GENIUS FORUMS

Pye:
Again, I see dejavu on top of it, when he points out that there seems to be some discrepancy between inherent existence of a thing (i.e. its existing on its own) and its having been a relationally caused thing. Are these necessarily mutually exclusive?

Carmel:
The definition which I'm using for "inherent" correlates to the Aristotlean concept of "inherence."

"By being 'present in a subject' I do not mean present as parts in a whole, but being incapable of existence without the said subject."
(The Categories 1a 24-26)

The said subject being The Infinite and the multitude of causes which stem forth from it which ultimately bring an object into existence. So, no I don't see inherent existence and cause and effect as being mutually exclusive.

dejavu wrote:There is nothing that doesn't exist.

Correct. Defining "is" as "something that exists" - you have concluded that A=A.

dejavu wrote:There is nothing that doesn't exist. This does not put boundaries on everythings coming into existence

Again correct. I did not say that these things don't exist, but that they do not inherently exist. Pye correctly explained what inherent is meant by around here, and you and she seem to be on the same wavelength, so am I right to assume that you understand what I mean by inherency, and you just have a different definition?

Carmel wrote:Matter(the mountain, in this case) changes form, but still inherently exists. That's what I get from this koan (and from physics, the laws of conservation of energy/matter.)

What are you saying? That there was a mountain there, but a tsunami or earthquake or something demolished it, but it's still a mountain because there are mountain parts strewn all over?

Physics and philosophy should agree with each other, but physics follows philosophy - not the other way around. First someone comes up with an idea, then physics comes along to prove or disprove it.

dejavu wrote:I'd like to hear an expansion on your reply to Carmels last question if possible.

First there is a mountain. You see the mountain with ordinary eyes.

Then there is no mountain. It is contemplated in such detail that the mountain itself (by your mind's perception) dissolves into nothing. Quantum physic later showed this to be true, as the protons, neutrons, and electrons of atoms take up a minuscule percentage of the atom. Most of the atom is made of space between the electrons and the protons and neutrons. What's there is mostly space.

Then there is. After you have contemplated the mountain deeply and come to understand its true nature, in order to function in the world again, you must again be able to see the mountain as others see it. You will still have your memory and understanding, but you will take back the tools that you need to live in this world.

Those who have been enlightened and who remain a master live in this world, but not of it.

Carmel wrote:That which "doesn't exist" actually does exist, in your mind, as a thought or concept.

Yes, and that which completely does not exist is that which is not conceptualized, and possibly not conceptualizable.

Pye wrote:he points out that there seems to be some discrepancy between inherent existence of a thing (i.e. its existing on its own) and its having been a relationally caused thing. Are these necessarily mutually exclusive?

That entirely depends on how things are defined. If the definition of inherency excludes inheritency, then being under the influence of causality must be excluded. If inherency is defined in a way to allow for inheritency, then it can be as you and he have said. The important thing is the concept - the words are just what we use to get us there. It's easier if we are all working with the same definitions, but as long as the root of the matter is understood, some difference in terminology, so long as all parties understand the difference, is acceptable.

Elizabeth:
What are you saying? That there was a mountain there, but a tsunami or earthquake or something demolished it, but it's still a mountain because there are mountain parts strewn all over?

Carmel:
No, I'm saying the mountain is not inherently a mountain. It exhibits the properties of a mountain temporarily, but this is merely a temporal state of being. It inherently exists as all matter inherently exists according to the laws of conservation. Energy, or potential energy, in the form of matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. All matter and energy inherently exist on the matter-energy continnum. They can't "not exist", only change form.

Elizabeth:
Physics and philosophy should agree with each other, but physics follows philosophy - not the other way around. First someone comes up with an idea, then physics comes along to prove or disprove it.

Carmel:
Not necessarily, some discoveries are made quite by accident(cause and effect, if you prefer) in which case, philosophy follows physics. Either way, it's nice when they mutually co-exist. :)

Elizabeth:
First there is a mountain. You see the mountain with ordinary eyes.

Then there is no mountain. It is contemplated in such detail that the mountain itself (by your mind's perception) dissolves into nothing.

Then there is. After you have contemplated the mountain deeply and come to understand its true nature, in order to function in the world again, you must again be able to see the mountain as others see it.

Carmel:
What "others"? All "others"? Can I really know someone else's subjective reality? This statement also implies that they must be able to see the mountain the way I see it.

first there is a mountain/your mundane reality/delusion
then there is no mountain/you realize emptiness
then there is/form is emptiness (and i agree with Elizabeth Isabelle about needing to return to relative reality to navigate this world) :)

Carmel wrote:Elizabeth:
What are you saying? That there was a mountain there, but a tsunami or earthquake or something demolished it, but it's still a mountain because there are mountain parts strewn all over?

