GENIUS FORUMS

Jason wrote:

This sounds similar to what I have been through. I'll tell you what I've found: doubt, samsara, faith, finiteness, problem-solving, stopping problem-solving, worldliness - they are all pefect expressions of Reality. It doesn't matter what you do or what you think, or what you gain or what you lose, Reality just is. You can step back into worldliness, Reality is. You try to follow QSR, Reality is. See? There is nothing to doubt, there is no need for faith when you realize that Reality simply is.

Not needing faith, and needing faith, are both “expressions of Reality” - yes? But obviously having "no need for faith" is more important to you than having faith - how does this work in your Reality that just "is"?

You can continue doubting, you can continue searching, you can continue questioning: these are all still perfect expressions of Reality, Reality still is.

Are you advising Kelly to continue doubting, searching and questioning; even though you have concluded that there is nothing to doubt, search for, or question? How did you arrive at this idea? If not through doubting, searching, and questioning - was it through faith?

What is existence composed of for you at this very moment? Thoughts, sensual perceptions, emotions, physical sensations etc etc: how can you doubt this? The very core of your existence, every direct sensation, perception, thought: how can you doubt these?

Again – how did you arrive at this conclusion – did you once doubt these things yourself?

Even when you have doubt: you cannot doubt that you are experiencing doubt. There is truly nothing to doubt.

So, even though you are still experiencing doubts, you have decided to just ignore them, and carry on regardless?

Sue

KJones

There is a thorn: this looks like worldliness, as if one is really taking hold of the finite as if it is gained. Does one really step off the top of the 100-foot pole, into the void, or back on it again?

The Void is not a Nothingness to be stepped out into, or back from.

Nothingness is casually created and dependent. The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence. The questions and ponderings of self, ego, feminine, masculine, karma, reincarnation, transmigration, heaven, hell, ignorance, wisdom...etc, are rendered irrelevant in the ultimate and unconditioned Reality of the Void.

I keep wanting to know myself.

All you will ever know is what you are not.

“Let me remind you
That the perceived
Cannot perceive.”

Huang Po

NOX23 wrote:

The Void is not a Nothingness to be stepped out into, or back from.

Nothingness is casually created and dependent. The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence. The questions and ponderings of self, ego, feminine, masculine, karma, reincarnation, transmigration, heaven, hell, ignorance, wisdom...etc, are rendered irrelevant in the ultimate and unconditioned Reality of the Void.

How can the “Void” or “Nothingness” be dependent on anything, since it is everything? And why are parts (…hell, ignorance, wisdom…etc) of the Void “rendered irrelevant”?

All you will ever know is what you are not.

Knowing what you are not is a good stepping stone to knowing what you are. For instance, understanding that you have no beginning or end means that you know that you do not exist as a separate self – you are absolutely everything.

“Let me remind you
That the perceived
Cannot perceive.”

Huang Po

By quoting Huang Po, are you saying that his words reinforce your statement, “All you will ever know is what you are not" - how so?

Sue

Knowing what you are not is a good stepping stone to knowing what you are.

Knowing what you are not requires firstly that you have some idea of what you are.

ie Without science would philosophers have known that there is no Mind/body duality. Even the buddha would have used science in a very general sense (observation of nature).

Jamesh,

Knowing what you are not requires firstly that you have some idea of what you are.

You can doubt the truth of something without knowing what its truth is - like when you begin to question the existence of the self. You observe how the self is constantly changing and how it depends on other things to operate. You conclude from these observations that the self doesn’t exist separate from all other things.

ie Without science would philosophers have known that there is no Mind/body duality. Even the buddha would have used science in a very general sense (observation of nature).

Making observations, solving problems, analyzing, drawing conclusions, discriminating, categorizing, etc are activities common to all people – science uses all of them at different times to work on the many problems and questions they wish to find solutions and answers to. The Buddha also used them, but he directed his attention to one concern only – the understanding of Ultimate Reality.

Sue

Sue wrote:

J: This sounds similar to what I have been through. I'll tell you what I've found: doubt, samsara, faith, finiteness, problem-solving, stopping problem-solving, worldliness - they are all pefect expressions of Reality. It doesn't matter what you do or what you think, or what you gain or what you lose, Reality just is. You can step back into worldliness, Reality is. You try to follow QSR, Reality is. See? There is nothing to doubt, there is no need for faith when you realize that Reality simply is.

S: Not needing faith, and needing faith, are both “expressions of Reality” - yes?

