GENIUS FORUMS

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Christians believe that their soul cannot be destroyed by God, or the Devil, or anything else. It is in this way that they believe their soul is inherently existent.

That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.

Such a belief is a fantasy. There is no way we can know that a thing is caused to exist forever. A system is being created, in the imagination, in which a thing is being caused to exist forever (eg, "heaven"). But this imaginary system is impervious to outside influences which might cause the thing to stop existing. This system is thus an inherent existence.

If a thing can be caused to exist, then it can be caused to not exist.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Christians believe that their soul cannot be destroyed by God, or the Devil, or anything else. It is in this way that they believe their soul is inherently existent.

That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.

Such a belief is a fantasy. There is no way we can know that a thing is caused to exist forever. A system is being created, in the imagination, in which a thing is being caused to exist forever (eg, "heaven"). But this imaginary system is impervious to outside influences which might cause the thing to stop existing. This system is thus an inherent existence.

If a thing can be caused to exist, then it can be caused to not exist.

Kevin you seem like a nice enough guy, but to be completely honest with you, some of your arguments in this thread look like the product of a feeble mind. You are confusing these issues over and over again.

Just because something will never be destroyed, doesn't mean that it is not caused to exist - it simply means that no causes will ever arise that will destroy it. At best you could say that it is merely an unfounded prediction that these people are making when they say that such causes could never arise to destroy heaven. But that is a different issue altogether and has nothing to do with heaven inherently existing.

Jason wrote:You are confusing these issues over and over again.

It's you who are confusing them.

Just because something will never be destroyed, doesn't mean that it is not caused to exist

If something can never be caused to go out of existence, that means its in fantasy land. It means that it has been sectioned-off from the rest of reality, and made immune to all of reality.

- it simply means that no causes will ever arise that will destroy it. At best you could say that it is merely an unfounded prediction that these people are making when they say that such causes could never arise to destroy heaven.

No. I'm saying that it's an outright impossibility that there could ever be a thing that cannot be affected from the outside. And I'm saying that it's a fantasy that such a thing could exist — which is precisely the fantasy of inherent existence.

One of the many obvious reasons is that all boundaries depend on mind (and senses, etc) for their existence. If the causal factors change, then the boundaries change, and the former things which existed no longer exist.

Another obvious reason is that for a thing to be unchangeable it must have a boundary that is impervious to all causes, because if any causes are able to have an effect inside the boundary, the thing will be changed. But no such boundary is possible.

Jason wrote:Be that as it may, my point stands: virtually no one believes that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, thus they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

I think this point should be conceded to Jason.

The fact of the matter is that even a hellfire and brimstone Christian thinks not just his but your existence is dependent upon observing very particular rites and rituals “in this life”---dependent upon the “grace of God.” That’s why this place is, at least initially, warmly attractive to so many variations of them!

However, I think it should also be conceded that such an observation is not made by the Christian. He doesn’t stop to think deeply about what it means for the self to exist inherently---in fact, he is precluded from it.

To him, such a belief is concerned only with the conditions of existence---like a deaf mute who cannot hear or speak, he cannot even define or understand existence itself, I have noticed. This, of course, doesn’t stop the frantic sign language!

When he tries to think about defining and understanding existence itself, his mind simply bounces right back into conditions (“emotional states of being”) without a recognition of concrete thingness. To recognise such things, and thus the nature of impermanence, is the very death sentence he fears.

Let me put it this way: do you believe in an afterlife?

[Edit: emphasis added]

See? Thought so.

Kelly Jones wrote:I think I have enough grounds to call you to debate. Do you accept?

No I don't. Let's just keep discussing it here.

(:D)

Why, do you believe in an "afterlife"?

I can’t believe you’re asking me that, dejavu, when I’ve been so utterly patient with you, and generous enough to grant you such semantic folly as you have engaged! You could, at least, return the favour by seeking the whole contextual meaning, and not fussing over particular words and phrases.

Cease and desist, else I shall have to turn that heart of yours into cinders.

Let’s just say, hypothetically, that there was this thing called an afterlife. You know, like when this body of mine is six feet under and regular humans clamouring for some tangible keepsake of me in my leftover possessions. If the existence of such a place is that far removed from this life, what use have I for such a belief? Until someone can demonstrate to me some empirical evidence for an afterlife, such a thing is necessarily not after, but very much part of this one.

Kevin,

Of course no one in heaven can kill them because heaven is a state of awareness that killers don't have access to. A killer in heaven is like a married bachelor.

Nowhere is impervious to cause and effect. You might be a good person when you went to heaven, but after a few hundred years you might well become corrupted by evil influences from outside, like you might get through satellite tv.

Could you lose your enlightenment through outside influences?

