GENIUS FORUMS

Things may have potential for more, for continued existence, yes,
but things do not wait to come into existence.

What are they doing?

I am a demonstrator of the eternal recurrence.

Is that flatulence?

hehe

frank

suergaz:Things may have potential for more, for continued existence, yes, but things do not wait to come into existence.


frank:What are they doing?

Existing of course!

suergaz: I am a demonstrator of the eternal recurrence.

frank: Is that flatulence?

hehe

Let's just say it may include it. :D

Existing of course!

dependant on an observer?

suergaz: I am a demonstrator of the eternal recurrence.

frank: Is that flatulence?

hehe


Let's just say it may include it. :D

hahaha

frank

Only because I say that 'real' means something that does not change and is eternal, do I say that objects, energies and time do not 'exist.' However, the dream which contains them is real. It is always full, itself, and eternal. Like the kaleidoscope is real, the dream is real.

Within the dream is a dreamer - he comes and goes as part of the dream. The dream cannot exist without a dreamer. When the dream unfolds, a dreamer sees a dream and CONSCIOUSNESS is created. Usually consciousness is directed away from the dreamer to the dream. In higher states of consciousness, the dreamer becomes aware of himself as self consciousness.

In enlightenment or lucid dreaming, consciousness is completely turned in on itself as the dreamer. Total self absorption takes place and the dream disappears. This is samadhi or satori or awakening or realization or enlightenment.

frank: ...things have a potential for existence don't they?....things are 'waiting in the wings' to 'make an appearance' aren't they?...the appearance of a thing is dependant on prior causes 'happening' to usher in its appearance...correct?

suergaz: Things may have potential for more, for continued existence, yes, but things do not wait to come into existence.

frank: What are they doing?

suergaz: Existing of course!

frank: Dependant on an observer?

Naturally, since we're observing them.

Suergraz:

DQ: Yes, we could say that things "inherently exist" in the sense that they find their existence in the moment. For example, when we perceive a shadow on the ground, the very fact that we are perceiving it implies that it exists, and in that moment it can be said to "inherently exist". If it didn't inherently exist in this way, it wouldn't be able to exist at all and we wouldn't be able to perceive it.

Although this is true, it doesn't conflict with the more Buddhistic concept of inherent existence which is being expressed by Mookestink and myself. This is an entirely different issue. Even though things find their existence in the moment, and therefore can be said to "inherently exist" in this sense, they still lack inherent existence in the other sense.

s: Conceding the truth of my words will not persuade me to see truth in what you call the 'buddhistic perspective' you hold to.

In other words, I am open-minded to the particular truth that you wish to convey, while you are close-minded to the one I am conveying. Good for you.

There is no 'other sense' when my persepective is understood in its entirety.

Your perspective, while interesting in some ways, doesn't help people abandon their delusions about the nature of Reality and inspire them to become enlightened. I know you don't give a toss about this sort of thing, but it is a concern of mine.

DQ: Thus, Suergaz's stupidity in this issue doesn't lie in the fact that he is trying to assert a particular concept of inherent existence, but in the fact that he believes that, through it, he is undermining the Buddhist concept of inherent existence. In reality, it doesn't do anything of the kind.

S: I have the truer meaning of the word 'inherent'.

There is no such thing as a "truer" meaning of a word. There is only the meaning we choose to give it in any given moment.

You are choosing to give the term "inherent existence" a different meaning than the one I am giving. That is fair enough, but you're only fooling yourself if you think it undermines the meaning I am giving it, and the arguments I am making with it.

If we strip everything back to its bare bones, what you're essentially saying is, "I refuse point blank to go down the path that David is pointing to. I have no interest in expanding my mind in that way. My mind is limited and I am proud of it."

S: Of course I understand your argument.

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

I wasn't trying to undermine anything outside of the lie that you have trouble letting go of ie. All things do not ineherently exist, and there really isn't much 'trying' about it.

Why do you think the idea of "all things lacking inherent existence", in the sense I mean it, is a lie?

