"you only know the words and not the meaning!"

[Karl]

Funny.  I have forgotten what my contradictions are and I'm not going back through this thread to find out.

 

My life most times runs smoother than a greased pig.  I'm an optimist but also a realist.  How contradictory is that?

 

Don't let my contradictions bother you too much.  They don't bother me at all.

 

I'm curious, not bothered. I'm also an optimist and a pessimist, but there is no contradiction there, I know that I can win, or lose, which is realistic.

 

How your life runs has nothing to do with your holding contradictory philosophies. It's perhaps that you haven't realised or don't wish to concern yourself enough to resolve the conflict-which is evasion. Evasion is usually the result of a fear of some aspect of reality. It's a bit like an alcoholic or drug user that knows that their habit is harmful, but spin a tale to justify their continued consumption. Of course you aren't harming yourself in such an obvious way, but you are harming your consciousness in a similar way but without the visible, physical damage. We all do this to some extent, it's the hardest thing to avoid, or even sometimes to see.

 

You began the Tao for some purpose ? You were seeking some value I think. If it was the truth, then don't you owe it to yourself to resolve the conflict ? I'm not pushing, just asking out of interest.

[Marblehead]

No, I don't owe myself anything.  I might still owe a few people an apology but that may or may not ever happen.

 

The Tao began me.  I was searching for a religion and found Nietzsche instead.  The Tao answered the question I had that Nietzsche couldn't or didn't have time to answer.

 

So my contradiction is that I believe that no things existed during Singularity and that the universe did not exist.

 

Is that really a contradiction?  It's a belief.  It's part of how I view the cosmos.

 

I don't hold to the concept that the universe has always existed.  There may have been many universes but I have no evidence to support this thought.

 

I see no contradiction.  You see one because my understanding doesn't agree with yours.  Oh well.

[Karl]

No, I don't owe myself anything.  I might still owe a few people an apology but that may or may not ever happen.

 

The Tao began me.  I was searching for a religion and found Nietzsche instead.  The Tao answered the question I had that Nietzsche couldn't or didn't have time to answer.

 

So my contradiction is that I believe that no things existed during Singularity and that the universe did not exist.

 

Is that really a contradiction?  It's a belief.  It's part of how I view the cosmos.

 

I don't hold to the concept that the universe has always existed.  There may have been many universes but I have no evidence to support this thought.

 

I see no contradiction.  You see one because my understanding doesn't agree with yours.  Oh well.

 

But you don't think something comes from nothing individually. Why are you then inconsistent on the universe as a whole ?

 

It's not that you disagree with me, many people here disagree with me, but they do so consistently in the main. Your understanding doesn't agree with your understanding. :-)

 

Why were you searching for a religion ? What didn't Nietzche answer (he didn't answer many things in my understanding and those he did, he did so incorrectly) ?

 

Anyway I promised not to push it and I have a habit of pushing things a bit further than other people are happy with.

[blue eyed snake]

The Tao began me.  

 

I like that, that sort of expresses what happened to me 

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  Yes, your push factor is about 8 on a scale of 0 - 9.

 

Why religion?  I just wanted a label to put on myself.

 

Nietzsche did not follow the Way of Tao; that creation follows destruction.  Nietzsche did the destruction pretty well.  He never got to the creation level.

 

In my mind there is a difference between nothing and no-thing.

 

Pure chaotic energy (Singularity) is no-thing but not nothing.  I could say the same thing of Tao.

 

Pure chaotic energy is potential.  Still not a thing.  When chaos is lost things appear.  From the Mystery to the Manifest.

[Karl]

Hehehe.  Yes, your push factor is about 8 on a scale of 0 - 9.

 

Why religion?  I just wanted a label to put on myself.

 

Nietzsche did not follow the Way of Tao; that creation follows destruction.  Nietzsche did the destruction pretty well.  He never got to the creation level.

 

In my mind there is a difference between nothing and no-thing.

 

Pure chaotic energy (Singularity) is no-thing but not nothing.  I could say the same thing of Tao.

 

Pure chaotic energy is potential.  Still not a thing.  When chaos is lost things appear.  From the Mystery to the Manifest.

