GENIUS FORUMS

"All things lack inherent existence."

That is: all things lack existence as an essential constituent or characteristic.

Therefore: if existence is an essential constituent or characteristic of a thing (form), then….that thing could never perish; it would be infinite.

"Inherent existence" means essentially "independent existence" since it means that the causes of existence are not external to the self.

The fact that people experience their selves as inherently existent is made evident by all those things I mentioned previously. For example, a person feels upset when they are insulted, or they feel lonely when ignored, or proud when they achieve something, etc. All of these things require the belief in a separate self (though not so separate, of course, as to be able to avoid being affected by the external world).

The ego is a fortification against reality, but that doesn't stop people being dependent on millions of things — because reality is stronger than their foolish beliefs. That's why people suffer so much.

Leyla wrote:

if existence is an essential constituent or characteristic of a thing (form), then….that thing could never perish; it would be infinite.

Blimmin' heck - billions upon trillions upon zillions of separate Totalitys who'd all be completely oblivious of one another.

It'll never sell - no sex.

Kevin Solway wrote:people want to believe that the borders of their country cannot be violated, and that their country is their own and not somebody elses . . . with the exception of women, who don't mind having their "country" invaded and occupied — because their ego is poorly formed.

Kevin Solway wrote:The ego is a fortification against reality

If the above statements are taken as fact, the logical deduction is that women have a poorly formed fortification against reality. If that is the case , there must be hundreds of thousands of enlightened women just blending in with a nod and a smile.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:people want to believe that the borders of their country cannot be violated, and that their country is their own and not somebody elses . . . with the exception of women, who don't mind having their "country" invaded and occupied — because their ego is poorly formed.

Kevin Solway wrote:The ego is a fortification against reality

If the above statements are taken as fact, the logical deduction is that women have a poorly formed fortification against reality. If that is the case , there must be hundreds of thousands of enlightened women just blending in with a nod and a smile.

No. Rocks and trees and cows have poorly formed fortifications against reality (egos), yet they are far from being enlightened. Women are, generally, in that same category.

Kevin Solway wrote:"Inherent existence" means essentially "independent existence" since it means that the causes of existence are not external to the self.

Then you are digging your own grave as far as Jason's objections to your definitions and conclusions go.

The fact that people experience their selves as inherently existent is made evident by all those things I mentioned previously. For example, a person feels upset when they are insulted, or they feel lonely when ignored, or proud when they achieve something, etc. All of these things require the belief in a separate self (though not so separate, of course, as to be able to avoid being affected by the external world).

The ego is a fortification against reality, but that doesn't stop people being dependent on millions of things — because reality is stronger than their foolish beliefs. That's why people suffer so much.

Your use of the word 'separate' here is what I'm taking about.

Something inherent is something separate which may or may not be independent. People see themselves as existing inherently but not independently. They see themselves existing inherently, their parents existing inherently, their lungs existing inherently, oxygen existing inherently, a nice fillet steak and a full-bodied glass of red existing inherently; yet they understand their dependence on all of these inherently existing, separate, in-and-of-themselves things.

I'm sure you'd agree that something independent cannot be dependent. Hence it is a conflation to equate inherency and independence.

Jason wrote:

Dave Toast wrote:he is conflating the meaning of the words 'independent' and 'inherent'.

What definition of "inherent" are you using? A conventional dictionary one? I'm referring to the term as it is used in the philosophy of Dan, Kevin and David.

Yep, and strict definitions are of crucial importance, whereas anecdotal expansions upon those definitions risk ambiguity unless that same strict precision is applied.

The crucial importance of unambiguous definitions is exactly why it has been previously suggested, on a number of occasions, that the admins compile a dictionary of the landmark definitions involved in their philosophy.

I'm most surprised that this suggestion has never been taken up. It would provide a valuable resource, save untold wasted effort in arguing against misconceptions, and it would be an interesting, stimulating, educational and enlightening project for the forum members to witness and partake in the evolution of.

