GENIUS FORUMS

Comments in italics, mine.

The tau (reason) which can be tau-ed (reasoned) is not the Eternal Tau (Reason).

The reasoning about Ultimate Reality is not Ultimate Reality.

The name which can be named is not the Eternal Name.

UR can manifest and therefore be expressed (through reasoning, labelling and categorisation) as/through different things, but is itself always the same in essence: eternal.

Non-existence is named the Antecedent of (that which precedes) heaven and earth (spiritual and material/freedom and entrapment, etc); and Existence is named the Mother of all things.

Non-existence precedes “heaven and earth” and existence creates it. Non-existence and existence, then, are not the Ultimate Reality but are a manifestation of it and what they are called does not comprise the essence of Ultimate Reality/the Infinite itself.

In eternal non-existence (eternal absence of “heaven and earth”), therefore, man seeks to pierce the primordial (original/fundamental) mystery; and, in eternal existence (eternal creation), to behold the issues of the Universe.

But these two are one and the same, and differ only in name.

The primordial mystery is essentially/necessarily the same as beholding the issues of the universe. In seeking to pierce the primordial mystery man is beholding the issues of the universe.

This sameness (or existence and non-existence) I call the abyss — the abyss of abysses — the gate of all mystery.

Primordial mystery and beholding the issues of the universe together serve as an abyss to the yet unenlightened but the enlightened see and knowingly use the gate through which they pass between worlds -- heaven and earth -- at will, never losing sight of Truth; and as if living in parallel universes with the unenlightened.


Translated by John Chalmers (1868)

.

Leyla wrote:

Primordial mystery and beholding the issues of the universe together serve as an abyss to the yet unenlightened but the enlightened see and knowingly use the gate through which they pass between worlds -- heaven and earth -- at will, never losing sight of Truth; and as if living in parallel universes with the unenlightened.

Could you elaborate on the ideas in this paragraph? Or maybe just reword it in simpler language.

-
Sue

Sue,

UR as eternal non-existence (preceding heaven and earth) has the man seeking to pierce the fundamental mystery. UR as eternal existence has man beholding the issues of the universe -- infinite creation. But both non-existence and existence are necessarily a manifestation of the eternal, and in this sameness one sees “the abyss of abysses”: a gateway through which mystery is both lost (for the enlightened) and found (by the unenlightened).

Same gate, parallel worlds.

.

Same gate, parallel worlds.

Leyla, that too lies within the conceptual.

Further to your fine expressions…

This sameness (or existence and non-existence) I call the abyss — the abyss of abysses — the gate of all mystery.

Well, when he ‘calls’ it ‘abyss’ he is yet again indulging in ‘naming calling’, which a Realized mind does NOT actually indulge in, like calling IT 'abyss', ‘emptiness’, ‘void’, ‘Tao’, or any other expression, for then it becomes an IT, mentally, which necessarily separates it from what IT could not be or is NOT, mentally speaking.

Primordial mystery and beholding the issues of the universe together serve as an abyss to the yet unenlightened but the enlightened see and knowingly use the gate through which they pass between worlds -- heaven and earth -- at will, never losing sight of Truth; and as if living in parallel universes with the unenlightened.

But at the same time a Realized mind also knows at all times…

These two are one and the same, and differ only in name.

Hence, even the meaning in and of “enlightenment” or “un-enlightenment” differ only in name, so there remains no “two” worlds as such that one may travel in between. It all becomes the Here and Now without any exceptions. Leaving ALL that there is, as simply IS, and one reacts only to what one experiences, and ALL that exists, exists as and when according to it’s causal conditions and relationship, which is nothing more than reacting with Truth, for nothing remains that is untrue or “hidden” beneath, because neither of them, Truth and Un-truth, hold any more meaning other than that they differ only in name.

So, the “mystery” that arises out of ‘reasoning’ that how un-real or real a tree is does not remain a query or mystery at all, for that thought does not actually arise any more. One does not apply “reasoning” even to ones own being, but yet is clearly able to see things through it, using it simply as a tool, without giving any essential meaning or assigned value to Reasoning itself; End of story.

The “sufferings” found, and which arise from in and of Reasoning’s, die. That is when Reasoning has been taken to its extreme end; never again do they arise to Question Existence in and of itself, otherwise, one simply reacts in and of A=A, and hence reasoning still persists, becasue it is impossible to be otherwise.

Hi, Sapius.

I'll give your reply proper consideration and reply soon.

.

Sapius wrote:

Well, when he ‘calls’ it ‘abyss’ he is yet again indulging in ‘naming calling’, which a Realized mind does NOT actually indulge in, like calling IT 'abyss', ‘emptiness’, ‘void’, ‘Tao’, or any other expression, for then it becomes an IT, mentally, which necessarily separates it from what IT could not be or is NOT, mentally speaking.

Yes, he is indulging in name-calling, as he must in order to convey truth. The difference is, he is aware exactly of the nature of this “indulgence” and, therefore, thingness, that’s all. Had you yourself not consciously indulged in such name-calling, you would not be able to provide any sort of insight into it.