 

As long as you don't mind me pushing. I'm sure you will let me know when I've crossed your boundary. :-)

 

Oh yes Nietzche was a fine Nihlist.

 

You wanted a philosophy that you could follow ? Shouldn't that chosen philosophy be coherent and consistent ?

 

'Chaotic energy' or not; something is something and not no-thing. You clearly know that. How do you account for the chaos becoming order ? Or do you believe that everything is still chaos, which is of course really the preserve of the quantum theorists-something you have frequently been critical of-as it suggests that (the observer effect) it is consciousness that has primacy over the material ?

 

The argument is, to me, very simple. Either existence exists, consciousness is identification of it and so existence has primacy, or that is untrue; existence does not exist and consciousness need not be conscious of anything. What you appear to be saying is that both cases are true but that you are prepared to hold that contradiction.

 

 

 

 

[Miffymog]

I like Descartes musing on this.

 

What can I be certain of?

Imagine there's a little demon that's tricking every thought I have. I look at a blue table and the demon makes me think its red; I'm actually a woman, but it makes me think I'm a man etc. So, in this world where every thought is incorrect, what can I be certain of?

 

Simple, for the demon to be able to trick my thoughts – I must at least have a thought that can be tricked. Therefore, the only thing I can be certain of is that I think.

 

Now, whether you agree with his next step or not is another matter – but he gave this conclusion such importance that he decided to define existence by it. I think therefore I am.

 

This definitely ties into this thread, but my brain can't work out how I'm afraid.

[Karl]

I like Descartes musing on this.

 

What can I be certain of?

Imagine there's a little demon that's tricking every thought I have. I look at a blue table and the demon makes me think its red; I'm actually a woman, but it makes me think I'm a man etc. So, in this world where every thought is incorrect, what can I be certain of?

 

Simple, for the demon to be able to trick my thoughts – I must at least have a thought that can be tricked. Therefore, the only thing I can be certain of is that I think.

 

Now, whether you agree with his next step or not is another matter – but he gave this conclusion such importance that he decided to define existence by it. I think therefore I am.

 

This definitely ties into this thread, but my brain can't work out how I'm afraid.

 

It does. However 'I think therefore I am' is the primacy of consciousness. For me it is the opposite 'I am and therefore I must think".

 

Deescartes was a subjectivist/skeptic along with Kant and Hegel they are the biggest culprits in the destruction of reason and the rise of relativistic pragmatism.

[Miffymog]

It does. However 'I think therefore I am' is the primacy of consciousness. For me it is the opposite 'I am and therefore I must think". Deescartes was a subjectivist/skeptic along with Kant and Hegel they are the biggest culprits in the destruction of reason and the rise of relativistic pragmatism.

 

 

I'm with you on the first part there. When you sit in silent meditation, your thoughts have dried up, but this does not mean you've ceased to exist. You are more in a state of thoughtless concious awareness. So the 'I am' would come before the 'I think'.

 

One of the problems we have is that the English language is just not rich enough in the various states of mind that are possible in the various meditative states. In the west we tend to see thoughts as quite core to our being, in the east they are seen as more external.

 

But at the moment I give little weight to the statement 'I am'. As soon as you've stated it, you've entered into a monologue of thoughts, and you're no longer in a thoughtless mind set.

 

Can you 'feel' the statement 'I am' without having to think it? I don't have enough understanding of all the different states of mind the various Buddhist schools have available to them in order to answer this.

 

So I see the statement 'I am' as already having left the thoughtless state of concious awareness and having already missed the mark as it were. While practising stance training, I am in some ways mimicking the state of a cat ready to pounce. I am any more present than the cat? For me, no.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Miffymog

[Marblehead]

As long as you don't mind me pushing. I'm sure you will let me know when I've crossed your boundary. :-)

I will let you know if you get close.  That way you will have the choice of stopping or stepping over the line. 

 

Oh yes Nietzche was a fine Nihlist.

NOT!

 

You wanted a philosophy that you could follow ? Shouldn't that chosen philosophy be coherent and consistent ?

Not necessarily.  If you are happy with it what else matters?

 

'Chaotic energy' or not; something is something and not no-thing. You clearly know that. How do you account for the chaos becoming order ? Or do you believe that everything is still chaos, which is of course really the preserve of the quantum theorists-something you have frequently been critical of-as it suggests that (the observer effect) it is consciousness that has primacy over the material ?

