Ruthless Truth

[Informer]

Yeah, that example doesn't apply. RT proposing to look at the self with the self. Don't you see that doesn't make sense?

 

Do you disprove a unicorn by having it look at itself?

 

Do you disprove a car by having it look at itself?

 

All of the examples you put forth have an object and subject which are different.

 

"self" looking for "self" is simply ignorant. Of course it won't find itself!

[Otis]

You are missing my point.

 

The actuality of hearing has nothing to do with explanation.

 

The brrrr is an actuality. Whether you want to deny it or not - it's there. And it can hurt, if it is a screeching sound.

 

The words appearing on this screen too, is an actuality as a visual experience, which leads to a mental translation of that visual image of words into mental process of verbalization... which is in actuality a process of thoughts.

 

All these are actual.

 

Even the thought of unicorn is actual as a thought. It cannot be denied.

 

The unicorn however is not actual, cannot be found anywhere in reality.

 

Interpretation... is also actual, but only as a thought.

 

Actuality has is there whether or not there is imagination - actuality of sights, sounds, is here whether you are having imaginations. Even imagination (like imagining unicorn) is actual as a thought, but the content of the imagination may not be actual.

 

A thought of self, the fictional self is only actual as a thought... the imagined self is not in itself actual, it cannot be found in, or apart from the thought and all experiences.

Well, sure, but none of this justifies your conclusions.

 

A mirage may be a "real" thing (no less so than the thought of the unicorn), but that doesn't mean the oasis is really there.

 

Which just shows why "reality" is a concept that is entirely subjective. Everything that we call "reality" is just in the contents of our heads. It is just a belief construct, a simulacrum. That is where unicorns are, that is where mirages are, that is where certainty is.

 

But the "actual" is something that includes my head, but also includes everything beyond it. And that is the unknowable part.

 

Explain to me how you can justify claiming to have a view beyond your own subjective reality.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

But how do you "know" this? How could "you" know anything if you don't exist? How could you formulate the conclusion with controlled thoughts that "you" do not exist? How is any of it formulated and fallowed, dismissed or accepted?

How can sound be heard without hearer?

 

Simple. There is no hearer needed. Hearing-sound arise when ear and sound meets.

 

How can sight be seen without seer?

 

Simple. There is no seer needed. Seeing-sight arise when eye and scenery meets.

 

How can knowledge and vision of no-self be seen without seer?

 

Simple. There is no knower needed. Knowledge arise when contemplating on no-self bears fruit, just like if you look closely enough and investigate the 'spot the object in this picture puzzle' suddenly bears fruit and bingo! You see that object in the picture, and you can never unsee it again.

 

No seer was ever necessary. It is a process of interaction, conditions being met, then something manifest.

 

And when the conditions meet, you cannot avoid it even if you wanted to! (more precisely: it cannot be avoided even if aversion arises) for example, if airplane passes by, it WILL be heard even if you hated it - no controller, no hearer. Hearing simply happens!

 

 

Sure if you turn of internal dialogue there is a blank state, but that doesn't prove anything about the self.

Going into a blank state doesn't let you see that there is no self. And having thoughts doesn't prove a self. You need to investigate and see that there is no you in any experience.

 

Thoughts arise, sure. A thought or story about myself arise, sure. Just a thought.

It proves that thoughts can be supressed, and let out, sorted out and counted. What is deciding to do this? What is deciding to sit here and type this stuff about no-self?

When asked with "who does ..." Buddha would always reply with this: You asked the question wrong, I never said "I does". If I said "I does/feel/see", then the question "who does/feel/see" would apply. But since I don't, the correct question that should have been asked would be this: with what condition does the experience or action occur?

 

There is no decider. Decisions happen. Due to various latent tendencies, imprints, influences, causes and conditions. Sitting here happens. No sitter. Typing happens due to the process of thinking, seeing words, pondering, intention to act, action... etc. An entire interdependent process.

 

 

Did you decide to do that? Of course not you don't exist, so it must have been another influence that directed you to do this.

 

So I take it you believe there is no such thing as free will as well?

There is intention, there is no controller. This view is beyond the extreme of free will (in the sense that the subjective self controls the objects) nor determinism (in the sense that the objective universe controls this self)

 

The 'middle' lies in seeing that intentions, imprints, influence individual actions. But actions do not arise without causes and conditions. It is not caused by others... nor self-made (free-will caused by an inner agent)... nor other-made (deterministic, caused by an outer agent)

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

 

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form."

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Yeah, that example doesn't apply. RT proposing to look at the self with the self. Don't you see that doesn't make sense?

 

Do you disprove a unicorn by having it look at itself?

By seeing that the thought of unicorn looking at unicorn is simply another thought. Thinking is just thought. No actual thinker!

 

Also: can you stop that sound of airplane being heard? No. No hearer or controller. It is just hearing... and is unavoidably happening due to causes and conditions.

[Otis]

How can sound be heard without hearer?

 

Simple. There is no hearer needed. Hearing-sound arise when ear and sound meets.