Yes. Anything and everything is an expression of Reality.

S: But obviously having "no need for faith" is more important to you than having faith - how does this work in your Reality that just "is"?

Are you suggesting that there is a contradiction? "No need for faith" is more important to me simply because that is how Reality is, once again. But I'm not ultimately advocating either faith or doubt. To put it another way: Reality is what is in front of your face at every moment. So what is the need of faith or doubt? Whether you have faith or doubt, or no faith and no doubt, Reality will still be in front of your face at every moment. When you are looking at a tree, does it require any faith to see the tree?

J:You can continue doubting, you can continue searching, you can continue questioning: these are all still perfect expressions of Reality, Reality still is.

S:Are you advising Kelly to continue doubting, searching and questioning; even though you have concluded that there is nothing to doubt, search for, or question?

I'm trying to show Kelly that I see total certainty in everything, including doubting and searching, and that she might be able to see this too. I think that what I have found, may be what she is searching for, and so I am offering it to her.

S:How did you arrive at this idea? If not through doubting, searching, and questioning - was it through faith?

Imagine if someone had the following thoughts:

"I wish I could think. I wonder how I can attain thought. I know, I will search for thought. Searching for thought...searching for thought....seaching for thought. Hmmmm I still haven't found it. Searching for thought.... seaching for thought..."

Then suddenly EUREKA! They realize that they have been thinking all along and that even the search itself was thought. Is there any connection between the search for thought and the realization that the person actually is thinking, and has been all along? And is there any faith necessary for the realization?

J:What is existence composed of for you at this very moment? Thoughts, sensual perceptions, emotions, physical sensations etc etc: how can you doubt this? The very core of your existence, every direct sensation, perception, thought: how can you doubt these?

S: Again – how did you arrive at this conclusion – did you once doubt these things yourself?

How does one arrive at any conclusion really? The conclusion just appears. You could draw links with past events and contemplations, the fact is simply that the conclusion is.

J:Even when you have doubt: you cannot doubt that you are experiencing doubt. There is truly nothing to doubt.

S: So, even though you are still experiencing doubts, you have decided to just ignore them, and carry on regardless?

Sue

I don't know how you read that into what I wrote. No I don't ignore doubt. The exact opposite. I totally affirm doubt. Reality Is: every thing is affirmed.

How can the "Void" or "Nothingness" be dependent on anything, since it is everything? And why are parts (.hell, ignorance, wisdom.etc) of the Void "rendered irrelevant"?

Again..."The Void is NOT a Nothingness to be stepped out into, or back from.

Nothingness is casually created and dependent. The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence."

The Void cannot be called everything.

Thing, nothing and everything are temporal concepts, mutually dependent. All objects and concepts are conditioned and supported by their non-existent subject.
Therefore if there is no subject, there can be no object.

The Void is unsupported, unconditioned and boundless. It is that which IS and therefore it is NOT, and so therefore IS.

Such things as self, ego, feminine, masculine, karma, reincarnation, transmigration, heaven, hell, ignorance, wisdom, are simply mind- based concepts, dependent on the illusion of beings inherently existing in the seriality of time.

Knowing what you are not is a good stepping stone to knowing what you are. For instance, understanding that you have no beginning or end means that you know that you do not exist as a separate self - you are absolutely everything.

Objects do not support objects.
In the mundane sense, yes, you can conceptualize about a “you” being this so-called “everything”, the entire field of Metaphysics is based on this erroneous premise.
But ultimately there is no subject to be realized or found, the best that one can do is to know what one is NOT, because any conclusion that might be reached is still nothing more than a phenomenal object, conditioned and conceptualized, the objectification of a noumenal subject.
The eye cannot see itself.

By quoting Huang Po, are you saying that his words reinforce your statement, "All you will ever know is what you are not" - how so?

No, it’s the other way around. ;)

Three points:


1.

In Reality, there is no over-arching value system. All things are Reality, but Reality is not one homogeneous value.

Neither illogic or logic is better or worse. It's simple: Reality forming logical truths can create understanding of Reality, and Reality forming illogical truths (A=not-A) = (A=not-A) can create confusion. In one, truth and logic is valued, in the other, falsehood and illogic are valued.

By valuing truth and logic, the real world and emptiness is conceived of correctly. So it would be illogical to think that Ultimate Truth is known through not knowing it (A=not-A). Realising the futility of looking for Ultimate Proofs is not the abandoning of reason in favour of unreason. It's the abandoning of reason in the objective of using it unreasonably.



