GENIUS FORUMS

I'm in the middle of trying to connect pieces to the puzzle of "things don't exist".

So far it is my understanding that: Things exist in the sense that the mind cannot help but to cut up the world into practical chunks, such as the bed I'm sitting on, the chair I'm looking at, the mountain I'm imagining, the sound of my keyboard, etc. What I think I'm supposed to be able to do is to see the illusory nature of all these things, and that the self, or anything that seems to inherently exist, is actually false.

I know that if I zoomed up to one of the legs of the chair, I would not be able to draw a line between where the air molocules and wood molocules fused. But this seems like an empirical proof to me.

I know that a mountain seems to exist, but the still image I have is false because it is actually shrinking, growing, changing at an incredible slow rate. Same thing for the chair slowing going into decay or whatever. This seems to be more of a proof that things change, which I suppose means they doesn't exists, but something about it still seems not clear to me - can't put a finger on it.

I know that things aren't their own causes, and that they are dependent on everything else that makes up the totality to continue its existence. Yet, I'm still using the word "it". I know that I am not my own cause, which means I have no free will. And yet, is it really possible to go through life without perceiving free will?

Other observations: I can get myself into a mindset where I can observe my body as if it were not mine - see and feel it breathing, observe my eyes going around in their sockets, feeling the sensations in my body as they respond to more suble undercurrents of thought - but being completely disconnected from all of it, as though I have a calm voice that's fundamental, and the rest of the world changes elsewhere. Whenever I start to feel emotional about something, I can realize its fakeness by getting back into this perspective.

I also have a little more control over my focus. I have a hunch this whole thing is really just about focus. I have to constantly catch myself from letting my mind wander aimlessly, and bring it back to the task at hand. Very difficult.

Comments please.

"things don't exist"

This is false. Clearly, things do exist.

What's that buddhist thing, again? Something like: first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is indeed a mountain!

There is a big difference between "things don't exist" and "all things lack inherent existence."

The rest of what you wrote should be solved by a correct understanding of this difference.

Yes, you exist, I exist, and everything imaginable exists, but these things have no Absolute Existence. I exist only because there are other things that aren't me, truth only exists because there is untruth, the yin makes the yank and vice versa. The Totality is is the only entity which has Absolute Existence. Meditate on these things and take breaks when you need to. There are days when you might think you are making no progress, but as time goes by and these things sink in a little deeper you will begin to see how you have made progress. Sometimes I feel like my efforts are futile and that there is no more progress to be made for me, but I always come out of these bouts with a clearer understanding of reality. Remember you can't force yourself to make progress, all you can do is think deeply about the matters at hand, and with seemingly no effort of your own you will begin to move again. It's like the hand of God carrying you along. If you suffer for him, he will reward you.

These things appear to have no "absolute existence" seeing as they are always changing.

Neil Melnyk wrote:These things appear to have no "absolute existence" seeing as they are always changing.

I see things transform into other things rather than change. The form changes not the thing itself, hence all things are exactly what they are - as and when they are.

.

Selem Leyla.

I think maybe the issue I'm having is that the tools I use to remind myself that things don't inherently exist seem limiting and not all that convincing. I'm looking at the chair and know that its really just part of the causal continuum and think, "Ok, there's wind causing wood errosion, and that is in turn changing the wind current, and of course on the molecular level I can't see where the chair starts and ends, and it obviously doesn't have free will," etc., but that doesn't change the fact that I have a habit of seeing the chair as an object "out there".

Patience, skipair, I hear myself say.

It is likely you don't have a free will, cannot be proven though.

Ultimately we are projecting "chair" onto whatever is there. It is useful for us to do so. Whether we can draw some "absolute boundaries" between a lion and the grass or not doesn't change the fact that the lion can kill us.

Sounds like you are trying to do away with the English language, and replace it with images. Our image of things is outwardly magnified, so the things that we see are not really what they are. However, it is important to keep the human perspective of objects, else you will get yourself into a situation where you can no longer communicate with other humans. Just accept the things the way that you see them. It is easier on the brain.

