GENIUS FORUMS

DQ: The second stanza isn't proposing the existence of dust. It is challenging the first stanza's assumption of the existence of dust, and "things" generally.

suergaz: Which really makes it inferior to the first. If one does not assume existence, why assume to challenge the assumption of existence?

DQ: Because one knows that other people are still being spellbound by their false belief in (objective) existence. That is why they are still trying to "rub the mirror clean", which is a form of chasing phantoms.

Belief in 'objective' existence is not false, it is only incomplete.

DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

suergaz: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

Whatever Nature wills.

Wills?

Suergaz wrote:

All is never empty, that's something we assume,

This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

It's a bit like understanding that square circles can never really exist in the world (outside the imagination), that the world is "empty" of square circles. One doesn't have to make any assumptions to affirm this fact, one simply has to see through the assumption that they can exist.

"Emptiness" or "God" is what is perceived when one breaks down all assumptions.

-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suergaz wrote:

Quote:

suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty. Perhaps you really mean 'nothingness'

It's a bit like understanding that square circles can never really exist in the world (outside the imagination), that the world is "empty" of square circles. One doesn't have to make any assumptions to affirm this fact, one simply has to see through the assumption that they can exist.

The imagination is part of the world.

"Emptiness" or "God" is what is perceived when one breaks down all assumptions.

That is an assumption. I may well perceive something else.

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: The second stanza isn't proposing the existence of dust. It is challenging the first stanza's assumption of the existence of dust, and "things" generally.

suergaz: Which really makes it inferior to the first. If one does not assume existence, why assume to challenge the assumption of existence?

DQ: Because one knows that other people are still being spellbound by their false belief in (objective) existence. That is why they are still trying to "rub the mirror clean", which is a form of chasing phantoms.

suergaz: Belief in 'objective' existence is not false, it is only incomplete.

Certainly, in an empirical sense, our knowledge of the details of an object will always be incomplete. But this doesn't change the fact that it is impossible for anything to objectively exist.

If you disagree, please give us an example of something within Nature which objectively exists.

DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

suergaz: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

DQ: Whatever Nature wills.

Suergaz: Nature doesn't will anything! It is everything.

Yes, it is everything. And because it is everything, there is nothing that happens which Nature isn't fully involved in.


-

Certainly, in an empirical sense, our knowledge of the details of an object will always be incomplete. But this doesn't change the fact that it is impossible for anything to objectively exist.

If you disagree, please give us an example of something within Nature which objectively exists.

Nature is within itself, and it exists, objectively. All 'subjective' existence is subordinate to its object--infinity.

Suergaz wrote:

suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

Perhaps you really mean 'nothingness'

Definitely not. Even nothingness doesn't objectively exist.

DQ: It's a bit like understanding that square circles can never really exist in the world (outside the imagination), that the world is "empty" of square circles. One doesn't have to make any assumptions to affirm this fact, one simply has to see through the assumption that they can exist.

S: The imagination is part of the world.

That is true. However, to believe that what can only exist within the imagination is able to exist outside it is the very definition of "delusion".

DQ: "Emptiness" or "God" is what is perceived when one breaks down all assumptions.

S: That is an assumption. I may well perceive something else.

If you perceive something other than emptiness, it would indicate that you are still being taken in by the delusion of objective existence. It would mean that your mind is still being immersed in form, while oblivious to the reality of formlessness.

-

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: Certainly, in an empirical sense, our knowledge of the details of an object will always be incomplete. But this doesn't change the fact that it is impossible for anything to objectively exist.

If you disagree, please give us an example of something within Nature which objectively exists.

S: Nature is within itself, and it exists, objectively. All 'subjective' existence is subordinate to its object--infinity.

I think, at bottom, you're just playing a semantic game with me, for Heaven knows what reason. Let's change tack a bit:

Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

-

Suergaz wrote:

I think I know what you're saying, but allow me to put it like this:

There is in fact a bodhi tree, and like it I'm upright
my mind more than a mirror, retains what it finds bright
All is never empty, that's something we assume,
So out of dust, eternity is where we'll make our room.

The way you put it, I don't think you know all what I mean, because what you have said is only half the story in a way, hence one builds a web of hope and dreams over such half an understanding.

There is no room for "YOU" or "ME" in eternity. All things in every which way are finite. What we define as mind is but a process that we recognize through its effects helped by memory. Agreed, things are not nothing whatsoever, but I guess you do know that all things are but a bunch of atoms held together by external and internal forces, so how and where do you find the real essence of a thing?

suergaz:

I think I know what you're saying, but allow me to put it like this:

There is in fact a bodhi tree, and like it I'm upright
my mind more than a mirror, retains what it finds bright
All is never empty, that's something we assume,
So out of dust, eternity is where we'll make our room.

