GENIUS FORUMS

as a new user i cannot post my response untill tomororow but please do look forward to it

Look forward to looking like a classic noob. Since I already know you think the universe has inherit existence independent of sense experience, I'll start early:

Buddha
"The error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also rises from the mind itself;"

Buddha
"The error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also rises from the mind itself;"

Therefore nothing exists.

Define nothing and exists or don't say it.

Because your puppies barking seem to exist.

"this" exists < That, seeing it? It's there, explain that to me

Box 2 says nothing exists from its own side.

if something exists that lacks inherent existence,

then it only appears to exist.

Is an appearance truly existing,
I think not.
therefore nothing exists, ultimately.

form is empty,
empty is form,
empty is empty.

you and the cuddle machine appear to each other,
there's an unspoken consensual agreement to admire each other,
if you look for and point out blemishes you see in her it will break down.
a lot of sweet talk has to happen.

neighbours have an unspoken consensual agreement that they don't annoy each other.
its like an uneasy truce.

hell or heaven is other people.

It seems to be your talking about the existence of objects or specific things:

"then it only appears to exist.

Is an appearance truly existing,
I think not."

You've just agreed that things appearing to exist exists.

The things themselves don't exist, but the seeing of things exists, that is undeniable, just word it better next time don't say things like "nothing exists" when things do exist.

Hell or heaven is the decision to look at things as if they are hell or heaven, it's up to you, you could be in heaven in solitude.

You also avoided my question, what is your philosophy/opinion? You can't be giving advice or pointing out flaws without having some alternative or more correct way of thinking, and "nothing exists" isn't an answer, and it's not specific enough, only using those two words it is wrong, the seeing of things that don't exist exists.

wherever, whenever, whatever, whoever,
not one thing exists from its own side.
there has never been found anything to have that stamp upon it.
investigation after investigation thru' millenia has never found even one hair or the tiniest puff of wind that came into being under its own steam.
Not one thing. Nothing.

The Inquiry continues.

No luck so far.

Damn it!



The only feature discovered that can be calibrated as permanent is this:

wherever there is form there is causes/conditions.
the play of causality.



Illusion means precisely this:

the illusion of selfhood.

If you want to categorise an appearance as existing, fine by me.
but to stand on appearances is indeed a slippery slope,
here today,gone tomorrow.

pfft!

Yes, fading experiences that have no inherit existence like the shallow inkling of a dream that was just lost. The dream was still there.

All "I have my own side" are illusory dream-like experiences of senses or thought saying "I have my own side", nothing more, nothing comes of its own because all things come from one unknown, how is it I know they come from one? All our experiences flow as one, I type it you see it, the same essence makes up me that makes up you. That's oneness, we are all experiencing manifestations of the same source,
1.that is the source of all our experiences of the universe.
2. Experiences of the universe make up "the universe"
3. The general definition of God is: "That which created me and the universe"
4. The source is divine

How can a whole illusory universe exist emanating from one single source/essence, and that one not be divine, I wonder?


And Dennis, causality is an illusion the same as the rest, things spring into existence from seemingly nothingness, where is the causation in that?

There is nothing but what is seen of the mind, all things seen of the mind as you say are only "appearances", wouldn't you agree this idea of causation, that things must always have causes, is only another of these "appearances"/illusory concepts which has no reality in itself?

How can a whole illusory universe exist emanating from one single source/essence, and that one not be divine, I wonder?

You and your religious streak.
Dang.

one day nihilism, next day religion.
snap out of it.

I've always had the same beliefs, life's a dream, there is an eternal dreamer, you are like the minds eye

There's no evidence for God.
There's a reasonable hypothesis.

In the circumstances,
there are bibles, korans, white collars, plastic jesus statues, rosary beads, prayer mats, praying, lofty buildings.

All that is circumstantial evidence which doesn't decide the case.

Who needs evidence to know anything?

Dennis, next time you reply, go into a wakeful state, observe yourself replying, and you will see, as you already know and have seen before, that the words you type aren't your own, that it's not even "you" typing, that the thoughts flow from seemingly nowhere, not from cognitive processes of a brain, and not even from things you have reasoned in the past, they just flow based on circumstance, they flow from the source, experiences are only things you are witnessing, they do not belong to you.

So you tell me, how is it possible that all this thinking is happening, without a thinker?

How is it possible, that all this seeing is happening, without an observer?

You can say you are the observer... but then answer: Who or what are you?

"You" are just another thing that flowed from empty source of all imagination/experience.

Thoughts come from Dennis, Dennis comes from unknown, it ain't Dennis thinking, it's the unknown thinking.

Self-evident

what is self evident is.
I exist and existence exists.
its self evident to me.

what do you think self evident means?

distinguish self evident and circumstantial evidence please.

I agree "I exist" is self evident...

Now tell me what "I" is dennis? Cause it isn't "you", and if "I" isn't Dennis, then Dennis's thoughts and actions must be attributed to something else...

When you accept your oneness with God, then "I exist" and "God exists" are the same self-evident statements

The mind exists, imagination exists, from it all things come

under analysis,
in terms of direct experience,
God is found to be neither self evident nor obvious.

(insert your standard reply here: reasoning is useless)


for you the Inquiry is finished.
the question is closed.
set up a church.
tuesdays you can do nihilism.

In terms of direct experience... did you expect to see a floating white light in front of you?

Are you refuting "I think therefore I am" ?

The question remains, Who am "I" ? No name, but I do know one thing, who "I" am, is the same that "you" are.

A spiritual being, a manifestation of the one, logged on to GF and started arguing with himself about whether or not the one was evident

*Why start a church when I'm already preaching to all of the right people?

Can't label me as a nihilist, I couldn't even label the venerables as Buddhists

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Buddha
"The error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also rises from the mind itself;"

Therefore nothing exists.

I am only jumping back in to encourage the noob that this was posted for.

Does anyone know what would happen if you took a new born baby and placed it into a sensory deprivation chamber (for the length of it's existence)?

Set up noob - go ahead and spike it.

It would continue to dream

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Look forward to looking like a classic noob. Since I already know you think the universe has inherit existence independent of sense experience, I'll start early:

Buddha
"The error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also rises from the mind itself;"

I don't get it, Seeker. Why don't you read the quote as the equal: "they do not understand that the whole sense experience notion also rises from the mind itself". Aren't you destroying your own argument with the very thing you assert?

Yes the sense experience notion arises from the mind itself, and the mind-system arises from the mind itself, but the mind itself doesn't arise from the mind itself, only the specific descriptions/perceptions/guesses about the nameless, which exists, and is not "nothing".

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Yes the sense experience notion arises from the mind itself, and the mind-system arises from the mind itself, but the mind itself doesn't arise from the mind itself, only the specific descriptions/perceptions/guesses about the nameless, which exists, and is not "nothing".

Then you have some form of nothing arising out of everything? What is the mind apart from descriptions/perceptions/guesses about the nameless? Of course you're free to play around with equalling god, mind, totality and tao but it really ends up as the question how to be most clear about this in your own understandings. The problem I see with a word like mind or sense is that is has so many other possible contexts where it can function in other ways than you seem to be using it.

That's because language sucks, not only do we each have different concepts linked to the word "mind", or "god", "tao" or even "nothing", but the very things we are trying to talk about can't be described. Trying to communicate personal meanings/concepts without misinterpretation is almost impossible, meanings which in themselves exist only as illusion.

Philosophy is surely both the most complicated and simple of topics.