Even after getting rid of excess emotional delusions, everthing we experience/perceive/conceive in our consciousness is still an empty brain construction, right? And, the culmination of all of these empty brain constructions is the Totality, right? And even if we try to experience/perceive/conceive of the Totality, which is impossible, even that will be an empty construction. So where does the ultimate understanding come into play?

skipair wrote:Even after getting rid of excess emotional delusions, everthing we experience/perceive/conceive in our consciousness is still an empty brain construction, right?

Presumably a brain construction, in the sense that our senses gather information and draw what we "see". Is this a bad thing? Does this negate life?

skipair wrote:And, the culmination of all of these empty brain constructions is the Totality, right? And even if we try to experience/perceive/conceive of the Totality, which is impossible, even that will be an empty construction. So where does the ultimate understanding come into play?

Ultimate understand comes into play when you do some fancy tricks to wrap chains around the "Totality" and gain some concrete ground to stand on. These are called "absolute truths" and are logic deductions reached using the english dictionary.

S: Even after getting rid of excess emotional delusions, everthing we experience/perceive/conceive in our consciousness is still an empty brain construction, right?

N: Presumably a brain construction, in the sense that our senses gather information and draw what we "see". Is this a bad thing? Does this negate life?

No, its not a bad thing, in the same sense that whether I see blue or green is not a good or bad thing. I just want to make sure what I'm seeing isn't obscured by having unnecessary blinders on. As far as life I just see this as a brain workout that is currently part of my life, so no, no negation.

I'm trying to see what I can figure out using only logic. If the old-school "geniuses" that people talk about on this board figured something out without all the current empirical advancments as examples, I want to know what.

S: And, the culmination of all of these empty brain constructions is the Totality, right? And even if we try to experience/perceive/conceive of the Totality, which is impossible, even that will be an empty construction. So where does the ultimate understanding come into play?

N: Ultimate understand comes into play when you do some fancy tricks to wrap chains around the "Totality" and gain some concrete ground to stand on. These are called "absolute truths" and are logic deductions reached using the english dictionary.

Maybe, but isn't it absolutely true you are reading this sentence right now? I don't know how to take such truths as those far enough to "logically prove" a lack of inherent existence, or the inherent existence of the "Totality", but I'm giving it a chance for the time being.

skipair wrote:I'm trying to see what I can figure out using only logic. If the old-school "geniuses" that people talk about on this board figured something out without all the current empirical advancments as examples, I want to know what.

You can't do anything with only logic. Only after there are empirically based concepts around can you invent logic to manipulate them. David admits this, yet fails to see the consequences.

Maybe, but isn't it absolutely true you are reading this sentence right now? I don't know how to take such truths as those far enough to "logically prove" a lack of inherent existence, or the inherent existence of the "Totality", but I'm giving it a chance for the time being.

I'm not sure about this. Is it absolutely true that there is a tree on my front lawn? Perhaps it is. This is way different than "absolute truths" that are abstract principles, though.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Whether we can draw some "absolute boundaries" between a lion and the grass or not doesn't change the fact that the lion can kill us.

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to put the "appearance" of my spear through the "appearance" of that lion's neck if it attacks, no doubt. But, for now I'm curious about my overall perpective of the world, not just one one example.

Neil Melnyk wrote:It is likely you don't have a free will, cannot be proven though.

Ultimately we are projecting "chair" onto whatever is there. It is useful for us to do so. Whether we can draw some "absolute boundaries" between a lion and the grass or not doesn't change the fact that the lion can kill us.

Once again, each of your statements here arise out of your own belief in what is objectively true. There are several iron-clad "absolute truths" underpinning your words here.

If you can't adhere to your own claim that you are operating within an entirely subjective viewpoint, then how can you expect anyone else to take you seriously?

In any case, it is easy enough to prove that free will cannot exist, other than as an illusion. One can do it by noting that the very term "free will" is a contradiction in terms and has no coherent meaning. It can no more exist than a triangle without sides can.

