GENIUS FORUMS

I started this thread because i see that some of you ,( Dierbet , David , Dennis...etc) still cling to false or at any rate extremely shakey "philosophies".

1.Just because inherent existence has never been observed , doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimate reality has never been observed either so how come some of you say it exists.

2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

3.You also have to address the question of meaning since the statement "inherent existence does not exist" is meaningless, what is it exactly you are saying? What is it we are all saying?

I'm not saying i'm right..just that you guys keep ignoring these points , so lets discuss:)

chikoka wrote: What is it we are all saying?

That right now the human condition is to cling. Some of the philosophies here can help to see that.

The answer to your first question is reason, the same way you reason out what exists for you and what not. But then with intensity and level of attention turned way up.

It is a Philosophical Inquiry.
Inherent existence with regard to phenomena hasn't been found after exhaustive investigation.

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
doesn't mean it exists.

Until you can prove otherwise ,
the ultimate reality of phenomena is that it lacks inherent existence.

Tell me, does your peccadillo for capped thread headings depend upon?
Apparently meaning is held in that for you.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:chikoka wrote:
What is it we are all saying?


That right now the human condition is to cling. Some of the philosophies here can help to see that.

The answer to your first question is reason, the same way you reason out what exists for you and what not. But then with intensity and level of attention turned way up.

Your quote of me was meant to ask what anything means , whether i say it or you say it, by agrippa, it all doesnt make sense.

Dennis Mahar wrote:t is a Philosophical Inquiry.
Inherent existence with regard to phenomena hasn't been found after exhaustive investigation.

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
doesn't mean it exists.

Until you can prove otherwise ,
the ultimate reality of phenomena is that it lacks inherent existence.

Not you again Dennis

:)

Dennis Mahar wrote:Tell me, does your peccadillo for capped thread headings depend upon?
Apparently meaning is held in that for you.

I just thought that , maybe if i spoke up you would all pay attention, didnt mean to shout though:)

And again there was more than one question.

I'd like to see someone deal with question 2. i think it will generate some interesting debate:

chikoka wrote:2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

chikoka wrote:I'd like to see someone deal with question 2. i think it will generate some interesting debate:

chikoka wrote:2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

But you start defining the continuous existence of "minds" as directly causally connected to everything. In that context you're answering your own question. Although perhaps everything depends on one of these minds ending as well. It seems to me you're confusing these questions yourself. You need to breath waaaay slower if you want to start solving.

I just thought that , maybe if i spoke up you would all pay attention, didnt mean to shout though:)

In order to for the sake of.
Right there you have proved to me you always/already operate causality.


It's clear as a bell you want to waste our time taking us down a track called 'knowledge is impossible'
on the one hand and make use of the knowledge GF broadcasts on the other.

Another case of the left hand don't know what the right hand is doing.

chikoka wrote:I started this thread because i see that some of you ,( Dierbet , David , Dennis...etc) still cling to false or at any rate extremely shakey "philosophies".

1.Just because inherent existence has never been observed , doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Inherent existence" is a contradiction in terms. It can no more be observed than a "married bachelor" can.

In other words, we are dealing with a logical truth. Because nothing can ever exist in its own right - that is to say, independently of its own parts, independently of the causal conditions which support it - nothing can inherently exist.

chikoka wrote: Ultimate reality has never been observed either so how come some of you say it exists.

You and I are observing Ultimate Reality in every single moment. It comprises utterly everything.

chikoka wrote:2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

This would be like arguing that since a cloud depends on atmospheric conditions, if a planet with atmospheric conditions in some far flung galaxy were to be destroyed the cloud here on earth would immediately disappear.

David Quinn wrote:chikoka wrote:
I started this thread because i see that some of you ,( Dierbet , David , Dennis...etc) still cling to false or at any rate extremely shakey "philosophies".

1.Just because inherent existence has never been observed , doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Inherent existence" is a contradiction in terms. It can no more be observed than a "married bachelor" can.

In other words, we are dealing with a logical truth. Because nothing can ever exist in its own right - that is to say, independently of its own parts, independently of the causal conditions which support it - nothing can inherently exist.

Maybe its my confusion ,but i always thought inherent existance meant existance apart from minds. In that context inherent existence is not the equivalent of a married batchelor.

if i was wrong i still do not beleive your exposition holds water.
If anything has self nature then it cannot participate in change but change can only be defined in the context of boundaries.A paradox that i'm hoping someone will address.
If you say the totality doesnt change from an absolute perspective , but only within minds (as an ilusion) then how can we ever "observe ultimate reality in every single moment" [sic], since everything we observe changes?

