GENIUS FORUMS

True emptiness is simply the human condition. By nature we are not able to know anything outside our anthropomorphic world or outside our consciousness. Emptiness is what we reach when we ask questions like "why am I here" or "what is beyond the world" or "what is beyond me". There is no answer, no purpose or meaning to our life, no completeness or total understanding. We cannot even understand the basic framework of any higher reality -- even if we convince ourselves we can, it is no different than any other religious peoples convincing themselves that God is real, etc (it is only a degree difference between using a Bible to convince yourself God is real and using a dictionary to convince yourself Truth is real).

We are by nature incomplete in this way.

To dwell in our inability to answer unanswerable questions seems like no goal to me. This dwelling will bring about no answers.

I know that some people are going to jump in now and shout "contradiction! contradiction!" because I am once again saying that there is no absolute truth. I shall explain it though. From my human perspective I have no absolute truth. In fact the phrase "absolute truth" itself is meaningless to me because I cannot even imagine it meaning anything without doing so in a metaphysical framework inside my mind. From an omnipotent perspective (dubious concept itself) there may very well be absolute truth (I don't know). If you take an objective viewpoint my statements appear to be contradictions. However the fact is that you have no access to any objective viewpoint on any worlds or realities other than fictitious ones you create in your mind like scholarly academics. To take an objective viewpoint here is to try and overstep the human condition. As human beings this is not possible. To try to do so is an error on your part.

Further:

To claim that anything is an "illusion" one must know it is not real but merely apparent. We would have to take an objective viewpoint to assess the truth value of our anthropomorphic world, something we cannot do. Up until now you guys have got off calling everything an illusion but only through metaphysical means (pretending you have access to that objective viewpoint and making judgment values outside the limits of the human condition).

Therefore when you claim you are denouncing all illusions and perfecting your mind it is pure nonsense. You are fooling yourself by equating the world in your head (that you can objectively view) with the world you are living in.

Could you be a little bit more careful with your pronouns? Instead of "we", I read "I", and instead of "you" -- well, I have no idea who you are talking to.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Could you be a little bit more careful with your pronouns? Instead of "we", I read "I", and instead of "you" -- well, I have no idea who you are talking to.

I agree actually. I think you are talking about yourself, and not facing the fact that other people can totally understand the reality of their environment. I can see in my mind all of the factors that are working on my senses to create the image, or smell, or taste. I can see the particles, and waves, and I can see how they are alligned. I know what the universe is, and how it began, and I know why I am here. None of this is taken from books, or any other source. I have totally discovered what I wanted to know. I am 100% satisfied with my results. I have no emptiness.

I am once again saying that there is no absolute truth

Is there an I in the first place? That "there is no I" is an absolute truth, to realize this is the purpose of all enlightenment disciplines. If this fictional I dissolves then the phenomenon refered to as "your mind" will become one (harmonious) with the universe, and there is an end to the phenomenon known as suffering. There is nothing spectacular about it just end of suffering, and furthermore since there is no central controller "I" this process cannot be brought about out of the natural order of things will happen by itself (in some humans) if the conditions are right.

Neil,

True emptiness is simply the human condition. By nature we are not able to know anything outside our anthropomorphic world or outside our consciousness. Emptiness is what we reach when we ask questions like "why am I here" or "what is beyond the world" or "what is beyond me". There is no answer, no purpose or meaning to our life, no completeness or total understanding. We cannot even understand the basic framework of any higher reality -- even if we convince ourselves we can, it is no different than any other religious peoples convincing themselves that God is real, etc (it is only a degree difference between using a Bible to convince yourself God is real and using a dictionary to convince yourself Truth is real).

I can understand why you think this way. These conclusions are easy and natural to make, and a lot of people make them. But they are still based on a major misconception of what wisdom is all about.

You need to somehow find a way to stop imagining philosophic truth as a form of metaphysical knowledge, or indeed as any form of conceptual knowledge at all. Wisdom is found when one ceases to create things which aren't there. But you are currently imagining it as the opposite and attacking it on that basis.