-

Neil Melnyk wrote:

skipair wrote:I'm trying to see what I can figure out using only logic. If the old-school "geniuses" that people talk about on this board figured something out without all the current empirical advancments as examples, I want to know what.

You can't do anything with only logic. Only after there are empirically based concepts around can you invent logic to manipulate them. David admits this, yet fails to see the consequences.

I'll think about this and come back to it.

S: Maybe, but isn't it absolutely true you are reading this sentence right now? I don't know how to take such truths as those far enough to "logically prove" a lack of inherent existence, or the inherent existence of the "Totality", but I'm giving it a chance for the time being.

N: I'm not sure about this. Is it absolutely true that there is a tree on my front lawn? Perhaps it is. This is way different than "absolute truths" that are abstract principles, though.

Yeah, thats why I want to start from the beginning with things I'm sure of so that I don't make any jumps into fantasy land.

So far, I know it is absolutely true I also see a tree on my lawn. Or is it? I see something for sure, but I know calling it "tree" is a semi-arbitrary categorie, and therefore not absolute. I think the same is true for any "thing" we experience, whether it be a buzz from drinking gin and tonics (with lots of ice and two limes), or a sound, or a whatever, everything is new and unique like a silly little snowflake because of the constant change.

But what are the governing principles? Cause and effect...ok...but somehow using cause and effect as a tool to disrobe the inherency of all things seems to be only an academic exercise. It doesn't seem to get to the heart of matters. I still see objects that see objectively true, even though I "know" its just a continuum.

skipair wrote:Even after getting rid of excess emotional delusions, everthing we experience/perceive/conceive in our consciousness is still an empty brain construction, right? And, the culmination of all of these empty brain constructions is the Totality, right? And even if we try to experience/perceive/conceive of the Totality, which is impossible, even that will be an empty construction. So where does the ultimate understanding come into play?

It comes into play when one ceases to look for Reality within any construction, in the realization that Reality can never be constrained or frozen into a particular form.

Or to express the same point differently, it arises when one begins to see all things as direct manifestations of Reality. So while all things are indeed empty constructions, every aspect of each and every thing is a perfect expression of the fullness of Reality.

It is like that famous Zen analogy: When a person first starts out he believes, like everyone else, that trees are trees and mountains are mountains (i.e. he is still being taken in by crude materialism). After a little way, he sees that trees are not really trees and mountains are not really mountains ( i.e. he sees that all things are empty constructions) and then, when he finally enters into enlightenment, he sees that trees are indeed trees and mountains are indeed mountains (i.e. he sees things just as they are - perfect manifestations of Reality, completely lacking inherent existence and yet entirely real.)

To the uncultured, the spiritual person has simply come full-circle. But in reality, he has spiraled off into an infinitely different plane.

-

Skipair,

Skip: I'm trying to see what I can figure out using only logic. If the old-school "geniuses" that people talk about on this board figured something out without all the current empirical advancments as examples, I want to know what.

Neil: You can't do anything with only logic. Only after there are empirically based concepts around can you invent logic to manipulate them. David admits this, yet fails to see the consequences.

Skip: I'll think about this and come back to it.

Whatever you do, don't use any pure logic in your thinking. :)

It is worthwhile examining how Neil has come to the firm conclusion that empirical-based concepts are the only kind of concepts available to us. Was it through empirical testing? Or through pure logic? Or is it just wishful thinking?

In reality, we have no idea where our concepts originally came from. They appear to come from the empirical world, but that could easily be an illusion. It could be that they are simply programmed into us as part of our computer-simulated existence.

Skip: Maybe, but isn't it absolutely true you are reading this sentence right now? I don't know how to take such truths as those far enough to "logically prove" a lack of inherent existence, or the inherent existence of the "Totality", but I'm giving it a chance for the time being.

Neil: I'm not sure about this. Is it absolutely true that there is a tree on my front lawn? Perhaps it is. This is way different than "absolute truths" that are abstract principles, though.

