Nihilism

[FmAm]

 

 

Ok. It is nice to see that you are truthful.  I completely understand what you have said in your initial post and have reiterated in various ways.  Some thoughts that came while reading your posts here....

 

 

• As all the smart people here have understood,  I/SELF/ME  does not exist. It is an illusion of the mind.  But because of EGO (part of the mind),   mind  clings  to the illusion of  I/SELF/ME.  Ego is so subtle, so powerful to such an extent that it is the very last thing that will be destroyed among the taints.   When you destroy mind completely (using mind itself),  that is the moment when EGO gets destroyed alongside.  The subtlety of Ego is such that,  you can  see traces of it  only  when you  completely remove yourself  from the world.  This is similar to the fact that we see subtlety of breathing or body energy only when mind withdraws from other distractions.
• We can not deny other people's  experience  by saying  things like  "No one can experience ego or self"  OR  "Body and mind do not exist".  The illusion of these things  exist, and is being experienced by all of us. The illusion itself  is the experience.  When body and mind retreat / quiet-down / reach-subtlety,  arising of these parts of mind is experienced  even more distinctly.
• When the mind expands to encompass the higher dimensions, it realizes NO-THINGness.  This process starts with mere words/reading/understanding, and from this base of words it arrives at the  direct experience itself.  But  mere intellectual understanding of this,  penetration of it -  that itself  is powerful enough to make us start dancing with ego.
• So, let us always have high reverence for the Supremely Enlightened teachers that human history has produced. After all, they spent their entire life on this topic;  and centuries have not shaken up their foundation.

 

It's the illusion of ego I'm talking about. I'm not denying other people's experience (although I can know nothing about it). I'm just saying that other people and myself are just stories and there's not even an illusion of an ego or I. Has someone experienced an ego? I have never heard anyone saying that. Ego/I isn't something that can be experienced. Mind is like ego: it doesn't exist and can't be experienced. It's only an unnecessary noun added to the experience. (And I have no purpose behind this. I'm not denying (and I haven't denied) religions or beliefs, or stories. I don't care if someone believes that illusion of ego/mind exists. These are just thoughts.)

 

Philosophy to me is always about the Absolute. When it comes to the Relative (the stories), I turn to psychology instead of philosophy.

 

PS Free will negates nihilism.

 

There's no possibility for free will. How could it be possible? I have never heard any plausible explanation. The belief in the story exists. Together with the belief comes the need to punish and judge, and the need to get acknowledgement.

 

The kind of nihilism I'm talking about here clears all the obstacles to love and compassion.

Edited October 8, 2015 by FmAm

[dawei]

I "Liked" your post however, inserting destiny into the equation is an error, I think.  When we approach a "Y" on the road we have the free will to take either the left or the right.  But we cannot take both.

 

Fair enough... but what you call the freedom of choice for that road is a choice towards some destiny... the other path is also a destiny but known only to the gods 

[Marblehead]

Fair enough... but what you call the freedom of choice for that road is a choice towards some destiny... the other path is also a destiny but known only to the gods 

Where's my "No Thank You" button?

 

(Yes, I know you are just messing with me.)

[Everything]

There are lots of people on this planet. Lot's of perspectives. I kinda like that about this planet. I even wish there was more variety. If I had a spaceship I would explore all of the civilizations on all planets out there, but I hope it's not just more of the same, that would be terrifying to me, because I like the variety so much I never want it to end.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Everything

[seekingbuddha]

 

It's the illusion of ego I'm talking about. I'm not denying other people's experience (although I can know nothing about it). I'm just saying that other people and myself are just stories and there's not even an illusion of an ego or I. Has someone experienced an ego? I have never heard anyone saying that. Ego/I isn't something that can be experienced. Mind is like ego: it doesn't exist and can't be experienced. It's only an unnecessary noun added to the experience. (And I have no purpose behind this. I'm not denying (and I haven't denied) religions or beliefs, or stories. I don't care if someone believes that illusion of ego/mind exists. These are just thoughts.)

 

Philosophy to me is always about the Absolute. When it comes to the Relative (the stories), I turn to psychology instead of philosophy.

 

 

There's no possibility for free will. How could it be possible? I have never heard any plausible explanation. The belief in the story exists. Together with the belief comes the need to punish and judge, and the need to get acknowledgement.