David Quinn wrote:chikoka wrote:
2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

This would be like arguing that since a cloud depends on atmospheric conditions, if a planet with atmospheric conditions in some far flung galaxy were to be destroyed the cloud here on earth would immediately disappear.

It seems like i understand your theories even more than you do.
Since the cloud here on earth depends on what its not , it depends on the atmospheric conditions on the distant planet (as well as my baby toe). If the atmospheric conditions on that planet were to be destroyed , then yes the cloud on this earth would have changed in a fundamental way (its identity) and so would have dissapeard.

You really need to address the issue of change in your theories.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

chikoka wrote:I'd like to see someone deal with question 2. i think it will generate some interesting debate:

chikoka wrote:2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

But you start defining the continuous existence of "minds" as directly causally connected to everything. In that context you're answering your own question. Although perhaps everything depends on one of these minds ending as well. It seems to me you're confusing these questions yourself. You need to breath waaaay slower if you want to start solving.

Arent minds things? And dont things depend on minds? So , by transitivity minds depend on each other. In this setup any change compromises the identity of whats changed (obviously) and also whats left, like the distant planet atmosphere analogy.

Sorry for the delay in responding , i will try harder to be more timely.

chikoka wrote:Arent minds things? And dont things depend on minds? So , by transitivity minds depend on each other. In this setup any change compromises the identity of whats changed (obviously) and also whats left, like the distant planet atmosphere analogy.

Are you suggesting something like the butterfly effect? That one tiny change in a thing over here, like some butterfly flapping it wing, would have to cause always a major change way over there, like the development of a big storm?

But the fact that one thing is connected to everything else by causation doesn't tell us anything about the nature of that particular connection. As I already said, what if the causal connection was for something to end, to not be somewhere in time and space for something else to arise? Then for one mind to end, it was needed for others not ending, in some particular instance.

Anyway, it seems you have a particular way of interpreting the idea of "dependence". It's not like a house of cards. It's not like you need to have all things exactly in some particular known state or shape to have another thing existing. It's quite possible the effects of some appearance or disappearance will not be noticeable but that doesn't mean it's a completely isolated event either. We only notice a very tiny fragment of cause and effect and therefore it's impossible to know the whole of all interrelations. Which would be called omniscience. More importantly logically one can assess that one thing depends on a context to exist.

chikoka wrote:If anything has self nature then it cannot participate in change but change can only be defined in the context of boundaries.A paradox that i'm hoping someone will address.

Things don't have a self nature. Problem solved.

If you say the totality doesnt change from an absolute perspective , but only within minds (as an ilusion) then how can we ever "observe ultimate reality in every single moment" [sic], since everything we observe changes?

The only thing that doesn't change is change itself.

2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

Everything does not depend on minds. The appearance of things depend on minds.

chikoka wrote:

David Quinn wrote:"Inherent existence" is a contradiction in terms. It can no more be observed than a "married bachelor" can.

In other words, we are dealing with a logical truth. Because nothing can ever exist in its own right - that is to say, independently of its own parts, independently of the causal conditions which support it - nothing can inherently exist.

Maybe its my confusion ,but i always thought inherent existance meant existance apart from minds. In that context inherent existence is not the equivalent of a married batchelor.

No, inherent existence simply refers to a thing existing in its own right, independently of everything else. Even if, for the sake of argument, things could exist beyond the mind they would still lack the capacity for inherent existence, for the reasons explained above.

if i was wrong i still do not beleive your exposition holds water.
If anything has self nature then it cannot participate in change but change can only be defined in the context of boundaries.A paradox that i'm hoping someone will address.

As Russell says, things do not have self-nature, which is why they possess the ability to change.

If you say the totality doesnt change from an absolute perspective , but only within minds (as an ilusion) then how can we ever "observe ultimate reality in every single moment" [sic], since everything we observe changes?

The totality doesn't change in the sense that it can never cease being the totality. No matter what exists, the totality is always the totality. So while the things that make up the totality are constantly changing, the totality itself always remains the totality.

We can observe ultimate reality in every moment because the totality infiltrates every aspect of every moment.

chikoka wrote:

David Quinn wrote:chikoka wrote:
2.If everything depends on minds , then each mind depends on the other minds by hypothesis. By the very definition of the word depends, if even one of these minds was to end, so would all the others.

This would be like arguing that since a cloud depends on atmospheric conditions, if a planet with atmospheric conditions in some far flung galaxy were to be destroyed the cloud here on earth would immediately disappear.