Carmel:
No, I'm saying the mountain is not inherently a mountain. It exhibits the properties of a mountain temporarily, but this is merely a temporal state of being. It inherently exists as all matter inherently exists according to the laws of conservation. Energy, or potential energy, in the form of matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. All matter and energy inherently exist on the matter-energy continnum. They can't "not exist", only change form.

Okay

Carmel wrote:Elizabeth:
Physics and philosophy should agree with each other, but physics follows philosophy - not the other way around. First someone comes up with an idea, then physics comes along to prove or disprove it.

Carmel:
Not necessarily, some discoveries are made quite by accident(cause and effect, if you prefer) in which case, philosophy follows physics. Either way, it's nice when they mutually co-exist. :)

I stand corrected on that point, but I am still trying to get you to think like a philosopher rather than a scientist for a moment. A scientist looks at facts, and draws a hypothesis from those facts. That is all well and good, and it is important that this is the only way that a scientist go about that, but we are working with philosophy now. Philosophy deals with pure thought. Although there is nothing wrong with looking at things scientifically, and it is good to look at things scientifically also, by not letting go of that side while you look at things philosophically, it could hinder you from seeing possibilities.

Carmel wrote:Carmel:
What "others"? All "others"? Can I really know someone else's subjective reality? This statement also implies that they must be able to see the mountain the way I see it.

I meant the mundane view. You could hardly go about, say, driving a car if you could not see the mountain; you might drive right into a cliff on the side of it.

Elizabeth:
Although there is nothing wrong with looking at things scientifically, and it is good to look at things scientifically also, by not letting go of that side while you look at things philosophically, it could hinder you from seeing possibilities.

Carmel:

The inverse of that statement is also true.

and, You're making an incorrect assumption.
I can see a possibility or many possibilities, yet still not agree with it/them. There is a big difference. There is nothing you have said, thus far that is beyond my comprehension. I simply don't agree with some of it.

Elizabeth:
I meant the mundane view. You could hardly go about, say, driving a car if you could not see the mountain; you might drive right into a cliff on the side of it.

Carmel:
lol, yep. :)

dejavu wrote:My definition is the truer as it assumes infinity. (:D)

.|..

dejavu wrote:

Those who have been enlightened and who remain a master live in this world, but not of it.

We live in and of the world. One cannot shake off ones causes.

I meant shaking off attachments that cause emotional strain.

Kunga wrote:first there is a mountain/your mundane reality/delusion
then there is no mountain/you realize emptiness
then there is/form is emptiness (and i agree with Elizabeth Isabelle about needing to return to relative reality to navigate this world) :)

Emptiness is exactly what we are talking about here, although it has been put into different terms. Realizing emtiness is exactly the same as realizing the lack of inherent existence in all things.

In the "then there is a mountain" stage at the end, the emptiness of the mountain has been realized, but we realize that the mountain has conventional existence, but not inherent existence.

reverb

First there is religion
Then there is no religion
Then there is religion




imagine

triple B deduct:

turns your ass into a mountain

|-)

DHodges wrote:

Kunga wrote:first there is a mountain/your mundane reality/delusion
then there is no mountain/you realize emptiness
then there is/form is emptiness

In the "then there is a mountain" stage at the end, the emptiness of the mountain has been realized, but we realize that the mountain has conventional existence, but not inherent existence.

Folks, there's still some things missing in this quite common and down trodden approach all have offered so far. Challenge yourself to find a more profound meaning, even with this classic! Remember this with Zen: the shorter and simpler, the harder to penetrate! It's not simplified for your laziness to enjoy it but to function sharper and nastier if applied all the way.

Consider this: the understanding of form=emptiness is the first mountain: some insight, some discernment, some consciousness. Without it you'd be lost in delusion and not even on the road: one would not be able to deal with mountains yet; lost in the swamp of shifting forms and inconsistency still.

But the saying is about progress; it's about learning; it's about a student's path.

No mountain means there's no emptiness and no form, no insights either: a complete drop. It's way more void than mindlessness (which actually has a lot of mental activity going on, deranged or not, in comparison with the lack of mind the word implies; but we could define mind as more than standard mental activity).

Now take great care with the following: if the second mountain was tied to a different realization or some different perspective, it would not have still been called mountain. It would have been called "a mountain seen with different eyes"," the same yet different", "mountain 2.0", or something like that. But the essence of the teaching is not about getting a new insight to add to yourself or to implement a new eye in your face: this is all still the first mountain.

Why then a return to the first mountain? Because nothing is added to the initial insight, nothing is invalidated from the original understanding, assuming you did arrive there in the first place. The last stage is pure practice, nature.

dejavu wrote: lol "Conventional existence"

Indeed.

