GENIUS FORUMS

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

If he is aware of such knowledge, then it is clear he doesn't accept it. He refuses to believe in it personally and emotionally. The understanding is compartmentalized.

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

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

-[/quote]
Although the above would be true in any which case (as in personal and emotional level), but it seems it would be rendered meaningless if this…

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

…is true. For then it would be equally true that absolutely nothing arises or falls away, including ‘appearances’ conveniently labeled as such, which is absurd.

Or say this…

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

Which is equally true in any which case, hence rendering the honest or the dishonest way equally meaningless when talking about them being ‘caused’. None could be above personal or emotional level as they may claim or conveniently blame it on causality to sound or imagine like the genuine voice of God, or Totality.

David: It would be like a person understanding the illusory nature of a ring of light, and yet refusing to accept it on a personal and emotional level.

True, and so is absolutely any acceptance always on a personal and emotional level. None could be above personal or emotional level, as some seem to allude to or conveniently call it ‘caused’ when it suits their personal purpose; be it in that of promoting wisdom.

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

Sure, and that too is an acceptance on a personal level; a level which is however caused, with its own level of causal conditions that cause localized personal reasoning and acceptance, which would then make sense of personal values, and comparative values. Unless the 'self' is inbetween, wisdom too has no meaning at all.

Ultimately, one can’t have it both ways. If none have freedom of thought on a personal level, then the honest or the dishonest ways are equally meaningless, for comparing them on a personal level is then rendered meaningless, for either are then equally caused.

Sapius wrote:

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

Which is equally true in any which case, hence rendering the honest or the dishonest way equally meaningless when talking about them being ‘caused’.

They are not equal in meaning, or in meaninglessness, if you are caused to value one more than the other. For in that case one would have more meaning than the other.

Kevin, you're really starting to sound like a robot. Do you see yourself as some kind of program or algorithm? If so, do you think it beneficial? Would others be better off understanding themselves as robots? Does it make life more worth living?

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:So does nothing exist?

Things exist, but they don't inherently exist.

The things that unenlightened experience don't exist.

Ok, so what is inherent, in your mind?

Sapius wrote:Which is equally true in any which case, hence rendering the honest or the dishonest way equally meaningless when talking about them being ‘caused’.

They are not equal in meaning, or in meaninglessness, if you are caused to value one more than the other. For in that case one would have more meaning than the other.

Is there any such thing, then, as objectivity?

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

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

When you see such a ring of light, do you try to force yourself not to see it, as it's "not really there"? It is only a flame going round in a circle, but what do you see in that present now? You can remove yourself from the experience and say, "It's just a twirling flame, it's just a twirling flame..." But what does that do for you? You have just cut off access to all that you can know for sure for the sake of "logic," only an idea, as you see it. Before thinking, you see the ring of light. Then, after the initial perception, you deny its existence. This process fails to realize that the formation of "logic" as you know it resulted from your perception itself and the fearful denial of elements of your perception.

At one point in your life, you couldn't handle the more threatening or overwhelming elements, and this began a process of shutting out and banning from awareness things that really couldn't hurt you unless you chose. You're grown up and older now, but there are still threats. Only now, your self-identity is tied to an "objective reality" that has been built up over many, many years, and it is so fragile or so defensive that it denies what is actually seen. This is a problem everyone has, but you do it so well and you get behind the process so forcefully, you believe you are above and beyond their meager attempts at denial. This may be the case, but rather than a gift, at the present time it is a curse on your path of growth. You've been at it for so long, it makes me wonder what kind of immensely engrossing experiences await you down the road, so to speak, if you ever get moving.

divine focus wrote:Kevin, you're really starting to sound like a robot.

If a "robot" is something that is caused in absolutely every respect, and never does anything that it is not caused to do, then I am a robot.

If so, do you think it beneficial?

Yes, it is beneficial to be realistic.

Would others be better off understanding themselves as robots? Does it make life more worth living?

Yes, one is much better off being realistic, and it makes life more worth living.

Kevin Solway wrote:Things exist, but they don't inherently exist.

The things that the unenlightened experience don't exist.

Ok, so what is inherent, in your mind?

Do you mean "What is the meaning of 'inherent'?", or do you mean "What exists inherently?"

