Jason's opinion about Reality

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Either we are both ignorant or we both have the capacity (howsoever it's happening) to see -
even if that would only be the recognition that we sleep and dream.

In both cases reason or logic itself remains uncontested - the way one arrives at ideas like ignorance or capacity.

Reason could indeed be described, as you did, as "frozen, fixed recordings of thoughts". Or I'd even replace thought with opinion, sensation or imagination, depending on context. Why is this necessarily removed from 'reality'? A wave is a momentary shape of water seemingly distinct from the ocean surface. It's "fixed" for a tiny moment. The higher, the more powerful the wave - the higher it's "detached" from the vast body of water and the longer it keeps its shape.

Deep down in the dark underworld of the ocean, things are not more or less real than above in the absolute sense. Of course a creature living down below would never concede to that. Going up would turn his insides out.

[Jivano]

Reason could indeed be described, as you did, as "frozen, fixed recordings of thoughts". Or I'd even replace thought with opinion, sensation or imagination, depending on context. Why is this necessarily removed from 'reality'?

Because the thinker is removed from reality. That's the function of thought.
When we think a different quality comes in. Or, actually the quality is always there when we don't
think or imagine or dream (e.g. in moments of intense feelings or severe danger),

Just imagine what would happen, if you jumped into the next river, sea, ocean, bus coming along.

Then do it.

A wave is a momentary shape of water seemingly distinct from the ocean surface. It's "fixed" for a tiny moment. The higher, the more powerful the wave - the higher it's "detached" from the vast body of water and the longer it keeps its shape.

Deep down in the dark underworld of the ocean, things are not more or less real than above in the absolute sense. Of course a creature living down below would never concede to that. Going up would turn his insides out.

I have never been deeper than perhaps 15 meters in the ocean. So that example is imaginary to me.
If you had been down there, it was an experience for you. Would you then really think, my imagination
and your experience are of the same quality? I doubt.


Why not be honest and say "I do not find another quality in me than thinking." instead of saying "Imagination and sensation are close to reality."
They are not in the context of this discussion, because the title means Reality - Ultimate Truth, as another speaker here called it.
Don't mix the reality of words, thoughts, concepts, imaginations, dreams, wishes, fears with the reality of Reality.

And don't try to put Reality into the much smaller box of reality.

Of course a mirror can show the sky - but only a tiny part of it.
And a mirror in a house with closed doors and windows only shows
aunt Ann's picture on the opposite wall.

First get outside and look around. Then talk about the sky.
Not vice versa. Anybody who has been outside can smell
the wind and rain and sunshine in your pullover anyway
(or the lack thereof).

Smell it in Jason's jokes. And don't make his expressions
into mere opinions, or you would miss their quality. Why not read
the discussion again and try to get the differences between - say -
J and K? If you are not a friend to one of them, that should make
it easy for you to sense it without a bias. It is there, it sticks out
like a naked women in a theater full of people.


greetings

[keenobserver]

To answer your question: delusion is not realizing/understanding that ultimate reality is simply things just as they are.

Philosophy is the denial of what is.

No, true philosophy never denies what is but merely adds to it, adds knowledge, ultimate knowledge, adds a complete and comprehensive understanding, points to the culmination of all your, and mine, and everyones and every-conceivable-vision of "things as they are", the Totality of things as they are as well as things as they arent.
If non-delusion is understanding things as they are,
then enlightenment is knowing (The single entire thingless) Things-as-they-are.
Far from the simple understanding that this, and this, and again this is true reality, enlightenment comes not before and without a major conversion of mind and perspective and fresh knowledge and blood sweat and tears.
Though the whereabouts of the path and the way may appear after some time in a flash with great excitement, attainment and growth require devotion and patience, and a great deal of luck.

Dont despise philosophy just because you're not driven to strive beyond the elementary. There is no conflict with your message.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Reason could indeed be described, as you did, as "frozen, fixed recordings of thoughts". Or I'd even replace thought with opinion, sensation or imagination, depending on context. Why is this necessarily removed from 'reality'?

Because the thinker is removed from reality. That's the function of thought.

In reality there's only one form of movement and it's all real or illusionary - depending on perspective. Thought stemming out of ignorance is just as badly as feelings and desires steeped in same ignorance. But we can examine the content of our thought the easiest (it's more fixed remember) and so it's a good place to start. Examining feelings is like chasing fish bare-handed. The root cause of delusion effects our thought and feelings alike.