Nonsense. Otherwise, a dead person, a deaf person, a statue, or a disembodied ear would hear sound. Try harder.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

Well, sure, but none of this justifies your conclusions.

 

A mirage may be a "real" thing (no less so than the thought of the unicorn), but that doesn't mean the oasis is really there.

Correct.

 

Which just shows why "reality" is a concept that is entirely subjective.

As an experience, it is undeniable.

 

As an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience, that is just a concept.

Everything that we call "reality" is just in the contents of our heads.

The thought is undeniable. The visual distortion induced by LSD might be illusory, but it is an undeniable experience nevertheless.

 

 

It is just a belief construct, a simulacrum. That is where unicorns are, that is where mirages are, that is where certainty is.

No, actual experience is undeniable. The constructs we make for experience is a belief.

 

But the "actual" is something that includes my head, but also includes everything beyond it. And that is the unknowable part.

In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard. There is nothing unclear, non-evident, about this.

 

 

 

Explain to me how you can justify claiming to have a view beyond your own subjective reality.

Reality/actuality = mere experience. In seeing just seen, in thinking just thought.

 

Whatever realities, therefore are simply experiences.

 

This moment of reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds.

 

Previous moment of reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds.

 

Some other person's reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Now is the paradox obvious to you? You can imagine you are looking for yourself, but how can you be really?

 

I am the subject. I am looking at my keyboard (object). I (subject) look at a reflection in the mirror (object)

 

I (subject) look for I (object)?

 

So since this isn't possible, to make it possible I must create an illusion that is not I so that I can look for I. Or I can imagine I have created a mirror which to look at. But how will I know any of these illusions will result in a truth?

 

I could just pretend and believe others when they say there is no I, but that isn't really knowing. Therefore I will just ASSUME there is no I, because there is no possible way for me to know there is no I.

 

How else can I look for I with I?

 

Paradox . . . .

[xabir2005]

Nonsense. Otherwise, a dead person, a deaf person, a statue, or a disembodied ear would hear sound. Try harder.

Ok.

 

Ear + sound + a previous moment of consciousness are the conditions for this moment of consciousness.

 

When the body fails, consciousness no longer has the condition to manifest with that particular body.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

But the "actual" is something that includes my head, but also includes everything beyond it. And that is the unknowable part.

What is unknowable, may be actual elsewhere (for another person?) but not actual here (as this experience).

 

In any case, what is actual is just experience. What is not actual are the unicorns and selves you imagine (or he imagine) one to be.

[Informer]

Irretrievable.

 

So goes another soul

denied by itself existence

never more, forever more

oblivion is now home

[Otis]

Correct.

 

As an experience, it is undeniable.

 

As an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience, that is just a concept.

The thought is undeniable. The visual distortion induced by LSD might be illusory, but it is an undeniable experience nevertheless.

 

No, actual experience is undeniable. The constructs we make for experience is a belief.

I have never said that experience is deniable. I have been very clear to say otherwise.

 

For the most part, you seem to be agreeing with me. You say "an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience, that is just a concept." That is the exact point I have been making, throughout this thread.

 

What do you think "knowledge" is? Is it experience? No, it is precisely "an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience", i.e. a concept.

 

Knowledge is not the same as what's actual; it is never the same as the experience. There are no facts, only useful approximations.

 

In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard. There is nothing unclear, non-evident, about this.

Yes there is. Take away the eyeball or the visual cortex, or even close my eyes, and there is no "just seen". Your "truth" is not self-evident at all.

[Informer]

What is unknowable, may be actual elsewhere (for another person?) but not actual here (as this experience).

 

In any case, what is actual is just experience. What is not actual are the unicorns and selves you imagine (or he imagine) one to be.

 

You denied yourself existence. You cut all ties. You have become a hallow, empty, vessel that has only one mission, which was given, to bring others into the void. So what you speak is true from your perspective, although it is not true for everyone.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

I have never said that experience is deniable. I have been very clear to say otherwise.

 

For the most part, you seem to be agreeing with me. You say "an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience, that is just a concept." That is the exact point I have been making, throughout this thread.

 

What do you think "knowledge" is? Is it experience? No, it is precisely "an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience", i.e. a concept.

 

Knowledge is not the same as what's actual; it is never the same as the experience. There are no facts, only useful approximations.

 

 

Yes there is. Take away the eyeball or the visual cortex, or even close my eyes, and there is no "just seen". Your "truth" is not self-evident at all.

Knowledge is not a concept. The knowledge and vision I talk about is... a realization.

 

It is the realization and waking up to: the seeing is just seen. Nothing extra... not "seer seeing seen" or "unicorn seeing seen". It can be likened to waking up from a dream - a dream, like the dream of "I am a unicorn" and likewise the dream of "I am a self".

 

Knowledge, in my meaning (not theoretical knowledge) of it, means clear vision of reality without distortion or delusion.

 

It is about waking up... not intellectual enlightenment. In fact 'enlightenment' does not exist in the dictionary of Buddha. He only always said 'awakening'. And that is the right word.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

Ok.