Dave Toast wrote:Something inherent is something separate which may or may not be independent.

To my way of thinking, something that is separate, but which is entirely dependent on external things for its existence, doesn't make much sense (more below).

People see themselves as existing inherently but not independently. They see themselves existing inherently, their parents existing inherently, their lungs existing inherently, oxygen existing inherently, a nice fillet steak and a full-bodied glass of red existing inherently; yet they understand their dependence on all of these inherently existing, separate, in-and-of-themselves things.

Yes, I can agree with that.

I'm sure you'd agree that something independent cannot be dependent. Hence it is a conflation to equate inherency and independence.

That's exactly right. And that's why I say that ordinary people are insane, the ego is insane, and people are incapable of the most basic logic.

It is only the unenlightened, those with an ego, who believe you can be separate yet dependent at the same time.

When you say that "people understand their dependence" on other things, I agree that they understand that they are dependent, but they don't really understand the dependence, and what it means. If they truly understood the dependence then they would not experience themselves as separate, and they would not feel lonely when ignored, or feel proud when they achieve something, or feel upset when insulted, etc.

Yes indeed, understanding the nature of causality as opposed to simply understanding cause and effect.

The debate on causation should already be well past this important point. But then I can't understand debating someone so brazenly and intentionally slippery that they deny universal truth, whether they tacitly acknowledge it with their every word or not.

Kevin wrote;

When you say that "people understand their dependence" on other things, I agree that they understand that they are dependent, but they don't really understand the dependence, and what it means. If they truly understood the dependence then they would not experience themselves as separate, and they would not feel lonely when ignored, or feel proud when they achieve something, or feel upset when insulted, etc.

Try however one may, one can in no way remove the separateness that consciousness demands, unless one does not really understand its fundamental nature. If one says one experiences ones self as not separate, then that would be an utter unconscious state, which itself is illogical since that cannot be experienced, logically speaking.

Being separate need not necessarily make one feel lonely when ignored, nor feel proud when one achieves something, nor fell upset when insulted, etc., etc., etc; it all depends on how that mind operates, in and off an eternal separateness, otherwise, existence couldn’t be, nor the thought of 'totality'.

Separateness means individuality, and causal connectivity or thing to a thing dependency does not undermine that individuality; otherwise, individual conclusions would have no comparative truth-value to speak of, or even value.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Leyla wrote:

if existence is an essential constituent or characteristic of a thing (form), then….that thing could never perish; it would be infinite.

Blimmin' heck - billions upon trillions upon zillions of separate Totalitys who'd all be completely oblivious of one another.

It'll never sell - no sex.

[laughs] What a brilliantly succinct expose of capitalism and consumerism.

I think the question should be, "Is anything inherent? And if so, what is that?" I think it obvious that there is something inherent, else why are we here chatting away? As to what is inherent, how could we know if it is not the self? If the self is not inherent, nothing matters. No meaning would exist. Therefore, we are all simply masterbating, as Alex would put it, with no actual purpose. Even Alex would be guilty.

Sapius wrote:Try however one may, one can in no way remove the separateness that consciousness demands

This is true, but what we can abandon is the idea of inherent separateness.

If the separation is only a logical separation, for convenience only, such as the separation between the numbers "1" and "2", then it's not a problem. At no time is the number "1" going to feel insulted by number "2" and decide to wage war on it for that reason.

divine focus wrote:I think the question should be, "Is anything inherent? And if so, what is that?"

Nothing has inherent existence. All things depend on other things for their existence.

I think it obvious that there is something inherent, else why are we here chatting away?

We are here chatting away because we are caused to.

If the self is not inherent, nothing matters.

Things matter if we are caused to value things.

No meaning would exist.

Meaning exists when people are caused to value things.

Sap: Try however one may, one can in no way remove the separateness that consciousness demands

Kev: This is true, but what we can abandon is the idea of inherent separateness.

