizing including.

You are grasping at the air, Jup.

Causality dictates that all boundaries, whether we are aware of them by observation or deduction, are illusions. As causality is infinite, meaning that all things are made up of the Infinite, and can therefore be theoretically defined, broken down, described infinitely, it follows that where we draw the line of separation is performed as an act in convention only, not in absolution (theoretically, of course, because of the limitations of consciousness in time and space). So when you say something about boundaries actually existing without/beyond/outside an observer, you are making an absolute claim about an inherently finite segment of reality, which is impossible. In other words, you are projecting an absolute premise onto reality in a way that a premise cannot possibly be conjured, i.e., without the presence of a finitizing consciousness.

As an aside, I want to make it clear that Diebert and I are not in agreement with Seeker, in case it seems otherwise.

[jupiviv]

If you separate your mind from everything except your mind, then the boundary between the two cannot be mental projection.

You realize this is one way of saying that the mind inherently exists, right?

How? In fact it's your argument (everything *except* the mind is a mental projection) assumes that the mind exists inherently.

In Reality the existence of the mind is illusory. No boundaries actually exist.

If that's true then this statement is an illusion, being the product of a mind, and thus cannot be true.

Causality dictates that all boundaries, whether we are aware of them by observation or deduction, are illusions.

If you had just said that causality dictates boundaries, you'd be on the right track. But you've instead arbitrarily introduced illusions, and that is because you want to believe that some pure and wonderful "non-duality" is hidden beneath all of these messy boundaries, but there isn't. God has decided that boundaries exist, so we don't have a choice in this matter.

As causality is infinite, meaning that all things are made up of the Infinite, and can therefore be theoretically defined, broken down, described infinitely, it follows that where we draw the line of separation is performed as an act in convention only, not in absolution (theoretically, of course, because of the limitations of consciousness in time and space).

The absolute cannot exclude convention. If it does then it isn't the absolute. The line between absolute and conventional reality is itself a conventional one, intended to differentiate between types of reasoning.

So when you say something about boundaries actually existing without/beyond/outside an observer, you are making an absolute claim about an inherently finite segment of reality, which is impossible. In other words, you are projecting an absolute premise onto reality in a way that a premise cannot possibly be conjured, i.e., without the presence of a finitizing consciousness.

Finite things are finite. It is meaningless both to assert that they are "inherently" finite, and that they're not so. You're extending the concept of inherent existence beyond its scope.

[Russell Parr]

How? In fact it's your argument (everything *except* the mind is a mental projection) assumes that the mind exists inherently.

Funny how you claim this is my argument while your next quotation is of me saying the opposite.

In Reality the existence of the mind is illusory. No boundaries actually exist.

If that's true then this statement is an illusion, being the product of a mind, and thus cannot be true.

The existence of truth is an illusion as well, but it is still truth.

If you had just said that causality dictates boundaries, you'd be on the right track. But you've instead arbitrarily introduced illusions, and that is because you want to believe that some pure and wonderful "non-duality" is hidden beneath all of these messy boundaries, but there isn't. God has decided that boundaries exist, so we don't have a choice in this matter.

"Illusion" is just a word to help describe the true nature of the existence of things. Non-duality does not lie underneath or behind the world of boundaries, it is the actual state of reality. Duality is the illusion.

The absolute cannot exclude convention. If it does then it isn't the absolute. The line between absolute and conventional reality is itself a conventional one, intended to differentiate between types of reasoning.

All lines are conventional, including every boundary that you think is actually out there.

Nothing in what I said implies that the absolute excludes convention.

You're extending the concept of inherent existence beyond its scope.

Rather, you haven't considered the implications of the concept of inherent existence, and moreover causality, deeply enough.

[amerika]

A thing + everything else (duality) = Non-duality.

One describes reality, the other the realm of theory. Non-duality creates a duality in the world of theory, but does not impose one on reality. Also relevant is that monism describes union between the physical and metaphysical, which is a more complex operation than simple mathematics of language.

[jupiviv]

How? In fact it's your argument (everything *except* the mind is a mental projection) assumes that the mind exists inherently.

Funny how you claim this is my argument while your next quotation is of me saying the opposite.

That's more to do with you than me!

The existence of truth is an illusion as well, but it is still truth.