What happens to you all when you get enlightened? For how long is it you that is happening and making it happen? Do people try to get close to you, try to touch you? Do they find reasons to be seen addressing you, saying things like "You're the best" or whispering "Are you on drugs?" And when your warping time finally leaves them wondering where it went, when it becomes all too clear to you that it was never really there to be stopped and you're left all alone with your bliss, --will it too, leave you?

Enlightenment is nothing special. It has nothing to do with bliss, and a halo is not issued. It's just reaching a certain level of understanding, kind of like understanding the fundamental theorem of calculus. It is a realization.

See, for instance,

Do not think that enlightenment is going to make you special—it's not. If you feel special in any way, then enlightenment has not occurred. I meet a lot of people who think they are enlightened and awake simply because they have had a very moving spiritual experience. They wear their enlightenment on their sleeve like a badge of honor. They sit among friends and talk about how awake they are while sipping coffee at a cafe.

The funny thing about enlightenment is that when it is authentic, there is no one to claim it. Enlightenment is very ordinary; it is nothing special. Rather than making you more special, it is going to make you less special. It plants you right in the center of a wonderful humility and innocence. Everyone else may or may not call you enlightened, but when you are enlightened the whole notion of enlightenment and someone who is enlightened is a big joke. I use the word enlightenment all the time—not to point you toward it but to point you beyond it. Do not get stuck in enlightenment.

When you're enlightened, you're basically the same bumbling schlub as before, only you know things.

Dhodges: Enlightenment is nothing special.

dejavu:
Neither was that chair. Someone should do something about it, it's taking up space.

Carmel:
Sit on it. ;)

...or turn it into thermodynamic energy and ash particles by burning it.

dejavu:
How certain? What's it a realization of again?

Carmel:
It's a realization that nothing really matters ...yet everything matters.

dejavu:
Leave innocence out of it! The idea of being planted in such a state makes me feel militantly inhumilitous.

Carmel:
...such the perennial cad!

You will be banished to the sensory deprivation tank for a period of no less than 2 days and forced to ponder the ramifications of your impish ways... and hey, you might even learn something about emptiness while you're in there!

Ryan Rudolph wrote: I wonder whether the construct "QRS" is better at promoting wisdom than one individual.

Perhaps a group has more power, more force to confront potential intellectuals. And perhaps potential intellectual see a larger force as more desirable to challenge because they want the big score of outwitting the best.

Because let us not forget that in the beginning there is a competitive drive in males simply to outdo what they believe is worthy opposition.

If QRS have done what they set out to do, they, specifically, should not be needed. Those of us who have been here a few years should be able to foster wisdom and clearer thinking amongst those who come here just as well as they ever did. If we need QRS specifically to fulfill that role, then they have done little more than provide entertainment.

You have a point about a group being better suited to present certain concepts than an individual, but we are a group. It's nice to see Dan around from time to time, and it's good that he keeps cleaning the spam off the board, it's nice of Kevin to continue to host this board, and it would be nice to see him and David back, but what are you still doing in the nest if not to contribute to the fostering of wisdom in others?

dejavu:
You'd better watch out yourself with talk of burning the furniture, they might just chuck you in with me!

Carmel:
lol!
No worries, I was just talking about burning a chair, not the "QRS" flag, not that I'm opposed to flag burning...in principle.;)

DHodges,
Thanks for that link. I think the author describes enlightment very accurately with with that quote, but the whole blog was dead accurate. Anyway, I'll be perusing that site in the future. :)

"The funny thing about enlightenment is that when it is authentic, there is no one to claim it. Enlightenment is very ordinary; it is nothing special. Rather than making you more special, it is going to make you less special. It plants you right in the center of a wonderful humility and innocence. Everyone else may or may not call you enlightened, but when you are enlightened the whole notion of enlightenment and someone who is enlightened is a big joke. I use the word enlightenment all the time—not to point you toward it but to point you beyond it. Do not get stuck in enlightenment."

DHodges wrote:I've been gone for a while. I just stopped in and I agree the place has deteriorated.

David Quinn, .. He took it upon himself to act as a teacher, to get people started on the path of wisdom, truth and enlightenment. And he did it for years, in a way that astounded me with his seemingly infinite patience. If he has burned out on that - or moved on to something he feels is more productive - he certainly did quite a bit, and was quite an inspiration to me,

There were others that contributed greatly in the past. Marsha, in particular. She had great strength of character, and inspired me in a completely different way than Dan and David.

Those with the ability and desire to make GF what it was are a rare breed indeed.

Yeah, David and Marsha. Always enjoyed Marsha, I still go over to that old site and read some of her interesting rants (thoughts), as a nurse she made it plain and simple.

