What is opposite of substance?

[goldisheavy]

It appears that physicalism and the ideas of objective reality sadly hugely have penetrated the Buddhist culture thanks to Buddhism being introduced to the West while being subsequently mixed with the Western culture. There is no escaping of the Western culture too. Now the Western culture is not limited to the West. Just look at China, for example.

 

Personally I like many things about our Western culture, so don't think I am summarily bashing it. I like how we at least try to treat men and women equally (equal pay for equal work, allowing women to travel on their own and to decide their own dress code, allowing women to vote and hold government positions, etc.). The culture of critical thinking is also uniquely Western because in the East people tend to be drones and followers a lot more often, without the strong ability to think independently. This is connected to individualism. In the East fitting in is much more important than it is in the West. This restricts freedom of thought. Of course there are free-thinking individuals everywhere, but generally our culture in the West is more amenable to freedom of thought.

 

So I am not smashing the entirety of our Western culture. I think in many ways we need to preserve our culture and regard it as superior to anything from the East.

 

That said, there is one extremely nasty feature of our culture. And that's substantialism. We practice substantialism by adhering to physicalism and materialism. Physicalism is the bankrupt idea that the mind is nothing other than the brain. And materialism is the idea that everything real is composed of matter-energy which exists independently of mind and mental factors.

 

Buddhism and many other Indian philosophies radically reject physicalism and materialism. Pretty much all yogic practice presupposes that the practitioner has rejected and put to rest all ideas of physicalism and materialism.

 

So what is the opposite of substance? The opposite of substance is illusion or dreaming. This must be understood by anyone who wants to dabble in yoga of any kind, Buddhist or otherwise.

 

Suppose I am looking at a chair. What does it mean to consider the chair substantial? What are the implications? They are: the chair exists whether I look at it or not, the chair has nothing to do with my own mental state, my perception of a chair is only a representation of the chair and is not the chair itself because the chair itself is beyond my experience as an object that exists in its own right independently of my own mind.

 

Now, if you were to reject the substantiality of a chair and consider the chair to be insubstantial, what then would be the implications? They would be: the chair is wholly dependent on the state of mind, outside the mental state no independent chair can be found as an object, there would no longer be a sense of objectivity because each point of view would bring its own creativity to the chair, and none of those experiential chairs would be more or less authentic than the other, and there'd be no God or substance to mediate and synchronize perceptions among beings. Thus from the POV of insubstantialism, individual experiences can become very fluid to the point of diverging entirely from convention. Thus if you have a group of 20 people looking at a chair, one or 5 of those people can see the chair turn into a dog, and this experience would have no explanation within a substantialist framework of experiencing.

 

What's another way of saying that all experiences are illusory? What's another way of saying that all suggestions inherent in the endless array of suggestive appearances are void of ultimate meanings? Simple: subjectivity! It means that our experience is profoundly subjective and rather than fighting this, it should be embraced and exploited by those who are committed to yoga of any kind. So if I see an appearance suggestive of a chair, and I refuse to follow along with the suggestion, what am I doing? I am exercising the power of my own subjectivity. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Why do the Buddhist texts, including many Dzogchen tantras, say "illusion, illusion"? Do you think they are just kidding around? Do you think it's just a metaphor and that it's perfectly OK for us to keep clinging to substantialist views on experience while claiming to follow Buddhism or Dzogchen?

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

"Everything is subjective" is a substantialist view. If there is ultimately no objectivity (and there isn't), there cannot be subjectivity either.

[silent thunder]

I'd say there is appears to be form, but no substance.

 

just energy in patterns really

Edited August 16, 2014 by silent thunder

[goldisheavy]

"Everything is subjective" is a substantialist view. If there is ultimately no objectivity (and there isn't), there cannot be subjectivity either.

 

In the absence of objectivity subjectivity still exists. How so? Because for every point of view there are an infinity of alternative points of view that could be held. Because potentiality cannot be eliminated from experience, and because all experience requires a point of view, subjectivity is an ineliminable aspect of experiencing unlike objectivity.

[asunthatneversets]

In the absence of objectivity subjectivity still exists.

This is impossible. Subjectivity is "subjective" because it contrasts what is objective. If there is no objectivity there cannot be subjectivity.

 

How so? Because for every point of view there are an infinity of alternative points of view that could be held.

Points of view do not withstand scrutiny and are merely conventional in nature. There is no such thing as an inherent point of view for many reasons, including some of the reasons you just cited.

 

Because potentiality cannot be eliminated from experience

In order to have potentiality there cannot be inherency. If points of view were truly real there would be no possibility of potentiality. Points of view, potentiality and experience are all equally devoid of inherent existence.

 

and because all experience requires a point of view, subjectivity is an ineliminable aspect of experiencing unlike objectivity.

Conventional experiences have conventional points of view, however they are not ultimately valid (as nothing is).

 

Since experiencing ultimately lacks inherency it cannot truly be endowed with characteristics which are capable of being eliminated or remaining "ineliminable".