Then the same applies to all of the other things you are calling "illusions". If all things are called illusions then "illusion" basically means "reality".

"Illusion" is just a word to help describe the true nature of the existence of things. Non-duality does not lie underneath or behind the world of boundaries, it is the actual state of reality. Duality is the illusion.

The reason you are so adamant about calling things "illusions" is because you are trying to attain a *state* of non-attachment (which you believe exists) without understanding what non-attachment actually is.

The absolute cannot exclude convention. If it does then it isn't the absolute. The line between absolute and conventional reality is itself a conventional one, intended to differentiate between types of reasoning.

All lines are conventional, including every boundary that you think is actually out there.

Therefore, conventionality is absolute. Nothing, not even the Absolute, can exist beyond the sum total of all boundaries.

You're extending the concept of inherent existence beyond its scope.

Rather, you haven't considered the implications of the concept of inherent existence, and moreover causality, deeply enough.

Inherent existence is no more a concept than a square circle. As for causality, it is you and not me who are proposing the existence of the noumenon (non-duality in contrast to duality).

[jupiviv]

A thing + everything else (duality) = Non-duality.

One describes reality, the other the realm of theory.

In the statement you quoted, both are in the realm of theory; i.e., they are logical categories. My point is that you cannot separate Non-duality from the ordinary dualistic universe.

[Russell Parr]

Then the same applies to all of the other things you are calling "illusions". If all things are called illusions then "illusion" basically means "reality".

No, illusion by definition means a misrepresentation of reality. The reality of things is an illusion. It is caused by an interaction between parts of reality, in which consciousness emerges as a differentiator. It arises in the same way that software arises on a computer. It exists in an abstract sense, and as such, differentiation exists in an abstract sense only.

The reason you are so adamant about calling things "illusions" is because you are trying to attain a *state* of non-attachment (which you believe exists) without understanding what non-attachment actually is.

Non-attachment is a consequence of the state of wisdom; it occurs along with a sustained realization of the emptiness of existence. It can't really happen any other way.

What does non-attachment mean to you?

Therefore, conventionality is absolute.

Conventionality is a property of consciousness, and consciousness is not absolute.

[jupiviv]

Then the same applies to all of the other things you are calling "illusions". If all things are called illusions then "illusion" basically means "reality".

No, illusion by definition means a misrepresentation of reality. The reality of things is an illusion.

Either everything is an illusion and therefore "illusion" means "reality", or "illusion" means the misrepresentation of reality and therefore the assertion than everything is an illusion is itself illusory and thus a contradiction in terms.

The reason you are so adamant about calling things "illusions" is because you are trying to attain a *state* of non-attachment (which you believe exists) without understanding what non-attachment actually is.

Non-attachment is a consequence of the state of wisdom; it occurs along with a sustained realization of the emptiness of existence. It can't really happen any other way.

What does non-attachment mean to you?

A sustained realisation of the emptiness of existence is, again, a contradiction in terms. How can any state exist, let alone be sustained, if existence is empty? The fact that you believe it can be bears out my speculation about your motive.

You asked what non-attachment means to me. Well, this quote from Hakuin is relevant:

When Zen master Sekiso passed away and the brotherhood asked the head monk to succeed him as abbot, Zen master Kyuho, who had previously served as the master's attendant, came and addressed them. He posed a question to the head monk, "The master often told us to `cease all activity,' to 'do nothing whatever,' to 'become so cold and lifeless the spirits of the dead will come sighing around you,' to 'become a bolt of fine white silk,' to 'become the dead ashes in a censer left forgotten in an ancient graveyard,' to 'become so that the present instant is ten thousand years.'

"What is the meaning of these instructions? If you show that you grasp them, you are the next abbot. If you show that you do not, you aren't the man for the job."

"His words," said the head monk, "refer to the essential oneness of all things."

"You have failed to understand the master's meaning," said Kyuho.

"Get some incense ready," replied the head monk. "If I have terminated my life by the time that incense burns, it will mean I grasped the master's meaning. If I am still living, it will mean I did not."

Kyuho lit a stick of incense. Before it had burned down the head monk had ceased breathing. Kyuho patted the dead man on the back, and said, "Others have died while seated; some have died while standing. But you have just succeeded in proving that you could not have even seen the master's meaning in your dreams."

