GENIUS FORUMS

Subtifuge? I resemble that remark!

Diebert,

me: The Huang Po quote just points to the idea that everything arises out of emptiness.

you: Emptiness is not a container in any way. Not a canvas, not even a backdrop. Although some poetic liberty is taken at times with these concepts to help people on the way.

No one is saying it is a container. But tell me, where does your next thought come from? Where does it go?

me: If you want to discuss logic as a distinct subject, you have to define it by means of making distinctions. Can we agree on a commonly used definition? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/logic

you: With commonly used definitions the danger becomes that you keep on arriving at common thoughts and perception.

We cannot talk about a subject like logic without some understanding that we are talking about the same thing. If we are talking about different things, obviously there is nothing to agree on.

What would you think of "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events". From thefreedictionary.com, number 4. This seems more useful, we want to get to the bottom of things, not just talk about science.

No, the relationship between elements is not what I am referring to when I use the word logic. For me, logic is the method using inferences and reason to reach conclusions. So you see, you are not even talking about what I am, yet you want to disagree with me.

me: Yes, certainty is a state of mind, that's all I have been saying.

you: It's also a degree of clarity one has in perceiving and understanding something - deluded or not. Truth is a state of mind too, ultimately - that's how we know it.

There are truths that require no certainty. For instance, you exist, certainty or uncertainty won't change that fact.

me: You want everything to be about what you know. What is so threatening about not knowing?

you: The threat lies in the abuse of the term to justify mindlessness. I think it's better to talk about knowing and different types of understanding (like 'ultimate') than to attack knowledge and understanding altogether, even while it has value at times to counter over-intellectualizing and identification with the conceptual. But really, that's not the biggest problem we're dealing with. So many people have barely thought for themselves in their whole life and are craving for giving up that little bit. That's what suffering tempts us to do.

I don't talk about not knowing in terms of ignorance. No one here is proselytizing for ignorance. It is a matter of recognizing the limits of knowledge. This thread was started as an attempt to show that certain knowledge is not what emptiness is about. The Tao is not about analyzing, synthesizing, comprehending or explicating new knowledge. In fact, the verse points to just the opposite, that only when you give up trying to know can you become whole.

me: Hasn't history shown that the most dangerous people are the ones who think they have all the answers?

you: The most dangerous people would be the ones who do not have a clue about the fundamentals of their own being and still continue living, babbling and causing unbelievable evil in the name of many a good thing and then blaming something else for the damning consequences.

This is my point, not yours. What you describe is done by people who think they know, what they are, what is important, what is good. The fundamental nature of your being does not have an agenda, especially about what others "should" do. It doesn't KNOW. Not knowing gives you, and by extension, everyone else, the freedom to be anything, rather than trying to mould yourself into some particular image and attempting to live out of that image.

samadhi wrote:

What would you think of "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events". From thefreedictionary.com, number 4. This seems more useful, we want to get to the bottom of things, not just talk about science.

No, the relationship between elements is not what I am referring to when I use the word logic. For me, logic is the method using inferences and reason to reach conclusions.

It doesn't matter: using inferences and reason to reach conclusions is merely a more detailed, worked out instance of defining relationships between elements and an element and the whole. It needs a more fundamental understanding of logic and the premises it's built on to see how the first is an unavoidable consequence of the latter.

There are truths that require no certainty. For instance, you exist, certainty or uncertainty won't change that fact.

If you mean to say that experience is happening and there's not nothing whatsoever then such unchallengeable fact should be called certainty and applied like one.

me: Hasn't history shown that the most dangerous people are the ones who think they have all the answers?

you: The most dangerous people would be the ones who do not have a clue about the fundamentals of their own being and still continue living, babbling and causing unbelievable evil in the name of many a good thing and then blaming something else for the damning consequences.

This is my point, not yours. What you describe is done by people who think they know, what they are, what is important, what is good. The fundamental nature of your being does not have an agenda, especially about what others "should" do. It doesn't KNOW. Not knowing gives you, and by extension, everyone else, the freedom to be anything, rather than trying to mould yourself into some particular image and attempting to live out of that image.