Are you able to coherently answer this question? To be honest, I don't think you have enough integrity or intelligence.

DQ: Only the Totality can be said to "inherently exist" by virtue of the fact that there is nothing other than the Totality by definition.

Everything within the Totality is, of course, an illusion...

s: You have said the totality, ie. all things inherently exist. Everything that comprises it cannot do otherwise but inherently exist. No part can be separated from the whole.

The very fact that no part is separated from the Whole means that the boundaries between these parts are not really there. A boundary can only occur if there is some sort of separation between the parts. That is what a boundary is.

No separation = no parts. There is only the Whole itself - a seamless continuum.

-

[Edited some grammer - DQ]

unwise wrote:

Only because I say that 'real' means something that does not change and is eternal, do I say that objects, energies and time do not 'exist.' However, the dream which contains them is real. It is always full, itself, and eternal. Like the kaleidoscope is real, the dream is real.

You still haven't provided any real evidence, other than wishful thinking, that the world really is a dream. You don't have any evidence, do you?

You say above that the dream itself (i.e. the world) is eternal. Yet elsewhere you say that it disappears when you go to sleep, which implies that it isn't eternal, after all. This is a glaring contradiction.

Also, when you assert that the dream-world is eternal, you're also asserting that time itself is eternal as well. A thing can only be eternal if time is eternal. Thus, according to your reasoning above, time must really exist, after all.

In enlightenment or lucid dreaming, consciousness is completely turned in on itself as the dreamer. Total self absorption takes place and the dream disappears. This is samadhi or satori or awakening or realization or enlightenment.

Again, you're being deceived by your own imagination here. If the "dream" were to truly disappear during this period, and if there are no objects of consciousness at all, then consciousness itself would also disappear. You wouldn't even be aware that you had entered this period, and you wouldn't have any memory of it either. You would look back after the event and notice, with horror, that a chunk of your past was mysteriously missing.

Consciousness can only occur if there is consciousness of something. That is what consciousness is. These "satoris" you are talking about are simply altered states of consciousness which are quite common and, despite what you think, always involve some kind of object of consciousness. They have nothing to do with genuine satori or enlightenment.

You're not the first person to mistake these for enlightenment and I'm sure you won't be the last either. I've met many people who have become Christians, Buddhists, Hinduists, and even atheists, via these experiences - all of them believing they have found the right path. It's an easy mistake to make; these altered states can be very powerful experiences, after all. But unless you are careful, they can easily become a trap. To my mind, they are a major pitfall on the path to enlightenment.

The seeker of enlightenment needs to keep shaking off everything he has attained in the past as though it were a filthy bedspread and start each moment anew.

-

suergaz wrote:

It is really about the meaning of the word 'inherent'.

Yes, and it has always been, hence a lot a do about a trivial matter.

David wrote:

Although this is true, it doesn't conflict with the more Buddhistic concept of inherent existence which is being expressed by Mookestink and myself. This is an entirely different issue. Even though things find their existence in the moment, and therefore can be said to "inherently exist" in this sense, they still lack inherent existence in the other sense.

I’m sorry to say but that is the weakest expression I have seen in a long time, David. What other “sense”? There can only be different perspectives if that is what you mean. It is not an entirely different issue, but the same issue seen from two different points of view, since we are talking about the same ‘thing’, and both views stand true in the very moment.

The only other “sense” would be the non-permanency of any particular thing, and calling it “the more Buddhistic concept” would not make it any more profound, for it simply is quite logical in itself. Dependant existence of any particular thing would not mean non-existent in whichever way you look at it, however, their impermanency is guaranteed, in every moment. Saying ‘therefore can be said to “inherently exist”’ is quite weak in my opinion.

The word ‘inherently’ has always been thrown about quiet irresponsibly without making the “other sense” quite clear and that results in unnecessary empty words scattered all over, and waste of server space.

Does this “other sense” make the other sense any more senseless?