I’m curious as to the nature of your “mentally” qualification. Would you mind expanding on why you indulge in such name-calling/distinction?

.

Leyla, sorry for the delay.

Yes, he is indulging in name-calling, as he must in order to convey truth.

Which truth? This one…

The name which can be named is not the Eternal Name.

The difference is, he is aware exactly of the nature of this “indulgence” and, therefore, thingness, that’s all.

But doesn’t this create more confusion rather than clarify it? I mean, is there or is there not any logical reasoning behind saying this…

The tau (reason) which can be tau-ed (reasoned) is not the Eternal Tau (Reason).

The reasoning about Ultimate Reality is not Ultimate Reality.

Had you yourself not consciously indulged in such name-calling, you would not be able to provide any sort of insight into it. I’m curious as to the nature of your “mentally” qualification. Would you mind expanding on why you indulge in such name-calling/distinction?

I think our definitions of name-calling are different because you seem to include distinction as well. Distinguishing one thing from another is not the same as naming an imagined non-existent non-thing. And where have you seen me doing just that? I may use a word according to what someone else may define it to be, but that does not mean that I agree to it's definition or the story behind it.

[snip] both non-existence and existence are necessarily a manifestation of the eternal,[snip]

I don’t see any possibility of non-existence. Could you please explain that?

Sapius: Leyla, sorry for the delay.

No problem.

L: Yes, he is indulging in name-calling, as he must in order to convey truth.

S: Which truth? This one…

Quote: "The name which can be named is not the Eternal Name."

It’s impossible to comprehend emptiness without categorising “things” and elaborating on the nature of same but such categorisation and elaboration is not emptiness. Logic has no “choice” but to make the infinite finite in order to express the infinite. Having expressed the infinite via finitude does not render the infinite finite; but there is no other way to point to it.

L: The difference is, he is aware exactly of the nature of this “indulgence” and, therefore, thingness, that’s all.

S: But doesn’t this create more confusion rather than clarify it?

Yes. I think it most definitely can, and does. That’s no reason not to do it, though.

S: I mean, is there or is there not any logical reasoning behind saying this…

Quote: "The tau (reason) which can be tau-ed (reasoned) is not the Eternal Tau (Reason)."

"The reasoning about Ultimate Reality is not Ultimate Reality."

Of course there is. This idea does not say to me that there is some “reason” out there that cannot be understood; rather, it simply says that all forms of reason are finite forms, just like any other form/thing.

S: Well, when he ‘calls’ it ‘abyss’ he is yet again indulging in ‘naming calling’, which a Realized mind does NOT actually indulge in, like calling IT 'abyss', ‘emptiness’, ‘void’, ‘Tao’, or any other expression, for then it becomes an IT, mentally, which necessarily separates it from what IT could not be or is NOT, mentally speaking.

L: Yes, he is indulging in name-calling, as he must in order to convey truth. The difference is, he is aware exactly of the nature of this “indulgence” and, therefore, thingness, that’s all. Had you yourself not consciously indulged in such name-calling, you would not be able to provide any sort of insight into it.

S: I think our definitions of name-calling are different because you seem to include distinction as well. Distinguishing one thing from another is not the same as naming an imagined non-existent non-thing.

I have c&p’ed the context to this particular question (in the three paragraphs above) in an attempt to avoid the conversation going off track without addressing the original point.

So, going back to where you speak of name-calling and a realised mind: it seems to me you are implying that a “realised mind” never speaks of/names that which has made it realised because that which has made it realised is an imaginary non-existent non-thing. Would that be right?

S: And where have you seen me doing just that? I may use a word according to what someone else may define it to be, but that does not mean that I agree to it's definition or the story behind it.

Well, -- again, in the very particular (and finite) context of this question -- if you did, you would be agreeing to something finite (with boundaries) as being the infinite, which would be silly.

.

It’s impossible to comprehend emptiness without categorising “things” and elaborating on the nature of same but such categorisation and elaboration is not emptiness.

Logic has no “choice” but to make the infinite finite in order to express the infinite. Having expressed the infinite via finitude does not render the infinite finite; but there is no other way to point to it.

Leyla, I generally understand and agree, but I’m simply discussing… my point here is… if we are calling or naming, as in – ‘emptiness’ – then that itself makes it a thing since we do mean something by it, but if we then say that it is ‘no-thing’ or express it as ‘not nothing whatsoever’, then what exactly do we mean?

Suppose if we say that it is the impermanency of things seen through casualty which points to the permanency of an infinite process or flow of impermanency, then that should be more then enough since it says exactly what one means, (which of course does not create a mysterious atmosphere much needed to create its profound standings), rather than create a “non-thing”, which is not… exactly… nothing whatsoever… and so… hence… yet it is….

Causality and the caused are both logically apparent, and neither could exist without the other, so if we consider the caused as illusory, then one necessarily takes causality as REAL as in permanent, ignoring that which is caused, whereas both are REAL since no thing would be without causality, and no causality without things being around, both are infinitely interdependent, and that seems to be the only Reality put together.