No, I'm not a discordian.  There is order in the universe based in the processes of nature.  Once these processes started (with the Big Bang) there has been manifest order.  But still, undefined energy is still chaos. 

 

 

 

The argument is, to me, very simple. Either existence exists, consciousness is identification of it and so existence has primacy, or that is untrue; existence does not exist and consciousness need not be conscious of anything. What you appear to be saying is that both cases are true but that you are prepared to hold that contradiction.

[Karl]

Interesting that you have confirmed what I have said by introspection, even recognising that it isn't possible to be as present as a cat. A cat is a perceptual animal and so it lacks a conceptual faculty, so, though it also makes decisions, they are truly of the moment and not beyond it.

 

 

[C T]

Interesting that you have confirmed what I have said by introspection, even recognising that it isn't possible to be as present as a cat. A cat is a perceptual animal and so it lacks a conceptual faculty, so, though it also makes decisions, they are truly of the moment and not beyond it.

I'm not convinced that cats are able to 'make' decisions if their conceptual faculty is lacking (which i think is correct). They may respond by way of needs or spontaneity, but such acts... hmm... would it be right to say they're actually engaged in decision making? 

[Karl]

I will let you know if you get close.  That way you will have the choice of stopping or stepping over the line. 

 

 

NOT!

 

 

Not necessarily.  If you are happy with it what else matters?

 

 

No, I'm not a discordian.  There is order in the universe based in the processes of nature.  Once these processes started (with the Big Bang) there has been manifest order.  But still, undefined energy is still chaos. 

 

I will try to stop my enthusiastic bludgeoning from getting the better of me :-)

 

I thought if you knew, then you might want to re-think it. It's a good learning exercise for me to see this is not the case, as it often isn't metaphysically.

 

What produced order from chaos ? In the example of an ultra complex system such as the market, or the weather, then have you a theory about the apparent chaos that continues to exists when compared to your theory on chaotic energy ? I'm not disputing your theory, I just notice things in which causality is operative to a high degree.

[Karl]

I'm not convinced that cats are able to 'make' decisions if their conceptual faculty is lacking (which i think is correct). They may respond by way of needs or spontaneity, but such acts... hmm... would it be right to say they're actually engaged in decision making? 

 

Yes, they certainly make decisions, but only perceptually. They don't need to think (and are unable to think) long term as we must.

[C T]

Yes, they certainly make decisions, but only perceptually. They don't need to think (and are unable to think) long term as we must.

Im aware of studies conducted into perceptual decision-making processes in monkeys and humans, but not cats nor other animals. Would you happen to have any links to share cos you had gotten me really curious. Cheers. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by C T

[Marblehead]

What produced order from chaos ? In the example of an ultra complex system such as the market, or the weather, then have you a theory about the apparent chaos that continues to exists when compared to your theory on chaotic energy ? I'm not disputing your theory, I just notice things in which causality is operative to a high degree.

The Laws of Physics, of course.  I call them the processes of nature most of the time.

 

And yes, of course, cause and effect apply.

[Karl]

Im aware of studies conducted into perceptual decision-making processes in monkeys and humans, but not cats nor other animals. Would you happen to have any links to share cos you had gotten me really curious. Cheers. 

 

It's a philosophical understanding and not a scientific one so I can't give you any studies. Funnily enough that's exactly the role of the philosopher, to make the scientist curious. :-)

[Karl]

The Laws of Physics, of course. I call them the processes of nature most of the time.

 

And yes, of course, cause and effect apply.

I'm afraid you are going to have to do a bit better than that ;-) The laws of physics describe the nature of causality of course, but where do you draw the line between order and chaos ? Causality on a grand scale in a long time frame appears like stability, but nothing is totally fixed is it ? Determinism does not rule either...so ?

 

I'm trying to show you something that I think you should explore-if you are the kind of guy who likes an cognitive adventure. The things you are unable to fully explain are the same things, in a longer chain, that you have continually denied. It isn't your denial that is incorrect, but your failure to see that the path of your philosophy leads to precisely the same place.