We're all living out a particular image, no matter if we think we're trying or not.

Thinking that the fundamental nature of your being is without agenda is delusion, since it has one by definition (nature=way=following). It might not be possible to completely know this nature though or how it works out in relation to everything else. However, the fundamental nature of existence itself, all existence, can be known without a doubt.

Diebert,

Sorry for the delay, I got wrapped up in the presidential campaign here which is starting to move into high gear. Go Obama! ;)

you: What would you think of "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events". From thefreedictionary.com, number 4. This seems more useful, we want to get to the bottom of things, not just talk about science.

me: No, the relationship between elements is not what I am referring to when I use the word logic. For me, logic is the method using inferences and reason to reach conclusions.

you: It doesn't matter: using inferences and reason to reach conclusions is merely a more detailed, worked out instance of defining relationships between elements and an element and the whole. It needs a more fundamental understanding of logic and the premises it's built on to see how the first is an unavoidable consequence of the latter.

Nevertheless, what you are referring to when you use the word, "logic," is not what I am referring to. You cannot contradict me by talking about a different subject. If you want to talk about logic as I am referring to it, we can do that but I am not interested in your all-inclusive definition.

me: There are truths that require no certainty. For instance, you exist, certainty or uncertainty won't change that fact.

you: If you mean to say that experience is happening and there's not nothing whatsoever then such unchallengeable fact should be called certainty and applied like one.

My point is that certainty applies to ideas that can be true or false, not to things that allow no room for doubt. It may not seem nonsensical to say, "I am certain that I exist," but it is nonsensical to say, "I am certain that I don't exist." Since existence cannot be falsified, being certain of it adds nothing to the fact of it, i.e. it is meaningless to assert. Do not put certainty where it doesn't belong.

me: Hasn't history shown that the most dangerous people are the ones who think they have all the answers?

you: The most dangerous people would be the ones who do not have a clue about the fundamentals of their own being and still continue living, babbling and causing unbelievable evil in the name of many a good thing and then blaming something else for the damning consequences.

me: This is my point, not yours. What you describe is done by people who think they know, what they are, what is important, what is good. The fundamental nature of your being does not have an agenda, especially about what others "should" do. It doesn't KNOW. Not knowing gives you, and by extension, everyone else, the freedom to be anything, rather than trying to mould yourself into some particular image and attempting to live out of that image.

you: We're all living out a particular image, no matter if we think we're trying or not.

Yes, when we take a state of mind as certain, we live out of its image. Your fundamental nature however is not a state of mind.

Thinking that the fundamental nature of your being is without agenda is delusion, since it has one by definition (nature=way=following).

You are asserting a state of mind as fundamental nature. Why do you want to do that?

It might not be possible to completely know this nature though or how it works out in relation to everything else. However, the fundamental nature of existence itself, all existence, can be known without a doubt.

What can you know about your fundamental nature? As soon as you assert knowledge, you are back into a state of mind. There is something prior to mind, what is that?

samadhi wrote: Sorry for the delay, I got wrapped up in the presidential campaign here which is starting to move into high gear. Go Obama! ;)

Fine, I'm not so regular visiting here myself even without campaigns. Keep up the work!

Nevertheless, what you are referring to when you use the word, "logic," is not what I am referring to. You cannot contradict me by talking about a different subject. If you want to talk about logic as I am referring to it, we can do that but I am not interested in your all-inclusive definition.

And I'm not so interested to restrict the discussion to the logic as you were referring to. Often we define terms in such a way we're already determining the conclusion we draw. We're both doing that of course. But your chosen definition of a "method using inferences and reason to reach conclusions" might do as well, though it's trickier. A new statement:

Going "beyond the mind" can only be distinguished from another dream by using inferences and drawing a conclusion. What other method do you suggest? Borrowing the authority of a logical teacher to determine this for you?

