A spotlight on A=A: Dan Rowden

[Leyla Shen]

Matt asked:

Why do you think that you would not find thinkers on forums? What do you think such a thinker would be doing?

Let’s see….

LS: The difference between a thinker and a non-thinker is one has, can and does defend a position rationally and the other only has questions and defends emotionally.

MG: I was being too obtuse, I guess. If discussing philosophy is your goal, then all have to do is read a bunch of philosophy books and participate in philosophical discussions and eventually you'll be able to beat people in argument. It's not very hard to become an academic philosopher and I'm sure you could do it without much problem.

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

LS: Why do you frequent this place, and comment, Matt? How does this contribute to plunging into truth, and becoming it?

MG: Well I didn't claim to be plunging into it and becoming it. But it's not really a question of "this activity is plunging into it and this activity is not", it's that the thinker is plunging into it no matter what he does. He's becoming truth in a very literal sense. Truth is reality, after all.

It doesn't have substance until you can create your own values independently of the people around you, whether they share them or don't share them, and live by the values you have created. The substance is a person's will to create his own life and actualize it.

So, by your definitions, are you a thinker or an academic philosopher?

[Matt Gregory]

I'm an academic philosopher, really. I strive to be a thinker, though. I don't strive hard enough, but I strive somewhat.

[Leyla Shen]

Another thing I wanted to comment on:

Matt wrote:

It's possible simply by definition. "Totality" is a category.

From Wisdom of the Infinite: Chapter Five, The Essential Lie of Categories; David Quinn

In reality, Nature is a continuous, ever-changing flow in which nothing ever really comes into existence. Our conceptualizing minds take a hold of this flow and create frozen images out of it, which we subsequently believe to be existing things. That our minds do this is also part of the continuous, ever-changing flow of Nature. Our minds have no choice but to create things in this manner. It is what it is caused to do. In this way, our minds are part of the creative process of the Universe. It is through our minds that things literally come into being. In a very real sense, we sit at the right hand side of God.

[Matt Gregory]

So what's the connection?

[Leyla Shen]

Dunno yet, haven't thought about it. :)

But I will...

(By the way, Matt, you really should try strawberry dacquiri Jelly Belly jelly beans for that real artificial strawberry hit.)

[Matt Gregory]

A brain without sugar is not a brain.
- Alexander Alekhine

[Leyla Shen]

Dan Rowden: If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is

Jimhaz: True enough, but impossible, so the statement is kind of irrelevant.

Matt: It's possible simply by definition. "Totality" is a category.

The Totality, by definition, is not a category.

The abstraction involved with the recognition of categories involves -- as David points out -- frozen images of an ever-changing flow.

The abstraction involving the Totality is defined, but it is not categorised. It is both the sum and creative force of Nature.

[Matt Gregory]

To my mind a definition and a category are the same thing.

We have to use categories to communicate, so when someone starts describing the Totality, even if he's a fully enlightened sage, what he's describing is a category.

"Totality" is defined to be the Infinite, but as a category it exists in contrast with what's finite.

But all categories point to something beyond the category, which is what makes them meaningful.

Thinking of redness is not the same as seeing it--the category "red" points to the experience of "red".

"Totality" is the same in that it's a category pointing to an experience, but you have to be enlightened to perceive it since trying to conceive of it creates something finite.

The mind is by nature a divisive instrument, but the Totality requires the mind's acceptance in order to experience it.

[Leyla Shen]

What would you lump into the category of "Infinite"?

[Matt Gregory]

Everything.

[Leyla Shen]

And I suppose that leaves nothing in the category of "finite."

[Matt Gregory]

Both categories contain everything.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

"Totality" is defined to be the Infinite, but as a category it exists in contrast with what's finite.

Both categories contain everything.

If both categories contain the same thing -- ie, everything -- what is there to contrast them as categories?