The problem is you seem to suppose that this other dimension is going to operate just like this one. If it did, it would already be here!

I am not referring to cause and effect, but the idea that we will have the same lack of vision that we have now, and be vulnerable to deceptions.

But even if you did become corrupted, you would no longer be in heaven when that occurred.

Leyla,

he cannot even define or understand existence itself, I have noticed.

That's because he is honest. No one knows what existence is.

Even if we define it as "That which is not nothing" this does not tell us what it is.

Anna wrote:Anna: Enlightenment is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything, you say. And apparently, the true thing is that A=A, which it does, and that all things are caused, and are also causing. The main advantage of the latter is realizing that all things lack inherent existence, which does seem pretty profound and yet, didn't we really always know that?

Kelly: No.

Anna: Alright, so it may or may not mean that I do not inherently exist,...

Kelly: It definitely means no things inherently exist, including me and you.

Anna: ....but this is debatable,....

Kelly: Not by rational persons.

Anna: .....because there is something which inherently exists, and all things partake of it.

Kelly: Compared to what does it inherently exist? Non-inherent existence? Does that inherently exist too?

Anna: Kelly, obviously something inherently exists, or we could not have existence. You can call it the totality or nature if you like. I tend to call it God, or the Absolute, perhaps Vishnu. The Tao.

Kelly: Define existence.

Anna: I am not sure what existence is, if I knew perhaps I could understand it better. Even physics speaks of nonmaterial particles, but I can't fathom that. I tend to not know what nonmaterial might mean. To me, anything that exists has a substance of some sort.

Are you saying that existence <> inherent existence? Or are they the same?

It looks as though you define existence as 'material'.

Anna to Leyla wrote:No one knows what existence is.

You just said "anything that exists has a substance of some sort".

Even if we define it as "That which is not nothing" this does not tell us what it is.

You have just said it is not non-material and not non-substance.

The problem is, we speak of the eternal but we can't understand it, no use pretending.

You have just said it is not mortal and based in time.

And a causeless thing is unfathomable, except that it's the only possibility.

Is this 'causeless thing' a thing ? Therefore it exists, and therefore it has a substance, and therefore it is material. Disagree?


Define cause.

Jason wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:I think I have enough grounds to call you to debate. Do you accept?

No I don't. Let's just keep discussing it here.

But you just said you have "called David" on his stating the truth that causal interdependence means things don't really exist at all. And you just said it was pathetic of me to state it as well.

Am I to conclude that you haven't really thought the matter over at all?

Iolaus wrote:

Nowhere is impervious to cause and effect. You might be a good person when you went to heaven, but after a few hundred years you might well become corrupted by evil influences from outside, like you might get through satellite tv.

Could you lose your enlightenment through outside influences?

Certainly. If an enlightened person is involved in an accident which causes brain damage, and which causes the loss of all memory, and the ability of memory, then the person will lose their enlightenment.

The problem is you seem to suppose that this other dimension is going to operate just like this one. If it did, it would already be here!

Cause and effect operates everywhere, and to that extent everywhere operates in the same way, and everywhere is connected to here.

I am not referring to cause and effect, but the idea that we will have the same lack of vision that we have now, and be vulnerable to deceptions.

Due to cause and effect, anything, anywhere, is vulnerable to change.

But even if you did become corrupted, you would no longer be in heaven when that occurred.

That's like saying that you can't destroy heaven, because the moment it could be destroyed it would cease to exist as heaven, and therefore you wouldn't have a chance to destroy it.

Anna:

That's because he is honest. No one knows what existence is.

Hm, yes. The Christian is a gorgeously awesome fellow in all his honesty. On the one hand, he easily confesses not having the foggiest idea about the nature of reality and existence yet, on the other and in all this ignorant yet omniscient glory, he has the ability to know that nobody else knows anything about them, either.

Magic. Just fantastic how that works!

Even if we define it as "That which is not nothing" this does not tell us what it is.

Well, it at least tells you something about it! If you phrased it in the positive, you'd have, "That which is something." Surely, you subscribe to that as a start. Emptiness tells a reasoning mind something more about it, too.

What do you expect will happen when you hear the truth about the nature of reality and existence; or will you now tell me you know what it is?

dejavu wrote:It is true you've been patient with me Leyla.

My eyes will become coals, my tongue flame, and the heart of me indistinguishable from your own before anyone demonstrates their afterlife.

"When pigs fly" would have done it! Though, I am certainly one who can appreciate the beauty in a poetically rendered backhanded compliment. :)

Leyla,

Hm, yes. The Christian is a gorgeously awesome fellow in all his honesty. On the one hand, he easily confesses not having the foggiest idea about the nature of reality and existence yet, on the other and in all this ignorant yet omniscient glory, he has the ability to know that nobody else knows anything about them, either.