Skip: Yeah, thats why I want to start from the beginning with things I'm sure of so that I don't make any jumps into fantasy land.

So far, I know it is absolutely true I also see a tree on my lawn. Or is it? I see something for sure, but I know calling it "tree" is a semi-arbitrary categorie, and therefore not absolute.

If a tree appears to exist to you in a particular moment, then the reality of that appearance in that moment is absolute.

Neil: I'm not sure about this. Is it absolutely true that there is a tree on my front lawn? Perhaps it is. This is way different than "absolute truths" that are abstract principles, though.

The realization that "what is experienced in any given moment is in fact what is experienced in that moment" is formulated in the abstract mind and hence has the form of a timeless abstract truth. It has the same status as an abstract principle.

Skip: But what are the governing principles? Cause and effect...ok...but somehow using cause and effect as a tool to disrobe the inherency of all things seems to be only an academic exercise. It doesn't seem to get to the heart of matters.

It is only an academic exercise if you make it so. Ideally, you should be using causality to constantly undermine the illusion of inherent existence in everything that you experience, including the experience of your own self, at every moment of the day.

You have to be persistent, though. It is like water dripping on a rock. At first nothing seems to happen. But then suddenly the rock crumbles and dissolves away.

I still see objects that see objectively true, even though I "know" its just a continuum.

That perception of objectivity is one of the things that is swept away with the dissolving of the rock.

-

skipair wrote:Even after getting rid of excess emotional delusions, everthing we experience/perceive/conceive in our consciousness is still an empty brain construction, right? And, the culmination of all of these empty brain constructions is the Totality, right? And even if we try to experience/perceive/conceive of the Totality, which is impossible, even that will be an empty construction. So where does the ultimate understanding come into play?

Don't you think understanding emptiness as an ultimate one?

Things are just things. What else would they be?

To understand this, it might help to make a list of all the the things you think that "things" really are. It could potentially be a pretty long list of thoughts, ideas, and concepts, such as "things are dependently-constructed mental categories representing conventionally-drawn arbitrary distinctions within a transcendentally undivided whole," or whatever else. For the record, that example I used is about the best conceptual thinking can do. But try it yourself, and have a look at the whole list. Maybe "things are entities which exist" or something like it will be on there.

Now, toss the whole list. Things are not any of that. Still thinking about what things might really be? Make another list of thoughts and concepts.

None of that, either.

Done yet?

The point of all this is that reality, "things" included, is trans-conceptual. It simply is what it is. Or, as the Diamond Sutra put it, "Truly I tell you, Subhuti, there is no named thing which is not merely a name."

In this light, properly realized, the concepts of "existence" and "non-existence" simply do not arise.

skipair wrote:I'm in the middle of trying to connect pieces to the puzzle of "things don't exist".
So far it is my understanding that: Things exist in the sense that the mind cannot help but to cut up the world into practical chunks, such as the bed I'm sitting on, the chair I'm looking at, the mountain I'm imagining, the sound of my keyboard, etc. What I think I'm supposed to be able to do is to see the illusory nature of all these things, and that the self, or anything that seems to inherently exist, is actually false.
I know that if I zoomed up to one of the legs of the chair, I would not be able to draw a line between where the air molocules and wood molocules fused. But this seems like an empirical proof to me.
I know that a mountain seems to exist, but the still image I have is false because it is actually shrinking, growing, changing at an incredible slow rate. Same thing for the chair slowing going into decay or whatever. This seems to be more of a proof that things change, which I suppose means they doesn't exists, but something about it still seems not clear to me - can't put a finger on it.
I know that things aren't their own causes, and that they are dependent on everything else that makes up the totality to continue its existence. Yet, I'm still using the word "it". I know that I am not my own cause, which means I have no free will. And yet, is it really possible to go through life without perceiving free will?
Other observations: I can get myself into a mindset where I can observe my body as if it were not mine - see and feel it breathing, observe my eyes going around in their sockets, feeling the sensations in my body as they respond to more suble undercurrents of thought - but being completely disconnected from all of it, as though I have a calm voice that's fundamental, and the rest of the world changes elsewhere. Whenever I start to feel emotional about something, I can realize its fakeness by getting back into this perspective.
I also have a little more control over my focus. I have a hunch this whole thing is really just about focus. I have to constantly catch myself from letting my mind wander aimlessly, and bring it back to the task at hand. Very difficult.
Comments please.