David to suergaz:

Your perspective, while interesting in some ways, doesn't help people abandon their delusions about the nature of Reality and inspire them to become enlightened. I know you don't give a toss about this sort of thing, but it is a concern of mine.

Well, may be he is caused not to give a toss, and how different is it from you being caused to give a toss? Are you saying that you are caused to care about non-inherent things?

Well, may be he is caused not to give a toss, and how different is it from you being caused to give a toss? Are you saying that you are caused to care about non-inherent things?

David's ignorance re causality?

frank

Sapius wrote:

Yes, and it has always been, hence a lot a do about a trivial matter.

I disagree entirely that this is a trivial matter.

zag wrote:

A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else! There is nothing more than everything.

If you are understanding the Totality as an object like a table, then I can see why you are thinking the way you are. An object cannot exist without its constituent parts. You are saying that the Totality is caused by its parts -- a table is only a table because of its parts -- when you say that things inherently exist and include the Totality as a thing.

The Totality is independent of causes -- my thinking or conceiving of it together with everything in the universe, for example, does not bring it into (is not the cause of its) existence. That’s precisely what gives it inherent existence. That's precisely why it is infinite. That's precisely the reason that when I die, it won't.

I reckon there's a little bit more to the infinite than just "a bunch of finite things."

frank wrote:

Well, may be he is caused not to give a toss, and how different is it from you being caused to give a toss? Are you saying that you are caused to care about non-inherent things?

David's ignorance re causality?

frank

I think you better wait for David’s response. That may not necessarily be the issue.

Hi Leyla,

I disagree entirely that this is a trivial matter.

Sure, not in its basic importance of course, but actually very simple to understand if both perspectives appear on the same page.

suergaz,

mooke: Simply because the whole necessarily exists does not mean that any particular part exists with the same necessity.

suergaz: That is where you err.

That reminds me of my response to something you said earlier:

suergaz: Existence is fundamentally inherent to things, as things cannot help but be a part of all things.

mooke: This misses the point by a hairsbreadth, and shows me your mistake. You are commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii (circular reasoning). You say "things have inherent existence because a thing must be a part of the whole". But what is being disputed is the very existence of things! You are assuming that things exist to prove that things exist.

You stated your opinion and I replied, then I stated mine and you replied. However, where I was courteous enough to show you your fallacy, you said little more than "you are wrong" to my contrary position.

My position: The whole is not necessarily dependent on any particular part; the whole is quite capable of being indivisible, or inexpressible as the sum of parts (for an example, look at Leyla's recent post about an infinite totality and finite parts).

Your position: The whole is necessarily dependent on parts, and I know what these parts are, and these parts are things.

You have made assumptions that do not have logical necessity. They have nothing more than common sense (and perhaps a little of Kant's "things-in-themselves") backing them up. And we know how effective common sense is as a tool: the earth is flat, and the sun travels east to west across a stationary firmament.

Mr. Quinn said: Again, you're being deceived by your own imagination here. If the "dream" were to truly disappear during this period, and if there are no objects of consciousness at all, then consciousness itself would also disappear. You wouldn't even be aware that you had entered this period, and you wouldn't have any memory of it either. You would look back after the event and notice, with horror, that a chunk of your past was mysteriously missing.

Consciousness can only occur if there is consciousness of something. That is what consciousness is. These "satoris" you are talking about are simply altered states of consciousness which are quite common and, despite what you think, always involve some kind of object of consciousness. They have nothing to do with genuine satori or enlightenment.

There are many issues going on here now that I think are very important and more to the heart of the matter - and what I am actually interested in discussing. It is nice to move beyond simple insults at times. These are actual discussions concerning the nature of reality that interest me.

I am particularly interested in the very fine points of my experience because, really, I am in agreement about much of what I see here. For instance, I believe the 'totality' is self-existent (or real) in a way that 'parts' of the totality come and go and rely on other causes. The totality does not have a cause, therefore it is 'real.'