Nothing inherently exists. If a thing had inherent existence it would exist from its own side, and the causes of its existence would arise from its own self. The unenlightened believe in inherent existence — which is made evident by their behaviour, as previously discussed.

Is there any such thing, then, as objectivity?

The objective person is the person who is not blinded by delusion. They are capable of objectivity.

It is only a flame going round in a circle, but what do you see in that present now?

You see the appearance of a circle of light, but you are fully aware of its causal nature, and that in a further moment it may appear as something entirely different. As a result you don't invest anything you don't need to in the fact that it is a circle of light.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:

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

Which is equally true in any which case, hence rendering the honest or the dishonest way equally meaningless when talking about them being ‘caused’.

They are not equal in meaning, or in meaninglessness, if you are caused to value one more than the other. For in that case one would have more meaning than the other.

Sure, one would have more meaning, on a personal and emotional level only.

divine focus wrote:When you see such a ring of light, do you try to force yourself not to see it, as it's "not really there"? It is only a flame going round in a circle, but what do you see in that present now? You can remove yourself from the experience and say, "It's just a twirling flame, it's just a twirling flame..." But what does that do for you? You have just cut off access to all that you can know for sure for the sake of "logic," only an idea, as you see it. Before thinking, you see the ring of light. Then, after the initial perception, you deny its existence. This process fails to realize that the formation of "logic" as you know it resulted from your perception itself and the fearful denial of elements of your perception.

I don't deny the appearance of its existence, only the false elements that are subconsciously projected onto it by ignorant people. To me, it is just a ring of light - nothing more, nothing less. It isn't an inherently existing ring of light, or an objectively real ring of light, or an ego-comforting ring of light, or a spiritual ring of light, or even an illusory ring of light ......

The same applies to the self. When I perceive the self, I simply perceive the self. I don't see it as an object that needs to be protected or enhanced, or to become fearful over, or even to be denied.

At one point in your life, you couldn't handle the more threatening or overwhelming elements, and this began a process of shutting out and banning from awareness things that really couldn't hurt you unless you chose. You're grown up and older now, but there are still threats. Only now, your self-identity is tied to an "objective reality" that has been built up over many, many years, and it is so fragile or so defensive that it denies what is actually seen.

You're mistaken. I don't do this.

The situation is actually reversed. Ignorant people constantly project layers of fantasy onto their experiences as a way of shielding their egos and making their lives feel more special and meaningful. As a result, they don't really see what is in front of them.

-

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

If he is aware of such knowledge, then it is clear he doesn't accept it. He refuses to believe in it personally and emotionally. The understanding is compartmentalized.

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

The arguments you make here are flawed in several ways:

1. You assume that the ring of light will only exist for as long as the flame continues to be twirled. This is fine in the case of the ring. But in the case of the self the necessary conditions for its continued existence are uncertain and debateable. Some people assert that a living body is a necessary condition for the existence of the self, others argue that the body is not a necessity and that a soul(or other conditions) may sustain the self even if the body dies.

2. People who argue that a soul or heaven can sustain the existence of the self after death are not denying that the self is dependent upon causes or circumstances for its existence. They are in fact affirming the idea, that's the very reason why they posit heaven and a soul as necessary conditions for the continuation of the self.

3. There is no certainty that the self is necessarily impermanent in any case. Even if the self, like the flame, relies upon specific circumstances for its existence, in principle it is possible that those circumstances could continue indefinitely, thus sustaining the self indefinitely too.

4. Even if a person makes the assumption that the self is impermanent, they can still desire for, and do everything in their power to keep it existing for as long as possible without contradicting or "compartmentalizing" the belief that it will cease existing at some point in the future.

5. Lastly, and importantly, being impermanent is not the same as being "illusory."

Jason,

A person varies greatly with age and circumstances, and at each age and every changing circumstance not only do causes act upon them, people also affect the universe in innumerable ways, with the effects going on infinitely.

For example, the self that affected the universe when the self was three is a very different self at the age of thirty-three, but the effects of the three year old have no end, and neither do the effects of the thirty-three year old. And because the self at those various ages still exist in those effects, we can’t say the self of now is any more special, or important, or substantial, or real than the self that arose causally at any other age or circumstance.

You'd think that such knowledge of cause and effect would influence our thinking as to the nature of the self – but it doesn't have appeared to.