[Matt Gregory]

What contrasts them as categories is the difference between duality and nonduality. I don't know what to call it other than duality.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

We have to use categories to communicate, so when someone starts describing the Totality, even if he's a fully enlightened sage, what he's describing is a category.

The mind is by nature a divisive instrument, but the Totality requires the mind's acceptance in order to experience it.

What contrasts them as categories is the difference between duality and nonduality. I don't know what to call it other than duality.

OK. So since you have accurately defined and categorised the Totality -- in other words, since you have comprehended it -- what hinders your mind (and its divisive nature) from accepting it?

[Matt Gregory]

The will to live, I guess. The will to have an independently-existing self.

[Leyla Shen]

As Kevin points out so effortlessly on another thread regarding time, I see categories in the same way. The Totality is not a category, but it contains categories.

What would it be like to be an independently existing self? For what form of self do you seek immortality and how would it live?

[Matt Gregory]

As Kevin points out so effortlessly on another thread regarding time, I see categories in the same way. The Totality is not a category, but it contains categories.

If something contains categories, then you are conceiving of it dualistically, thus it is a category.

A category can contain other categories. The category "blue" contains all shades of blue: navy blue, baby blue, sky blue, etc.

The category "car" (in regards to a specific car) contains all of the properties of the car: the make and model, the color, etc. It also contains all of the parts of the car: wheels, etc. It also contains every moment of the car's existence in time. This is necessary since everything undergoes constant change, so the car that is experienced isn't the same for two consecutive moments. The category of "car" is what gives the car its existence.

What would it be like to be an independently existing self?

You're looking at it.

For what form of self do you seek immortality and how would it live?

Our fundamental nature is Nonduality, but due to dualistic thinking we place our identity on this body, emotions, and thoughts and think it is our self. It also causes us to look around us and see other things and people as independently-existing selves. None of this is real, though, and false thinking is what causes us to think that this is how reality is.

[Leyla Shen]

I can't say I fully understand your reasoning here, Matt. I will give it more thought. In the meantime, the Totality -- being solely defined and categorised as everything -- would be those illusory objects created by dualistic thinking.

If "things" are a matter of form determined by human perception, the act of categorising is both essential and potentially false. If you assign qualities to the Totality -- that is, categorise it -- without consideration of the Void then, yes, it exists and becomes just as illusory as anything else.

Excerpt: Wisdom of the Infinite, Chapter Six, Emptiness; David Quinn

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.

[sue hindmarsh]

Matt wrote:

Our fundamental nature is Nonduality, but due to dualistic thinking we place our identity on this body, emotions, and thoughts and think it is our self. It also causes us to look around us and see other things and people as independently-existing selves. None of this is real, though, and false thinking is what causes us to think that this is how reality is.

Yes, it really is a comedy of errors the way we wish to consider ourselves separate from the rest of the universe. We only have the appearance of separateness because of circumstances. Take away our oxygen and gravity, our society and loved ones, our intellect and willfulness – then we are left looking not much like ‘ourselves’ at all. So, if we depend on all this to be ourselves, then we can’t be separate, or special, or different, or unique – well, we can’t be less than the Universe itself, can we?

Sue

[Matt Gregory]

I can't say I fully understand your reasoning here, Matt. I will give it more thought.

I'm probably not explaining it very well. You're asking some pretty big questions, which makes it kind of difficult for me. Plus, it takes time for thoughts of truth to sink in. They all have to be integrated together. Ultimate Truth is really only one thought, but the false thoughts have to be undone first in order to get the mind in a state that's receptive to it.

In the meantime, the Totality -- being solely defined and categorised as everything -- would be those illusory objects created by dualistic thinking.

Yeah, more or less.

If "things" are a matter of form determined by human perception, the act of categorising is both essential and potentially false.

Yeah, it becomes false when we start believing that our categories are real. Categories are only tools with practical value. We use them to get by in the world, but that has nothing to do with Ultimate Truth.