As this place stands now? Well, guess it's gonna be as Ryan said. Decades, maybe centuries and people will still be reading the archives. Gathering logic from the oldtimers from ages past.

PS - What's David up to these days? I understand he's writing a book. Been doing some remote viewing of late, detect he's on Chapter 7 and Page 93.

I didn't enjoy Marsha's thinking very much, I was probably one of the reasons she left, I was always attacking her, she annoyed me in the beginning, I had very little patience for incorrigible dominance on the board, basically I found she mostly barked and harped at others, in this sort of motherly/bitchy way, and tried to pass it off as logical criticism...

She repeated what the admins said with no understanding, she seemed jaded and tired of life/reasoning by the end of it all.

perhaps the breaking point for her is when I insulted islam as worthless, she became quite offended due to some attachment she had to her husband, and how wrapped up her ego was in identifying with him and islam...

Marsha is a fine example of how women thinkers struggle with logic, and she was dangerous, as her emotional ranting was somewhat entertaining, seductive, and a stumbling block to more subtle mature truths. At least she knew her place in the brothel by the end. Women are at such a disadvantage when it comes to logic, she was not a bad person, just clouded by her own femininity.

Elizabeth,

but what are you still doing in the nest if not to contribute to the fostering of wisdom in others?

I stick around because I know of no other boards that have any philosophical life in them.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I didn't enjoy Marsha's thinking very much, I was probably one of the reasons she left, I was always attacking her, she annoyed me in the beginning, I had very little patience for incorrigible dominance on the board, basically I found she mostly barked and harped at others, in this sort of motherly/bitchy way, and tried to pass it off as logical criticism...

She repeated what the admins said with no understanding, she seemed jaded and tired of life/reasoning by the end of it all.

perhaps the breaking point for her is when I insulted islam as worthless, she became quite offended due to some attachment she had to her husband, and how wrapped up her ego was in identifying with him and islam...

Marsha is a fine example of how women thinkers struggle with logic, and she was dangerous, as her emotional ranting was somewhat entertaining, seductive, and a stumbling block to more subtle mature truths. At least she knew her place in the brothel by the end. Women are at such a disadvantage when it comes to logic, she was not a bad person, just clouded by her own femininity.

Elizabeth,

but what are you still doing in the nest if not to contribute to the fostering of wisdom in others?

I stick around because I know of no other boards that have any philosophical life in them.

Ryan, thanks for your response (critique of Marsha). In all my personal clutter of last December 2009 that was going through, missed this positive contribution of yours. Always good to see another's viewpoint of departed members, forum contributors of whatever stripe etc.

Your answer to Elizabeth says it all :-)

jupiviv wrote:

dejavu wrote:Jupiviv, true individuality not needing others? Are you sure about that?

Mensa say: Everyone needs at least one person in their lives otherwise it would be unnatural because if humanity was designed to be alone, we would all have the appearance of one sex.
We wouldn't be male and female. Male and female were meant for each other, otherwise they wouldn't be able to create together. However, somewhere, in the Bible it speaks about man going alone in life, he/she is individual because their uniqiness is separate from mediocrity. True individuality is knowing thyself! I am a true recluse who needs others, but prefers solitary comfort.

Yes.

The only thing I here agree with you upon is your:

"wh en you really get down to it, it's the way you express your wisdom that indicates the level and depth of your commitment to it."

And even then, I'd replace 'commitment to it' with 'love of it'.

As I define love, it's the same as commitment, or valuing. There is no emotional element in it. In fact, ordinary people would deride such a kind of love, but it's the only true kind of love.

Mensa asks: May I baffle you with my brilliance or dazzle you with my bullshit? I actually said that to someone I had just been introduced to at the media press back a few years ago. His answer back was " why yes if I can dazzle you with my bullshit" A five year relationship pursued from that statement.

Mensa says: I agree wholeheartedly how you define love and may I add that true love is total acceptance of the loved one. One does not try to change a loved one, love changes those in love.

Analyzing the need to analyze the need for "QRS"...

Reading this thread was like watching congress in gridlock...

Well, apparently, this forum does need the Q or the R or the S as their unquestioning devotees(read mindless followers) are incapable of carrying the torch. They lack the intellectual capacity and leadership abilities of Dan and David, so hence any meaningful discussion of "the nature of Ultimate Reality and Enlightment" has fallen by the wayside...what a pity.

Carmel wrote:Well, apparently, this forum does need the Q or the R or the S as their unquestioning devotees(read mindless followers) are incapable of carrying the torch.

Yeah, it's plainly visible how well those 3 are carrying the torch right now...

I think the reason why the mindless followers don't participate in the forum anymore is the same reason why our glorious leaders don't(we are mindless followers after all.) Can you guess what it is?

I'm not much into guessing games, jupiviv.