Becoming wise isn't a result of being creative. It is the result of being thoroughly destructive.

I know that some people are going to jump in now and shout "contradiction! contradiction!" because I am once again saying that there is no absolute truth. I shall explain it though. From my human perspective I have no absolute truth. In fact the phrase "absolute truth" itself is meaningless to me because I cannot even imagine it meaning anything without doing so in a metaphysical framework inside my mind. From an omnipotent perspective (dubious concept itself) there may very well be absolute truth (I don't know). If you take an objective viewpoint my statements appear to be contradictions. However the fact is that you have no access to any objective viewpoint on any worlds or realities other than fictitious ones you create in your mind like scholarly academics. To take an objective viewpoint here is to try and overstep the human condition. As human beings this is not possible. To try to do so is an error on your part.

Yes, this is absolutely true. It is impossible for anyone to escape their own subjective viewpoint and adopt an "objective" one, whatever that means.

To claim that anything is an "illusion" one must know it is not real but merely apparent. We would have to take an objective viewpoint to assess the truth value of our anthropomorphic world, something we cannot do. Up until now you guys have got off calling everything an illusion but only through metaphysical means (pretending you have access to that objective viewpoint and making judgment values outside the limits of the human condition).

Let's consider the truth that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible. We both agree that it is impossible. Thus, we can know for sure that anyone who adopts a particular point of view in the belief that it is objective is suffering under an illusion.

Therefore when you claim you are denouncing all illusions and perfecting your mind it is pure nonsense. You are fooling yourself by equating the world in your head (that you can objectively view) with the world you are living in.

We can know that something is an illusion when it is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist.

For example, an "objective viewpoint" is self-contradictory in nature, because it is in the very nature of a viewpoint to be subjective. It cannot be anything other than subjective. It always shines out of a particular subject's mentality and reflects his subjective concerns and values. Thus, the idea of an objective viewpoint, divorced from all subjectivity, doesn't really mean anything.

The same principle applies in all philosophic reasoning. For example, the idea of an object existing inherently - i.e. independently of everything else in the world - is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist. As such, those who believe in inherently existing objects are suffering under an illusion.

Philosophy is all about exposing these self-contradictory things which riddle the mind and removing them.

-

Our subjective viewpoint is perfectly capable of discerning absolute truths. The fact that we can acknowledge our own subjectivity enables it.

That's because, in a sense, the subjective is absolute.

David,
Thanks for the first worthwhile response.

NM: True emptiness is simply the human condition. By nature we are not able to know anything outside our anthropomorphic world or outside our consciousness. Emptiness is what we reach when we ask questions like "why am I here" or "what is beyond the world" or "what is beyond me". There is no answer, no purpose or meaning to our life, no completeness or total understanding. We cannot even understand the basic framework of any higher reality -- even if we convince ourselves we can, it is no different than any other religious peoples convincing themselves that God is real, etc (it is only a degree difference between using a Bible to convince yourself God is real and using a dictionary to convince yourself Truth is real).

DQ: I can understand why you think this way. These conclusions are easy and natural to make, and a lot of people make them. But they are still based on a major misconception of what wisdom is all about.

You need to somehow find a way to stop imagining philosophic truth as a form of metaphysical knowledge, or indeed as any form of conceptual knowledge at all. Wisdom is found when one ceases to create things which aren't there. But you are currently imagining it as the opposite and attacking it on that basis.

Well I think you are creating things that aren't there such as "absolute truth" and claiming that everything is an illusion to name a couple. Other than that we can agree.

I recall your "hidden void", whatever is beyond our consciousness. I would like to stop at the "hidden void", however you go one step beyond and do some metaphysics to reach conclusions that identify things that fall into the "hidden void". I don't need to deny that the "hidden void" obeys rules of logic, all I need to deny is that we have any way to discuss anything beyond our empirical world. (However this is a good question, whether something that we necessarily cannot fathom must follow our logical rules.) You have already affirmed that all concepts originate at bottom with our senses. You have also affirmed that abstract concepts (ones that don't relate to the empirical world) are metaphysical. It follows that to assert any of your abstract conclusions as accurate is to attempt to describe the "hidden void". Is this not overstepping our boundaries and falling into error?