Are you calling me a Christian, in the hopes you can use it to insult me? I have no religion. God is my religion.

Well, it at least tells you something about it! If you phrased it in the positive, you'd have, "That which is something." Surely, you subscribe to that as a start.

Big deal. It doesn't tell me what I want to know.

What do you expect will happen when you hear the truth about the nature of reality and existence; or will you now tell me you know what it is?

Uh, I believe I've heard it. Nothing much happened.

Are you calling me a Christian, in the hopes you can use it to insult me? I have no religion. God is my religion.

Yes, I'm calling you a Christian and, no, I don't care how you feel about it.

Big deal. It doesn't tell me what I want to know.

How fucking rude of it, I tell you.

Uh, I believe I've heard it. Nothing much happened.

Yes. You're a hypocrite who changes her mind without a moment's notice to itself.

Jason wrote: That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.

The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

If we use Kevin's water fountain as an example, for such a fountain to last forever the pipes leading to it would have to remain intact forever, the electricty driving the motors would have to be supplied forever, the coal used to generate the electricity would have to be mined forever, the earth would have to survive the sun going supernova and last forever, and so on.

But more importantly, even if the fountain could be moved and maintained indefinitely in other ways, it still wouldn't reach the status of "permanent existence". Given that the fountain is constantly changing, never the same from one moment to the next, it is meaningless to talk about it "permanently existing" over the space of a single second, let alone forever.

-

Iolaus wrote:I have no religion. God is my religion.

I have no car. My car is a Toyota.

DHodges wrote:

Iolaus wrote:I have no religion. God is my religion.

I have no car. My car is a Toyota.

Do you get angry very often Dave? My image of you, and it could be completely wrong, is of a rather mild-mannered person. I'd like to see you get more angry and aggressive. It might be good for you.

Or it might not.

Do you get angry very often Dave? My image of you, and it could be completely wrong, is of a rather mild-mannered person. I'd like to see you get more angry and aggressive. It might be good for you.

Why?

Surely one of the outcomes of deep wisdom should be to become immune to anger, though one may still act angry if that is perceived to be a strategically wise move.

Lol, unfortunately I'm sort of angry (or at least annoyed) so very often nowadays - the world is just too insane for me to be comfortable. I work and read or watch media - which is so full of devious self interest made out to be truth or righteousness.

Anyone recall if the QRS have ever written about dealing with the frustrations of wisdom? I guess in a way this frustration leads one to seek complete non-emotionalism.

Jamesh wrote:I guess in a way this frustration leads one to seek complete non-emotionalism.

Which makes it seem like escapism - these lonely tortured highly sensitive souls? There's some truth in there but also an error, the same error that led Buddhism to mean merely elevation of suffering, tending to the wounds or softening the blows.

What I noticed is that it's not just that frustration increases with insight (or as the preacher said in Ecclesiastes: "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow"). The view goes even further when things keep unwinding.

What I'd add is that this frustration, this existential suffering underlies everybody's actions. Below the surface, the colorful clown masks we are being effected and conceive of ways to deal with it. And it takes some degree of sensitivity, of failure, or inability to mask or to divert, before we're able to recognize it.

As soon as one sees how the suffering and frustration is interwoven with emotionalism in a deep intimate way, it comes as no surprise that suppressing or forbidding emotional life also suppresses any true sense of suffering. This is how anti-depressive and mood-stabilizing medication works too. Pain-banners basically.

But the opposite road makes sense too: once suffering and frustrations are faced and addressed, without diminishing them, without avoidance and their causes are rooted out, there's no reason for emotionalism to endure as there's no base for it anymore.

This last thing is important to stress: seeking non-emotionalism would be a terrible error, a bit like seeking non-fever or non-coughing instead of health. It doesn't make sense. It's suffering that has to be recognized first for what it really is, the ignorance disperses and after that everything follows just its natural development with no base for frustration to arise in any serious psychological sense.

Jason wrote:Do you get angry very often Dave? My image of you, and it could be completely wrong, is of a rather mild-mannered person. I'd like to see you get more angry and aggressive. It might be good for you.

You are correct that I am mild-mannered and have a tendency to be overly polite. I don't run into the problems Rhett has talked about in the "Inferiority Complexes" thread.

However, discussing philosophy is generally not the place for anger and aggression. It gets people riled up and defensive, and interferes with rational discussion.

I am capable of acting very aggressively, when I feel it is called for.

Well, interestingly, i am also mild mannered and have a tendency to be overly polite.

But almost nothing makes me act aggressively, but i'm working on it, so i can switch it on if it's needed.