Sapius: The way you put it, I don't think you know all what I mean, because what you have said is only half the story in a way, hence one builds a web of hope and dreams over such half an understanding.

Really, I only build over the part of the understanding which can be articulated. To cover it all, in representation, one somehow falls short.
:D

There is no room for "YOU" or "ME" in eternity.

Only if you confine it to timelessness. Eternity is infinity in this continuum we inhabit.

All things in every which way are finite.

To be true to words and not only an understanding with them, all things are an infinity.

What we define as mind is but a process that we recognize through its effects helped by memory. Agreed, things are not nothing whatsoever, but I guess you do know that all things are but a bunch of atoms held together by external and internal forces, so how and where do you find the real essence of a thing?

In the thing itself, which is not to say the 'thing-in-itself'

Quote:
DQ: Certainly, in an empirical sense, our knowledge of the details of an object will always be incomplete. But this doesn't change the fact that it is impossible for anything to objectively exist.

If you disagree, please give us an example of something within Nature which objectively exists.

Suergaz: Nature is within itself, and it exists, objectively. All 'subjective' existence is subordinate to its object--infinity.

I think, at bottom, you're just playing a semantic game with me, for Heaven knows what reason. Let's change tack a bit: Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

Of course I agree. I have no argument with the inherency of causation.
Taking this into account, do you really not know why semantics interest me so?

Quote:
suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without the assumption that there is a challenge.

Perhaps you really mean 'nothingness'

Definitely not. Even nothingness doesn't objectively exist.

Then your meaning, in words, is rendered ultimately unintelligible.

DQ: It's a bit like understanding that square circles can never really exist in the world (outside the imagination), that the world is "empty" of square circles. One doesn't have to make any assumptions to affirm this fact, one simply has to see through the assumption that they can exist.

Suergaz: The imagination is part of the world.

DQ: That is true. However, to believe that what can only exist within the imagination is able to exist outside it is the very definition of "delusion".

"However"? But that is certainly not what I believe, and it seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of my point, even if it isn't.

DQ: "Emptiness" or "God" is what is perceived when one breaks down all assumptions.

S: That is an assumption. I may well perceive something else.

DQ:If you perceive something other than emptiness, it would indicate that you are still being taken in by the delusion of objective existence. It would mean that your mind is still being immersed in form, while oblivious to the reality of formlessness.

My mind cannot help having form within formlessness I perceive.

DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

suergaz: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

DQ: Whatever Nature wills.

Suergaz: Nature doesn't will anything! It is everything.

Yes, it is everything. And because it is everything, there is nothing that happens which Nature isn't fully involved in.

I'm still not certain 'wills' is the right term for what the universe does.

unwise wrote:You will seldom, if ever, find a real insane person who has the above qualities of character.

That is because you just defined 'sanity' for yourself. Very convenient since it avoids any deeper inquiry into the matter.

unwise wrote: A shepherd understands the sheep quite well. A shepherd is a sheep expert; an enlightened man is a people expert.

A shepherd nevertheless doesn't crouch down to munch some grass rubbing his back with the sheep. Only the pervert one who shouldn't be on the job, I'm sure you would agree.

unwise wrote: The sage's knowledge comes from a deep life of experience and observation - not isolation and nervous mentation that creates illusion and deception and grandiose privilege and hostility.

But what if all the people would be caught in just that: isolation, illusion, deception, grandiose privilege and deeply buried hostility?

David: It is precisely because all things are empty of their own making that they have the ability to be causal agents. The truth that all things are effects and the truth that all things are empty (of inherent existence) are expressions of the same reality. They are two sides of the same coin. You can't affirm one without automatically affirming the other - although, as in your case, it is possible to set up mental blocks about it.

The truth that all things are effects

No, to an observer all things are effects. These effects exist because their existence is caused, and they in turn are causes. Just as the totality exists, they exist as causes for our thoughts.

What creates effects exists, so therefore the creations exist. They are not empty of their the nature of their creator (though I am certainly not suggesting any form of God). It is wrong to remove something from things just for the purpose of teaching others how to try and think without form. Things are formless over time because they are not separate from cause and effect, they are not separate from the underlying nature of the totality, but they reflect the nature of the totality. Things are real because they add a property to the underlying dimensions of nature. They add observable existence, they make infinite existence observable. I am not suggesting that they do this through some action of their own making, and I agree they are empty in that sense. There is nothing inherent in them, content-wise, other than that they are particular form of the totality that is somehow different to another. That is precisely the only outcome that things are caused to add to The Totality's table - the ability for structures to form.