Yes, this is absolutely true. It is impossible for anyone to escape their own subjective viewpoint and adopt an "objective" one, whatever that means.

We agree on metaphysics being useless.

NM: To claim that anything is an "illusion" one must know it is not real but merely apparent. We would have to take an objective viewpoint to assess the truth value of our anthropomorphic world, something we cannot do. Up until now you guys have got off calling everything an illusion but only through metaphysical means (pretending you have access to that objective viewpoint and making judgment values outside the limits of the human condition).

DQ: Let's consider the truth that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible. We both agree that it is impossible. Thus, we can know for sure that anyone who adopts a particular point of view in the belief that it is objective is suffering under an illusion.

Yes and no. We both agree that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible, but we must be careful not to claim that it is objectively or absolutely impossible! The truth is that even the concept "subjective" has no meaning. Even the concept of "impossible" has no meaning. All I can affirm is that this person appears deluded/misguided to me as I have concluded that metaphysics is not accurate or meaningful.

Ah it is hard to discuss this! Isn't language itself an attempt to objectify for the purpose of communicating between different people? It really is true that I am in this alone.

We can know that something is an illusion when it is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist.

For example, an "objective viewpoint" is self-contradictory in nature, because it is in the very nature of a viewpoint to be subjective. It cannot be anything other than subjective. It always shines out of a particular subject's mentality and reflects his subjective concerns and values. Thus, the idea of an objective viewpoint, divorced from all subjectivity, doesn't really mean anything.

Yes and no. You are very subtly slipping into metaphysics here to reach these conclusions. As I mentioned above the concept "subjective" has as little meaning in the quest for truth (it does have utility) as "objective" (one side of the duality is abstract the other is also). I think the concept "self-contradictory" is about as meaningful, it is being used in an abstract manner here. It might be meaningful to describe a hypocrite, for example, but, returning to the "hidden void", I don't believe we can use concepts like "self-contradiction" to limit what is beyond our consciousness.

The same principle applies in all philosophic reasoning. For example, the idea of an object existing inherently - i.e. independently of everything else in the world - is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist. As such, those who believe in inherently existing objects are suffering under an illusion.

Do you recognize the slip back into metaphysics here?

Matt,

Our subjective viewpoint is perfectly capable of discerning absolute truths.

False (without claim to anything like 'absolute falseness'). Absolute means non-subjective.

The fact that we can acknowledge our own subjectivity enables it.

This is a valid point. However when we use the term subjective it is only to point towards something that cannot be conveyed in words because everyone must discover it himself. The concept "subjective" in our context is just as abstract, metaphysical, and meaningless as its counterpart "objective". Of course both can be used in a practical manner.

So, Neil, you define subjective as "something that cannot be conveyed with words" and objective as "beyond consciousness"?

I define them similarly, but not the same way. I define subjective as "bound to a limited point of view" and objective as "not bound to a limited point of view". A limited point of view is consciousness; they are essentially synonymous.

So, an absolutely true thought is subjective in the empirical sense in that it has to appear within consciousness in order to exist, but it's objective in the logical sense in that it can't be falsified by any consciousness anywhere, so its truth is not bound to consciousness at all. In other words, a true thought and truth itself are not the same.

Matt Gregory wrote:So, Neil, you define subjective as "something that cannot be conveyed with words" and objective as "beyond consciousness"?

I define them similarly, but not the same way. I define subjective as "bound to a limited point of view" and objective as "not bound to a limited point of view". A limited point of view is consciousness; they are essentially synonymous.

Err. We must use the term subjective to point to the actual condition, but really the word itself has no meaning in this context after we ditch metaphysics.