Often those who approach the end of their lives having devoted themselves singlemindedly to the practice of the Way will regard the solitude of their final hours, sitting in the light of a solitary lamp, as the last great and difficult barrier of their religious quest, and as the smoke from the incense burns down they will move quietly and calmly into death, without having made an authentic Zen utterance of any kind. It is them Kyuho is patting on the back when he says, "You haven't grasped your late master's meaning." We must reflect deeply on those words.

Why do you think Hakuin advised his monks to reflect deeply upon the prospect of dying without having attained wisdom? He would not have done so if he believed that existence is empty. Emptiness is one and the same as existence. Things are "empty" of anything besides their own existence.

Therefore, conventionality is absolute.

Conventionality is a property of consciousness, and consciousness is not absolute.

Conventionality is a property of all things, which exist in relation to each other. "Absolute reality" refers to the relationship of a finite thing with the All. Since all things are ultimately caused by the All, even the conventional relationship of one thing to another is an absolute one. And vice versa: the absolute relationship is also a conventional one.

[amerika]

Logically however beginning and endings themselves are "finites" and do not exist.

Interesting. However, this presupposes time, which in my Platonist view, may be a mistake.

[Russell Parr]

No, illusion by definition means a misrepresentation of reality. The reality of things is an illusion.

Either everything is an illusion and therefore "illusion" means "reality", or "illusion" means the misrepresentation of reality and therefore the assertion than everything is an illusion is itself illusory and thus a contradiction in terms.

Non-attachment is a consequence of the state of wisdom; it occurs along with a sustained realization of the emptiness of existence. It can't really happen any other way.

What does non-attachment mean to you?

A sustained realisation of the emptiness of existence is, again, a contradiction in terms. How can any state exist, let alone be sustained, if existence is empty? The fact that you believe it can be bears out my speculation about your motive.

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.

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.

I remind you that this discussion began with your implication that the existence of things is real regardless of conscious perception. I put it to you that existence of things seem real because of conscious perception.

To use the Zen mountains/no-mountains story, in which the progression of wisdom describes mountains and rivers first existing, then not, then existing again, it seems to me that you haven't thoroughly completed the 2nd stage. You have to first realize the precise manner in which things don't exist before understanding what existence really is.

Why do you think Hakuin advised his monks to reflect deeply upon the prospect of dying without having attained wisdom? He would not have done so if he believed that existence is empty. Emptiness is one and the same as existence. Things are "empty" of anything besides their own existence.

I could easily argue that Hakuin is in agreement with me, in which 'ceasing all activity', 'do nothing', etc. is suggestive of the emptiness and meaninglessness of all things. Besides that, what do you mean by "emptiness is one and the same as existence"? It looks like wisdom but I can't fit it in with your other claims.

Speaking of the Zen story mentioned above, I found this in one of the old newsletters:

Jason: Do you think that the empirical model of [objective] reality can be ABSOLUTELY ruled out as a possibility? If so, why?

David Quinn: I do rule it out absolutely. The reason? Because forms (always being appearances) cannot exist beyond consciousness.

Jason: Why, in the past, have you referred to empiricism as being uncertain?

David Quinn: The uncertainty of empiricism is a different issue. It's less lofty and designed to address a cruder set of delusions.

It's a bit like that famous Zen story about the mountain/no-mountain:

"When a person starts off along the path, he sees that mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When he travels some distance along the path, he sees that mountains are not really mountains and rivers are not really rivers. But then, when he becomes enlightened, he finds that mountains are really mountains after all, and rivers are really rivers."

The uncertainty of empiricism is a teaching that belongs to the first stage. It teaches people that everything we perceive through the senses is uncertain, and that what we experience as the "real world" may not be the real world at all.

Everything exists in the mind, on the other hand, is a teaching that belongs in the second and third stages. It teaches people that there is no "real world" to begin with, other than the one that is perceived in each moment. For the more perceptive student, it is also a pointer to the fact that consciousness doesn't really exist and that the whole issue of what lies beyond consciousness has no basis to it.

[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.

Not sure where you get "awareness of itself" from. Seems like straw to me. Reflexive equivalence is just what the "=" sign generally means.

The fact that the mind relates to certain things in a certain way does not change the distinctions between them.

But those distinctions are as constant and absolute as the mind itself. In other words: not at all, since any distinction requires change already to occur.