My point is that certainty applies to ideas that can be true or false, not to things that allow no room for doubt.

So you think that when there's no room for doubt, this cannot be called certainty. You claim that certainty has to leave room for doubt to be called certainty? (NB Merriam-Webster comes up with: "a state of being free from doubt" and "incapable of failing").

Could we use the same definitions of certain, please :)

You are asserting a state of mind as fundamental nature. Why do you want to do that?

Perhaps I should have stressed: your fundamental nature, as opposed to the nature of existence. Actually I did made great care to specify the difference. Now before you equal your fundamental nature with a timeless one, please note that you stated this nature gave "everyone else, the freedom to be anything" as opposed to wishing something specific. My reply is that's in our nature to have some specific set of values, no need to deny or hide them - and really more and more people are playing that game. Any timeless, non-knowing nature has nothing to do with giving freedom to people or taking it away really.

What can you know about your fundamental nature? As soon as you assert knowledge, you are back into a state of mind. There is something prior to mind, what is that?

There's no real clear beginning to my mind, although it seems in state of change in some way. Why would you assert something prior at all? If the mind would be like the bars of a prison cell door: are the bars created by the gaps in between or the gaps by the existence of the bars? Bars and gap are forming both the mind and is essentially assertion. This far we can know for sure about our own nature and how we experience existence.

And there's a twist here: the view of freedom beyond the prison cell is what created the prison door in the first place.

Diebert,

me: Nevertheless, what you are referring to when you use the word, "logic," is not what I am referring to. You cannot contradict me by talking about a different subject. If you want to talk about logic as I am referring to it, we can do that but I am not interested in your all-inclusive definition.

you: And I'm not so interested to restrict the discussion to the logic as you were referring to. Often we define terms in such a way we're already determining the conclusion we draw. We're both doing that of course.

I talk about logic because David equates it with enlightenment. If you redefine it in the sense you are doing, how one thing relates to another, it's basically meaningless. Everything can be about relationship, it doesn't tell you anything.

But your chosen definition of a "method using inferences and reason to reach conclusions" might do as well, though it's trickier. A new statement:

Going "beyond the mind" can only be distinguished from another dream by using inferences and drawing a conclusion. What other method do you suggest? Borrowing the authority of a logical teacher to determine this for you?

What is "beyond the mind" is not simply another idea. The problem is trying to relate to it like another idea. In that sense, it is not graspable, thus the poetry used by the Tao.

me: My point is that certainty applies to ideas that can be true or false, not to things that allow no room for doubt.

you: So you think that when there's no room for doubt, this cannot be called certainty.

No. I can be certain I am typing on a computer right now. It doesn't mean there can't be any doubt about my typing. No one would have any problem coming up with an alternate scenario. Certainty and doubt exist on a spectrum. What I point to does not exist on a spectrum.

You claim that certainty has to leave room for doubt to be called certainty? (NB Merriam-Webster comes up with: "a state of being free from doubt" and "incapable of failing").

Yes, holding an idea of certainty precludes doubt. That doesn't mean one can't be mistaken. The idea of certainty contains its negation. And we all know certainty often IS mistaken.

Could we use the same definitions of certain, please :)

I think we are. I am just saying that certainty doesn't apply where doubt doesn't apply.

me: You are asserting a state of mind as fundamental nature. Why do you want to do that?

you: Perhaps I should have stressed: your fundamental nature, as opposed to the nature of existence. Actually I did made great care to specify the difference. Now before you equal your fundamental nature with a timeless one, please note that you stated this nature gave "everyone else, the freedom to be anything" as opposed to wishing something specific. My reply is that's in our nature to have some specific set of values, no need to deny or hide them - and really more and more people are playing that game. Any timeless, non-knowing nature has nothing to do with giving freedom to people or taking it away really.

We can talk about fundamental nature or fundamental human nature. Just because they both us the word 'fundamental' doesn’t mean they are the same. The freedom of your fundamental nature does not deny your human nature nor does it dictate to it.

me: What can you know about your fundamental nature? As soon as you assert knowledge, you are back into a state of mind. There is something prior to mind, what is that?

you: There's no real clear beginning to my mind, although it seems in state of change in some way. Why would you assert something prior at all?