When we think a different quality comes in. Or, actually the quality is always there when we don't think or imagine or dream (e.g. in moments of intense feelings or severe danger),

How would you know you're not imagining that quality as well? Just because it overwhelms or has some apparent functionality for survival? Rational thought needs a calmer environment to flourish and crystalize but is it really a different quality? I wonder if you have examined this deeply enough - first hand.

Would you then really think, my imagination and your experience are of the same quality? I doubt.

They both manipulate our capacity for memory but experiences create usually stronger memories or neural connections. But a vivid or lucid dream can have more impact than mere experience so I'd say imagination and experience are basically the same quality which we call "real" or "experience" if its intensity is high enough and consistent with our reason ('common sense').

Why not be honest and say "I do not find another quality in me than thinking." instead of saying "Imagination and sensation are close to reality."

Any 'quality' you can propose is the same reality. If it's really reasonable, that's something only reason can decide.

Don't mix the reality of words, thoughts, concepts, imaginations, dreams, wishes, fears with the reality of Reality.

There's nothing unreal about them, you're imagining their imaginary quality, thereby creating more and more dualism between thought, being and action. To what purpose? A self-serving one I suspect.

And don't try to put Reality into the much smaller box of reality.

That's what the mind does. That's why we define it as 'mind'. Why do you battle against this natural function? Are you rejecting mind like puritans reject the body?

First get outside and look around. Then talk about the sky.

Better to talk about about instead. The rest is really just animal noises.

[David Quinn]

Jason,

Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness.

Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

I'm finding your comments about Reality, and your understanding of Reality itself, to be delusional.

At root, the understanding that Ultimate Reality is the "suchness" before our very eyes is nothing more than a corrective to a more deluded view that Ultimate Reality is located somewhere else. It is a corrective designed to focus the mind towards what is in fact before our very eyes. It is designed to stop the mind from trying to seek some kind of hidden reality that is not currently present.

What you're doing is setting up shop within this corrective, in the deluded belief that it is the ultimate understanding, and using it as a refuge to prevent further development. This is probably the most disturbing thing I am seeing in your words. You are actually using this corrective to undermine further thought and analysis. It has become your one trick to deal with all philosophic and personal issues.

It is not unlike how a Christian uses the concept of God to deal with all manner of issues. In his mind, everything becomes resolved by making use of the pat answer that "God created it", or "It is God's will".

Reality? This is it. It's right in front of your eyes.

Alas, a deluded person is currently right in front of my eyes. That's the reality.

It's like a cosmic joke. A lot of philosophy and the search for ultimate reality is like asking the question "Where is the Universe?" What do you think you're missing in the ultimate sense? If you find some answer to hang onto, do you think that answer or understanding will place you in a "realer" reality?

But this joke doesn't appear to be obvious to many people, it's necessary for them to find this understanding through a realization. It seems like we start off without this problem, without this cosmic joke, but then we spend our formative years twisting our minds into all sorts of contorted and torturous shapes, until some even go so far as to ask these ultimate "Why?" questions. Do you think "Why" adds anything to reality, ultimately? Do you think you can add or remove from reality? Hah!

The issue is not whether Reality is present or absent in any situation, or whether we can add or subtract to it in anything that we can do. The issue, rather, is whether our current perception of Reality is deluded or undeluded.

What can be added by our search for Reality is the undistorted perception of Reality. What can be taken away are distorted perceptions.

We start from the position of existence, reality, being everywhere and everywhen, in front of our very eyes every moment of everyday of our entire lives, and yet some of us still somehow exclaim "Why? What? How?". Even then somehow not realizing that "Why? What? How?" is nothing more than just another piece of reality.

Dwelling in delusion is also another piece of reality. Your one-trick banter doesn't help people dismantle the delusion they dwell in. The mere knowledge that Reality is everything doesn't remove all delusion. It only removes one piece of delusion - namely, the delusion that reality isn't everything.

That's all it does. And yet you're trying to pass it off as a cure for all delusion.

Kelly: And also, does this understanding mean that things exist inherently ?