 

Many on this forum hold philosophical views that are identical to your own, but they are consistent. You deny the conclusions of those others, but your own philosophy ends up in an identical place. Einstein ended up with God because he made some elementary philosophical foo bars. This is an issue with science that it depends absolutely on the philosophies that underpin it. Science supplies answers only to those philosophies that power it. Get the philosophies wrong and science becomes useless as a tool for advancement. Like the tools that hang on your wall, each one has a special place and a specific use. Without a philosophy they are just pieces of material of various properties. Science can't be used for philosophy. Just as a screwdriver can't determine how to navigate to the shops.

 

However, maybe I'm pushing now.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Predictability Is key.

 

If predictable then there is order; if it cannot be predicted then we must assume either we do not understand or there is no established "cause and effect" process.

 

Karl, I will not allow you to have total order and predictability of the universe.  There will always be the Mystery.

[Tibetan_Ice]

It would be very interesting if an actual Buddhist practitioner gave their opinion of this Sutra as I also think it hits the mark, thanks for posting it 3bob.

It's just another embellsihed sutra that someone customized because they could not understand Buddhism with regards to the self. Why would the Buddha undermine his teachings like that on his death bed?

 

From "Mahamudra - The Moonlight, by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal

The root of saṃsāra is the mind’s inborn clinging to the duality of self and others.

 

This is illustrated in the Ratnāvalī : As long as there is any mental clinging to one’s psychophysical aggregates . . . 210

 

The Pramāṇavārttika comments: One cognizes others if one perceives the self.

 

The Bodhicharyāvatāra states:

As much violence as there exists in this transient world, Just that much fear and misery abounds in it. All these originate from man’s clinging to a self. What should I do with this great devil?

 

By intensifying the clinging to a self instead of purging it, one will not only perpetuate such clinging but will, as a consequence, wander like a wheel in motion throughout the existential realms without achieving liberation. Some seekers of liberation fail to recognize the clinging to a self as the root of their karma and mental defilements. Without knowing how to eliminate the self [they will not achieve liberation], no matter how much they may try to abandon harmful deeds and practice virtue of a composed nature, such as listening to Dharma discourses and contemplating them. This they do out of the desire to eliminate the miseries of existential life, which are the result of their deluded mind and evil karma. Even as they devote themselves to virtuous deeds they cannot be certain of the result if these are not based on wholesome or magnanimous attitudes. Given a wholesome attitude, their virtuous practices cannot directly ensure the elimination of their clinging to the self. This kind of virtuous practice can help them only indirectly [by enriching their spiritual devotion]. 369 B

 

On the other hand, there are some meditators who state [rightly] that the meditation on nonselfhood is essential for eliminating the clinging to the self. They abandon clinging to the perceived reality of the self while excessively strengthening their conscious certainty of emptiness. This causes their overnegation to expand so much that they fall victim to the great vision of nihilism. Even those who are particular about true meditation and realization succumb to their attachment and clinging to the inner sensation arising from their meditation, so that they drift toward the fallacious courses known as the four aberrations and the three deviations. If one lets one’s mind cling to absorption, this will lead one toward a fundamental error and deviation. And if one clings to the consciousness of postabsorption, this will lead one toward wandering in saṃsāra. All afflictions and deficiencies of life originate from the mind’s attachment and clinging. It is therefore vitally important for a meditator not to be overcome by attachment and clinging.

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Edited June 9, 2016 by Tibetan_Ice

[Bindi]

It's just another embellsihed sutra that someone customized because they could not understand Buddhism with regards to the self. Why would the Buddha undermine his teachings like that on his death bed?

 

From "Mahamudra - The Moonlight, by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

 

"Making Buddhism acceptable to Brahmins   " I have been researching this sutra and have found that some Eastern Buddhists are far easier with it than Western Buddhists where it is on the whole shunned. There is a Western university professor who has studied this sutra for decades and swears it is the proper conclusion to Buddhism, and a handful of other learned enthusiasts, but they do seem to be in the minority. His line was basically the Buddha wanted people to stop clinging to the 'self', but once they had achieved this the truth that there was a real 'Self' could be revealed to them. 