 

I kind of hinted at this by saying "When the mind expands to encompass the higher dimensions, it realizes NO-THINGness.".  In  the space of NO-THINGness,  of course none of this exists.  Just consciousness - consciousness of Nothingness.  When mind is not so expanded, then of course we see the illusions arising - illusions of I/ME/SELF, perpetuated by ego which clings to these illusions.

 

But, in order to talk further about ego, it seems necessary to make sure we are talking about the same EGO.  How do you define ego ? Is it the feeling of self-righteousness ? Is it the feeling of "I am ...." ?  Is it the feeling of pompousness ?  If so, then we can feel this ego arising, when  mind is secluded/silenced  enough.  What could be the reason for the Supremely Enlightened One to use words  EGO,  ME, MINE, I etc. ?   It is to describe the PATH to us, so that progress becomes possible for us,  ordinary humans. 

 

I don't know if it is useful/good/conducive to progress,  to say   "Mind is like ego: it doesn't exist and can't be experienced".  If we are going to make the division of  body & mind,  then  would it be  useful  for  me to say to a commoner  that  "Body doesn't  exist and can't be experienced" ?  (Even though there is a state of mind, where the body & its sensations cease).  Different  levels, different layers, different states,  different perspectives.    

[FmAm]

 

I don't know if it is useful/good/conducive to progress, to say "Mind is like ego: it doesn't exist and can't be experienced". If we are going to make the division of body & mind, then would it be useful for me to say to a commoner that "Body doesn't exist and can't be experienced" ? (Even though there is a state of mind, where the body & its sensations cease). Different levels, different layers, different states, different perspectives.

Yes, I'm saying that body is just like mind. It doesn't exist. When I experience my foot, for example, that's not what's really happening. "Me" and "foot" are thoughts, the inner story. The experience of the story and the thought is real. But the story isn't true. What we experience is a collection of sensations and forms (and even "form" is too much said - it is just a sensation without the story of a form). No "my foot".

 

This is what can be absolutely certain. It is possible that "my body" is living in a "world". But I can never be sure about it.

 

There are sensations I link together. One link contains the thought "foot" and some other sensations (which really aren't separate). But there's no proof for "a foot". The problem with mind is that there isn't even a sensation which could be labeled as "mind". There's just the story.

 

The Bundle Theory of the Self http://m.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/themes.html

Edited October 9, 2015 by FmAm

[Marblehead]

What does one put into a shoe?

[FmAm]

What does one put into a shoe?

A foot, of course.

[Marblehead]

A foot, of course.

You done good.  That's sometimes called defining reality.

[FmAm]

You done good. That's sometimes called defining reality.

Reality can't be defined. Reality can't be experienced. Experience is reality.

 

A shoe isn't an experience.

[Marblehead]

 

A shoe isn't an experience.

Well, it damn sure will be an experience if you put your foot into one and there happens to be a scorpion in it.

 

And BTW:  "I" have defined my reality and "I" experience it every day.

[FmAm]

And BTW:  "I" have defined my reality and "I" experience it every day.

 

I know. I can feel it all the way over here.

[seekingbuddha]

Yes, I'm saying that body is just like mind. It doesn't exist. When I experience my foot, for example, that's not what's really happening. "Me" and "foot" are thoughts, the inner story. The experience of the story and the thought is real. But the story isn't true. What we experience is a collection of sensations and forms (and even "form" is too much said - it is just a sensation without the story of a form). No "my foot".

 

This is what can be absolutely certain. It is possible that "my body" is living in a "world". But I can never be sure about it.

 

There are sensations I link together. One link contains the thought "foot" and some other sensations (which really aren't separate). But there's no proof for "a foot". The problem with mind is that there isn't even a sensation which could be labeled as "mind". There's just the story.

 

The Bundle Theory of the Self http://m.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/themes.html

 

Read through the link you gave on David Hume. I did not study philosophy or religion in university, so the name was new to me. His ideas are the same that would be said by any liberated being. Pretty much whoever I have come across present the same ideas that are ancient. They have been well expounded by Buddha 2600 years ago, in much more detail.