It seems like i understand your theories even more than you do.

Given your confusion above you might be over-estimating yourself here. But let's have a look:

chikoka wrote:Since the cloud here on earth depends on what its not , it depends on the atmospheric conditions on the distant planet (as well as my baby toe). If the atmospheric conditions on that planet were to be destroyed , then yes the cloud on this earth would have changed in a fundamental way (its identity) and so would have dissapeard.

There are different logical reasonings at play here. For example, when I say that the cloud depends on not-cloud (i.e. the rest of Nature) for its existence, I am referring to an abstract line of reasoning that doesn't take into account any particular events that happen to occur in the world. It doesn't matter what comprises the category of "not-cloud". The important thing is to understand that if we were to subtract everything that isn't the cloud, the cloud itself wouldn't be able to exist. In other words, what we are dealing with here is a purely logical argument that demonstrates how nothing can exist in its own right.

When it comes to actual events in the world other kinds of reasonings come into play. Here we have to look at what is actually happening in the world and make intelligent deductions from what we see. A cloud here on earth, for example, depends on specific localized conditions, such as the right kind of atmospheric pressure, temperature and humidity in its immediate vicinity. Without the presence of these specific conditions the cloud cannot exist. The specifics of other planets' atmospheres or the movements of your baby toe don't come into it.

]Again ..sorry for the long silence

Hi David

What is ultimately real. This is what I've "got" at the moment.

The totality is ultimately all that's real. Boundaries ( things) are not ultimately real.

[therefore conscious perspective and indeed consciousness itself is not ultimately real??]

The axiom of identity allows thought to be possible. Thought creates boundaries.
The AOI enables causality to function.
The AOI enables differentiation.
The totality is ultimately not differentiated.

[therefore AOI is also not ultimately real??]

To exist is to appear.
Appearences are illusions.

[therefore existence is an illusion (nothing ultimately exists)??]

David Quinn wrote:We can observe ultimate reality in every moment because the totality infiltrates every aspect of every moment.

I do remember there was a specific part in WOTI where you alluded that there are aspects of the totality that do not appear.


WOTI is a well written article but you cant blame anyone but yourself for not clearly calling what you think the situation is really like.
At the end you even admit coming full circle again , spiraling of to another plane [sic]
So its not really clear what it is you are really actually saying.
I hope you can clear up the above so we can really start debating.

chikoka wrote:Hi David

I know i addressed this to david , but if he isnt around maybe someone else could engage in debate with me :)

Hi chikoka. Despite the appearance that every reasonable explanation given to you seems to just bounce right off, I'll give it a shot :)

chikoka wrote:What is ultimately real. This is what I've "got" at the moment.

The totality is ultimately all that's real. Boundaries (things) are not ultimately real.

[therefore conscious perspective and indeed consciousness itself is not ultimately real??]

Consciousness and perspectives are certainly real, they just don't inherently exist.

The axiom of identity allows thought to be possible. Thought creates boundaries.
The AOI enables causality to function.
The AOI enables differentiation.
The totality is ultimately not differentiated.

[therefore AOI is also not ultimately real??]

The AOI does not enable causality to function, I have no idea where you got that idea.

The AOI and differentiation define the process of consciousness, which is a product of, and is encompassed by, the Totality. Differentiation only occurs within and by consciousness.

The statement "The totality is ultimately not differentiated", if correctly posited, implies that there is no differentiation without consciousness.

Again, the AOI is certainly real, but only in the sense that it appears to an observer, i.e., it doesn't inherently exist.

To exist is to appear.
Appearences are illusions.

[therefore existence is an illusion (nothing ultimately exists)??]

Most accurate thing you've said.

David Quinn wrote:We can observe ultimate reality in every moment because the totality infiltrates every aspect of every moment.

I do remember there was a specific part in WOTI where you alluded that there are aspects of the totality that do not appear.

All David is saying is that the most fundamental nature of the Totality is ever-present due to the ever-presence of the Totality.

It's obvious that part(s) of the Totality does not appear to us, due to the limits of consciousness. However, we are always observing part of the Totality, and thus it's nature, none-the-less.

Russell wrote:Hi chikoka. Despite the appearance that every reasonable explanation given to you seems to just bounce right off, I'll give it a shot :)

Funny , i was just thinking the same of you guys :)
I did say this though:

chikoka wrote:At the end you even admit coming full circle again , spiraling of to another plane [sic]
So its not really clear what it is you are really actually saying.

Pointing out my scource of confusion.

You say this:

Russell wrote: Differentiation only occurs within and by consciousness.