So then, you ask how I can believe the totality is a 'dream' which comes and goes? This is a good question and difficult to discuss. The ideas of 'viewer' and 'viewed' and 'consciousness' and 'object of consciousness' are very fine points - not for the beginner - even-though you consider me on level 2 out of 10 - just above a retard, I think. Even if I am deceived, I don't think you can correctly state that deep mystical states are a dime a dozen. This makes you sound pretentious and unwise (like me). Who today even cares about such things, let along a person who is capable of highly altered states? Certainly not many.

You describe samadhi as unconsciousness, yet people who have experienced it seem to have experienced SOMETHING - otherwise they would be as you suggest - ignorant that something happened at all. This is not the case. That would certainly not be a state that would bring intelligence. It would be a state that many college boys have experienced in the frat house.

To be quite plain to you, I am a proponent of duality. Specifically, the ancient Samkhya system I find totally consistent with my own experience. (Actually, my own view is a hybrid between Samhkya and Advaita). In this system, there are two 'things' that are self-existent: 'the totality' or Nature which is called Prakriti, and, 'Consciousness' with is an un-embodied, uncreated 'something else.' This is difficult to discuss because consciousness is always assumed to be mentation - the workings of a human (or animal) brain. I say consciousness is utterly beyond any beings - and - NOT connected to what you call 'the Totality.'

If you want to discuss this....I'd be happy to. There are many issues flying around here. Perhaps this could be a new thread. Or, you may simply laugh at it and we can move on to other things.

Oh, one other thing:

And we know how effective common sense is as a tool: the earth is flat,

I think common sense is pretty effective. Any sailor can plainly see looking out on the horizon that ship's masts appear before their hulls. This plainly demonstrates that the world is round. Surely they knew this - which is why I say history books are horseshit.

frank: David's ignorance re causality?

sapius: I think you better wait for David’s response. That may not necessarily be the issue.

Look at this:

david: Certainly, when one teaches, one has to be clever. This is because one is always dealing with the cunning schemes of other people's egos. One has to try and find ways to bypass these schemes and speak directly to the authentic part of them. This can involve using anything from pure reasonings, to humour, to praise, to direct confrontation.

It's a game sapius...a drama...a play of actors...a swirl of Acts.

Dave's the 'Straight Man'....the 'Fall Guys' are required.

Make him Work.

It gives his 'empty/meaningless' the meaning of 'inspiring enlightenment'...

It's caused.

frank

unwise,

I think common sense is pretty effective.

Yes, it's right up there with "guessing", "tossing a coin", and "woman's intuition".

Any sailor can plainly see looking out on the horizon that ship's masts appear before their hulls. This plainly demonstrates that the world is round.

You gave an example of logical deduction coupled with knowledge of geometry and experience of sailing, not common sense. Yes, it was a well-established fact to sea-faring peoples (such as the ancient Greeks) that the world was round. There were even attempts by prominent pre-Socratics to measure the size of the earth (as well as the distance to the sun and moon).

Your example has nothing in common with suergaz's common sense, which can be likened to someone shouting slogans from a rooftop.

(In retrospect, I should have used abstract examples to show how ridiculous relying on common sense is in the realm of metaphysics. Considering that common sense is already out the window in a regular physics class, you can imagine how much more useless untutored metaphysical speculation would be, and most clearly is.)

Surely they knew this - which is why I say history books are horseshit.

Well, since consulting history books is out of the question, I guess we'll never know whether or not "they", who I take (from your context) to mean exclusively sea-faring peoples, did know this fact.

Sapius wrote:

DQ: Although this is true, it doesn't conflict with the more Buddhistic concept of inherent existence which is being expressed by Mookestink and myself. This is an entirely different issue. Even though things find their existence in the moment, and therefore can be said to "inherently exist" in this sense, they still lack inherent existence in the other sense.

S: I’m sorry to say but that is the weakest expression I have seen in a long time, David. What other “sense”? There can only be different perspectives if that is what you mean. It is not an entirely different issue, but the same issue seen from two different points of view, since we are talking about the same ‘thing’, and both views stand true in the very moment.