 

So, we have moved on, and away from the discussion on EGO.  You are digging deep; and you have said that it is not from the base of mere words/intellect/understanding.  When you say "But the story isn't true....",  i feel it needs clarification.   What you refer to as "story" stems from the "No-Thing ness"  that we were discussing before.  Since you talked so much about "No-thing ness", i hope you see vividly the prior statement.  What you refer to as "real" and "unreal (the story)",  they are  both born from that "No-thing ness".   So, when mind steps out of that Nothingness,  all of duality is born.   Thus,  the story can be viewed as both true and untrue, once you exit from that state of mind.  

 

You say  ".....The problem with mind is that there isn't even a sensation which could be labeled as "mind". There's just the story."   Isn't  Mind is a collective word, that encompasses.  The story is born in the mind, born from the mind, when you step into duality of reality,  which in itself stems from the No-Thing-ness state of mind.

 

All the enlightened beings that human history has produced  used these words  like body & mind & spirity/energy.   They used these words/language  with one purpose :  they needed to convey to us their experiences and the truth in a way that we can understand.  Understanding  how & why they used words/language, would further our progress on this  noble PATH.

 

If i am not understanding your words correctly,  let me know.

Edited October 10, 2015 by seekingbuddha

[FmAm]

Read through the link you gave on David Hume. I did not study philosophy or religion in university, so the name was new to me. His ideas are the same that would be said by any liberated being. Pretty much whoever I have come across present the same ideas that are ancient. They have been well expounded by Buddha 2600 years ago, in much more detail.

 

So, we have moved on, and away from the discussion on EGO.  You are digging deep; and you have said that it is not from the base of mere words/intellect/understanding.  When you say "But the story isn't true....",  i feel it needs clarification.   What you refer to as "story" stems from the "No-Thing ness"  that we were discussing before.  Since you talked so much about "No-thing ness", i hope you see vividly the prior statement.  What you refer to as "real" and "unreal (the story)",  they are  both born from that "No-thing ness".   So, when mind steps out of that Nothingness,  all of duality is born.   Thus,  the story can be viewed as both true and untrue, once you exit from that state of mind.  

 

You say  ".....The problem with mind is that there isn't even a sensation which could be labeled as "mind". There's just the story."   Isn't  Mind is a collective word, that encompasses.  The story is born in the mind, born from the mind, when you step into duality of reality,  which in itself stems from the No-Thing-ness state of mind.

 

I'm claiming that there's no "upwelling". Nothing stems. There's no source. I'm not talking about some metaphysical or religious nothingness here. What I mean is that there's no consciousness or mind behind or beyond experience. If someone says experience happens in/on/at/to/etc mind/consciousness/Mind/Consciousness, I disagree. There's no doer, just doing. No experiencer, just experiencing. There's no hierarchy in experiencing. There's no base experience (such like consciousness). No foundation. No eternal Absolute.

 

Experiencing (whatever it is at the "time") is all there is. And it can't be defined. If someone says he's experiencing ego or Consciousness, it's the experiencing that "exists", not the ego or Consciousness. The possible ego-experiencing is only experiencing, like hunger-experiencing (although I don't believe there's an experience of an ego). If there's table-experiencing, it's the experiencing that exists (for sure), not the table.

 

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, but there are some things he said quite well:

For, in just the same way as people separate lightning from its flash and take the latter as an action, as the effect of a subject which is called lightning, so popular morality separates strength from the manifestations of strength, as if behind the strong person there were an indifferent substrate, which is free to express strength or not. But there is no such substrate; there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming. "The doer" is merely made up and added into the action – the act is everything. People basically duplicate the action: when they see a lightning flash, that is an action of an action: they set up the same event first as the cause and then yet again as its effect.

 

What alone can our teaching be? – That no one gives a man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself (the latter absurd idea here put aside has been taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant, perhaps also by Plato). No one is responsible for existing at all, for being formed so and so, for being placed under those circumstances and in this environment. His own destiny cannot be disentangled from the destiny of all else in past and future. He is not the result of a special purpose, a will, or an aim, the attempt is not here made to reach an "ideal of man," an "ideal of happiness," or an "ideal of morality;" – it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal. We have invented the notion of a "goal:" in reality a goal is lacking . . . We are necessary, we are part of destiny, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole, – there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole! – This only is the grand emancipation: that no one be made responsible any longer

 

Of these "inward facts" that seem to demonstrate causality, the primary and most persuasive one is that of the will as cause. The idea of consciousness ("spirit") or, later, that of the ego (the "subject") as a cause are only afterbirths: first the causality of the will was firmly accepted as proved, as a fact, and these other concepts followed from it.