But then you say this:

Russell wrote:It's obvious that part(s) of the Totality does not appear to us, due to the limits of consciousness. However, we are always observing part of the Totality, and thus it's nature, none-the-less.

You have just created a differentiated state of affairs. That of the part of the totality that appears (to us), and that part of the totality that doesnt appear. And this differentiation does not occur within conciousness (otherwise all parts of the totality would appear). So in whos perspective is this differentiated state of affairs in and does this beings perspective encompass all of the totality.(Otherwise i'd just point out that there is yet a greater differentiation of those parts that appear to it/him and those parts that dont.
Maybe you didnt mean to use the word "part".
Whats your take on this?

chikoka wrote:So in whos perspective is this differentiated state of affairs in

Mine of course. The partitioning of the totality occurred via my consciousness.

and does this beings perspective encompass all of the totality.

It couldn't be easier to identify my consciousness as only part of the totality. However, a perspective can certainly analytically encompass all of reality. Think of it kind of like astronomers examining a distant galaxy, observing facts about it, without ever physically going there. We can locally examine the nature of all of the Totality in the same manner, albeit only with logic.

chikoka wrote:Again ..sorry for the long silence

No need to apologize. I'm not exactly the fastest poster in the west, either.

chikoka wrote:Hi David

What is ultimately real. This is what I've "got" at the moment.

The totality is ultimately all that's real. Boundaries ( things) are not ultimately real.

[therefore conscious perspective and indeed consciousness itself is not ultimately real??]

The axiom of identity allows thought to be possible. Thought creates boundaries.
The AOI enables causality to function.
The AOI enables differentiation.
The totality is ultimately not differentiated.

[therefore AOI is also not ultimately real??]

To exist is to appear.
Appearences are illusions.

[therefore existence is an illusion (nothing ultimately exists)??]

A few points:

- In no way should the ideas listed here (or in my book) be regarded as the ultimate reality that is understood and experienced in enlightenment. Rather, they are logical pointers to that ultimate reality. The enlightened awareness of ultimate reality is far too subjective and immediate to be set down on paper, and always will be.

- The way you phrase some of these pointers is suspect. For example, when you state, “The axiom of identity allows thought to be possible”, or, "The AOI enables causality to function. The AOI enables differentiation", you make it sound as though the axiom of identity is a creative force of some kind. In truth, identity is neither a creative force, nor is it an axiom. It is simply a core property that all things necessarily possess by virtue of existing. To exist is to have a form of some kind, and to have a form is to have an identity. Identity makes existence possible, and existence makes identity possible. They both give rise to each other.

- "Nothing ultimately exists" - yes! If you can fully understand this point and pursue its consequences to the very end, you will reach enlightenment in no time.

chikoka wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We can observe ultimate reality in every moment because the totality infiltrates every aspect of every moment.

I do remember there was a specific part in WOTI where you alluded that there are aspects of the totality that do not appear.

More accurately, it appears that some aspects of reality do not appear. The realm beyond all consciousness is ultimately an appearance that arises in the here and now. It too is part of the illusory world. One has to abandon every single instance of objective reality in its entirety, no matter where or what it is.

chikoka wrote:WOTI is a well written article but you cant blame anyone but yourself for not clearly calling what you think the situation is really like.
At the end you even admit coming full circle again , spiraling of to another plane [sic]
So its not really clear what it is you are really actually saying.

As I mentioned in the article's introduction, it requires a lot of meditation and thought from the reader to fully understand these matters. Ultimate reality is very subtle and difficult to grasp, and not many people have the patience or desire to go through all the hoops needed to get there. So while I am open to the possibility that my writing is not 100% clear to every kind of reader, I am convinced that such shortfalls can be overcome if the reader is diligent enough.

chikoka wrote:At the end you even admit coming full circle again , spiraling of to another plane [sic]
So its not really clear what it is you are really actually saying.

Imagine a person growing up in a particular town, spending his childhood absorbing the sights and sounds and beliefs that permeate that town. Then, upon reaching adulthood, he leaves the town and spends many years travelling the world, coming into contact with countless different perspectives, his life now a steady stream of varying and unique experiences, his mind now constantly broadening in all sorts of ways. And then he comes home again, back to the old familiar town of his childhood. And what does he see? On the one hand, everything seems the same - the old familiar sights and sounds and beliefs are still as prevalent as ever - and yet everything is different. It is all fresh and new, for his mind is no longer locked within the old perspectives.

The spiritual process of coming full circle is a bit like this, only more extreme.