We can use the term "inherent existence" in a million different senses if we want to. In this instance, two different senses are being used - namely, (1) refering to the fact that things apppear to be existing in the moment, and (2) refering to the fact that things lack objective existence.

These are both facts. Suergaz, however, is setting up mental blocks against one of these facts under the illusion that it conflicts with his pet fact.

The only other “sense” would be the non-permanency of any particular thing, and calling it “the more Buddhistic concept” would not make it any more profound, for it simply is quite logical in itself. Dependant existence of any particular thing would not mean non-existent in whichever way you look at it, however, their impermanency is guaranteed, in every moment. Saying ‘therefore can be said to “inherently exist”’ is quite weak in my opinion.

I agree that Suergaz's use of the word "inherent existence" is rather weak and inappropriate. A much better term would be "apparent existence".

While things certainly exist in the form of an appearance to our minds, they lack any kind of objective existence. Even the most solid-looking objects, like mountains and planets, have no more substantiality in their existence than shadows on the ground or bubbles in the water. In all these cases, their existence is only sustained in the moment by the right causal conditions. They can all vanish without trace in an instant.

David to Suergraz: Your perspective, while interesting in some ways, doesn't help people abandon their delusions about the nature of Reality and inspire them to become enlightened. I know you don't give a toss about this sort of thing, but it is a concern of mine.

Sapius: Well, may be he is caused not to give a toss, and how different is it from you being caused to give a toss?

What is the difference between a baby drinking a lethal posion and a baby Einstein going on to live a long and active life? Each of them will affect the future in vastly different ways.

Are you saying that you are caused to care about non-inherent things?

We are all caused to care about non-inherent things. Where I differ from most people is that I am caused to care about a non-inherent thing called "wisdom".

-

Unwise wrote:

I think common sense is pretty effective.

In the Middle Ages, it was common sense to believe in an angry creator God who punishes sinners in the eternal flames of hell.

In certain parts of the American south, it is common sense to regard all non-caucasions as sub-humans simply on the basis of their skin colour.

In the economic community, it is common sense to regard the serious environmental concerns of our planet as the interfering ravings of left-wing hippies.

Really, Unwise, if this is the sort of wisdom that your "samadhi" is imparting to you, then you need to extract it from your mind forthwith and jump up and down on it until it is thoroughly dead and then bury it so that it can never ever reach the light of day again.

-

Unwise,

There are many issues going on here now that I think are very important and more to the heart of the matter - and what I am actually interested in discussing. It is nice to move beyond simple insults at times. These are actual discussions concerning the nature of reality that interest me.

Okay, I'll start a new thread on it.

-

DQ: In other words, I am open-minded to the particular truth that you wish to convey, while you are close-minded to the one I am conveying. Good for you.

No, I am open to the truth you wish to convey, just not to the error of understanding corrupting your use of the english language.
:D

suergaz:There is no 'other sense' when my persepective is understood in its entirety.

DQ: Your perspective, while interesting in some ways, doesn't help people abandon their delusions about the nature of Reality and inspire them to become enlightened. I know you don't give a toss about this sort of thing, but it is a concern of mine.

To acknowledge that everything inherently exists is to acknowledge the truth. To say nothing inherently exists is to misunderstand the meaning of the word inherent.

S: I have the truer meaning of the word 'inherent'.

There is no such thing as a "truer" meaning of a word. There is only the meaning we choose to give it in any given moment.

:D You are right. Mine is the true meaning, yours is confused.

You are choosing to give the term "inherent existence" a different meaning than the one I am giving. That is fair enough, but you're only fooling yourself if you think it undermines the meaning I am giving it, and the arguments I am making with it.

That I actually give it its meaning undermines any you might give it in the context we are discussing it.

If we strip everything back to its bare bones, what you're essentially saying is, "I refuse point blank to go down the path that David is pointing to. I have no interest in expanding my mind in that way. My mind is limited and I am proud of it."

That's not true. I take on what you mean in your expression, just not your means of expressing it.