Jason: No, the understanding doesn't affirm that things inherently exist, nor does it affirm that they don't inherently exist. It also doesn't either affirm or deny that the self is illusory.

Having said that however, in one sense it could be said that the understanding affirms simply what is, whatever that may happen to be. So, if I think the self is illusory then: I think the self is illusory. But actually, personally, I currently think the self is real therefore: I currently think the self is real. Huzzah!

If you were more open and honest with yourself, you would see that your thinking relies on the affirmation that things don't inherently exist. If the self can be real in one moment and not real in another, then this alone shows that it lacks inherent existence. This is true by definition. An inherently existing object isn't capable of acquiring and losing its reality just like that - willy-nilly, in dependence on our mind's whims.

I think your attachment to your one party-trick is preventing you from acknowledging these things inside you.

-

[David Quinn]

Jivano,

Because the thinker is removed from reality. That's the function of thought.
When we think a different quality comes in. Or, actually the quality is always there when we don't
think or imagine or dream (e.g. in moments of intense feelings or severe danger),

Just imagine what would happen, if you jumped into the next river, sea, ocean, bus coming along.

Then do it.

You're confusing thinking with imagining. Trying to take refuge in an imagined picture of Reality is certainly very deluded, but that is only one kind of mental activity among many. The art of thinking is something else entirely. Thinking, when it is done skillfully and wisely, can point the mind directly to the path to opening up to Reality. It doesn't have anything to do with trying to capture Reality within the imagination.

Because the thinker is removed from reality. That's the function of thought.

Only poor-quality thinkers are removed from reality when they think. A wise person can think all day and never lose consciousness of ultimate reality. He is not at odds with his thoughts in the slightest.

The idea that Reality can only be experienced by not thinking is usually only fostered by poor-quality thinkers who have no real understanding of things and no experience of wise thought.

First get outside and look around. Then talk about the sky.
Not vice versa. Anybody who has been outside can smell
the wind and rain and sunshine in your pullover anyway
(or the lack thereof).

Smell it in Jason's jokes. And don't make his expressions
into mere opinions, or you would miss their quality. Why not read
the discussion again and try to get the differences between - say -
J and K? If you are not a friend to one of them, that should make
it easy for you to sense it without a bias. It is there, it sticks out
like a naked women in a theater full of people.

Actually, I see the opposite. In Jason, I see a person who is trying to lock himself away in a safe, static portion of his mind - in the idea that "reality is what it is" - as a way of coping with the real world. He's not really opening up to Reality at all.

So what I smell in Jason's jokes is the stench of stagnation, of someone who doesn't want to grow up.

-

[Sapius]

David: It is not unlike how a Christian uses the concept of God to deal with all manner of issues. In his mind, everything becomes resolved by making use of the pat answer that "God created it", or "It is God's will".

How is Causality, as you conceive of it, ultimately any different? So what is ultimately the difference between “logical” and “illogical” conclusions? Isn’t then, individual reasoning and individual conclusions reached thereof comparably meaningless?

[Sapius]

Jivano: I am real. And thinking is a tool to play with imaginary, unreal things.

Greetings, Jivano.

How did you arrive at ‘I am real’? I am not mocking ‘thinking’ per say, nor deny that it is a tool, but I would like to know your reasoning behind ‘I am real’.

[David Quinn]

Sapius,

David: It is not unlike how a Christian uses the concept of God to deal with all manner of issues. In his mind, everything becomes resolved by making use of the pat answer that "God created it", or "It is God's will".

Sapius: How is Causality, as you conceive of it, ultimately any different?

There is a danger in using causality in the same way. It depends on whether you use it as a springboard to greater understanding, or as a refuge to avoid things.

So what is ultimately the difference between “logical” and “illogical” conclusions? Isn’t then, individual reasoning and individual conclusions reached thereof comparably meaningless?

I don't understand the point of these questions.

-

[Kelly Jones]

K: I'm trying to work out your reasoning. For one, how you can be passionately interested in inventing "cool" devices.

J: I'm also interested in inventing wicked, radical, sick, mad, hot, neato and swell devices. Cowabunga.

This mentality of being enthralled with the latest gimmick, is starting to make sense, given how you express your understanding of Reality.

K: For another, why you haven't come to non-attachment as the natural consequence of understanding the nature of Reality.

J: Do you agree with most of QSR's philosophy?