2.

Faith is no longer seeking proofs for God's existence. The choice to abandon worldliness' race to find the ultimate substance (e.g. feeling empowered, happy, loved), occurs as a logical extension to faith. God is not expected to crop up somewhere else.



3.

By valuing truths more than falsehoods, one can arrive at the truth that they are both the same in nature (both are products of cause and effect), but different (they don't have the same causes).



.

Nox,

Correct me if I'm wrong in my following attempt to make sense of your definition of Void.

You aren't equating Void with Nothingness, are you, because you say that "Nothingness is casually created and dependent" and "The Void is unsupported, unconditioned and boundless" ?

Everything that can possibly exist is what appears now, so what exists "always IS" and must be the same as "everything". Why do you say "The Void cannot be called everything" but also that the Void "is that which IS" ?

I don't think you are equating Void with everything, because you say that "The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence", and that "Thing, nothing and everything are temporal concepts, mutually dependent". Is that the case?

Why do you call the totality (everything) a temporal concept, and at the same time think that "All objects are conditioned and supported by their non-existent subject"? If the latter is true, it would be a temporal concept, and not reliable to describe everything.

Such things as self, ego, feminine, masculine, karma, reincarnation, transmigration, heaven, hell, ignorance, wisdom, are simply mind- based concepts, dependent on the illusion of beings inherently existing in the seriality of time.

Do you include all concepts in this, since they are all part of everything and therefore temporal and mutually conditioned? Would you also include the Void?

In the mundane sense, yes, you can conceptualize about a “you” being this so-called “everything”, the entire field of Metaphysics is based on this erroneous premise.
But ultimately there is no subject to be realized or found, the best that one can do is to know what one is NOT, because any conclusion that might be reached is still nothing more than a phenomenal object, conditioned and conceptualized, the objectification of a noumenal subject.
The eye cannot see itself.

Are you saying that understanding Reality is an illusion?

Jason wrote:

Yes. Anything and everything is an expression of Reality.

If you would explain how you came to this understanding of Reality, I would then be in a better position to comment on your idea. Knowing how you arrived at this idea will make it easier for me to judge whether or not it has anything to do with Truth. Without any description of the reasoning that led you to it, I could just as easily mistake it as the same drivel New Age gurus go on about, or the emotionally charged high that drug addicts and near-death experience folk preach, or worse still – I could mistake it as ‘woman speak’.

Are you suggesting that there is a contradiction? "No need for faith" is more important to me simply because that is how Reality is, once again. But I'm not ultimately advocating either faith or doubt. To put it another way: Reality is what is in front of your face at every moment. So what is the need of faith or doubt? Whether you have faith or doubt, or no faith and no doubt, Reality will still be in front of your face at every moment. When you are looking at a tree, does it require any faith to see the tree?

Again Jason, this type of approach is nothing new – women are especially attached to the idea that ‘everything is as it should be’, ‘reality just is’ - because it means they don’t have to do anything but connect into this idea – and connecting is what they know best.

All religions are based on this same idea -- there is something larger than ourselves that will ‘absorb’ us into it - making us safe and content.

At base, this idea you have may be just an emotional response – not a reasoned one. But then again, I may be wrong. I’ll have to wait and see your reply.

I'm trying to show Kelly that I see total certainty in everything, including doubting and searching, and that she might be able to see this too. I think that what I have found, may be what she is searching for, and so I am offering it to her.

Kelly tends to value thinking things out – so even though it may be good advice you’re giving her, I think you’ll have to put it into terms that help her understand your idea better.

Imagine if someone had the following thoughts:

"I wish I could think. I wonder how I can attain thought. I know, I will search for thought. Searching for thought...searching for thought....seaching for thought. Hmmmm I still haven't found it. Searching for thought.... seaching for thought..."

If a person was experiencing the above, I’d recommend they see a psychiatrist or neurologists, and have themselves checked out – as they obviously have a problem.

Then suddenly EUREKA! They realize that they have been thinking all along and that even the search itself was thought. Is there any connection between the search for thought and the realization that the person actually is thinking, and has been all along? And is there any faith necessary for the realization?

There is a huge difference between the average Joe’s idea of thinking and the philosopher’s reasoned approach.

The average Joe lives his life just being swept along – understanding neither his thoughts, nor actions. And because he never leaves the comfort and security of what he knows, he never has to rely on, or have faith in his mind, or his ideas.

The philosopher takes himself out of his comfort zones and into unknown territory – where he must rely upon, and have faith in his mind and the goal he has set for himself.