[goldisheavy]

This is impossible. Subjectivity is "subjective" because it contrasts what is objective. If there is no objectivity there cannot be subjectivity.

 

No. Subjectivity is subjective in contrast to alternative points of view, which are also subjective.

 

For future reference, I want to remind people that if I am silent, it doesn't mean I agree or approve or have no retort. It's just impossible to reply to every ignorant statement. I don't have the energy for this. So I will correct some ignorance, but I will also remain silent in the face of a lot of ignorant statements. So those people who like my posts should keep this in mind. Don't assume because I was silent after some post, I agreed with it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

No. Subjectivity is subjective in contrast to alternative points of view, which are also subjective.

Alternative points of view are imputations but they are not subjective or objective in nature (apart from being allowed a nominal status as conventionally objective, or in your case: "subjective").

 

For future reference, I want to remind people that if I am silent, it doesn't mean I agree or approve or have no retort. It's just impossible to reply to every ignorant statement. I don't have the energy for this. So I will correct some ignorance, but I will also remain silent in face of a lot of ignorant statements. So those people who like my posts should keep this in mind. Don't assume because I was silent after some post, I agreed with it.

That's good you're reminding everyone.

[asunthatneversets]

At any rate, saying "everything is subjective" at the expense of objectivity is akin to saying "everything is up" or "everything is tall"... you cannot have 'up' without 'down' nor 'tall' without 'short' and vice versa.

 

They are dependently originated designations, and because they originate dependently they lack both independent and dependent existence.

[goldisheavy]

Alternative points of view are imputations but they are not subjective or objective in nature (apart from being allowed a nominal status as conventionally objective, or in your case: "subjective").

 

The word "imputation" suggests something onto which you can impute something else. So not quite. Points of view are not imputations. They're commitments, or habits, or attachments, depending on how kind you want to be. Same dynamic can be called "commitment" if you want to praise it or affirm it, or it can be called "attachment" if you want to disparage it, but it's the same dynamic.

 

A subjectivity is basically a commitment, a volitional formation. Because volitional formation is ineliminable, and because for every specific way volition can form there are an infinity of alternatives, I say that subjectivity is ineliminable.

 

Objectivity is not a converse or a complement to subjectivity. Objectivity is a subjective imaginary construct in its own right.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

At any rate, saying "everything is subjective" at the expense of objectivity is akin to saying "everything is up" or "everything is tall"... you cannot have 'up' without 'down' nor 'tall' without 'short' and vice versa.

 

Up is a specific direction. Subjectivity is not anything specific. It's just a volitional formation. It's wide open.

[goldisheavy]

Subjectivity includes and subsumes objectivity. It's not at all like up/down. Up doesn't subsume down, it's an opposite direction.

[asunthatneversets]

 

The word "imputation" suggests something onto which you can impute something else. So not quite.

Imputation is also merely conventional.

 

Points of view are not imputations. They're commitments, or habits, or attachments, depending on how kind you want to be.

Your own allegedly personal reference point is an amalgamation of habitual patterns of grasping, ignorance and imputation. Other points of view are ultimately fabrications which arise concomitantly with one's own deluded point of reference due to the fact that 'self' naturally implies 'other' just as 'here' naturally implies 'there'.

 

Same dynamic can be called "commitment" if you want to praise it or affirm it, or it can be called "attachment" if you want to disparage it, but it's the same dynamic.

Yes, attachment or clinging predicted on ignorance.

 

A subjectivity is basically a commitment, a volitional formation. Because volitional formation is ineliminable, and because for every volitional formation are are an infinity of alternatives, I say that subjectivity is ineliminable.

Subjectivity is an illusion.

 

Objectivity is not a converse or a complement to subjectivity. Objectivity is a subjective imaginary construct in its own right.

Both are imaginary constructs and their seeming validity is a byproduct of afflictive causes and conditions.

[asunthatneversets]

Up is a specific direction. Subjectivity is not anything specific. It's just a volitional formation. It's wide open.

Subjectivity is a specific point of reference. It is a delusional formation.

Edited August 16, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

Subjectivity includes and subsumes objectivity. It's not at all like up/down. Up doesn't subsume down, it's an opposite direction.

Yes it is an opposite direction, exactly like subjectivity is a complimentary opposite to objectivity. Subjectivity cannot stand alone and since it is not real it cannot subsume anything.

[goldisheavy]

Subjectivity is an illusion.

 

The contents of the subjective sphere are illusory, but the fact that there is and always will be a subjective sphere is not an illusion.

 

We can't say anything specific about the contents of experience, but we can safely say that some experience will always transpire no matter what.

[goldisheavy]

Yes it is an opposite direction, exactly like subjectivity is a complimentary opposite to objectivity. Subjectivity cannot stand alone and since it is not real it cannot subsume anything.

 

The contents of the subjective sphere are unreal. However, objectivity is one of the contents of subjective sphere. This is why we're even talking about objectivity. If objectivity was not one of the contents of the subjective sphere, then no sentient being would have a conventional reference point. Conventional reference points require subjective phenomena as their grounds.