A most heartfelt writing. I admire your honesty and courage.

- Quote ... "the mind cannot help but to cut up the world into practical chunks, such as the bed I'm sitting on, the chair I'm looking at......" (end quote)

The mind can be likened to a sword that cleaves the otherwise 'uncarved block' into the '10,000 things'. This (opinion) is a mental process (cleaving) that is best 'reversed'.

For instance, Carlos Casteneda's 'Don Juan' describes the world and its contents as 'a magical place' that is incomprehensible (so why bother to try to understand it?) or, in Eastern traditions wherein the goal is to return to the context of "The Uncarved Block" which is the creation (universe) experienced as a 'unity' (God, the Tao, the Cosmos, etc.). The next step, after experiencing the 'unity', is to merge with it. This 'merging' puts and end to the dichomoty of subject/object.

- Quote ... "What I think I'm supposed to be able to do is to see the illusory nature of all these things, and that the self, or anything that seems to inherently exist, is actually false." (end quote)

The 'things of the world' are very real but only temporarily real. Once you discover that you can alter 'things' with the power of your thoughts they (the 'things') then have less of a grip on you.
Your 'self' can be divided (opinion) into two primary parts:
1) the temporary self that is a temporal fiction and
2) the true 'self' that exists in eternity
Note: they both share an identity. The temporal self is the 'true self' accessorized and temporarily dumbed down and severely limited.

The sages have us relate to the 'things of the world' as illusory because they believe that we are best postured by placing our emphasis upon our spiritual natures. Our refined and purified (pure = egoless) nature can and does influence the material reality. So rather than continually being 'at the effect of' matter the Sages have us focus upon the creative source of it all.

- (Quote) "I know that I am not my own cause, which means I have no free will." (End Quote)
I do not believe that your statement is true. The reason why I believe that is a combination of 'natural law' (karma, etc.) combined with creative power expressed as 'free will'.
Spiritual practices, rightly guided, are designed to erase the 'victim' (if that is the case) and to restore the active/dynamic creative soul/spirit. It is necessary to get deep within ourselves to be able to observe the layers of thought/emotional patterning that combine to create our temporary self and its circumstances. Once we notice the patterns we can change them. As such, meditation is an excellent tool for self observation and assists greatly in getting free of the 'clown car' that we are likely to find inside of us.

- (Quote) "Whenever I start to feel emotional about something, I can realize its fakeness by getting back into this perspective." (End Quote).

That may or may not be the best approach because the emotional body is often in as much need of alignment and purification as the mental body. We need (opinion) to 'feel out' our stored traumas rather than to rationalize them or to repress them. Otherwise they simply keep coming up over and over and over again.... The universe cannot tell the difference between good and evil.... it simply continues to duplicate the contents of our psyche. All true change begins from within.

(Quote) "I have a hunch this whole thing is really just about focus." (End Quote).
I agree 100%! (See, Tarot, The Magician #1) Energy flows where attention goes.

The sages say that the untrained mind is like a 'monkey with its pants on fire'. It is an unruly monster that many esoteric traditions refer to as "The Price of Thieves"... because it steals (erodes) the quality of life. So any energy directed at silencing the mind usually pays huge dividends. Often times our diet is a crucial key in assisting in this process plus finding a quiet and peaceful place to live or, at least, to visit.

The chattering mind can be made our personal 'ally' by recognizing that it 'speaks' to us (usually) about what we are attached to..... money.... position..... relationships..... food.... etc., etc. So by 'letting go' of these attachments the inner dialogue gradually falls into silence.... with a massive increase of peace leading to bliss.