Edited October 10, 2015 by FmAm

[seekingbuddha]

OK - it is clear to me now.  I would venture to say that You have studied  western philosophy, but not Buddhist psychology.  Your words indicate that your  knowledge  is present,  but practice perhaps is lacking.  I am sure there are many in this forum, who understand your basic precept - i would summarize it as  "Experience is the only thing present. Everything else (including body/mind/etc)  is  not real."   Now......

 

Of course, wise ancient eastern yogis also understood this right off the bat.   So,  they  started asking "what is it that is experiencing this experience, if body+mind are not present?"   (and of course many other related questions).  Many liberated beings understood the answer through deep contemplation (lasts for many years).  Some of them are these western philosophers who reach a certain level of  depth (of answers).  Now,  think of the ocean divers,  where each diver  is capable  of only reaching a certain depth  before  his body  can't  dive anymore.  These  liberated  ones, enlightened ones  are  similar to the ocean divers.   Each can dive for answers only  to certain extent - thus,  some divers  have more experience/wisdom  than others.  

 

Among these ancient ones, there was one who was Supremely Enlightened.   After  deep meditation for years, he reached the point of death.   But, he recovered and he decided that that  the depth  to which  he has  dived,  and  the answers  he found,  are  too deep  to be understood by  humans.  But,  later he was convinced  (i will spare you the story)  to come out of the forest and start teaching humans.  He taught about the nature of reality, nature of mind and body, etc.   for  many decades.  He also told his disciples "what i know and have seen with wisdom of experience  is  like an ocean.  But i am teaching you only what is relevant to you".   Obviously, he did not teach us everything he found out.  But whatever  he taught about  "experience/mind/body/reality/etc "   is  deep  and  is the focus of research  by  modern  neuroscientists,  psychologists   in top universities.  And i have watched them discuss.  These  highly intelligent professors are bewildered by the depth of his teachings that was handed out 2600 years ago.   

 

If  modern  neuroscientists and psychologists in cutting edge research are studying  the teachings of Buddha,  there must be a reason for it.  Think about it - do not accept it as blind religion,  but study it.  He has clearly dissected it all and laid out everything.  If your  area of interest  is ONLY  philosophy  (but not practice),  then read the Abidhamma.  Whatever ideas you are presenting  here,  has been encompassed  and surpassed  in Buddha's  teachings.  When Enlightened beings are using various words like  mind, body, sprit  etc,  IMHO  the reason for that is to guide ordinary  humans  towards the truth about experience. How are you going to  explain  "the reality of experience",  to  others  if you refuse  to acknowledge / define and use  mind/body and other words ?  

 

 

By the way, i did not say  "No-Thing ness"  is a base experience.  In fact, i did not say that there is any base experience.  I uphold  the teachings  of  spiritual  Enlightened beings (Jesus, Buddha, etc)  at a higher  reverence and respect  (compared to mere  philosophers).  Because,  these people  have direct experience with deepest layers of truth/reality...... 

[Marblehead]

By the way, i did not say  "No-Thing ness"  is a base experience.  In fact, i did not say that there is any base experience.  I uphold  the teachings  of  spiritual  Enlightened beings (Jesus, Buddha, etc)  at a higher  reverence and respect  (compared to mere  philosophers).  Because,  these people  have direct experience with deepest layers of truth/reality...... 

Be careful with this thought because neither of those two you mentioned ever wrote a single word of their thoughts.  What we read are the words of what others have said they said.  And if you are not yet aware, people do lie if it is in their benefit to do so.

[FmAm]

There's much common to Hume and Buddha:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity#The_no-self_theory

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/james1.htm

[seekingbuddha]

Be careful with this thought because neither of those two you mentioned ever wrote a single word of their thoughts.  What we read are the words of what others have said they said.  And if you are not yet aware, people do lie if it is in their benefit to do so.