Because thoughts come and go. Something must be prior to their coming and going for them to come and go at all. Otherwise you could not distinguish them.

If the mind would be like the bars of a prison cell door: are the bars created by the gaps in between or the gaps by the existence of the bars? Bars and gap are forming both the mind and is essentially assertion. This far we can know for sure about our own nature and how we experience existence.

Right. The gaps exist prior to bars. But you can only distinguish them when the bars are present. Thus your thinking can reveal your own timeless nature.

And there's a twist here: the view of freedom beyond the prison cell is what created the prison door in the first place.

Indeed. Without samsara, where is nirvana?

samadhi wrote:Diebert,you:

There's no real clear beginning to my mind, although it seems in state of change in some way. Why would you assert something prior at all?

Because thoughts come and go. Something must be prior to their coming and going for them to come and go at all. Otherwise you could not distinguish them.

You can distinguish them because there's something other than thoughts, not because there's something prior. Thoughts translate wherever your attention is into concepts and personal understanding. Thoughts don't come and go, they simply change as your attention changes. As you move your awareness, your thoughts "move" simultaneously.

If the mind would be like the bars of a prison cell door: are the bars created by the gaps in between or the gaps by the existence of the bars? Bars and gap are forming both the mind and is essentially assertion. This far we can know for sure about our own nature and how we experience existence.

Right. The gaps exist prior to bars. But you can only distinguish them when the bars are present. Thus your thinking can reveal your own timeless nature.

There are no gaps prior to the bars. The bars give the gaps their definition. Without the bars, there would be a large space where the gaps would be; but that space is still defined by the cell frame or the walls, floor, and ceiling. There is no space prior to what defines the space. The space and what defines the space are both timeless, and ever-changing.

df,

diebert: There's no real clear beginning to my mind, although it seems in state of change in some way. Why would you assert something prior at all?

me: Because thoughts come and go. Something must be prior to their coming and going for them to come and go at all. Otherwise you could not distinguish them.

you: You can distinguish them because there's something other than thoughts, not because there's something prior. Thoughts translate wherever your attention is into concepts and personal understanding. Thoughts don't come and go, they simply change as your attention changes. As you move your awareness, your thoughts "move" simultaneously.

When I say there is something prior, I mean that there is something present whether there is thinking or not. After all, not thinking does not mean not conscious.

You are not thinking the same thought in each moment; that is why I say thoughts come and go.

You equate attention with awareness. You can do that but to me, attention is the focus or narrowing of awareness. The narrow focus tends to dismiss whatever else is also present. For instance, I am focusing on my computer screen right now. It doesn't mean there isn't any awareness of also sitting in a chair. Or of the sounds around me. The narrow attention jumps from object to object but the awareness doesn't move, things just come and go within in it.

diebert: If the mind would be like the bars of a prison cell door: are the bars created by the gaps in between or the gaps by the existence of the bars? Bars and gap are forming both the mind and is essentially assertion. This far we can know for sure about our own nature and how we experience existence.

me: Right. The gaps exist prior to bars. But you can only distinguish them when the bars are present. Thus your thinking can reveal your own timeless nature.

you: There are no gaps prior to the bars. The bars give the gaps their definition. Without the bars, there would be a large space where the gaps would be; but that space is still defined by the cell frame or the walls, floor, and ceiling. There is no space prior to what defines the space. The space and what defines the space are both timeless, and ever-changing.

Of course there are gaps prior to the bars. You just don't call them gaps, they are just space. Yes, the bars give the space definition and gaps arise. But without the bars, the space remains. It's true that you mostly don't notice the space without the objects within it. This is why thinking gets so much attention rather than what is prior to thinking. One of the big complaints with meditation is that it is "boring." Our culture is much more comfortable manipulating objects and ignoring the space in which they reside.