Even though both lives are expressions of Reality – the philosopher understands how that works, the other doesn’t.

How does one arrive at any conclusion really? The conclusion just appears. You could draw links with past events and contemplations, the fact is simply that the conclusion is.

Could you try and “draw links with past events and contemplations” to explain your idea?

No I don't ignore doubt. The exact opposite. I totally affirm doubt. Reality Is: every thing is affirmed.

So everything is true and exists!

That's a neat little package you've got there Jason - I look forward to seeing what's inside.

Sue

You aren't equating Void with Nothingness, are you, because you say that "Nothingness is casually created and dependent" and "The Void is unsupported, unconditioned and boundless" ?

Correct, the Void is NOT nothing.

Everything that can possibly exist is what appears now, so what exists "always IS" and must be the same as "everything". Why do you say "The Void cannot be called everything" but also that the Void "is that which IS" ?
I don't think you are equating Void with everything, because you say that "The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence", and that "Thing, nothing and everything are temporal concepts, mutually dependent". Is that the case?

Whether it is one thing, or all things, it is still an attempt to objectify the purely, non-objective.
That which IS, alone IS. It can not be dependent, conditioned or impermanent. Something is supported by its opposite of Nothing and vice versa. Nothing is as much a positive objectification as is Something. Nothing can be perceived as well as Something. A coffee cup is as dependent on its Nothingness as much as its Somethingness. The dualistic nature of a coffee cup is conditioned and therefore impermanent. Now to be empty of Something and of Nothing is the Void. The Void has no beginning, middle nor end, it has never arisen and since has never arisen, it can never perish. Emptiness is the essence of the Void, this Emptiness pervades ALL, it is that which IS.

Why do you call the totality (everything) a temporal concept, and at the same time think that "All objects are conditioned and supported by their non-existent subject"? If the latter is true, it would be a temporal concept, and not reliable to describe everything.

Do you include all concepts in this, since they are all part of everything and therefore temporal and mutually conditioned? Would you also include the Void?

Ultimately yes. To discuss these topics we must delve into the conceptual and dualistic nature of language and the mind.

You know that whole “finger pointing at the moon” deal ?
Or the more timely... “the Map is not the Territory” and to beat this dead horse... The “Menu is not the Meal”.

Are you saying that understanding Reality is an illusion?

What do you define as Reality?

N0X23 wrote:

Again..."The Void is NOT a Nothingness to be stepped out into, or back from.

Nothingness is casually created and dependent. The Void is the absence of presence and the absence of absence."

The Void cannot be called everything.

This is a colourful juggling trick you’ve got going there NOX23 – in one hand you’ve got a thing you describe as “Nothingness” relying on cause and effect, and in the other you’ve got something you want to call the “Void”, characterized as ‘not there, but there’. Then you have another ball up in the air which also likes to be called the “Void”, but this one doesn’t like to be called “everything”.

As jugglers go – I’d describe your act as fair to middling, but if this is suppose to be philosophy - I'd recommend you stick with juggling.

The aim of philosophy is to understand, with certainty, everything. Everything means everything - not just a bit, or a half, or a blob, or a dribble, or a smidgen – the whole shebang!

So, how about taking one of your ideas and see if you can logically explain everything with it – I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Thing, nothing and everything are temporal concepts, mutually dependent.

Are you suggesting that today I think I see (for example) a bus, but tomorrow I may think of it as a mouse?

All objects and concepts are conditioned and supported by their non-existent subject.

Since everything is understood through the mind, how are “objects” different from “concepts”?
The rest of your sentence is just gobbledygook.

Therefore if there is no subject, there can be no object.

I object that you continue to subject me to this twaddle.;)

We have a mind of which we cannot go outside of – therefore, what is this “subject” and “object” you are talking about?

The Void is unsupported, unconditioned and boundless. It is that which IS and therefore it is NOT, and so therefore IS.

You may be saying something – but I will never know unless you connect this with –- WHAT?

Such things as self, ego, feminine, masculine, karma, reincarnation, transmigration, heaven, hell, ignorance, wisdom, are simply mind- based concepts, dependent on the illusion of beings inherently existing in the seriality of time.

Give me an example of something that is not a mind-based concept.

And what in heaven’s name is “the illusion of beings inherently existing in the seriality of time”?

Objects do not support objects.
In the mundane sense, yes, you can conceptualize about a “you” being this so-called “everything”, the entire field of Metaphysics is based on this erroneous premise.