Why non-attachment follows logically from understanding the Absolute is also expressed by Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hakuin.

J: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

K: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

J: What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.

K: What little thought-model have I attempted to capture Reality in? Please present some reasoning.

J: You made a model in which reality is unchangeable.

You should think before you make such illogical claims.

The very act of contrasting an "unchangeable" model with a "changeable" model implies that the "unchangeable" model is really changeable. So it is illogical to call it a contrastable model.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

J: No.

K: What do you define delusion as?

J: I actually don't use the term "delusion" much naturally. I really only tend to bring it out if the person I'm speaking with uses it - tends to make communication a little easier that way perhaps. A more natural way for me to describe these things would be something like "understanding the nature of reality" vs "not understanding the nature of reality." Bit of a mouthful I suppose. To answer your question: delusion is not realizing/understanding that ultimate reality is simply things just as they are.

If delusion is understood to be how reality appears, then is that a deluded understanding?

Is not delusion caused by intellectual errors, such that it does not arise when those errors are absent?

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

J: No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

K: You said earlier that "things are what they are". Does this mean you believe that, if the belief arises that things intrinsically exist, therefore they really do? But if this belief doesn't appear, therefore they don't?

J: No neither. It means that if I have the belief that things inherently exist then: I have the belief that things inherently exist. On the other hand, if I have the belief that things don't inherently exist then: I have the belief that things don't inherently exist.

I'm describing things just as they are, rather than trying to say reality is something specific. I'm just saying: if you have either of these particular beliefs then you have those particular beliefs. That's just what happens, that's just what is.

Notice the way you frame you're question with the "really"? You seem to be essentially asking something like "What is really the case, which one of those beliefs really reflects reality?" You're trying to specify reality, capture it, limit it, and say that only certain things or states are really reality.

You clearly think beliefs influence thoughts, given your comments later on.

Since you clearly don't believe that thoughts are completely random, I expect you also hold the belief that if "things are just as they are", then a belief that contradicts it, would not be valuable to you. So one sort of belief is likely to arise and not another.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move. I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

J: Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

K: As far as I know, what you're saying falls short of a correct intellectual understanding of Reality. I am interested in trying to propagate rational beliefs.

J: Ok, that seems like a good honest answer and I appreciate that. You've managed to do a good job here, thanks and congratulations, you've helped inspire me to futher integrate and investigate my understanding. Today I was seriously agitated and flustered by prolonged wrestling with negation, affirmation, negation of negation, and every other permutation: "Not this. Not that. But also not 'not this'. But also not 'not that'."-types of thoughts turning through my mind. Perhaps something like "neti neti" I suppose. I was hyperventilating a little bit at times it was getting to me that much. It hasn't been this intense in months, and you had something to do with that.

You obviously believe that it's important to find out what is true. So I expect you don't value the belief that it's not important to find out what's true --- and that it doesn't arise for you (much).

I agree that how Reality appears can change (but Reality itself doesn't). But I disagree that those appearances will be of delusional beliefs, for an enlightened person. The meaning, or content, of those appearances will be Truth-oriented.

Something else I thought today, not for the first time:

Philosophy is the denial of what is.

If I look honestly at myself: I desired bliss and an end to suffering, and I managed to (con?)fuse this with my search for apparent "truth" and "ultimate reality". I wanted "real" reality to be something specific, I wanted it to be different to the suffering reality I experienced currently. That's (at least partly)why I decided that ultimate reality must be something other than simply what is, because what is, is often suffering, so ultimate reality must be other than that, right?

The main gist is correct, but you didn't take it far enough. You were holding onto a specific something: a false notion of Ultimate Reality, namely, "avoidance of what causes suffering". You still are, since your current belief is still driven by this false definition of the causes of suffering.

When I say Reality is unchangeableness, it is not a specific something. I don't mean something that depends on something. Of course "unchangeable" has a relative meaning, but that relative meaning is a springboard for the absolute meaning. It is the emptiness of all things that cannot change.

Philosophy as I had practiced it in the past was about trying to find out what reality really was. Could there be anything more silly or absurd? Reality is what is of course! So my searching for an answer was what reality really was. My philosophical doubting and uncertainty was also what reality really was. I was using reality to search for reality. Silly boy!

Now, knowing that reality is simply what is - is what reality really is! Shazam!