 

I agree that it is unlikely that the Buddha would suddenly throw in such an undermining teaching on his deathbed. I read a while ago that all the sutras were recited every year or so after the Buddha's death until they were written down, I wonder if this one was one of those that were recited or not. I suspect not because apparently this sutra expected the return of the Buddha, and introduced 'eternalism' to support this idea. I could do more research, but maybe someone knows the answer. 

[3bob]

Hi MH,

Along the lines you mentioned in this string:  I think a big problem with the word "nothing" is that it can mean no-thing depending on context, for instance no woven thing- yet I'd say there is a weavers way and that which is woven and they are not nothing per-se...

Edited June 9, 2016 by 3bob

[3bob]

clinging to ideas about "no self" is just a variation of clinging to ideas about "Self" - per my take of the meaning   

[Karl]

Predictability Is key.

 

If predictable then there is order; if it cannot be predicted then we must assume either we do not understand or there is no established "cause and effect" process.

 

Karl, I will not allow you to have total order and predictability of the universe.  There will always be the Mystery.

 

I agree. Those things are axiomatic truths. Consciousness and existence are twin axioms and several others emerge. This is as far as we can go because we are not and cannot be outside the universe. I do not call it mystery, but it is beyond knowing and I certainly did not imply determinism-emphatically rejected it.

 

However you began by saying that there was something before existence, that the universe came from no-thing, then amended it to a chaotic some-thing. I asked if it was chaotic then, is it not chaotic now ? because you implied that chaotic energy had become ordered.

 

If you could grasp the statement: existence is identity ; consciousness is identification, then I think you would see the answer clearly.

 

Whatever consciousness is, it is a identified part of the universe, it is some-thing. Existence exists, we have a direct perception of it as it is, but our consciousness is making the identification. I do not mean that consciousness is arranging existence like a great hand, but that our consciousness is automatically creating perceptual categories for us and our conceptual faculty is an active process of consciously integrating those categories. We make sense of chaos to the extent we do not see it as chaos, we see it as order.

 

The sophist believe that we see falsity, that our perceptions are wrong because we do not see the underlying chaos. This philosophy has morphed into the modern 'quantum theory' in which our consciousness has become an active component and identity is eroded away.

 

I specifically asked the question regarding 'chaos to order' in order that you might realise what the problem is and how it has been approached to date. The muscle mystic is the sophist, the quantum theorist, the materialist; the spiritual mystic sees a designer, a creator which has given us eyes to see the order he has created.

 

These two approaches are not different, they only seem that way, both are denying man identity. In one philosophy man cannot see because he has eyes; in the other man cannot see except through Gods grace.

 

What is interesting about your approach is that you have actually denied portions of both of these philosophies and are standing astride the knowledge that man DOES have identity. Thus you have already thrown out both philosophies with one hand, but have reinstated both with the other. You hold that man has both identity and that he does not.

 

I can point this out, I can't make the integration and you have to want to make it. It does of course mean that those parts of mysticism (as opposed to the axiomatic) would have to go. My guess FWIW is that you are an agnostic (not in the religious sense of that word), you are unable to confirm either camp so it's easiest just to allow the 'possibility' or 'potential' to fill in the gaps. I'm saying that you can abolish those potentials and remove the doubt, but I suspect you don't have the confidence to do that because it could seem like faith- and you don't do faith, so there we are.

 

Anyway, I think I now understand your thought process and how you have arrived at your view point. There is a beautiful passage from Rand "where the wings of your mind should have grown, there is, instead self doubt" and in SRM "if I could give it to you (enlightenment), would you take it". It isn't for lack of desire to see the Sun, but a fear of choosing the wrong kind of glasses And missing it. That's a conundrum if self doubt persists and the opposite is blind faith. I empathise.

 

[Marblehead]

Hi MH,

Along the lines you mentioned in this string:  I think a big problem with the word "nothing" is that it can mean no-thing depending on context, for instance no woven thing- yet I'd say there is a weavers way and that which is woven and they are not nothing per-se...

Yes, I am doing my best to keep this in mind and a consideration when posting.  Mostly we are working here with concepts invoked by certain words.  For many Buddhists everything is nothing.  I don't agree with this but that doesn't matter.

 

And, of course, in this thread I am suggesting that "nothing" and "no-thing" are very different concepts.