So, an absolutely true thought is subjective in the empirical sense in that it has to appear within consciousness in order to exist, but it's objective in the logical sense in that it can't be falsified by any consciousness anywhere, so its truth is not bound to consciousness at all. In other words, a true thought and truth itself are not the same.

What right do we have to think that anything out there, as part of the "hidden void", can be grasped with logic? We are in here and have no right to do that.
For two reasons:
1) We can't assume our tool "logic" applies out there.
2) We can't assume our abstract concepts accurately describe anything out there, even if we try to define them like "all possible things".

Do you see what I am saying yet? I shall expand:
1) Just because "logic" is the essential within our consciousness and our anthropomorphic world does not mean it can go beyond our consciousness or anthropomorphic world.
2) As I have been saying for awhile, all concepts at bottom came from our empirical world. There is no other higher source. To extrapolate as though these concepts can reflect beyond our empirical world, beyond our consciousness, is an error. Yes, metaphysics was an error.

There is no "out there". That's just a metaphysical caprice, so we don't need to worry about it. There's nothing outside consciousness. Existence is a human concept, therefore we can draw conclusions about the totality of it because we made it up.

Matt Gregory wrote:There is no "out there". That's just a metaphysical caprice, so we don't need to worry about it.

Agreed.

Matt Gregory wrote:There's nothing outside consciousness. Existence is a human concept, therefore we can draw conclusions about the totality of it because we made it up.

We made up the word, but we didn't make up the world itself. We can make up conclusions, but we can't make the world follow these conclusions. Something is a mystery to us. Therefore we cannot draw conclusions about "the Totality" but only inductions about our empirical world. Now if you want to equate the empirical world with "the Totality" that is fine, but last I checked it took on the meaning of "all possible worlds" or "the sum of all worlds".

Neil Melnyk wrote:I recall your "hidden void", whatever is beyond our consciousness. I would like to stop at the "hidden void", however you go one step beyond and do some metaphysics to reach conclusions that identify things that fall into the "hidden void". I don't need to deny that the "hidden void" obeys rules of logic, all I need to deny is that we have any way to discuss anything beyond our empirical world. (However this is a good question, whether something that we necessarily cannot fathom must follow our logical rules.) You have already affirmed that all concepts originate at bottom with our senses. You have also affirmed that abstract concepts (ones that don't relate to the empirical world) are metaphysical. It follows that to assert any of your abstract conclusions as accurate is to attempt to describe the "hidden void". Is this not overstepping our boundaries and falling into error?

There'll always be some inaccuracy in thought. Thought is just the translation of the subjective into concepts for clarity. But the concepts are part of our belief systems, which of course aren't 100% accurate. It's a matter of informing thought through "intuition" and the senses to keep the inaccuracy to a minimum. Metaphysical concepts can be well-informed by the hidden senses.

Neil Melnyk wrote:I recall your "hidden void", whatever is beyond our consciousness. I would like to stop at the "hidden void", however you go one step beyond and do some metaphysics to reach conclusions that identify things that fall into the "hidden void". I don't need to deny that the "hidden void" obeys rules of logic, all I need to deny is that we have any way to discuss anything beyond our empirical world. (However this is a good question, whether something that we necessarily cannot fathom must follow our logical rules.) You have already affirmed that all concepts originate at bottom with our senses. You have also affirmed that abstract concepts (ones that don't relate to the empirical world) are metaphysical. It follows that to assert any of your abstract conclusions as accurate is to attempt to describe the "hidden void". Is this not overstepping our boundaries and falling into error?

I'm glad you raised this point, Neil.It is a problem I'm having on a closer 2nd reading of WOTI myself.

David is ascribing a characteristic of the 'hidden void' which presents a logical problem of which I hope he can clear up for me.

WOTI:

In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.

Now it seems to me he has bumped into the same problem(logically speaking) Aquinas' had in his 5 ways proof of God.In the ex causa 'proof' Aquinas ascribes first cause to God. The 'uncaused causer'

David may say the "hidden void" has no form but if it has the 'capacity' to create the construction then it is indeed the causer.