The BIG QUESTION is ..... If you can observe your emotions and you can observe your mind chatter..... then WHO is this observer? This 'observer' who is neither the mind/thoughts nor the emotions is the eternal consciousness. It is YOU without baggage... your true and eternal self. ... the genie in the bottle!

So, it would seem that the next step is to cease identifying with the ego/body and to start identifying with the eternal consciousness (consciousness has this power to 'become' what it focuses upon). Not to completely abandon your physicality but to elevate your concern for what is eternal. As you do this the physical elements seem to take care of themselves. Very liberating! Very.

Aleyküm selam, Sapius. The day finds you well, in?allah, karde?im.

Leyla Shen wrote:Aleyküm selam, Sapius. The day finds you well, in?allah, karde?im.

Thanks, and errr... all the same to you.

As it is I made a mistake by typing 'selem' earlier :(

JohnChasWebb,

Good post, but, how dare you bring up spiritual work on a philosophy board. What you speak of goes clearly beyond the intellectual realm of endeavor.

At best, I see John's post as material for rank beginners. At worse, as yet another recycling of populist material that has already been cliched to death.

-

Skip,

I'm in the middle of trying to connect pieces to the puzzle of "things don't exist".
So far it is my understanding that: Things exist in the sense that the mind cannot help but to cut up the world into practical chunks, such as the bed I'm sitting on, the chair I'm looking at, the mountain I'm imagining, the sound of my keyboard, etc. What I think I'm supposed to be able to do is to see the illusory nature of all these things, and that the self, or anything that seems to inherently exist, is actually false.

The trick is to openly experience the world in all its solidity and fullness, while at the same time never been taken in by the thought that things are somehow more than momentary appearances.

I know that if I zoomed up to one of the legs of the chair, I would not be able to draw a line between where the air molocules and wood molocules fused. But this seems like an empirical proof to me.

Such "proofs" can stimulate the mind to think more logically. For example, it might stimulate the mind into investigating exactly what a boundary is, what it is composed of, where its own boundaries are, and so on.

I know that a mountain seems to exist, but the still image I have is false because it is actually shrinking, growing, changing at an incredible slow rate. Same thing for the chair slowing going into decay or whatever. This seems to be more of a proof that things change, which I suppose means they doesn't exists, but something about it still seems not clear to me - can't put a finger on it.

It's subtle, yes.

I know that things aren't their own causes, and that they are dependent on everything else that makes up the totality to continue its existence. Yet, I'm still using the word "it". I know that I am not my own cause, which means I have no free will. And yet, is it really possible to go through life without perceiving free will?

There is no question in my mind that it is possible. In my case, the awareness of my making choices and decisions is fused with the awareness that each of these choices and decisions are fully caused by Nature. The two awarenesses are really just one awareness.

It is a matter of no longer getting caught up in the misguided thought that there is an "I" which generates behaviour.

Other observations: I can get myself into a mindset where I can observe my body as if it were not mine - see and feel it breathing, observe my eyes going around in their sockets, feeling the sensations in my body as they respond to more suble undercurrents of thought - but being completely disconnected from all of it, as though I have a calm voice that's fundamental, and the rest of the world changes elsewhere. Whenever I start to feel emotional about something, I can realize its fakeness by getting back into this perspective.
I also have a little more control over my focus. I have a hunch this whole thing is really just about focus. I have to constantly catch myself from letting my mind wander aimlessly, and bring it back to the task at hand. Very difficult.

That practice of disconnecting yourself from your body is certainly useful in generating a different perspective on things. I also like to counter-balance it with the practice of connecting yourself with everything that exists, of seeing the world as yourself. Both practices hammer away at the boundary between self and other.

But really, the thing that we imagine is being disconnected from the body, or embracing the world as a whole, is an illusion as well, and not really "ours" to begin with. It is something lent to us by Nature. Everything that we imagine to be our self is really just a creation of Nature's in the moment. It is a gift of Nature, one that can be taken away again at a moment's notice!

Nature, the great Indian Giver.

-