Jason wrote:The arguments you make here are flawed in several ways:

1. You assume that the ring of light will only exist for as long as the flame continues to be twirled. This is fine in the case of the ring. But in the case of the self the necessary conditions for its continued existence are uncertain and debateable. Some people assert that a living body is a necessary condition for the existence of the self, others argue that the body is not a necessity and that a soul(or other conditions) may sustain the self even if the body dies.

2. People who argue that a soul or heaven can sustain the existence of the self after death are not denying that the self is dependent upon causes or circumstances for its existence. They are in fact affirming the idea, that's the very reason why they posit heaven and a soul as necessary conditions for the continuation of the self.

3. There is no certainty that the self is necessarily impermanent in any case. Even if the self, like the flame, relies upon specific circumstances for its existence, in principle it is possible that those circumstances could continue indefinitely, thus sustaining the self indefinitely too.

4. Even if a person makes the assumption that the self is impermanent, they can still desire for, and do everything in their power to keep it existing for as long as possible without contradicting or "compartmentalizing" the belief that it will cease existing at some point in the future.

5. Lastly, and importantly, being impermanent is not the same as being "illusory."

And yet the fact remains that whatever is deemed to be the "self" is nothing other than a portion of Reality which has been arbitrarily delineated by the mind. Its existence is nothing more than a momentary whim of thought.

-

David Quinn wrote:And yet the fact remains that whatever is deemed to be the "self" is nothing other than a portion of Reality which has been arbitrarily delineated by the mind. Its existence is nothing more than a momentary whim of thought.

What you've said here is clearly at odds with the majority of the rest of your own philosophy.

The self is obviously not "nothing other" and "nothing more" than a thought or creation of the mind. You keep trying to push this line(apparently to further your agenda of eliminating the self and emotions), but your very own philosophy of causation says that every single thing(including the self) is dependent upon a multitude of causes and circumstances for its existence.

Thought may be one thing that the self is partially dependent upon for its existence, but it is also dependent upon the brain, the senses, the body, the food and water that sustains the body, the earth and sunlight that grows the food, the gravity that holds the planet together, the formation of the solar system which allowed the earth to come into being, the energy and matter which make up the universe, the laws of nature and everything else right back to the Big Bang.

But it simply wouldn't give the appearance of weakening the self, would it, if you said "The self is nothing other than a creation of the Big Bang. Its existence is nothing more than the product of eons worth of causes and conditions." Yet that is arguable equivalent in principle to what you've said in the sentences I quoted above.

In addition to this, you argue that the self is sustained by "a momentary whim of thought", as if it were so fragile that it would blow away in the slightest breeze like a dandelion spore.

My self has survived more momentary whims of thought than I can count. My self has survived the hurricane force mental winds of various prolonged and harrowing life events. My self has managed to reestablish itself every time after ~10,000 periods of loss of consciousness(aka sleep). Momentary whim of thought? I think not.

Maybe this can be your new avatar? ;p

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:And yet the fact remains that whatever is deemed to be the "self" is nothing other than a portion of Reality which has been arbitrarily delineated by the mind. Its existence is nothing more than a momentary whim of thought.

What you've said here is clearly at odds with the majority of the rest of your own philosophy.

The self is obviously not "nothing other" and "nothing more" than a thought or creation of the mind. You keep trying to push this line(apparently to further your agenda of eliminating the self and emotions), but your very own philosophy of causation says that every single thing(including the self) is dependent upon a multitude of causes and circumstances for its existence.

Thought may be one thing that the self is partially dependent upon for its existence, but it is also dependent upon the brain, the senses, the body, the food and water that sustains the body, the earth and sunlight that grows the food, the gravity that holds the planet together, the formation of the solar system which allowed the earth to come into being, the energy and matter which make up the universe, the laws of nature and everything else right back to the Big Bang.

That is true, but not relevent to the point I'm making. A ring of light is also the product of countless causes along the lines you describe, and yet it will vanish the moment the twirling stops.

In addition to this, you argue that the self is sustained by "a momentary whim of thought", as if it were so fragile that it would blow away in the slightest breeze like a dandelion spore.

All things are fundamentally like this - even a mountain, even the earth, even the solar system. Any of it could disappear in an instant.