Why then, is it not subject to the principle of cause?

The hidden void is the inverse of the contents of consciousness, therefore it's caused by the contents of consciousness.

Neil,

Thanks for the first worthwhile response.

All my responses are worthwhile.

NM: True emptiness is simply the human condition. By nature we are not able to know anything outside our anthropomorphic world or outside our consciousness. Emptiness is what we reach when we ask questions like "why am I here" or "what is beyond the world" or "what is beyond me". There is no answer, no purpose or meaning to our life, no completeness or total understanding. We cannot even understand the basic framework of any higher reality -- even if we convince ourselves we can, it is no different than any other religious peoples convincing themselves that God is real, etc (it is only a degree difference between using a Bible to convince yourself God is real and using a dictionary to convince yourself Truth is real).

DQ: I can understand why you think this way. These conclusions are easy and natural to make, and a lot of people make them. But they are still based on a major misconception of what wisdom is all about.

You need to somehow find a way to stop imagining philosophic truth as a form of metaphysical knowledge, or indeed as any form of conceptual knowledge at all. Wisdom is found when one ceases to create things which aren't there. But you are currently imagining it as the opposite and attacking it on that basis.

NM: Well I think you are creating things that aren't there such as "absolute truth" and claiming that everything is an illusion to name a couple. Other than that we can agree.

I'm sorry, Neil, but you engage in metaphysical reasoning and the affirmation of absolutes just as much as I do. The only difference between us is that you are in denial over this, and that your metaphysical reasoning, such that it is, is extremely poor.

To explain again, the claim that "everything is an illusion" is simply a recognition that things cannot exist independently, that the very idea of an independently-existing object is self-contradictory and meaningless. An "independently-existing object" is like an "objective viewpoint" or a "triangle without sides". It is a concept without meaning.

If you want to close your mind to these sorts of truths because of a phobia against "metaphysics", then that is your choice. But I have to say that it is becoming very tedious, and I can't imagine being interested in discussing these things with you for much longer.

I recall your "hidden void", whatever is beyond our consciousness. I would like to stop at the "hidden void", however you go one step beyond and do some metaphysics to reach conclusions that identify things that fall into the "hidden void". I don't need to deny that the "hidden void" obeys rules of logic, all I need to deny is that we have any way to discuss anything beyond our empirical world. (However this is a good question, whether something that we necessarily cannot fathom must follow our logical rules.) You have already affirmed that all concepts originate at bottom with our senses. You have also affirmed that abstract concepts (ones that don't relate to the empirical world) are metaphysical. It follows that to assert any of your abstract conclusions as accurate is to attempt to describe the "hidden void". Is this not overstepping our boundaries and falling into error?

No. Deductive reasoning basically involves recognizing the identity of the thing that one is reasoning about. For example, in this case, the identity of the "hidden void" is that it cannot be experienced ("hidden") and cannot have any form ("void"). And that is all I have concluded about it.

NM: To claim that anything is an "illusion" one must know it is not real but merely apparent. We would have to take an objective viewpoint to assess the truth value of our anthropomorphic world, something we cannot do. Up until now you guys have got off calling everything an illusion but only through metaphysical means (pretending you have access to that objective viewpoint and making judgment values outside the limits of the human condition).

DQ: Let's consider the truth that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible. We both agree that it is impossible. Thus, we can know for sure that anyone who adopts a particular point of view in the belief that it is objective is suffering under an illusion.

NM: Yes and no. We both agree that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible, but we must be careful not to claim that it is objectively or absolutely impossible!

You're being evasive. We both know that it is absolutely impossible because of the fact that an "objective viewpoint" has no meaning. It is absolutely impossible to discover an "objective viewpoint" in the same way that it is absolutely impossible to discover a "triangle with no sides".

You need to own up to the absolutes that you mentally affirm and take responsibility for them. Denial will only work for a time. It will all coming crashing down eventually.