But ultimately there is no subject to be realized or found, the best that one can do is to know what one is NOT, because any conclusion that might be reached is still nothing more than a phenomenal object, conditioned and conceptualized, the objectification of a noumenal subject.
The eye cannot see itself.

The above is so full of sloppy ‘thoughts’ that I can’t begin to untangle them.

NOX23 – go away and work on your ideas as if your life depended upon them – then come back and give me a look.

Sue

Nice try, Sue. But I’m not going to do your thinking for you...Pathetic....

You're "not going to do my thinking" for me - more to the point, you're not going to do any thinking at all.

This forum is for thinkers, not for old grannies who want to have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Philosophy is dangerous and life-threatening - only the brave can approach it with a joyous heart.

* * *

NOX23 - you reckon you are onto something with your idea of the "Void" - then let's hear it!

Sue

You're "not going to do my thinking" for me - more to the point, you're not going to do any thinking at all.

No? Now why would you say that?

This forum is for thinkers, not for old grannies who want to have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

...uh huh, okay then.

Philosophy is dangerous and life-threatening - only the brave can approach it with a joyous heart.

Great! Thanks for the insight there, Sue. ;)

NOX23 - you reckon you are onto something with your idea of the "Void" - then let's hear it!

Well it’s obvious you’re not paying attention and so repeating myself two and three times is pointless.
And holding the beliefs that you do....

One of the main reasons why discussing Truth with a woman is futile is because she has at her disposal too many `outs'. As we know, woman is a parasite, gaining her goals and ideas from whatever happens to be nearby. This way, she doesn't need to have a mind of her own, and is free to flow from one thing to another, unhindered.

....I would be just be wasting our time.

NOX23 wrote:

Well it’s obvious you’re not paying attention and so repeating myself two and three times is pointless.

If you do not want to discuss the Nature of Existence - which I assumed you were trying to do with your “Void” posts – there are many other philosophic areas to dive into – such as the one you raise about ‘woman’.

And holding the beliefs that you do....

Quote:
One of the main reasons why discussing Truth with a woman is futile is because she has at her disposal too many `outs'. As we know, woman is a parasite, gaining her goals and ideas from whatever happens to be nearby. This way, she doesn't need to have a mind of her own, and is free to flow from one thing to another, unhindered.


....I would be just be wasting our time.

Yes, most people want to protect the feminine, because they wish to protect their own attachment to her.

My aim is to make clear her psychology, thereby making it easier for men to disentangle themselves from her.

Sue

Nox,

Would you agree that you've been saying "The Void is not the Void" ? More clearly, that any concept to describe the nature of all things cannot describe the nature of all things, since there is no such thing to be described?

That, since any concept is, by its very function, only useful by contrast to all the concepts that it isn't, no concept can really give any meaning to "the nature of all things". That a concept can only be used to subtract meaning?

In other words, that you have been pointing to meaning that has no inherent meaning whatsoever?

These words:

Void
not nothing
what IS
Reality
nature
Tao
God
Infinite
meaningless
nameless
non-objective
pure
alone
independent
unconditioned
permanent
unsupported
not-something
empty
nondual
timeless
fundamental
always
unborn
imperishable
never-arising
essence
solitary
Brahman
Buddha
Lord
all-pervading
all
thusness
oneness
one
ultimate
Ultimate Truth
Truth
Mind
Absolute
the unmappable territory
the unmenuable meal
never a topic for discussion or thinking
not understood using conceptual thought
undefinable
don't think!
true nature
true self
original face
nirvana


--- seem to fit this suggestion.

Some thoughts:

1. there is no one-way to cut-up
2. this meaningful statement is not in itself a cut-up, although it appears to be referring to a cut-up thing
3. since there are always appearances, that can be cut-up in any way, this means there are always cut-ups
4. absolute statements about how to cut-up, in order to piece every cut-up together, only create an imaginarily absolute cut-up, which is not actually anywhere to be found
5. no cut-up is ever really there, but appear because intellectual processes are habituated to cut-up
6. dwelling in the realm of cut-ups is intrinsic to consciousness, as it is impossible for nothing at all to appear
7. therefore, cutting up is the essentially illusory nature of consciousness
8. cutting up anything to show they are cut-ups reveals the illusion, such that one dwells in illusion without holding to any particular illusion as being intrinsic to consciousness
9. therefore, there are no intrinsic illusions or cut-ups, or rather, there is no intrinsic consciousness


Any thoughts on this?

.