Why do you think the idea of "all things lacking inherent existence", in the sense I mean it, is a lie?
Are you able to coherently answer this question? To be honest, I don't think you have enough integrity or intelligence.

It would have been enough to question without questioning my integrity and intelligence wouldn't it? In the sense you mean "all things lack inherent existence" there is no lie, as you really only mean that everything is related, but in the language you clothe this idea there is nought but a lie.

DQ: Only the Totality can be said to "inherently exist" by virtue of the fact that there is nothing other than the Totality by definition.

Everything within the Totality is, of course, an illusion...

suergaz: You have said the totality, ie. all things inherently exist. Everything that comprises it cannot do otherwise but inherently exist. No part can be separated from the whole.

The very fact that no part is separated from the Whole means that the boundaries between these parts are not really there. A boundary can only occur if there is some sort of separation between the parts. That is what a boundary is.

No separation = no parts. There is only the Whole itself - a seamless continuum.

Only if the universe was finite. No inherent separation = infinite parts.

Leyla:

zag wrote:
A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else! There is nothing more than everything.

Leyla:If you are understanding the Totality as an object like a table, then I can see why you are thinking the way you are. An object cannot exist without its constituent parts. You are saying that the Totality is caused by its parts -- a table is only a table because of its parts -- when you say that things inherently exist and include the Totality as a thing.

The Totality is independent of causes -- my thinking or conceiving of it together with everything in the universe, for example, does not bring it into (is not the cause of its) existence. That’s precisely what gives it inherent existence. That's precisely why it is infinite. That's precisely the reason that when I die, it won't.

I reckon there's a little bit more to the infinite than just "a bunch of finite things."

There is a lot of fuss and fidgeting around my posts in this thread, but no-one can take them apart :D Yes there's a little bit more to infinity than its being just a bunch of finite things. It's an infinite bunch of finite things!


Jason:

You stated your opinion and I replied, then I stated mine and you replied. However, where I was courteous enough to show you your fallacy, you said little more than "you are wrong" to my contrary position.

But there was no fallacy to show me!

My position: The whole is not necessarily dependent on any particular part; the whole is quite capable of being indivisible, or inexpressible as the sum of parts (for an example, look at Leyla's recent post about an infinite totality and finite parts).

The whole is necessarily dependent on any particular part precisely because of its indivisibility. It is easily expressible as the sum of infinite parts.

You have made assumptions that do not have logical necessity. They have nothing more than common sense (and perhaps a little of Kant's "things-in-themselves") backing them up. And we know how effective common sense is as a tool: the earth is flat, and the sun travels east to west across a stationary firmament.

It flatters me that common sense backs me up! It was not common sense behind flat-earth theory, only pretensions to common sense. :D

Suergaz wrote:

In the sense you mean "all things lack inherent existence" there is no lie, as you really only mean that everything is related, but in the language you clothe this idea there is nought but a lie.

No, it means so much more than that. When properly explored, it is the trigger for a major revolution in perspective in which one discerns the mirage-like nature of all things, and from this, the nature of Reality. I find it interesting that you have no empathy or affinity for this major spiritual attainment, and that you put in so much effort to resist even acknowledging it.

-

Your major revolution in perspective that this lie to all appearances 'triggers' is the denial of perspective altogether!

Nothing lacks inherent existence.

My quixotism is of a nobler kind.

suergaz,

Jason:

It's Trevor, thanks.

suer: But there was no fallacy to show me!

You used a circular argument, plain as day, to prove that things exist because things exist. It is the exact same fallacy a theologian might use to prove their God by resorting to the divine origins of the Bible.

My position: The whole is not necessarily dependent on any particular part; the whole is quite capable of being indivisible, or inexpressible as the sum of parts (for an example, look at Leyla's recent post about an infinite totality and finite parts).

suer: The whole is necessarily dependent on any particular part preceisely because of its indivisibility. It is easily expressible as the sum of infinite parts.