The truth is that even the concept "subjective" has no meaning. Even the concept of "impossible" has no meaning.

Ah no, this is something entirely different. Terms such as "objective, "subjective", "viewpoint", and "impossible" all possess a specific meaning that we have given them. Each of these terms is meaningful precisely because of the meaning we have given them.

And it is because the terms "objective" and "viewpoint" each have a meaning which conflict with the other that "objective viewpoint" becomes a meaningless term. The conflicting meanings cancel each other out.

DQ: We can know that something is an illusion when it is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist.

For example, an "objective viewpoint" is self-contradictory in nature, because it is in the very nature of a viewpoint to be subjective. It cannot be anything other than subjective. It always shines out of a particular subject's mentality and reflects his subjective concerns and values. Thus, the idea of an objective viewpoint, divorced from all subjectivity, doesn't really mean anything.

NM: Yes and no. You are very subtly slipping into metaphysics here to reach these conclusions.

I'm simply making straightforward deductions based on the identity of these terms.

It might be meaningful to describe a hypocrite, for example, but, returning to the "hidden void", I don't believe we can use concepts like "self-contradiction" to limit what is beyond our consciousness.

If we were to define the hidden void as that which is beyond consciousness and then mistakenly think of it as a reality existing within consciousness, then we would be guilty of ascribing self-contradictory qualities to it.

As soon as we define anything at all - no matter what it is - it can be reasoned about and conclusions can be drawn concerning it.

DQ: The same principle applies in all philosophic reasoning. For example, the idea of an object existing inherently - i.e. independently of everything else in the world - is self-contradictory in nature and therefore cannot possibly exist. As such, those who believe in inherently existing objects are suffering under an illusion.

NM: Do you recognize the slip back into metaphysics here?

No, but I did notice your phobia rearing its head once again and reinforcing those mental blocks of yours.

-

David,

By your reasoning everything is an illusion. Even that everything is an illusion is an illusion and so on. There is no alternative to "illusion" so we end up with everything simply being apparent -- neither real nor illusion. I don't understand why we should not have emotions or passions or goals or values in light of this.... Is that just a personal value you attached to the teaching?

No. Deductive reasoning basically involves recognizing the identity of the thing that one is reasoning about. For example, in this case, the identity of the "hidden void" is that it cannot be experienced ("hidden") and cannot have any form ("void"). And that is all I have concluded about it.

I think I might be understanding where you are coming from. However to communicate this we need to knowingly break the rules. I ask -- When you say that, for example, everything must be finite, are you trying to extend this "absolute truth" into the realms of the "hidden void"? Would you say the laws of logic hold within the "hidden void"?

DQ: Let's consider the truth that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible. We both agree that it is impossible. Thus, we can know for sure that anyone who adopts a particular point of view in the belief that it is objective is suffering under an illusion.

As long as we agree that this is a subjective viewpoint here.

You're being evasive. We both know that it is absolutely impossible because of the fact that an "objective viewpoint" has no meaning. It is absolutely impossible to discover an "objective viewpoint" in the same way that it is absolutely impossible to discover a "triangle with no sides".

Yes. I can imagine this "objective viewpoint" using our common language, but I agree it is meaningless.

So in light of this, is your "absolute truth" only absolutely true from your perspective? I realize that asking you this question is a breach of the rules but ask yourself it and let me know how you reply to yourself.... :)

Neil,

By your reasoning everything is an illusion. Even that everything is an illusion is an illusion and so on. There is no alternative to "illusion" so we end up with everything simply being apparent -- neither real nor illusion.

That's true in a sense. From the enlightened perspective, things are just as they are - neither real nor illusory. Ordinary people are deluded when they imagine things to be more than they are - for example, absolutely real, or independently existing.

I don't understand why we should not have emotions or passions or goals or values in light of this.... Is that just a personal value you attached to the teaching?

We always have values, no matter who we are. I value truth, for example. And having values means having goals.

Emotion and passion are different, however, as they spring from delusional thinking, which is an important consideration to take into account if you value truth.