Logically, since there is no "isn't", there is ultimately no IS. There's nothing to know. But one does have to know it in the way Socrates knew it.

Suffering is caused by lack of understanding about the nature of things, and consequent belief that there really are things that can be attached and disconnected, held and abandoned. That is where I think you are.


-

[Jivano]

Jivano,

The Genius Forum is for rational discussion. I don't suppose you read the Welcome, or checked out the associated websites?

Frankly, I think you're insane.

Thank you. That's pretty honest, so it deserves an honest answer.


rationality - that which is characterised by conformity with reason, adhering to qualities of thought such as intelligibility, coherence, consistency, order, logical structure, completeness, testability, and simplicity.

Conformity with reason does not mean conformity .
Qualities of thought does neither mean straightjacket of thinking nor quantity of thought.
Logical structure has nothing to do with a frozen point of view.
Nothing to say about completeness, testability and simplicity.

That you cannot see these qualities in what I say, is not my fault.
In fact I believe that you attack my point of view so directly, because
what I said had some impact on you. You wouldn't reject it, if it was
meaningless. And the fact, that you have to fall back to personal insults
again, is a clear indication, that your standpoint can no longer be held
up with rational arguments.

The limits of your "rationality" have been reached.


I think, you limit yourself to something which the majority calls rational.
Probably to become acknowledged and famous, I'd guess. Or perhaps,
that's the area into which you invested much. But it looks like, you cannot
stand very well somebody having a different point of view. That's rational?

But that's all nothing compared to the basic fault of your setup:
trying to use your old concept of rationality to understand or even define The Absolute.

That's like wearing a combat dress when going to the opera. That would be ok with
me, but i highly dislike that you try to fence off 90% of the theater (i.e. 90 % of
the human intelligence and 100 % of the area where The Absolute can be
experienced) with barbwire, just because you feel uneasy in those areas. In short:

your idea of rationality is highly contraproductive in the direction of Ultimate Reality.

And it seemed to be high time, that somebody told you that.


Good by everybody.

[Kelly Jones]

Jivano,

It's not necessarily an insult to call someone insane. It can be the truth.

You claimed that a part of Reality cannot know, by the fact of being a part, that it is a part of Reality, and therefore define itself as such, and therefore be able to define the nature of the whole (Reality). No sane reasoning would come up with this obvious illogicism.


-

[Jason]

Jivano,

The Genius Forum is for rational discussion. I don't suppose you read the Welcome, or checked out the associated websites?

Frankly, I think you're insane.

I am part of reality, as you are.

The part cannot define the whole.

You cannot define something which you are a part of.

-

I think it can be seen as logical and rational. Here's my take on it: if you are part of a system, and that system is literally everything, then you cannot define the system perfectly without falling into an infinite regress.

Think of it like this: you want to make a perfect map(definition) of a room(everything) you are in. Since the room represents everything, there is no outside. So you begin drawing up your map, a wall here, a table there, and so on.

But then you come to a self-referential problem: the map you are creating is also in, and thus part of the room. So to create a perfect map of the room, you also have to include a representation of the map itself on your map. Do you see how this becomes an infinite regress? That tiny little map on the original map has to itself have a representation of the map on it, and so on and so on.

Which leads to: the only perfect map of reality is reality itself. This is the only way you will obtain a complete 1:1 perfect representation of reality. Yet if the map is perfectly 1:1 with reality, they becom one and the same thing, the map dissapears - there is only reality.

-

Another way to come to a similar point is just to realize that the definition is not the reality it supposedly defines. The map is not the territory.

[Jamesh]

Yes, but personally I completely fail to see how any part could be intrinsically different from the whole. So we as a part of totality, can still see totality in the parts of totality we can examine. While we cannot be 100% certain of what we observe, abnd we cannot see that which is not divisible, close enough is good enough for me, as it is for everyone, scientists and QRS included.

[Kelly Jones]

if you are part of a system, and that system is literally everything, then you cannot define the system perfectly without falling into an infinite regress.

You have just contradicted yourself.

the map you are creating is also in, and thus part of the room. So to create a perfect map of the room, you also have to include a representation of the map itself on your map. Do you see how this becomes an infinite regress?

The "map" is a logical definition , not an empirical accumulation of evidence of the Totality.