In the desperate word-game you use to refute me, you contradict yourself. The whole cannot be both indivisible and the sum of infinite parts. Being the sum of infinite parts implies divisibility (into parts).

On the contrary, my position is still true: that the whole can easily be both indivisible and inexpressible as the sum of parts (due to its indivisibility).

Further, you changed the meaning of finite in your attempted translation of Leyla's example. Where Leyla was referring to a necessary quality of a part (finitude), you referred to the number of parts needed to complete the whole (infinite). Since you not only missed Leyla's meaning, but also said something that does not even necessarily conflict with the example, I can safely say that you did not make a single relevant point here.

mooke: You have made assumptions that do not have logical necessity. They have nothing more than common sense (and perhaps a little of Kant's "things-in-themselves") backing them up. And we know how effective common sense is as a tool: the earth is flat, and the sun travels east to west across a stationary firmament.

suer: It flatters me that common sense backs me up! It was not common sense behind flat-earth theory, only pretensions to common sense. :D

I was being facetious. It is the order of common sense found in people who have never had the time, nor inclination, nor formal logical training, to study metaphysics.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with David Quinn that you are referring to "apparent existence", which is indeed a necessary property of most of what can be said to exist.



As to "inherent existence", I'll clear up your misconceptions about the phrase: it is nothing other than a reference to the existence of "being-in-itself" (Sartre would contrast that phrase to another form of Being, being-for-itself), or, more archaically, "things-in-themselves" (ala Kant). In this, the Western tradition, it is used to show the extent of reason, the ultimate division between appearance and reality; or, as in Sartre, finite perception and infinite Being.

In Buddhist tradition, it's known as "self-existence", and it is revealed that even the greatest self-existence (in the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha refers to "a being with the self-existence of Mount Sumeru") is really no self-existence at all. And this is the case: appearances constitute reality, and perception is fully immersed in Being. The dualisms produced by belief in things are imagined.

Where has "inherent existence" gone? It has become a stumbling block, a little bit of nonsense that must be overcome. Only something absolute, infinite, acausal, and timeless could truly have self-existence, could be being-in-itself: since this is nothing less than the totality, only the totality can have "inherent existence". All other existence is merely apparent. In fact, even its "apparence" is apparent: since there is nothing other than the totality (by definition), there cannot be anything less than the totality. Therefore, there is only the totality: there are no things to share in, or even to contrast to, its inherent existence.

Things are illusions.

While things certainly exist in the form of an appearance to our minds, they lack any kind of objective existence. Even the most solid-looking objects, like mountains and planets, have no more substantiality in their existence than shadows on the ground or bubbles in the water. In all these cases, their existence is only sustained in the moment by the right causal conditions. They can all vanish without trace in an instant.

Yep.

Causes are driven by forces. Causes/forces less spatial form are inherent existence.

Effects = Observed Existence. There are no objective effects. Effects are caused by the interaction of a mimimum of two forces, which causes a boundary to exist between the two. The boundary has no form or content of its own, but paradoxically this boundary makes for appearances, it is all that an observer can view.

The existence of a meeting place between the two forces creates a form of differentiation between the two forces, and relative "staticness" makes appearances, for effects. Such "staticness" though is of course an illusion, the two forces continually do what they do, but the staticness is where the forces evenly balance each other out and to an observer outside of that balanced area, it will falsely appear as if there is no action occurring.

It's Trevor, thanks.

Sorry Trev.

suer: But there was no fallacy to show me!

You used a circular argument, plain as day, to prove that things exist because things exist. It is the exact same fallacy a theologian might use to prove their God by resorting to the divine origins of the Bible.

Exact same? Not at all. As you intimate, no proof is required from me.

Quote:

The whole cannot be both indivisible and the sum of infinite parts. Being the sum of infinite parts implies divisibility (into parts).

The universe is indivisible, and the sum of infinite parts. The indivisible is naturally divisible within itself.

On the contrary, my position is still true: that the whole can easily be both indivisible and inexpressible as the sum of parts (due to its indivisibility).