My self has survived more momentary whims of thought than I can count. My self has survived the hurricane force mental winds of various prolonged and harrowing life events. My self has managed to reestablish itself every time after ~10,000 periods of loss of consciousness(aka sleep). Momentary whim of thought? I think not.

I think so.

The problem obviously lies with mental habit. While the self can disappear with the slightest movement of thought (in a wise direction), it easily reasserts its presence through the habitual nature of our thought-processes, actions and emotions. The trick is to take advantage of the insight that the self is nothing more than a thought and change the underlying pathways which lead us to imagine it is otherwise.

-

David Quinn wrote:The problem obviously lies with mental habit. While the self can disappear with the slightest movement of thought (in a wise direction), it easily reasserts its presence through the habitual nature of our thought-processes, actions and emotions. The trick is to take advantage of the insight that the self is nothing more than a thought and change the underlying pathways which lead us to imagine it is otherwise.

The self is a translation into thought of something that exists. Call it what you will--nature, reality, God, Truth, existence--but it is actually what you are.

Sorry for the delay David.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:And yet the fact remains that whatever is deemed to be the "self" is nothing other than a portion of Reality which has been arbitrarily delineated by the mind. Its existence is nothing more than a momentary whim of thought.

What you've said here is clearly at odds with the majority of the rest of your own philosophy.

The self is obviously not "nothing other" and "nothing more" than a thought or creation of the mind. You keep trying to push this line(apparently to further your agenda of eliminating the self and emotions), but your very own philosophy of causation says that every single thing(including the self) is dependent upon a multitude of causes and circumstances for its existence.

Thought may be one thing that the self is partially dependent upon for its existence, but it is also dependent upon the brain, the senses, the body, the food and water that sustains the body, the earth and sunlight that grows the food, the gravity that holds the planet together, the formation of the solar system which allowed the earth to come into being, the energy and matter which make up the universe, the laws of nature and everything else right back to the Big Bang.

That is true, but not relevent to the point I'm making. A ring of light is also the product of countless causes along the lines you describe, and yet it will vanish the moment the twirling stops.

What's the point you are making then? Do you see some essential or important difference between the fact that the ring of light would disappear if the twirling were eliminated, versus the fact that the ring of light would disappear if the solar system were eliminated?

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:In addition to this, you argue that the self is sustained by "a momentary whim of thought", as if it were so fragile that it would blow away in the slightest breeze like a dandelion spore.

All things are fundamentally like this - even a mountain, even the earth, even the solar system. Any of it could disappear in an instant.

It'd be just as relevant and equivalent to say that the self(or mountains, earth, solar system) could last forever. It's an arbitrary predictive nothing. I mean, I could turn into an elephant in the next instant too. You haven't proven anything.

The fact that you are using this useless line of argument to support your idea that the self could disappear in an instant, is certainly damaging to its credibility.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:My self has survived more momentary whims of thought than I can count. My self has survived the hurricane force mental winds of various prolonged and harrowing life events. My self has managed to reestablish itself every time after ~10,000 periods of loss of consciousness(aka sleep). Momentary whim of thought? I think not.

I think so.

The problem obviously lies with mental habit. While the self can disappear with the slightest movement of thought (in a wise direction), it easily reasserts its presence through the habitual nature of our thought-processes, actions and emotions. The trick is to take advantage of the insight that the self is nothing more than a thought and change the underlying pathways which lead us to imagine it is otherwise.

But the self is not just "nothing more than a thought." We've just been through this, look at the first block of quotes at the start of this very post. The accurate thing to say, which you agreed with in the above quotes, would be "the self is partially dependent upon thought for its existence."

That being the case, your attempt to "take advantage of the insight that the self is nothing more than a thought" is therefore fatally flawed from the outset.

An analogy to your mistake would be: you can demolish an entire building(self) by knocking out a small section of the foundations(thoughts), but then somehow confusing the building itself with just that small section of foundations.

Jason,

I think the problem with your discussion with David is that you two are really talking about different things. The self you are describing certainly exists as a limited and constrained identity. Clearly such a self is dependent on a number of things but the self David is interested in is one that is not dependent. Thus he can only deny the self you are describing. If it depends, it doesn't exist for him as something worthy of attention. Unfortunately, it's what we've got so denying it is not a particularly helpful approach if one is interested in understanding all aspects of the self.