If you assign qualities to the Totality -- that is, categorise it -- without consideration of the Void then, yes, it exists and becomes just as illusory as anything else.

Excerpt: Wisdom of the Infinite, Chapter Six, Emptiness; David Quinn

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.

The "hidden void", from what I understand of it, is just another dualistic category in the Totality. The weird thing about it is that there can never be an experience attached to it. It's just a way of explaining why we can never be certain of the exact reason for the creation of the mind.

I think maybe you're attached to the idea that reality is a physical world and it's preventing you from seeing duality clearly. Duality is completely abstract and can be applied to things beyond the physical world. For example, good and evil is a dualistic construction of thought. They are completely dependent on each other, so if you get rid of good, evil disappears as well. The Totality is just like this. It's a unity in dualistic opposition to a plurality. They are dependent on each other.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt wrote:

Our fundamental nature is Nonduality, but due to dualistic thinking we place our identity on this body, emotions, and thoughts and think it is our self. It also causes us to look around us and see other things and people as independently-existing selves. None of this is real, though, and false thinking is what causes us to think that this is how reality is.

Yes, it really is a comedy of errors the way we wish to consider ourselves separate from the rest of the universe. We only have the appearance of separateness because of circumstances. Take away our oxygen and gravity, our society and loved ones, our intellect and willfulness – then we are left looking not much like ‘ourselves’ at all. So, if we depend on all this to be ourselves, then we can’t be separate, or special, or different, or unique – well, we can’t be less than the Universe itself, can we?

Absolutely. That's a good subject for meditation. Difficult though, whew! Make no mistake!

[Leyla Shen]

I'm probably not explaining it very well. You're asking some pretty big questions, which makes it kind of difficult for me. Plus, it takes time for thoughts of truth to sink in. They all have to be integrated together.

I would like you to know that I appreciate the fact that you have engaged this discussion, Matt. Hopefully, we both have something to gain from it.

Ultimate Truth is really only one thought, but the false thoughts have to be undone first in order to get the mind in a state that's receptive to it.

OK. But if it’s not an understanding of Ultimate Truth that brings about the dissolution of false thought, what is it?

Leyla: If "things" are a matter of form determined by human perception, the act of categorising is both essential and potentially false.

Matt: Yeah, it becomes false when we start believing that our categories are real. Categories are only tools with practical value. We use them to get by in the world, but that has nothing to do with Ultimate Truth.

Indeed it does. How can it not? The understanding of Ultimate Truth itself would have to be a determning factor in the development (or lack thereof) of false ideas. Logically, the more one understands Ultimate Truth, the less falsity there will be.

Are your categories real, Matt?

The "hidden void", from what I understand of it, is just another dualistic category in the Totality. The weird thing about it is that there can never be an experience attached to it. It's just a way of explaining why we can never be certain of the exact reason for the creation of the mind.

Alluding to a creative agent of the construction -- ie, the illusory world of duality -- that cannot be experienced is to clearly and immediately state that there is no duality by virtue of the fact of lack of form and experience by consciousness.

I think maybe you're attached to the idea that reality is a physical world and it's preventing you from seeing duality clearly. Duality is completely abstract and can be applied to things beyond the physical world.

What physical world? :)

How did you come to this conclusion about me, Matt? Is it because I do not understand your position regarding categories and the Totality -- or, is it more intuitive than that?

For example, good and evil is a dualistic construction of thought. They are completely dependent on each other, so if you get rid of good, evil disappears as well. The Totality is just like this. It's a unity in dualistic opposition to a plurality. They are dependent on each other.

Interesting. What is plurality if not a bunch of dualistically created “things” -- which, of course, always includes the idea/s behind said things.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt: Ultimate Truth is really only one thought, but the false thoughts have to be undone first in order to get the mind in a state that's receptive to it.

Leyla: OK. But if it’s not an understanding of Ultimate Truth that brings about the dissolution of false thought, what is it?