Sure, but what does then “If they truly understood the dependence then they would not experience themselves as separate” really mean? At best, all one could experience is the idea of non-separateness in and off consciousness that fundamentally demands distinctions, separateness. Without distinctions, separateness, existence isn’t, nor the sense of non-separateness, which is actually an IDEA emerging from the fundamental nature of consciousness through reasoning.

The sense (I wouldn’t call it an idea for none really think of it as an idea unless it is planted as such) of inherent separateness reflects most apparently in false pride, and all the psychological traumas that you mention, and assuredly much more entails, but the false pride is the core culprit in my opinion. Once the utter dependency is realized, that should kill the false pride turning a mind utterly humble and hence a sense of indifference, but separateness however prevails, just that that particular mind considers it superficial, but still real nonetheless, for it knows that consciousness is the ultimate arbitrator in any which case.

If the separation is only a logical separation, for convenience only, such as the separation between the numbers "1" and "2", then it's not a problem.

Separation is always a logical one at its core and not a matter of convenience only; otherwise consciousness itself can be considered a matter of convenience; now would you say it is? Tools like language and reasoning (which can be flawed) is a matter of convenience that helps us understand the logical nature of consciousness and existence itself. 1 and 2 has no significance unless it relates or points to something. We didn’t simply define 1 and 2 out of the blues; to say the least, they point to what they mean, which apparently came first, and then we express them or any thing else in abstract symbolism simply because we are capable to do so; a different and more evolutionary productive form of communication then the bleeps of dolphins or the grunts of elephants, which are also different forms of communication.

At no time is the number "1" going to feel insulted by number "2" and decide to wage war on it for that reason.

??? I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying that we are actually but numbers with absolutely no emotional reactions at all? What exactly is the reason to value logic itself?

Sapius wrote:

Kevin wrote:This is true, but what we can abandon is the idea of inherent separateness.

Sure, but what does then “If they truly understood the dependence then they would not experience themselves as separate” really mean?

It means that they would not believe in inherent separateness, or inherent existence. They would only experience separation as a logical tool.

If the separation is only a logical separation, for convenience only, such as the separation between the numbers "1" and "2", then it's not a problem.

Separation is always a logical one at its core

Yes it is, but unenlightened people imagine otherwise. They imagine the boundaries between things to exist inherently, and not simply placed there, by the mind, for convenience.

and not a matter of convenience only; otherwise consciousness itself can be considered a matter of convenience; now would you say it is?

Generally speaking, all boundaries are created for the purpose of our passing our genes to the next generation, and are convenient for that purpose.

At no time is the number "1" going to feel insulted by number "2" and decide to wage war on it for that reason.

??? I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying that we are actually but numbers with absolutely no emotional reactions at all? What exactly is the reason to value logic itself?

The "I", or the self, is a logical entity only.

For example, we do not really even consider our own bodies to be our "self". If you lost all of your body, except your head, yet you were somehow able to stay alive, you would not consider that you had lost 90% of yourself. Your "I" will have not been touched.

Kevin wrote;

It means that they would not believe in inherent separateness, or inherent existence. They would only experience separation as a logical tool.

Separateness is necessary to even “experience” separation as a logical tool to begin with, and that is the point.

They imagine the boundaries between things to exist inherently, and not simply placed there, by the mind, for convenience.

Non-inherent boundaries could also be merely a belief or imagined, unless one can prove the validity of logic itself. And unfortunately, the ‘mind’, which simply imagines (at other places you mention CREATES) the boundaries, has no power to utterly remove them; does “it”? BTW, what makes you think the ‘mind’ is ultimately what imagines or creates boundaries?

Generally speaking, all boundaries are created for the purpose of our passing our genes to the next generation, and are convenient for that purpose.

Humm... I see.

K: At no time is the number "1" going to feel insulted by number "2" and decide to wage war on it for that reason

S: Are you saying that we are actually but numbers with absolutely no emotional reactions at all? What exactly is the reason to value logic itself?