 

So let's give a concrete example here.

 

Suppose I am together with 3 other people in a room and I am pointing to a chair. The other two people see it. What is objective and what is subjective in experiential terms?

 

There are three subjective points of view which appear to share some types of experience. So, namely, all three agree on a chair being in the room. That's the so-called "objective" aspect of the experience. Meanwhile each person has their own thoughts and feelings about the chair. That's the so-called "subjective" aspect of experience. However, when you examine each point of view, you'll find that they each include subjective and objective aspects. So each person feels like they're in some sense as if reaching out to an object, a chair, and form their own not-entirely-private view of it ("their own" and "not-entirely-private" is a deliberate contradiction). This entire process is subjective. It is deeply and viscerally felt by an observing mind when that mind is committed to a certain point of view.

 

Because this is the case, it's better to say that subjectivity subsumes objectivity. Subjectivity is the totality of one's experience, and insofar beings believe they have private access to objective domains, that too is an aspect of subjective experiencing.

 

You can claim that all experiential contents are illusory, and I will agree. However, experience is always selective. This ineliminable selectivity is guided by volition, and it is what I call an ineliminable subjectivity. There is no way to get rid of this aspect of experiencing no matter what. Even if you thought you got rid of it, you'd still have the non-gotten-rid of experiencing as an alternative that's been left as latent potentiality. Absorptions have non-absorptive states as latent potentialities. Ignorance, wisdom. Free experiencing, constrained experiencing. All types of experiencing have alternatives (an infinity of them), and there is no way to get rid of experiencing as such. It is timeless and ineliminable. Hence subjectivity.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I just thought of a cool way to explain the difference between your and my conception of subjectivity.

 

Behold.

 

You think of subjectivity as a type of experience which can be corrected according to some neutral standard of experiencing. We call this neutral standard "objectivity." Then since we reject objectivity, there is nothing to correct toward, thus there is no subjectivity in how you define it.

 

I define subjectivity as a type of experience which has other alternatives. In this definition regarding some features of subjective experiencing as suggestive of an objective domain is just one of the alternatives, and there is nothing special about it. Therefore when we eliminate the notion of objectivity, we are still left with subjectivity, because the infinity of alternatives are still ever-latent. This ever-latent aspect is necessary to recognize in order to experience freedom.

 

Basically correcting toward some neutral standard plays no role whatsoever in my definition of subjectivity. And I say that my definition is the superior one and better fit for yoga.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

The contents of the subjective sphere are illusory, but the fact that there is and always will be a subjective sphere is not an illusion.

 

We can't say anything specific about the contents of experience, but we can safely say that some experience will always transpire no matter what.

This is an eternalist view, like Vedanta.

[goldisheavy]

This is an eternalist view, like Vedanta.

 

It isn't.

 

If you want to object to something in my view, don't just label it. Do some work.

[asunthatneversets]

 

It isn't.

 

If you want to object to something in my view, don't just label it. Do some work.

It is, and it is refuted outright by Madhyamaka and Dzogpachenpo.

[goldisheavy]

It is, and it is refuted outright by Madhyamaka and Dzogpachenpo.

 

It isn't. My view is in line with all the views you mention.

 

However, now that we're throwing labels around, your view is that of a hearer.

[asunthatneversets]

 

It isn't. My view is in line with all the views you mention.

 

However, now that we're throwing labels around, your view is that of a hearer.

Your view is not in line with either.

 

And I have not advocated for a Śrāvaka view in any way.

[goldisheavy]

Your view is not in line with either.

 

And I have not advocated for a Śrāvaka view in any way.

 

Yes it is, and yes you have.

 

If you want to refute my view, feel free to try.

[asunthatneversets]

Yes it is, and yes you have.

 

If you want to refute my view, feel free to try.

Longchenpa refutes the view you are advocating for rather ruthlessly, even referring to those who uphold it as "fools".

 

Nāgārjuna also refutes your view and in doing so refers to it as a provisional view posited in order to "alleviate the fear of the childish".

[goldisheavy]

Longchenpa refutes the view you are advocating for rather ruthlessly, even referring to those who uphold it as "fools".

 

Nāgārjuna also refutes your view and in doing so refers to it as a provisional view posited in order to "alleviate the fear of the childish".

 

I don't agree at all. I am sympathetic to both and I feel no animosity toward them at all.

 

So if you think you know how you can refute my view, you really need to stop dropping labels and names, roll up your sleeves, and address the spirit of what I am saying (as opposed to line by line knee-jerking).

 

The more you drop names and labels, the less credible you look to people here. It makes you seem cowardly when I explain something in detail, in my own words, putting forth real effort, and all you do is slap a label on it.

 

For the record, I don't like Advaita Vedanta because they advocate absence of volition and choicelessness, which I strongly oppose. In Vedantin view the mind is dead passive without any volition. I don't hold this view at all.

 

If you really want to smear me with a label, you'd be better off with comparing my view to Kashmir Shaivism, for example.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy