What is opposite of substance?

[asunthatneversets]

Right, it is an eternalist view.

[goldisheavy]

Right, it is an eternalist view.

 

Again a label. I am reporting you to the moderation team.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Again a label. I am reporting you to the moderation team.

I'm allowed to use labels.

[goldisheavy]

I'm allowed to use labels.

 

I don't think what you're doing is beneficial for this community. I explained my POV to the moderation team and I hope you'll get removed from here shortly.

[asunthatneversets]

I don't think what you're doing is beneficial for this community. I explained my POV to the moderation team and I hope you'll get removed from here shortly.

Sorry you're offended.

 

I don't support tīrthika views being paraded as the buddhadharma.

 

I'm doing the most compassionate thing I can in addressing inaccurate assertions.

 

If that gets me removed then so be it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[goldisheavy]

Sorry you're offended.

 

I don't support tīrthika views being paraded as the buddhadharma.

 

I'm doing the most compassionate thing I can in addressing inaccurate assertions.

 

You don't understand. Offence is actually a piss poor reason to remove a poster from a forum.

 

You should be removed from this forum, not because you violate decorum, but because you throw dust up in the forum of label and name dropping while offering nothing of substance to the people here, and you generally share nothing from personal experience, focusing on reiterating tired polemics mostly.

 

Your own assertions are the inaccurate ones, not mine. What you're doing is not compassionate. It is savage.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[ViscountValmont]

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?

I'm sorry... But "ignoring the chair" as exercise of subjectivity breaks down as soon as you replace "chair" with "car." And "ignore" with "runs you over." While I agree on some points of your post, your demonstration of subjectivity is a logical fallacy. A better analogy is The Matrix (which was inspired by the Buddhist tradition of reality anyway... and I know, really cliche and annoying, but hold out a moment). When you are in the matrix (everyone is), you can be aware you are in it, but you cannot ignore the rules. Some rules can be bent, others broken (Internal Arts of varying types). But there is a knowledge of there being a larger sense, an "outside the matrix." This is a metaphor for enlightenment. But I digress.

 

Most people wholly misunderstand exactly WHAT science has to say about reality these days. Now I am Taoist, so you'll excuse my biased bent toward that understanding here (and I am lacking in specificity over Buddhism, so bear with me). Okay, so science has no consensus, despite what the media portrays, on a Unifying Field Theory (ie- String Theory, Quantum Gravity, etc). One such Field Theory that has quickly gained very real respect, has been Biocentrism. It states that all matter is either wave or particle (this is old hat, everyone knows)... Yet the paradigm shift comes from the theory's assertion that it is CONSCIOUSNESS that actually affects the very fabric space and particles. Experiments using single photons and other sub atomic particles that we have done for a century bear out results we simple cannot understand: That the determining factor of whether a "Wave Function" (basically, a set of probabilities that something will become a particle) collapses into a particle is human observation! Particles will even alter the flow of time itself to follow this parameter. The results of these experiments can easily be researched and verified. It is the single greatest mystery of Physics.

 

Therefore, physics itself is beginning to understand how dependent the universe is upon consciousness. And further, that ALL THINGS are insubstantial. Even String Theory states this: that matter is energy compressed into high frequency vibrations. This alone conclusively proves what much of the Buddhist traditions say.

 

I propose to you, and all of you... That the universe isn't in fact "physical" at all. What we call physical is very much not mundane, and that we live in this special "thing" with no name, which its very existence and governing laws of physics and so on... is itself a kind of miracle. A celestial clock without a maker. And I make no separation between "spiritual" and living in this place of existence we call the physical world. And I don't relegate it to being "lower" and of need of discarding and escaping either.

 

 

 

* And this sort of argument occurring presently is why I don't care for Buddhism really. Way too much emphasis on all this crap anyway. Come on over to the dark side, folks. The Tao is fine ;-)

Edited August 16, 2014 by ViscountValmont

[asunthatneversets]

 

You don't understand. Offence is actually a piss poor reason to remove a poster from a forum.

 

You should be removed from this forum, not because you violate decorum, but because you throw dust up in the forum of label and name dropping while offering nothing of substance to the people here, and you generally share nothing from personal experience, focusing on reiterating tired polemics mostly.

 

Your own assertions are the inaccurate ones, not mine. What you're doing is not compassionate. It is savage.

An unfair generalization, but also an opinion you're entitled to.

[goldisheavy]

I'm sorry... But "ignoring the chair" as exercise of subjectivity breaks down as soon as you replace "chair" with "car." And "ignore" with "runs you over." While I agree on some points of your post, your demonstration of subjectivity is a logical fallacy. A better analogy is The Matrix (which was inspired by the Buddhist tradition of reality anyway... and I know, really cliche and annoying, but hold out a moment). When you are in the matrix (everyone is), you can be aware you are in it, but you cannot ignore the rules. Some rules can be bent, others broken (Internal Arts of varying types). But there is a knowledge of there being a larger sense, an "outside the matrix." This is a metaphor for enlightenment. But I digress.

 

What you're talking about is something I do not ascribe to, which is some external and neutral to all participants Matrix. You think there is some domain or field which to some extent synchronizes experiences between the various participants. I hold that no such thing exists. However, the experience we typically have does have rigidity and solidity to it. That's a result of inner habit more so than some external and neutral to all Matrix.

 

Most people wholly misunderstand exactly WHAT science has to say about reality these days. Now I am Taoist, so you'll excuse my biased bent toward that understanding here (and I am lacking in specificity over Buddhism, so bear with me). Okay, so science has no consensus, despite what the media portrays, on a Unifying Field Theory (ie- String Theory, Quantum Gravity, etc). One such Field Theory that has quickly gained very real respect, has been Biocentrism. It states that all matter is either wave or particle (this is old hat, everyone knows)... Yet the paradigm shift comes from the theory's assertion that it is CONSCIOUSNESS that actually affects the very fabric space and particles. Experiments using single photons and other sub atomic particles that we have done for a century bear out results we simple cannot understand: That the determining factor of whether a "Wave Function" (basically, a set of probabilities that something will become a particle) collapses into a particle is human observation! Particles will even alter the flow of time itself to follow this parameter. The results of these experiments can easily be researched and verified. It is the single greatest mystery of Physics.

 

This result is 100% in line with my view as well. Actually all possible ways of structuring experience would be in line with my view. My view only adds freedoms. It doesn't take them away.

 

Therefore, physics itself is beginning to understand how dependent the universe is upon consciousness. And further, that ALL THINGS are insubstantial. Even String Theory states this: that matter is energy compressed into high frequency vibrations. This alone conclusively proves what much of the Buddhist traditions say.

 

I propose to you, and all of you... That the universe isn't in fact "physical" at all. What we call physical is very much not mundane, and that we live in this special "thing" with no name, which its very existence and governing laws of physics and so on... is itself a kind of miracle. A celestial clock without a maker. And I make no separation between "spiritual" and living in this place of existence we call the physical world. And I don't relegate it to being "lower" and of need of discarding and escaping either.

 

I agree. However, there is still a distinction between those who think there is some neutral consciousness domain, like the Matrix, and those who do not think so. I'm of the latter variety.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[ViscountValmont]

Straining an analogy to its limits is as a result of analogies by their nature being incapable of truly describing their intended mark. This is why Tao De Ching states that spoken words are not Tao. Words are always inadequate in describing reality and experience.

 

You'll note though, that in The Matrix, there is no actual "matrix," visa vie a place one's consciousness actually exists separate. It is only humans in the physical world who are plugged into a program that makes them think otherwise. No one is actually "inside" the matrix. It's an illusion.

 

Also, Tao states that there is no freedom apart from the understanding that we have no freedom. We are all basically automatons, playing out our roles in synchronicity with the rest of existence to perfection. This is the freedom. That there is no right and wrong, and that all things are exactly as they should be. Not because of "should and shouldn't," but because things cannot be any other way. Reality unfolds as it can, and as it has to. There is no alternative. We cannot make decisions otherwise than how we do. If we "change," it is a change that was inevitable anyway. Again, not because anyone says so, this is not god. It is just a way of understanding the complexity of causality, and understanding that the preceding actions which lead up to our own are so massive in composition, having so many parts of origin and with such force, that we are helpless to deny them. No one decided to be born, their gender, their parents, their physical body... people don't even choose their thoughts and opinions! It's all running on autopilot, and the best thing we can do is just let go. To do our best, of course. But to let go.

Edited August 16, 2014 by ViscountValmont

[goldisheavy]

Straining an analogy to its limits is as a result of analogies by their nature being incapable of truly describing their intended mark. This is why Tao De Ching states that spoken words are not Tao. Words are always inadequate in describing reality and experience.

 

I am not using analogies. I am trying to describe the space of experiential possibility. In other words, since I am describing an ultimate definitive view which subsumes and includes all other possible views into itself as possible alternatives, the view I am describing actually has no analogy. It is unique. There is nothing else that's like it. So for example, I can't compare the mind to a mirror, etc. There is no example in the phenomenal world of what I am describing.

 

You'll note though, that in The Matrix, there is no actual "matrix," visa vie a place one's consciousness actually exists separate. It is only humans in the physical world who are plugged into a program that makes them think otherwise. No one is actually "inside" the matrix. It's an illusion.

 

This only becomes evident in the third movie and only if you pay attention. Otherwise the Matrix does exist as a mediating machine into which the brains are plugged in. And this appears to be true in the first two movies until in the last movie Neo can see outside of Matrix as if he were in the Matrix still, etc. My memory is fuzzy, but I think this happens shortly before Neo gets his eyeballs destroyed, or around the same time, and he says something like "I can feel them" (referring to those flying bots) even though he's no longer looking at them with the eyeballs. So in this scenario Neo is not plugged into the Matrix, but he's still using Matrix powers (although a weaker version).

 

Also, Tao states that there is no freedom apart from the understanding that we have no freedom. We are all basically automatons,

 

I strongly reject this view. We do have freedom. We are not automations at all. And the view you describe is not in line with Daodejing, Zhuangzi, Liezi, etc. I want you to quote something from Zhaungzi or Daodejing that talks of automation.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Tibetan_Ice]

Straining an analogy to its limits is as a result of analogies by their nature being incapable of truly describing their intended mark. This is why Tao De Ching states that spoken words are not Tao. Words are always inadequate in describing reality and experience.

 

You'll note though, that in The Matrix, there is no actual "matrix," visa vie a place one's consciousness actually exists separate. It is only humans in the physical world who are plugged into a program that makes them think otherwise. No one is actually "inside" the matrix. It's an illusion.

 

Also, Tao states that there is no freedom apart from the understanding that we have no freedom. We are all basically automatons, playing out our roles in synchronicity with the rest of existence to perfection. This is the freedom. That there is no right and wrong, and that all things are exactly as they should be. Not because of "should and shouldn't," but because things cannot be any other way. Reality unfolds as it can, and as it has to. There is no alternative. We cannot make decisions otherwise than how we do. If we "change," it is a change that was inevitable anyway. Again, not because anyone says so, this is not god. It is just a way of understanding the complexity of causality, and understanding that the preceding actions which lead up to our own are so massive in composition, having so many parts of origin and with such force, that we are helpless to deny them. No one decided to be born, their gender, their parents, their physical body... people don't even choose their thoughts and opinions! It's all running on autopilot, and the best thing we can do is just let go. To do our best, of course. But to let go.

Your understanding of the tao seems fatalistic to me. First, you seem to think that the tao says that reality is linear. What about the idea that reality contains all possible variants and combinations? String theory? Reality is a series of perceptions which our minds string together to form our rudimentary and illusive understanding.

 

You say people don't even choose to be born, their gender..etc. in Buddhism adepts can choose their birth place and characteristics. Even, the whole point of Buddhism is to escape samsara and the never ending cycle of reincarnation. Refer: stream enterer, once returner, arahats, Buddhas.

 

Further, in Buddhism, you get to dissolve thoughts and learn how to become still, to the point where there are no thoughts.

 

So, sorry I don't know much about Taoism, but I suspect that your understanding may be flawed.

[goldisheavy]

Further, in Buddhism, you get to dissolve thoughts and learn how to become still, to the point where there are no thoughts.

 

Similar meditation exercises are advocated by Zhuangzi. He called it "mind fast" and there are at least two mentions I can think of. In one case a clueless student asks one of the adepts "what's the point of trying to make yourself like dead ashes?" In another case they talk about Confucious' student Yan Hui, I think, doing mind fasting.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[....]

 

Also, Tao states that there is no freedom apart from the understanding that we have no freedom. We are all basically automatons, playing out our roles in synchronicity with the rest of existence to perfection. This is the freedom. That there is no right and wrong, and that all things are exactly as they should be. Not because of "should and shouldn't," but because things cannot be any other way. Reality unfolds as it can, and as it has to. There is no alternative. We cannot make decisions otherwise than how we do. If we "change," it is a change that was inevitable anyway. Again, not because anyone says so, this is not god. It is just a way of understanding the complexity of causality, and understanding that the preceding actions which lead up to our own are so massive in composition, having so many parts of origin and with such force, that we are helpless to deny them. No one decided to be born, their gender, their parents, their physical body... people don't even choose their thoughts and opinions! It's all running on autopilot, and the best thing we can do is just let go. To do our best, of course. But to let go.

 

Not to turn this into a Daoist discsussion, but what about the often repeated "if you are in harmony with Dao, things will go well. If not, they will not succeed." This does not suggest fatalism at all.

[silent thunder]

Opposite of substance... emptiness? clarity?

[ViscountValmont]

It is fatalistic. And I'm sorry you don't understand it. But this is the Yin and Yang of things. Freedom and a prison, at once. We have free will, and yet we do not. I will provide Taoist scripture when I have some extra time. However, it may be the writings of Wu Xin that I quote when I do.

 

Bullshit on Buddhists "choosing" their lives. What a load of tripe. Another assumption that can never be proven. And I'm glad some particular Buddhist sect has decided on "what" reality is, but I take a little more convincing than what some guy says based on his long meditations. I believe in Tao because Tao is demonstrably true. The assertions of Buddhism are religious nonsense half the time. Quantum Theory is in line with Tao, and this adds credence. It's not some baseless assumption that awareness is eternal. Which has zero actual proof. At least my proposals have actual correlations with other disciplines.

 

Anyway, you all enjoy this.

[goldisheavy]

I'm pretty sure fatalism is rejected by at least some Daoists. My memory is fuzzy, but I believe there is an anti-fatalism story in "Seven Taoist Masters: A Folk Novel from China." It's been a while, so I am going by memory.

 

I distinctly remember fatalism being ridiculed by some Daoist sages somewhere for sure. I also do not remember reading anything fatalistic in any of the main three Daoist texts. In fact Zhuangzi constantly talks to his reader in the manner of presenting choices and asking you to choose. Like "Why not plant the gnarly tree in the land of nowhere and be no one who lazily drifts beside it." So this "Why not" is asking for a choice or a commitment. And there are lots of stories which show the reader a crappy way to be, and a better way to be, asking for a willing commitment. This would make no sense if the authors believed fatalism was true.

 

If Zhuangzi was a fatalist, he'd be arguing against choosing as a deluded process, instead of presenting some specific choices and asking the reader to contemplate them.

Edited August 17, 2014 by goldisheavy

[ViscountValmont]

“Flow with whatever may happen, and let your mind be free: Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.” -Zhuangzu

 

Flow is what Tao is all about. There is a natural flow, and that is reality. One can CHOOSE to fight it, or go with it. There is a choice, but an ultimate reality that is going to prevail. My words may have been unclear as to HOW I mean "automatons," but my meaning is in no way ill aligned with Taoist beliefs. I make no hard lines in what is happening other than the fact that Tao is a force in life that can either be accepted or fought. Reality, despite my choices in life, prevails. Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes I don't. I attempt to achieve my ends, but accept that reality will ultimately dictate whether I get what I want or not. And this is MY personal freedom that I have. Not all people have the freedom of having "let go" (to which there are also varying degrees). Most people are still very much fighting this flow of life, which further reduces their actual choices. Taoism states that all things are inherently equal and free by nature. But being completely equal means that all things are, in essence, the same. Many parts of the same "one." Now this clearly approaches the "But I can tell the difference between this and that," argument. Which is true. But, that is Yin and Yang. Things appear to be separate, but are really not. There appears to be choice, but ultimately there isn't.

 

Example: I save a child's life at birth, and he grows up to be Hitler. Was my action positive or negative? And I don't mean in the moral sense. But, measure the weight of things that could be considered positive qualities versus negative ones as a result of the act. Most would say that the cost of saving the child was high. No one is saying one should or shouldn't save the child's life, but simply that the cost is obvious. Therefore, there is clearly a lot of negative involved. And yet, no one chose this to be what happened after saving the child's life. It just happens. I have a certain amount of choice over my own actions, but ultimately, the actions that culminate as a result of other people and the rest of existence provides a tide of events that, as a single person, one must deal with. It is greater than us, and therefore must be accepted. And because most people do not see this flow, and do not know how to come to accept things without judgement, they will fight and struggle causing suffering.

 

This is what was meant by my statements. Resume your Buddhist talks.

[goldisheavy]

“Flow with whatever may happen, and let your mind be free: Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.” -Zhuangzu

 

Which text is this from? I'd appreciate a translation, chapter, page if you have those, or a web link.

 

Flow is what Tao is all about. There is a natural flow, and that is reality.

 

What about the story in Liezi, of a man who decided to move two mountains away because he thought they were inconvenient for him?