My point is, if things are illusory, then does that make emptiness (however one wants to define it) non-illusionary?

We just covered this topic in my critical thinking course:

Leyla,

I think what you're refering to, in academic terms, is called a "referent." A referent describes the meaning of a term/symbol/concept via other terms/symbols/concepts. Think of a Venn Diagram (if you're not familiar, its two circles overlapped, creating a vertical oval in the center).

Example:

All men (subject) are mortal (predicate).

((((() ) - Venn Diagram

men|mortal

Now, the Venn Diagram itself is a means to express words via symbols.

In your example, emptiness is a concept (an abstract) that can be expressed through a multitude of terms/symbols/concepts.

And so it goes with all concepts.

So what caused causality?

Some questions aren't important.

Steven Coyle wrote:I think what you're refering to, in academic terms, is called a "referent." A referent describes the meaning of a term/symbol/concept via other terms/symbols/concepts. Think of a Venn Diagram (if you're not familiar, its two circles overlapped, creating a vertical oval in the center).

Example:

All men (subject) are mortal (predicate).

((((() ) - Venn Diagram

men|mortal
.

In "All men (subject) are mortal (predicate)." where "Mortal" would be a big circle, and "Men" would be a small circle within the circle of "Mortal" rather than overlapping. "All" means it's all the way inside. "Some" would make an overlap.

Steven Coyle wrote:Some questions aren't important.

Does that mean that you don't know what caused causality, do not want to think about it, and do not want to admit it?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:I think what you're refering to, in academic terms, is called a "referent." A referent describes the meaning of a term/symbol/concept via other terms/symbols/concepts. Think of a Venn Diagram (if you're not familiar, its two circles overlapped, creating a vertical oval in the center).

Example:

All men (subject) are mortal (predicate).

((((() ) - Venn Diagram

men|mortal
.

In "All men (subject) are mortal (predicate)." where "Mortal" would be a big circle, and "Men" would be a small circle within the circle of "Mortal" rather than overlapping. "All" means it's all the way inside. "Some" would make an overlap.

Actually, "Some" would be indicated with an "X" inbetween both circles.

Good ol' Venn Diagrams

:)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:Some questions aren't important.

Does that mean that you don't know what caused causality, do not want to think about it, and do not want to admit it?

Well, technically, nothing in the universe is uncaused - logically it just doesn't add up. So, the question answers itself -- in a sense.

wikipedia wrote:The orange circle (set A) might represent, for example, all living creatures which are two-legged. The blue circle, (set B) might represent living creatures which can fly. The area where the blue and orange circles overlap (which is called the intersection) contains all living creatures which both can fly and which have two legs — for example, parrots. (Imagine each separate type of creature as a point somewhere in the diagram.)

Humans and penguins would be in the orange circle, in the part which does not overlap with the blue circle. Mosquitos have six legs, and fly, so the point for mosquitos would be in the part of the blue circle which does not overlap with the orange one. Things which do not have two legs and cannot fly (for example, whales and rattlesnakes) would all be represented by points outside both circles. Technically, the Venn diagram above can be interpreted as "the relationships of set A and set B which may have some (but not all) elements in common".

(bold inserted by me)
Venn Diagram of sets A & B

wikipedia wrote:Sometimes a rectangle called the Universal set is drawn around the Venn diagram to show the space of all possible things.

universal set
.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:Some questions aren't important.

Does that mean that you don't know what caused causality, do not want to think about it, and do not want to admit it?

Well, technically, nothing in the universe is uncaused - logically it just doesn't add up. So, the question answers itself -- in a sense.

The closest thing I can come up with under that paradigm is that causality caused causality, but that is circular logic (which makes it void).
.

Steve wrote:

Well, technically, nothing in the universe is uncaused - logically it just doesn't add up. So, the question answers itself -- in a sense.

What about the totality? How can the totality have a cause? By definition it can't, therefore the totality is uncaused.

One of my more meaningful childhood memories, I think between the ages of around 8 to 12, I asked a few friends: "what created God?" "How can something come from nothing?" To ask those questions for the first time is to experience pure perplexity and mystery.

To this day I still find the situation of there being anything at all perplexing and not rational.

Cory Duchesne wrote:One of my more meaningful childhood memories, I think between the ages of around 8 to 12, I asked a few friends: "what created God?"

I asked my Sunday School teacher who created God. I don't remember how old I was, but I was too young for the Girl Scouts, as I was in the Brownies at the time. The teacher gave me some more crayons and told me to just do the assignment.

Well, technically, nothing in the universe is uncaused - logically it just doesn't add up. So, the question answers itself -- in a sense.

What about the totality? How can the totality have a cause? By definition it can't, therefore the totality is uncaused.

A minor detail.

Steven Coyle wrote:Ah, that's what I meant.

Uh-huh. Yeah.

You changed that post quickly... :)

The Totality isn't in the universe--that's why it's called the totality.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:The Totality isn't in the universe--that's why it's called the totality.

.

Okay wise-guy, so what caused the totality?

Same question, same concept. God doesn't care what you call Him; it's the meaning that counts.