K: The "I", or the self, is a logical entity only.

So? And the reason being that it can recognize that which is not-I; that is, experience separation, not imagine or create it. And can you justify logic using logic per say? (Or did you find that irrelevant)

For example, we do not really even consider our own bodies to be our "self". If you lost all of your body, except your head, yet you were somehow able to stay alive, you would not consider that you had lost 90% of yourself. Your "I" will have not been touched.

Really? And what was my point up until now? Separations are neither imaginative nor created by the mind or any other particular thing at all, but are a result of the dynamics of totality, which incidentally is not a “thing” in your own books. One is however free to think it is the ‘mind’ that creates or the brain (kept somehow alive) that supports it, and use it as a convenient “argument” when it suits an individual “I”.

As usual, you seem to divert the issue at hand and introduce somewhat valid but irrelevant responses… however… I think it has become a matter of habit, so I don’t really mind.

Sapius wrote:Separateness is necessary to even “experience” separation as a logical tool to begin with

We are in agreement on that. The point as I see it is that the separation is not inherent, as people generally believe, but caused (by the "dynamics of Nature", as you say).

Non-inherent boundaries could also be merely a belief

No. If I experience the appearance of some object and its boundaries, then it is not a belief that I am experiencing the appearance of the object and its boundaries.

Such boundaries are no more a belief than the boundary between "1" and "2". They are experienced, so they are real.

, unless one can prove the validity of logical reasoning itself.

It is an invalid question to ask whether a thing is itself, or to seek to prove that a thing is itself. Logic is beyond validity, but is itself the measure of all validity.

And unfortunately, the ‘mind’, which simply imagines (at other places you mention CREATES) the boundaries has no power to utterly remove them; does “it”?

The mind can decide to commit suicide, which would remove the experience of all separation.

But so long as there is a mind there is at least some kind of experience of duality, either the enlightened duality of non-inherent existence or deluded duality of inherent existence.

BTW, what makes you think the ‘mind’ is ultimately what imagines or creates boundaries?

It is by definition. That which produces images and experiences from sense data I call "the mind".

Are you saying that we are actually but numbers with absolutely no emotional reactions at all? What exactly is the reason to value logic itself?

The "I", or the self, is a logical entity only.

So?

I was just answering your question. The "I" is a logical entity, with no emotional reactions at all.

And can you justify logic using logic per say? (Or did you find that irrelevant)

It is a mistaken question. See above.

I didn't answer your question, "What exactly is the reason to value logic itself?", although I'm sure we've covered this before many times on this forum.

You will only value logic if you are caused to do so — for example, if it makes you happy value it.

Separations are neither imaginative nor created by the mind or any other particular thing at all, but are a result of the dynamics of totality

Boundaries are certainly created by the dynamics of the Totality, and as the dynamics change, so do the boundaries.

David Quinn, comparing twirling a flaming torch with the self, wrote:A person doesn't really understand the self's non-inherent existence without understanding the manner in which it is an illusion - the same manner in which the ring of light is an illusion. It doesn't exist in the sense that as soon as you go looking for it, it isn't there. Its existence is merely apparent and sustained only by the adoption of a particular perspective. It doesn't exist in any shape or form outside of that perspective.

That is what I mean by the self not existing. It doesn't exist in any absolute sense.

Are you arguing that the self being dependent upon a particular mental perspective for its existence, is fundamentally different to the self being dependent upon, say, material things, like food, for its existence?

If not, then I can't see that you've added anything extra with these comments. That the self may exist because a person holds a certain mental perspective is just a reiteration of the point that the self is dependent upon a multitude of internal and external causes/circumstances for its existence.

As for your analogy, the ring of light formed by a twirling torch does exist, that's a concrete fact. It exists in the mind and perceptual system of the viewer at the very least. It's not that the ring lacks existence, it's simply that it exists in a certain way. The ring exists, and will continue to exist, for as long as the torch is twirled. Similarly, the self exists, and will continue to exist, for as long as the causes it is dependent upon continue to exist, such as food, water and certain mental states/perspectives.