Being passionate about truth is vital in the beginning stages, but eventually such passion consumes itself in the light of greater understanding of truth.

DQ: No. Deductive reasoning basically involves recognizing the identity of the thing that one is reasoning about. For example, in this case, the identity of the "hidden void" is that it cannot be experienced ("hidden") and cannot have any form ("void"). And that is all I have concluded about it.

NM: I think I might be understanding where you are coming from. However to communicate this we need to knowingly break the rules. I ask -- When you say that, for example, everything must be finite, are you trying to extend this "absolute truth" into the realms of the "hidden void"? Would you say the laws of logic hold within the "hidden void"?

Absolutely. Anything at all can be reasoned about, without exception.

The hidden void is definitely finite (by my definition of term), as it constitutes only a piece of the Totality. By its very nature it doesn't extend into consciousness, which means that it has limits.

DQ: Let's consider the truth that adopting an objective viewpoint is impossible. We both agree that it is impossible. Thus, we can know for sure that anyone who adopts a particular point of view in the belief that it is objective is suffering under an illusion.

NM: As long as we agree that this is a subjective viewpoint here.

It is subjective in the same way that 2+2=4 is subjective. It is subjective, but true.

DQ: You're being evasive. We both know that it is absolutely impossible because of the fact that an "objective viewpoint" has no meaning. It is absolutely impossible to discover an "objective viewpoint" in the same way that it is absolutely impossible to discover a "triangle with no sides".

NM: Yes. I can imagine this "objective viewpoint" using our common language, but I agree it is meaningless.

So in light of this, is your "absolute truth" only absolutely true from your perspective? I realize that asking you this question is a breach of the rules but ask yourself it and let me know how you reply to yourself.... :)

It is absolutely true in all perspectives.

-

David,

DQ: That's true in a sense. From the enlightened perspective, things are just as they are - neither real nor illusory. Ordinary people are deluded when they imagine things to be more than they are - for example, absolutely real, or independently existing.

But the same can't be said about truth or absolute truth?

NM: I don't understand why we should not have emotions or passions or goals or values in light of this.... Is that just a personal value you attached to the teaching?

DQ: We always have values, no matter who we are. I value truth, for example. And having values means having goals.

Emotion and passion are different, however, as they spring from delusional thinking, which is an important consideration to take into account if you value truth.

Can you explain what "delusion thinking" is? Would loving an illusion while fully knowing it was an illusion be delusional thinking?

NM: I think I might be understanding where you are coming from. However to communicate this we need to knowingly break the rules. I ask -- When you say that, for example, everything must be finite, are you trying to extend this "absolute truth" into the realms of the "hidden void"? Would you say the laws of logic hold within the "hidden void"?

DQ: Absolutely. Anything at all can be reasoned about, without exception.

You are claiming that our language/concepts can accurately describe anything at all without exception? Do you then believe that they did not evolve with humans from the empirical world? I ask the same of you as I asked Kevin -- do you have some alternative theory of how language came about?

Also, what do you think of this?:
YOU_??? -- believe man is limited to the natural world but that language is not.
Christian -- believe man is not limited to the natural world but that language is.

NM: Yes. I can imagine this "objective viewpoint" using our common language, but I agree it is meaningless.

So in light of this, is your "absolute truth" only absolutely true from your perspective? I realize that asking you this question is a breach of the rules but ask yourself it and let me know how you reply to yourself.... :)

DQ: It is absolutely true in all perspectives.

How can you say this after 2 posts ago saying that all people who try to adopt an objective viewpoints are suffering an illusion? How can you "put truth in someone's perspective" other than your own?

true emptiness is death. ..... ... ....... ........... .........

