James,
DQ: It is not meant to be an explanation, but an aid to reorientating the mind so that it can realize that the problem is not real, that it is a product of delusion.
Nature, by definition, has no explanation. It is beyond the need for explanation. Asking what caused it or what happened beforehand is meaningless. There is no beforehand.
J: This type of answer still seems to be an easy way out for me, if ultimate truths can explain everything else why can't they describe and explain the totality.
Well, these truths can certainly describe the Totality - e.g. they can descrtibe the fact that it has no beginning - but they cannot explain its origins for the very reason that it has no origins to explain.
If I accept what you say it almost means rational thought does not exist, as there is no place that I can place the ultimate fact of existence as the foundation from which ultimate facts relating to things could be known to be the complete truth. I would have nothing to rely upon for consistency, I would always be aware I was on shaky ground.
The beginninglessness of Nature is itself a sure foundation from which other truths can be deduced. This foundation is perfectly consistent and real.
I think this is one of the reasons why you have trouble with the concept of emptiness. You are still looking for some kind of concrete entity as being the core foundation of Reality, something which is tangible and fixed, and this stops you from recognizing and accepting that Nature has no concrete foundations, that it has no beginning or end, that there is no final "thing" to latch onto.
The viewpoint "rely upon" is of course just an emotional reaction, in being told that rational thought is meaningless, and therefore I am just delusion.
Rational thought continues to function perfecty well in the absence of concrete foundations.
For me to think that the "problem was not real" would mean I’d have to lie to myself. I'd have to knowingly take on another persona that said "it is irrational and thus a waste of time to attempt to seek knowledge of The Totality", while my historic self never stops saying "but…how would I have ever come to this conclusion without first having this Will for Knowing".
Well, this is something you are going to have to address inwardly. Remember, though, there is no necessary connection between how you want things to be and how things really are.
DQ: There is no beforehand.
J: No, there is a beforehand because that is the way my brain works. Sure, I don't have a problem conceptualising that there is no beforehand, if I don't then seek to understand how that can be, but that is a different matter, I still will experience life as if there was a beforehand at all times I am not thinking of the concept.
Asking what occured before the Totality is like asking a bachelor who is wife is. It's a false question that is generated from mental confusion.
J: All ultimate truths are backed up by empirical observation plus logic.
DQ: Not so. Strictly speaking, ultimate truths are neither supported, nor contradicted, by empirical evidence. In other words, while ultimate truths will always be consistent with our experiences of the world, they do not rely on the presence of these experiences to be validated. Ultimate truths can always be proven to be true, regardless of what we experience.
J: Look you seem to be making ultimate truths into entities of permanent existence, whereas all they are, are forms of logic stored in the brain.
Our conceptualizings of these truths are certainly stored in the brain, but the truths themselves are stored nowhere. They simply are.
J: One could not form ultimate truths without first applying logic to observations. Observation + logic = science. Observation + logic + generalisation (a form of logic) = philosophy. Ultimate truths are philosophies of maximum generalisation.
DQ: And maximum logic.
Philosophy is just generalization + logic. Observation doesn't really come into it since philosophical truths are non-empirical in nature. We might need observation to begin with in order to formulate the generalizations, but once these have been created, observation becomes redundant.
J: Well I regard philosophical truths as being empirically proven by observation to the point where one can treat it like a fact, it is something that can be relied on to steer your thought along the right path. It's logical validity does not need to be re-evaluated, but the way in which it should be applied relative to other facts and to experiences does require continual re-evaluation. I therefore think observation remains part of the equation, mind you I should say that I am including stored memories as observations, as it is the same type of data - images of reality/experience.
Let's consider an example - say, "all things lack inherent existence". What empirical observations or tests would you implement in order to prove or disprove this?
-