Also, as there will always be things, then thing-ness, or form is inherent. It doesn’t matter that much that things are interconnected, and therefore that there really is only one physical thing, the totality. Although my almost absolute viewpoint, is that there are two underlying causal things, that are infinite, not one, unfortunately cause and effect fails completely at one. In effect this means there are two totalities. As you cannot logically add together two infinities to form a total, then the totality of all there IS, of all that Exists, is merely the boundary in between. That form of totality, a meeting place of fundamental causes, is caused and thus completely empty in the manner you like to describe things. The infinities are not empty of form, they are merely empty of form in the manner in which we can visualise, because they are outside our physical dimensions, outside of our plane of existence. For my visualised infinities I am happy to choose what shows us why all things do not have inherent existence of their own making - they expand and they contract relative to all other things.

It is true that actual corporeality is an illusion, but as long as one realises that then the reality of the flowing forms of reality can be recognised as existence. Things are not really an illusion actually, as flowing forms they are reality, but limited by the requirement that things be finite to an observer. Things exist because they are concepts of knowing in our head, they are recognitions of structural patterns, they are forms, symbols of reality.

Suergaz wrote:

all things are an infinity.

How?

Jamesh wrote:

D: The truth that all things are effects

J: No, to an observer all things are effects. These effects exist because their existence is caused, and they in turn are causes. Just as the totality exists, they exist as causes for our thoughts.

So, what are effects to a non-observer? If they exist as causes for our thoughts, what happens otherwise?

Also, as there will always be things, then thing-ness, or form is inherent. It doesn’t matter that much that things are interconnected, and therefore that there really is only one physical thing, the totality.

Totality is one physical thing?

Suergaz: all things are an infinity.

Sapius: How?

Since infinity is all, everything is infinite, irrespective of forms.

Jamesh just stated the only intelligent thing I've seen here since I visited. It is a fine overview of the structure of Nature. So that makes one person who has provided what I requested - the understanding that is here at QVC. Actually, I think he provided a more correct view than the one for sale here.

What is for sale HERE at QVC seems to be semantic juggling balls.

suergaz wrote:

Suergaz: all things are an infinity.

Sapius: How?

Since infinity is all, everything is infinite, irrespective of forms.

That is too vague. Could you give an example of any one particular thing?

unwise wrote:Jamesh just stated the only intelligent thing I've seen here since I visited.

Really? I was thinking it was too hopelessly confused to even properly respond to it.

What is for sale HERE at QVC seems to be semantic juggling balls.

QVC? Isn't that a department store or something?

sapius:

Quote:
all things become emanations of Ego,


As in: 1 a : the action of emanating b : the origination of the world by a series of hierarchically descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter.

My English is not good so I had to look it up, but I don’t think “ego”, which according to me is just self-realization through differentiation, that is experiencing A=A, has any such powers. “I” inherently exist, that is, unattached, having or will have permanency of any kind, is false ego according to me, and I don’t know if that could do any such thing.

If you think that Ego does not have any such powers,well ...then you are far from the Truth.
The ego MUST become the absolute,we can talk furher from there.
all emotions should find equipoise at the time of emanation,till they become one.thus by hindering belief and semen from conception,they become simple and cosmic.By its illumination there is nothing that can not be explained

bert wrote:sapius:

Quote:
all things become emanations of Ego,


As in: 1 a : the action of emanating b : the origination of the world by a series of hierarchically descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter.

My English is not good so I had to look it up, but I don’t think “ego”, which according to me is just self-realization through differentiation, that is experiencing A=A, has any such powers. “I” inherently exist, that is, unattached, having or will have permanency of any kind, is false ego according to me, and I don’t know if that could do any such thing.

If you think that Ego does not have any such powers,well ...then you are far from the Truth.
The ego MUST become the absolute,we can talk furher from there.
all emotions should find equipoise at the time of emanation,till they become one.thus by hindering belief and semen from conception,they become simple and cosmic.

Honestly, I can make nothing of what you say.

By its illumination there is nothing that can not be explained

How about quantum mechanics? I think the world really needs your help there.

David said:

In truth, there is no dust to wipe away and therefore no such thing as samadhi. Only when a person thoroughly understands this point is he in samadhi.

I don't like being technical, but that isn't true.

Samadhi is when all mental noise is silenced. Mental noise is: understanding, misunderstanding, sleep, memory and imagination. When a person is understanding the truth, they're still having mental noise, and it isn't samadhi.

I do think that because of a person thoroughly understanding emptiness, they can enter into samadhi easily...this is because they won't be attached to much in the world. There won't be those extraneous thoughts that all begin and end with the ego.