 

Ear + sound + a previous moment of consciousness are the conditions for this moment of consciousness.

 

When the body fails, consciousness no longer has the condition to manifest with that particular body.

No. You still have to go farther than this.

 

There must be a source of air vibrations, there must be air, there must be an organism with the capacity for hearing, there must be ear, cilia, nerve cells, auditory cortex, wakefulness and attention.

 

Well, where do you find "ear, cilia, nerve cells, auditory cortex, wakefulness and attention"? You do not find them, without first finding "an organism with the capacity for hearing". In other words, a hearer.

 

Still sure that "no self" is self-evident?

[xabir2005]

Yes there is. Take away the eyeball or the visual cortex, or even close my eyes, and there is no "just seen". Your "truth" is not self-evident at all.

No... in the moment of seeing, just the seen.

 

I do not say "just seen" is an eternal truth.

 

I said... in the seeing, just the seen.

 

In sleeping, just sleep.

 

In closing eyes, just blackness.

 

Blackness is not eternal...

[Otis]

Knowledge is not a concept. The knowledge and vision I talk about is... a realization.

 

It is the realization and waking up to: the seeing is just seen. Nothing extra... not "seer seeing seen" or "unicorn seeing seen". It can be likened to waking up from a dream - a dream, like the dream of "I am a unicorn" and likewise the dream of "I am a self".

 

Knowledge, in my meaning (not theoretical knowledge) of it, means clear vision of reality without distortion or delusion.

What you're doing here is trading out the word "realization" for "experience" and treating it like it is "knowledge".

 

The seeing is only an experience. You can call it "realization", but that does not make it anything more than an experience. No matter how deep, or important-feeling, or holy-seeming this experience is, it is still nothing but an experience.

 

You still have to rely on your previous beliefs to take that experience, and turn it into a concept, and you still have to delude yourself into thinking that you have a special view on the actual, in order to call that concept "knowledge".

[Otis]

No... in the moment of seeing, just the seen.

 

I do not say "just seen" is an eternal truth.

 

I said... in the seeing, just the seen.

 

In sleeping, just sleep.

 

In closing eyes, just blackness.

 

Blackness is not eternal...

Whatever. Saying woo-woo zen-sounding things doesn't resolve the issue. You haven't explained away the seer, the sleeper, or the one who experiences blackness.

[Informer]

Burden Of Proof

 

The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

 

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

For example, you can't prove that God does not exist, therefore he does.

 

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

 

Sound familiar?

[xabir2005]

Irretrievable.

 

So goes another soul

denied by itself existence

never more, forever more

oblivion is now home

Existence is merely a word. What does it refer to?

 

Hearing. Smelling. Tasting. Thought. Even a non-conceptual experience of existence (this can be a powerful one - and usually leads to 'self-realization') which is a form of non-conceptual thought.

 

All experiences. All undeniable.

 

Nothing is denied.

 

Only the fictitious unicorn or self is illusion.

 

But even that, as a thought, is not denied.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

No. You still have to go farther than this.

 

There must be a source of air vibrations, there must be air, there must be an organism with the capacity for hearing, there must be ear, cilia, nerve cells, auditory cortex, wakefulness and attention.

 

Well, where do you find "ear, cilia, nerve cells, auditory cortex, wakefulness and attention"? You do not find them, without first finding "an organism with the capacity for hearing". In other words, a hearer.

 

Still sure that "no self" is self-evident?

"an organism with the capacity for hearing"

 

is simply

 

Five Aggregates

 

Form (body)

Feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral sensations)

Perception (thoughts, conception)

Volition

Consciousness (five senses consciousness + mental consciousness)

 

 

No hearer therein.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

"Weather" is simply a label collating a conglomerate of phenomena, clouds, rain, wind, lightning, snow, etc etc

 

Changing moment by moment.

 

Same goes to "self".

 

"Self" is a label collating the five aggregates.

[xabir2005]

Burden Of Proof

 

The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

 

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

For example, you can't prove that God does not exist, therefore he does.

 

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

 

Sound familiar?

You can proof that self cannot be found by seeing that in seeing there is just the seen. In hearing there is just the heard. That seeing IS the experience of sight. That hearing IS the experience of sound. If it is directly seen there is in hearing just the sound, there is no room for "I, the hearer, hears sound". That has no bearing on reality. In seeing there is just the experience of sight! There is just that.

 

You need to contemplate on that... then you will see that.

[xabir2005]

Happy vesak day, I got to go sleep. Night.

[xabir2005]

Whatever. Saying woo-woo zen-sounding things doesn't resolve the issue. You haven't explained away the seer, the sleeper, or the one who experiences blackness.

I already explained it. You didn't catch it.

 

In seeing, JUST the seen. Means, no such thing as seer seeing seen. JUST the seen. JUST that.

 

The seeing IS the seen. Seeing is not seer. Seeing has nothing to do with a seer. Not a seer seeing seen.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

I is the spirit within me.

 

You have not proved you don't exist, all you have proved is that you can't find you . . duh.

 

That does not mean that you do not exist . . . . . .

 

There are more options!