Only on the assumption that a sum must result in a finitude.

The whole is indivisible and expressible as the sum of infinite parts.

Further, you changed the meaning of finite in your attempted translation of Leyla's example. Where Leyla was referring to a necessary quality of a part (finitude), you referred to the number of parts needed to complete the whole (infinite). Since you not only missed Leyla's meaning, but also said something that does not even necessarily conflict with the example, I can safely say that you did not make a single relevant point here.

I did not miss Leylas meaning, or your own, or anyone elses. I only happen to disagree that all things have no inherent existence.

mooke: You have made assumptions that do not have logical necessity. They have nothing more than common sense (and perhaps a little of Kant's "things-in-themselves") backing them up. And we know how effective common sense is as a tool: the earth is flat, and the sun travels east to west across a stationary firmament.

suer: It flatters me that common sense backs me up! It was not common sense behind flat-earth theory, only pretensions to common sense. :D

mooke:I was being facetious. It is the order of common sense found in people who have never had the time, nor inclination, nor formal logical training, to study metaphysics. The more I think about it, the more I agree with David Quinn that you are referring to "apparent existence", which is indeed a necessary property of most of what can be said to exist.

No, I have been referring to inherent existence all along.

As to "inherent existence", I'll clear up your misconceptions about the phrase: it is nothing other than a reference to the existence of "being-in-itself" (Sartre would contrast that phrase to another form of Being, being-for-itself), or, more archaically, "things-in-themselves" (ala Kant). In this, the Western tradition, it is used to show the extent of reason, the ultimate division between appearance and reality; or, as in Sartre, finite perception and infinite Being. In Buddhist tradition, it's known as "self-existence", and it is revealed that even the greatest self-existence (in the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha refers to "a being with the self-existence of Mount Sumeru") is really no self-existence at all. And this is the case: appearances constitute reality, and perception is fully immersed in Being. The dualisms produced by belief in things are imagined. Where has "inherent existence" gone? It has become a stumbling block, a little bit of nonsense that must be overcome. Only something absolute, infinite, acausal, and timeless could truly have self-existence, could be being-in-itself: since this is nothing less than the totality, only the totality can have "inherent existence". All other existence is merely apparent. In fact, even its "apparence" is apparent: since there is nothing other than the totality (by definition), there cannot be anything less than the totality. Therefore, there is only the totality: there are no things to share in, or even to contrast to, its inherent existence.

Things are illusions.

Yes, there is only the totality, and yes it exists inherently, hence nothing is an illusion.

frank: David's ignorance re causality?

sapius: I think you better wait for David’s response. That may not necessarily be the issue.


Look at this:


david: Certainly, when one teaches, one has to be clever. This is because one is always dealing with the cunning schemes of other people's egos. One has to try and find ways to bypass these schemes and speak directly to the authentic part of them. This can involve using anything from pure reasonings, to humour, to praise, to direct confrontation.


It's a game sapius...a drama...a play of actors...a swirl of Acts.

Dave's the 'Straight Man'....the 'Fall Guys' are required.

Make him Work.

It gives his 'empty/meaningless' the meaning of 'inspiring enlightenment'...

It's caused.

It would be nice if the whole thing was taken to a broader canvas...

I would like the QRS thought process undergoing a tight scripting and 'shot' in a studio setting as an exchange between a Student and a Teacher...
...culminating in the Student having a look of incredulous wonder as enlightenment dawned...like a light bulb going off in his head...

This could be 'packaged' into a 2 Hour DVD and niche marketed to the 18-24 yo group who are sick and tired of their 'conditioning' and looking for new meaning...

I'm thinking it could be billed as 'QRS'...

Quick Resolution of Suffering...get it?...QRS...hehe

Now, QRS needs a makeover fersure...the Op Shop Dole Duds ain't gonna cut it...and the beards are gonna have to go...

Costume enhancement.

The new Motto for QRS is:

Veni Vidi Vici Versace!

I came..I saw..I conquered..I wore a nice suit.

frank the tank