I think there's a problem with mixing teachings, though. The enlightenment Hindu texts talk about differs from the enlightenment talked about here. The Hindu enlightenment, Self-realization, is "perfect enlightenment" whereas on this forum, a glimpse of the truth is considered enlightenment.

unwise was also just talking about this place being Buddhist, yet Buddhists believe that only the Buddha could attain enlightenment. First of all, this place may take Buddhist texts and ideas and use them, but it isn't Buddhist. It's unique...it's the Genius Forum. Secondly, there are many types of Buddhists. Not all of them believe that only the Buddha could attain enlightenment. That seems to be some Mahayana sect belief. The same guys that made up a bunch of extra books that weren't from the Buddha but based off of his teachings (their interpretations of it), and who worship a young child who they try to make enlightened (the Dalai Lama) by teaching and primping him all day long. I don't trust that side of Buddhism at all.

Anyway, mixing different systems doesn't work too well. There may be a truth to which they all point, but is there really a need for "samadhi" on this forum? This forum about THINKING?

David:Why do you two always feel a need to hug and pat each other on the back? It makes you look needy and insecure.

If it's true.
If it's Caused.
Am I culpable?
Am I blameworthy?
Am I guilty?

frank

Sapius:

That is too vague. Could you give an example of any one particular thing?

Since I take it you mean any one particular thing that is not the universe itself, take any one particular thing.

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: Let's change tack a bit: Let's consider a shadow on the ground. Do you agree that it cannot exist all by itself, that it depends on other things like a source of light, an object capable of casting shadows, a surface capable of receiving shadows, and so on?

s: Of course I agree. I have no argument with the inherency of causation.

Well, causation is no more inherent than "things" are. Causation is really just a conceptual tool to break things down and dispell the illusion that they objectively exist. Once that is done, the concept of causation no longer has any use and can be dispensed with. Indeed, it automatically disappears with the disappearance of things.

Okay, my next question is, do you agree that the shadow lacks objective existence? Keep in mind that a thing can only "objectively exist" if it has the capacity to exist all by itself, without the help of anything else.

Taking this into account, do you really not know why semantics interest me so?

It is primarily because your view on life depends on words having certain fixed meanings. Your understanding is still wrapped up in a lattice of words. Your mind lacks the freedom to see beyond the words and discern the intended meaning of what other people are saying.

An example is the concept of "inherent existence". You don't seem capable of using the term in any other way than the narrow fixed sense which supports your world-view. You even try to turn this limitation into a virtue by pretending that your fixed meaning is the one "true" meaning.

It has gotten to the stage where I can't even use "inherent existence" with you any more, because of your inability to deal with it in the way I want to use it. I have to use other terms, like "objective existence", instead.

suergaz:All is never empty, that's something we assume,

DQ: This shows, again, that you don't really understand what "emptiness" means. There are no assumptions involved in understanding emptiness - quite the reverse, it is an understanding which only arises when all of one's assumptions and projections have been put to bed.

suergaz: To understand emptiness one must assume that which is empty.

DQ: No, one only has to have experiences. In other words, one only has to be aware of what is being directly perceived in the moment, which doesn't require any assumptions. It is the objective existence of what is being experienced in the moment which is being challenged.

s: Every conscious challenge cannot be what it is without the assumption that there is a challenge.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you think the word "assumption" means?

s: Perhaps you really mean 'nothingness'

DQ: Definitely not. Even nothingness doesn't objectively exist.

s: Then your meaning, in words, is rendered ultimately unintelligible.

Well, this is your inability to think with other meanings coming through here. I assure you that what I am saying above is perfectly intelligible and full of truth. As with anything else, "nothingness" cannot exist in and of itself.

DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

suergaz: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

DQ: Whatever Nature wills.

Suergaz: Nature doesn't will anything! It is everything.

DQ: Yes, it is everything. And because it is everything, there is nothing that happens which Nature isn't fully involved in.

s: I'm still not certain 'wills' is the right term for what the universe does.

I was using the word in a poetic sense to refer to the reality of cause and effect.

-

If it's true.
If it's Caused.
Am I culpable?
Am I blameworthy?
Am I guilty

I am caused to love Frank and hate bullshit. I had nothing to do with it. No one knows why. I had no choice. There are no free choices. Do not condemn us.

I don't blame you; you can't help saying what you do. People here cannot stop believing you either. I don't condemn any of you. I give you my guru blessing.

Suergaz: all things are an infinity.

Sapius: How?

Suergaz: Since infinity is all, everything is infinite, irrespective of forms.

Sapius: That is too vague. Could you give an example of any one particular thing?

Suergaz: Since I take it you mean any one particular thing that is not the universe itself, take any one particular thing.

You can take that, but please tell me what do you mean ‘any one thing that is not the universe’? Was my saying ‘any one particular thing’ too complicated for your understanding? Please enlighten me… Is there any particular thing that is the universe? Or should we change certain definitions here?

Any ways, I pick Garfield (the cat), who I consider not to be the Universe, unless I garble the English language.