From Google: appearance əˈpɪər(ə)ns/ noun

From Wikipedia: phenomenon (Redirected from Appearance (philosophy):
Any thing which manifests itself. In modern philosophical use, the term 'phenomena' has come to mean 'what is experienced is the basis of reality'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Logically however beginning and endings themselves are "finites" and do not exist.

Interesting. However, this presupposes time, which in my Platonist view, may be a mistake.

Every measurement or distinction would presuppose change. The nature of time seems rather complex and scientifically often tentatively "framed" as differing inertial frames of reference, part of the whole space-time complex. But first there's the event, some variancy. That last bit we can use more philosophically again, in a more "timeless" fashion I suppose, through the magic of the abstract.

[jupiviv]

No, illusion by definition means a misrepresentation of reality. The reality of things is an illusion.

Either everything is an illusion and therefore "illusion" means "reality", or "illusion" means the misrepresentation of reality and therefore the assertion than everything is an illusion is itself illusory and thus a contradiction in terms.

Non-attachment is a consequence of the state of wisdom; it occurs along with a sustained realization of the emptiness of existence. It can't really happen any other way.

What does non-attachment mean to you?

A sustained realisation of the emptiness of existence is, again, a contradiction in terms. How can any state exist, let alone be sustained, if existence is empty? The fact that you believe it can be bears out my speculation about your motive.

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.

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.

To use the Zen mountains/no-mountains story, in which the progression of wisdom describes mountains and rivers first existing, then not, then existing again, it seems to me that you haven't thoroughly completed the 2nd stage. You have to first realize the precise manner in which things don't exist before understanding what existence really is.

In that story, the first and second stages do not exist because they are delusions. Likewise for every Zen story involving stages.

I could easily argue that Hakuin is in agreement with me, in which 'ceasing all activity', 'do nothing', etc. is suggestive of the emptiness and meaninglessness of all things.

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.

David Quinn: The uncertainty of empiricism is a different issue. It's less lofty and designed to address a cruder set of delusions.

It's a bit like that famous Zen story about the mountain/no-mountain:

"When a person starts off along the path, he sees that mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When he travels some distance along the path, he sees that mountains are not really mountains and rivers are not really rivers. But then, when he becomes enlightened, he finds that mountains are really mountains after all, and rivers are really rivers."

The uncertainty of empiricism is a teaching that belongs to the first stage. It teaches people that everything we perceive through the senses is uncertain, and that what we experience as the "real world" may not be the real world at all.

Everything exists in the mind, on the other hand, is a teaching that belongs in the second and third stages. It teaches people that there is no "real world" to begin with, other than the one that is perceived in each moment. For the more perceptive student, it is also a pointer to the fact that consciousness doesn't really exist and that the whole issue of what lies beyond consciousness has no basis to it.

David Quinn isn't telling him the whole story. My approach is more akin to Kevin Solway's (because he has influenced me more than David Quinn), i.e., tell the whole story and deal with the details later. Note that David says that consciousness doesn't really exist, which means that the reasoning used to prove that things *apart* from consciousness don't really exist is invalid. Which in turn means that the reasoning used to prove that *consciousness* doesn't really exist is invalid! There's a trap here, but instead of trying to avoid it you have to seek it out and get caught in it in order to understand David's meaning.

[jupiviv]

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?

Not sure where you get "awareness of itself" from. Seems like straw to me. Reflexive equivalence is just what the "=" sign generally means.

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.

The fact that the mind relates to certain things in a certain way does not change the distinctions between them.

But those distinctions are as constant and absolute as the mind itself. In other words: not at all, since any distinction requires change already to occur.

The distinctions are absolute relative to the Absolute itself, which includes all of space and time. I never denied that change occurs, but "absolute change" is a hokey chimera meant to trivialise realities that are *actually* uncomfortable, like death, suffering and guilt.

[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.

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.

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.

David Quinn isn't telling him the whole story. My approach is more akin to Kevin Solway's (because he has influenced me more than David Quinn), i.e., tell the whole story and deal with the details later.

Without a doubt, particularly early on, David has been more influential for me. Their teaching styles do differ a bit. Perhaps in a sense we have merely been arguing the whole story, or the end of the story, versus the details, which could easily happen considering the seemingly contradictory steps of the path.