So what exactly is revolutionary about this?

The average person has no knowledge of such things.

No, the average person is fully aware of these things - that their self's existence is dependent upon mental states/perspectives. They would agree that if their mind or brain were altered in some way that their self could cease to exist. Like if they received a sharp blow to the head or developed a very severe mental illness.

Even though he might be aware that he has been created by various factors, and could easily cease to exist in a blink of an eye, he still conceives of himself as a static chunk that is fundamentally real. That is, he believes that he inherently exists, even though he might know that his existence is causally-created and impermanent.

Not at all, you've made a very poor and self-defeating argument. As you say yourself, he is aware that he could cease to exist in the blink of an eye, and he is aware that his existence depends upon circumstances and causes. So very obviously the average person does not believe that they are static, permanent or exist independently of causes and circumstances.

Your arguments of "non-inherent existence" so far offer nothing new or different to the average person, they already know and affirm these ideas. It looks to me like the only way your arguments could have the final affect on people that you claim they should(elimination of ego, self, emotions etc), was if they were to make the recurring mistake that you appear to - namely mistaking "non-inherent"(aka non-independent) with "non-existent."

Jason wrote:the average person is fully aware of these things - that their self's existence is dependent upon mental states/perspectives.

If people understood that literally everything about them is caused then they would not feel proud when they achieve something, or be ashamed when they make a mistake, or feel lonely when ignored.

For this reason alone we can completely reject the idea that people understand that everything about them is caused.

Kevin wrote;

We are in agreement on that. The point as I see it is that the separation is not inherent, as people generally believe, but caused (by the "dynamics of Nature", as you say).

We are in agreement on quite a few fundamental bits, but just because people generally don’t use the word inherent or non-inherent would not mean that generally they believe in an utterly non-dependant (inherent) self. Inherent or not, that which is experienced is real according to you too, and hence so is the self or boundaries; it is just that generally people are irrational rather than illogical really, which makes them overly selfish, otherwise it is an essential tool of da evolution.

S: Non-inherent boundaries could also be merely a belief

K: If I experience the appearance of some object and its boundaries, then it is not a belief that I am experiencing the appearance of the object and its boundaries. Such boundaries are no more a belief than the boundary between "1" and "2". They are experienced, so they are real.

I just threw that in to make sure that since I experience a self, it is real, unlike what was said by David earlier in this thread.

David: There has never been a self to begin with, so any talk of it arising or disappearing is meaningless.

When a person stops twirling a flaming torch around in circles, does the ring of light produced by the twirling really disappear? Ultimately no, because the ring of light never really existed in the first place. It was an illusion. All there was, in reality, was a point of light traveling in a circle over time.

The average person is not only attached to the illusion (of self), but believes what is expressed within the illusion to be fundamentally real. That is why he fears death and becomes upset when things don't seem to be going well for the illusion. He may not be conscious enough to understand what is happening here or be able to articulate his belief in the illusion, but nevertheless, his whole mentality is structured around it.

If the above holds a meaning in a different sense, then I think it should be explicitly mentioned. If a self is like the ring of light, then why bother what an illusion has to say about fundamental things; as if it could see beyond its nose.

The mind can decide to commit suicide, which would remove the experience of all separation.

Sure, I believe the mind is a self-reflective reasoning process and can decide, and not merely “that which produces images and experiences from sense data”, which seems to be an appropriate description of a partial functionality of the brain. But I thought we agreed that the dynamics of nature is what directs it all, so how come the mind gets to decide? Is that by definition too?

But so long as there is a mind there is at least some kind of experience of duality, either the enlightened duality of non-inherent existence or deluded duality of inherent existence.

Glad to know that duality however is, but I did say ‘the mind which imagines or creates’, so ‘so long as’ is actually irrelevant, since without the mind, nothing exists… right?