Are you familiar with the philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe? If not then you should be. I really think he will help you in this department.

http://sirocco.blogsome.com/category/philosophy

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... =195426178 (This is a very good profile because virtually all of his work that exists in English translation are available here in the blog section)

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue45/45tangenes.htm

http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Zapffe.html

Pincho Paxton: "I agree actually. I think you are talking about yourself, and not facing the fact that other people can totally understand the reality of their environment. I can see in my mind all of the factors that are working on my senses to create the image, or smell, or taste. I can see the particles, and waves, and I can see how they are alligned. I know what the universe is, and how it began, and I know why I am here. None of this is taken from books, or any other source. I have totally discovered what I wanted to know. I am 100% satisfied with my results. I have no emptiness."
Pincho Paxton you are making a funny by saying this no? If you did not intend to be funny I just want to say that I find this absolutely hilarious.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochel ... ality.html

Neil,

DQ: That's true in a sense. From the enlightened perspective, things are just as they are - neither real nor illusory. Ordinary people are deluded when they imagine things to be more than they are - for example, absolutely real, or independently existing.

NM: But the same can't be said about truth or absolute truth?

Seeing the absolute truth consists of nothing else apart from seeing things as they are.

NM: I don't understand why we should not have emotions or passions or goals or values in light of this.... Is that just a personal value you attached to the teaching?

DQ: We always have values, no matter who we are. I value truth, for example. And having values means having goals.

NM: Emotion and passion are different, however, as they spring from delusional thinking, which is an important consideration to take into account if you value truth.

DQ: Can you explain what "delusion thinking" is?

Any kind of thinking which unwittingly involves affirming things that don't really exist.

Would loving an illusion while fully knowing it was an illusion be delusional thinking?

Your question doesn't make any sense because to be in love with an illusion is a sure sign that one is not fully aware that it is an illusion.

At root, a person falls in love with a thing out of insecurity and fear. He is seeking comfort and protection from the thing in question, even if just psychologically. This in turn means that he is still spellbound by the deluded belief in his own existence.

NM: I think I might be understanding where you are coming from. However to communicate this we need to knowingly break the rules. I ask -- When you say that, for example, everything must be finite, are you trying to extend this "absolute truth" into the realms of the "hidden void"? Would you say the laws of logic hold within the "hidden void"?

DQ: Absolutely. Anything at all can be reasoned about, without exception.

NM: You are claiming that our language/concepts can accurately describe anything at all without exception?

Not describe, point.

A conscious, free-thinking person can use language and concepts to accurately point to anything he wants.

Do you then believe that they did not evolve with humans from the empirical world? I ask the same of you as I asked Kevin -- do you have some alternative theory of how language came about?

We've already gone through all this. It doesn't really matter where language and concepts originally came from if, in the here and now, we have the consciousness and freedom to do with them what we want.

Also, what do you think of this?:
YOU_??? -- believe man is limited to the natural world but that language is not.
Christian -- believe man is not limited to the natural world but that language is.

Since I think of Nature as being everything, I naturally think that everything is limited to Nature - including both man and language.

NM: Yes. I can imagine this "objective viewpoint" using our common language, but I agree it is meaningless.

So in light of this, is your "absolute truth" only absolutely true from your perspective? I realize that asking you this question is a breach of the rules but ask yourself it and let me know how you reply to yourself.... :)

DQ: It is absolutely true in all perspectives.

NM: How can you say this after 2 posts ago saying that all people who try to adopt an objective viewpoints are suffering an illusion? How can you "put truth in someone's perspective" other than your own?

I can do it because of the reality that some things are necessarily true in all possible worlds (or in all possible perspectives).

For example, a triangle with no sides can never come into being, no matter what your perspective is. In other words, it is eternally true in all perspectives that a triangle with no sides can never cone into being.

The same principle applies in the case of "objective viewpoint". We can never escape our own subjective consciousness and peek at what lies beyond. This is a truth which automatically applies to all perspectives. It is eternally true in all perspectives that no one can ever attain an objective viewpoint.

The fact that it is true in all perspectives means that it is not dependent on any particular perspective. It remains true regardless of perspective. In this way, it escapes the subjectivity of perspective. It is escapes it, not into objectivity, but into truth.

-