 

Thanks marble.  Yes, i am aware of the history behind Jesus & Buddha,  because I did study human history, human evolution, ancient cultures of the earth,  timeline of  the evolution of spirituality in various parts of the world,  timeline of the evolution of writing itself in ancient cultures,  etc.  These are some of the topics i looked into during my journey.  So, i am comfortable enough to point out that writing did not exist at the time of  Buddha or  Hindu Vedic scripts.  In ancient times, since writing was nonexistent,  oral transmission was mastered.  Disciples would remember the exact words of the teacher and memorize and transmit the memorization to next generation.   You would be amazed at the capacity of human mind for memorization,  once  the clutter  of mind is  removed and it is liberated.  Even today, you can find people  who can remember every single day of their life - look up online if you don't believe me. I know people, who would be considered super human for their memory.

 

Faith is emphasized as critical by all masters.  How does faith originate ? If it originates as blind faith,  simple blind trust with no reason,  it is not  real faith.  Real faith originates from an experience that indeed the teachings are true, and the words can be trusted.   A lie can be also experienced as a lie, and will result in disowning  the words of  those teachings.   Simple logic says - something that has lasted centuries  can not be all lie and there must be some level of truth to it.  With this kind of  simple logic, you can approach the words of Jesus and Buddha (or anyone else you choose).    This kind of logic makes the initial  first steps into the PATH, and slowly/progressively  we can build our faith in these teachers,  from our own experiences in the PATH.

 

There is a state-of-mind, where doubt vanishes.

Edited October 12, 2015 by seekingbuddha

[Marblehead]

That is a very good response.  It's not my intention to shake anyone's faith in their beliefs.  I don't eve use the word "faith" very often because of the connotations to "blind faith".

 

I always gt a chill down my spine when I read where Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu tell me to trust those who are untrustworthy.  I tis my opinion that if one does that they must have a very strong constitution because they will be faced with many disappointments.

 

But sure, if something has already been proven valid then there would no longer be a reason to question it unless a contradiction appears.

[FmAm]

Time has passed, and I've lost my faith in experience, too. Thanks to Nagarjuna and Gorgias.

 

There's a good paper on Madhyamikas and nihilism: "Sunyavada: A Reinterpretation" by Harsh Narain.

Edited March 2, 2018 by FmAm
addition

[Marblehead]

6 hours ago, FmAm said:

Time has passed, and I've lost my faith in experience, too. Thanks to Nagarjuna and Gorgias.

 

There's a good paper on Madhyamikas and nihilism: "Sunyavada: A Reinterpretation" by Harsh Narain.

Too bad about losing your faith in experiences.  That is the only absolute truth we have in our life.  Even our assessment of the experiences isn't necessarily a truth.

 

Is it time for you to do some empty-minded meditation and forget all that you have learned so that you can experience your life once again?

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Well if everything was nothing.. which is the goal of nihilism.. then even nihilism wouldn't exist..

 

Existence is very plain..

 

But its what we do with our subjective reality, that forms the basis of reality in a nutshell.. 

 

So i'm concluding that nihilism is as real as anything else.. but its aims are close to impossible!

[Marblehead]

7 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Well if everything was nothing.. which is the goal of nihilism.. then even nihilism wouldn't exist..

 

Existence is very plain..

 

But its what we do with our subjective reality, that forms the basis of reality in a nutshell.. 

 

So i'm concluding that nihilism is as real as anything else.. but its aims are close to impossible!

To the best of my understand nihilism doesn't claim that everything is nothing, but rather that everything is meaningless.  (Nothing matters.)

 

Yes, existence is obvious.  Our interpretation of it, not so much.

 

And I agree, it's how we interact with existence that matters.  And yes, this is what forms "our" understanding of reality.

 

And I agree, nihilism is a real concept in the mind of man.  (It could be argued that it is the Way of Dao as well.)

 

And there are some who attain the mental state of the nihilist.  That's sad, I think.

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Wow that blew my mind; that the way itself is nihilistic.. or nihilism plain as day..

[Boundlesscostfairy]

I recently reread Tha Tao Te Ching in the interpretation, that it is about creating poetry.. and is a guide itself about making poetry..