You will only value logic if you are caused to do so — for example, if it makes you happy value it.

Well, ‘caused to’ can be applied in any and all instances, especially as a last resort, so it doesn’t say much; however, I value logic because it satisfies my need to know the truth, and yes, logically sound conclusions inevitably entail a sense of happiness, but I don’t logically see the need to celebrate it as such, or deny it.

Boundaries are certainly created by the dynamics of the Totality, and as the dynamics change, so do the boundaries.

Yes, but each and every boundary is exactly what it is in any given moment of that dynamics, by definition if I may add, and is real. Nothing remains except dynamic change itself, but that does not undermine the reality of boundaries on which reasoning or that conclusion itself is based on.


(BTW Kevin, the page hangs and I have been getting that 'cannot display the page' and 'the page has expired' thing on and offf today.)

Jason wrote:It looks to me like the only way your arguments could have the final affect on people that you claim they should(elimination of ego, self, emotions etc), was if they were to make the recurring mistake that you appear to - namely mistaking "non-inherent"(aka non-independent) with "non-existent."

In my opinion it is one of the ways to psychologically convince ones self that there is nothing to fear about death, since there is no self (in the absolute sense), but then again, many a God fearing religious martyrs have achieved that, and proved it too.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:I think the question should be, "Is anything inherent? And if so, what is that?"

Nothing has inherent existence. All things depend on other things for their existence.

So does nothing exist?

If the self is not inherent, nothing matters.

Things matter if we are caused to value things.

Do the things exist or not?? Inherent simply means essential or irremovable. Are the things there or not? Can you say existence could be without any particular thing? Do you exist?? Who am I talking to?

No meaning would exist.

Meaning exists when people are caused to value things.

Do you value logic, or do you value more the beliefs you've arrived at? You cannot grow in truth and hold tight to ideas. If causation is an excuse to stop thinking or questioning, or to stifle curiosity, it is a funny thing, indeed.

The point is not to stop thoughts, but to change where they receive their input. Thoughts receiving input from thoughts creates a circle of illusion, however "logical" the process may seem. Truth becomes relegated to the sidelines.

divine focus wrote:So does nothing exist?

Things exist, but they don't inherently exist.

The things that unenlightened experience don't exist.

Meaning exists when people are caused to value things.

Do you value logic, or do you value more the beliefs you've arrived at?

Logic is a belief I have been caused to arrive at, and I am caused to value it.

If causation is an excuse to stop thinking or questioning, or to stifle curiosity, it is a funny thing, indeed.

One is caused to either grow in wisdom or dimininish in wisdom. One is caused to either grow in curiosity or diminish in it. One is caused to either use causation as a selfish "excuse" or to think of causation in an honest way.

The point is not to stop thoughts

Understanding causation is not about stopping thoughts.

[quote="Jason""]Not at all, you've made a very poor and self-defeating argument. As you say yourself, he is aware that he could cease to exist in the blink of an eye, and he is aware that his existence depends upon circumstances and causes. So very obviously the average person does not believe that they are static, permanent or exist independently of causes and circumstances. [/quote]
If he is aware of such knowledge, then it is clear he doesn't accept it. He refuses to believe in it personally and emotionally. The understanding is compartmentalized.

It would be like a person understanding the illusory nature of a ring of light, and yet refusing to accept it on a personal and emotional level. Instead, he strongly desires for the ring to keep on existing indefinitely, makes up theories about how it will continue to exist after the twirling comes to an end, becomes upset whenever anyone says that it is too small or too faint, constantly hounds the man doing the twirling to twirl it faster so as to make the ring seem brighter, and so one. That, in essence, is the average person's life with respect to the self.

Such a person is not only insanely identifying with a particular illusion in an arbitrary fashion, but he hasn't accepted the reality of its illusoriness. And that comes back to the fact that he doesn't really understand that it is an illusion in the first place.

-