The definition is "the system is literally every thing". Since the "map" (the definition) is also a thing, it is already included in the "map". The map isn't "drawn" empirically, ie. thing by thing.

Another way to come to a similar point is just to realize that the definition is not the reality it supposedly defines. The map is not the territory.

The definition, being a thing, is a manifestion of Everything, so it is, in a sense, the territory.

-

[Jason]

Kelly,

Kelly: I'm trying to work out your reasoning. For one, how you can be passionately interested in inventing "cool" devices.

Jason: I'm also interested in inventing wicked, radical, sick, mad, hot, neato and swell devices. Cowabunga.

K:This mentality of being enthralled with the latest gimmick, is starting to make sense, given how you express your understanding of Reality.

Don't get too confident in your attempts at psychoanalyzing me Kelly. You do realize what I wrote above was a bit of a joke?

What is a "gimmick" exactly? I wouldn't call all inventions and technology a gimmick. Do you consider the computer and the internet you are using to communicate with me the "latest gimmick"?

Instead of being a gimmick I think you should think of this passion for invention and technology in terms of pushing the limits, exploring new terrain, not being content to rest in the known and common, wanting to overcome challenges, using will and determination to shape reality, using problem-solving skills, thinking outside the norm, breaking convention, being creative, using forms of rationality and logic and principles and so on. Think of how m-m-masculine it all is(not that I agree with the masculine/feminine ideas that float around here constantly.)

Are you suggesting that my current understanding of reality is just a gimmicky fad or something?

K: For another, why you haven't come to non-attachment as the natural consequence of understanding the nature of Reality.

J: Do you agree with most of QSR's philosophy?

K:Why non-attachment follows logically from understanding the Absolute is also expressed by Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hakuin.

So you do agree with QSR's philosophy, but you're intentionally avoiding giving a direct answer affirming that? Is this the work of ego perhaps?

At first I thought it was just QSR, but you've also got Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hakuin - man you've got a whole army to follow don't ya! ;P

J: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

K: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

J: What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.

K: What little thought-model have I attempted to capture Reality in? Please present some reasoning.

J: You made a model in which reality is unchangeable.

K: You should think before you make such illogical claims.

Kelly, come on, what is that? Does being dismissive make you feel superior? Defensive are we? Did I hit too close to the bone?

K: The very act of contrasting an "unchangeable" model with a "changeable" model implies that the "unchangeable" model is really changeable. So it is illogical to call it a contrastable model.

Is this Kelly's ten trick questions? It was you who has repeatedly asked me to affirm or deny that Reality is unchangeable. It was you who previously wrote "only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable." And you say I'm being illogical? Some consistency on this issue would be appreciated.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

J: No.

K: What do you define delusion as?

J: I actually don't use the term "delusion" much naturally. I really only tend to bring it out if the person I'm speaking with uses it - tends to make communication a little easier that way perhaps. A more natural way for me to describe these things would be something like "understanding the nature of reality" vs "not understanding the nature of reality." Bit of a mouthful I suppose. To answer your question: delusion is not realizing/understanding that ultimate reality is simply things just as they are.

K: If delusion is understood to be how reality appears, then is that a deluded understanding?

I'm not sure I'm interpreting your sentence properly. But it seems you are posing a contradiction. If you understand that "things are just as they are" then you are not deluded by definition, so delusion cannot appear as reality - by default.

K: Is not delusion caused by intellectual errors, such that it does not arise when those errors are absent?

Correct. Possibly with a little addition: the understanding or misunderstanding of the nature of reality probably works its way down into subconscious areas of the mind too, which aren't usually described as "intellectual."

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

J: No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

K: You said earlier that "things are what they are". Does this mean you believe that, if the belief arises that things intrinsically exist, therefore they really do? But if this belief doesn't appear, therefore they don't?

J: No neither. It means that if I have the belief that things inherently exist then: I have the belief that things inherently exist. On the other hand, if I have the belief that things don't inherently exist then: I have the belief that things don't inherently exist.

I'm describing things just as they are, rather than trying to say reality is something specific. I'm just saying: if you have either of these particular beliefs then you have those particular beliefs. That's just what happens, that's just what is.