It's the will to put an end to false thoughts. Falsity just needs to be dropped. Ultimately, there is no "understanding of Ultimate Truth" that can replace it. If there were, it would be another dualistic construction and thus wouldn't be ultimate. "Ultimate Truth" is really only a concept used to give people an incentive to drop falseness, since people don't do things without a reason. The Lotus Sutra has a pretty good discussion about this.

Matt: Categories are only tools with practical value. We use them to get by in the world, but that has nothing to do with Ultimate Truth.

Leyla: Indeed it does. How can it not? The understanding of Ultimate Truth itself would have to be a determning factor in the development (or lack thereof) of false ideas. Logically, the more one understands Ultimate Truth, the less falsity there will be.

Logically, yes, but psychologically it happens the other way around. The less falsity (i.e. attachment) there is in someone's mind, the more he understands Ultimate Truth. The problem of Ultimate Truth is mostly psychological. The logic of it isn't even really a problem. The only reason discussing logic is useful is because it can reveal psychological hindrances to understanding it...if the person is willing to deal with them, that is. If a person could spontaneously drop all of his attachments, he would naturally become completely logical.

Are your categories real, Matt?

They are as real as you are.

Matt: The "hidden void", from what I understand of it, is just another dualistic category in the Totality. The weird thing about it is that there can never be an experience attached to it. It's just a way of explaining why we can never be certain of the exact reason for the creation of the mind.

Leyla: Alluding to a creative agent of the construction -- ie, the illusory world of duality -- that cannot be experienced is to clearly and immediately state that there is no duality by virtue of the fact of lack of form and experience by consciousness.

I don't see how that follows. The cause of a thing is not the same as the thing itself.

Matt: I think maybe you're attached to the idea that reality is a physical world and it's preventing you from seeing duality clearly. Duality is completely abstract and can be applied to things beyond the physical world.

Leyla: What physical world? :)

How did you come to this conclusion about me, Matt? Is it because I do not understand your position regarding categories and the Totality -- or, is it more intuitive than that?

Because you claimed to not understand it. But I don't know what the cause is, actually, it was just a guess. It's really not an easy thing to understand for some reason, even though it's dead simple. It took me quite a long time to come to my current (incomplete) understanding of it. It wasn't until I started doing koan introspection that I began to understand it. I guess my mind was just running around too chaotically.

Actually, if I'm to be consistent with what I said above, it's attachment that causes us to misunderstand it. Reality is right here in front of us at all times, but attachment causes our minds to blow right by it every time we go to think about something. I'm not really sure why it does this, though.

Matt: For example, good and evil is a dualistic construction of thought. They are completely dependent on each other, so if you get rid of good, evil disappears as well. The Totality is just like this. It's a unity in dualistic opposition to a plurality. They are dependent on each other.

Leyla: Interesting. What is plurality if not a bunch of dualistically created “things” -- which, of course, always includes the idea/s behind said things.

Yeah, as long as it's remembered that there really can't be an idea "behind" a thing. You can perceive a thing and pile ideas on top of it, but a thing is an idea and an idea is a thing. If you have a thing and an idea behind it, then what you really have are two different things. I can't tell if this is what you meant or not.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, damned if I didn't find something really interesting in the Sutra.

Actually, if I'm to be consistent with what I said above, it's attachment that causes us to misunderstand it. Reality is right here in front of us at all times, but attachment causes our minds to blow right by it every time we go to think about something. I'm not really sure why it does this, though.

The Law of the Twelve Linked Chain of Causation

1. Ignorance causes action

2. Action causes conciousness

3. Consciousness causes name and form

4. Name and Form causes the six sense organs

5. Six sense organs causes contact

6. Contact causes sensation

7. Sensation causes desire

8. Desire causes attachment

9. Attachment causes existence

10. Existence causes birth

11. Birth causes old age and death, worry and grief, suffering, and anguish

Hm...