Notice the way you frame you're question with the "really"? You seem to be essentially asking something like "What is really the case, which one of those beliefs really reflects reality?" You're trying to specify reality, capture it, limit it, and say that only certain things or states are really reality.


K: You clearly think beliefs influence thoughts, given your comments later on.

Since you clearly don't believe that thoughts are completely random, I expect you also hold the belief that if "things are just as they are", then a belief that contradicts it, would not be valuable to you. So one sort of belief is likely to arise and not another.

Yes I (try to)value the thought "things are just as they are" more than thoughts that contradict it. Currently I'm still wrestling with which of those thoughts arise more though.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move. I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

J: Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

K: As far as I know, what you're saying falls short of a correct intellectual understanding of Reality. I am interested in trying to propagate rational beliefs.

J: Ok, that seems like a good honest answer and I appreciate that. You've managed to do a good job here, thanks and congratulations, you've helped inspire me to futher integrate and investigate my understanding. Today I was seriously agitated and flustered by prolonged wrestling with negation, affirmation, negation of negation, and every other permutation: "Not this. Not that. But also not 'not this'. But also not 'not that'."-types of thoughts turning through my mind. Perhaps something like "neti neti" I suppose. I was hyperventilating a little bit at times it was getting to me that much. It hasn't been this intense in months, and you had something to do with that.

K: You obviously believe that it's important to find out what is true. So I expect you don't value the belief that it's not important to find out what's true --- and that it doesn't arise for you (much).

As far as ultimate matters are concerned, yes that is the case. I'd say I value finding out what is true extremely highly, and very rarely does the idea of avoiding finding out the truth occur to me.

There are sometimes more conventional situations where I might make a value judgement not to find out what is true. For example, if I saw politicians arguing on TV about something, and I didn't know which one was telling the truth, I wouldn't necessarily then make it my goal to figure out what was true.

K: I agree that how Reality appears can change (but Reality itself doesn't). But I disagree that those appearances will be of delusional beliefs, for an enlightened person. The meaning, or content, of those appearances will be Truth-oriented.

Where did I say that appearances of delusional beliefs can occur for an enlightened person? I don't believe that. I agree that no delusional belifs will appear, and it's simply a matter of definition isn't it? It's just the case that an enlightened person by definition doesn't have delusional beliefs. If reality changed so that the person did have delusional beliefs then they would no longer be enlightened.

J: Something else I thought today, not for the first time:

Philosophy is the denial of what is.

If I look honestly at myself: I desired bliss and an end to suffering, and I managed to (con?)fuse this with my search for apparent "truth" and "ultimate reality". I wanted "real" reality to be something specific, I wanted it to be different to the suffering reality I experienced currently. That's (at least partly)why I decided that ultimate reality must be something other than simply what is, because what is, is often suffering, so ultimate reality must be other than that, right?

K: The main gist is correct, but you didn't take it far enough. You were holding onto a specific something: a false notion of Ultimate Reality, namely, "avoidance of what causes suffering". You still are, since your current belief is still driven by this false definition of the causes of suffering.

I agree that I am still often grasping for a specific something, and that grasping is powered at least partly by a desire to end suffering. It's a habit.

Your last sentence however I find problematic. Ultimately my goal is truth and knowing ultimate reality, not an end to suffering. So I don't need to know, necessarily, how suffering is caused, I just need to know truth.

Although since you are of the QSR faith(I kid!) you no doubt believe that knowing and realizing truth and ultimate reality necessarily means an end to suffering. I disagree with that view.

J: Philosophy as I had practiced it in the past was about trying to find out what reality really was. Could there be anything more silly or absurd? Reality is what is of course! So my searching for an answer was what reality really was. My philosophical doubting and uncertainty was also what reality really was. I was using reality to search for reality. Silly boy!

Now, knowing that reality is simply what is - is what reality really is! Shazam!

K: Logically, since there is no "isn't", there is ultimately no IS.

If you're saying what I think you may be, I agree. "Is" is simply the term I have chosen that I think most closely points to Reality. The map isn't the territory it represents, but it does point to the territory.(Yes the map is part of the territory too, but I think you know what I'm trying to get at.)

To me the term "Is" suggests the most universal and nonspecific state. Everything is. It's interesting to contrast that with your description of reality as "unchangeable" which to me seems to suggest a quite specific state.

K: There's nothing to know. But one does have to know it in the way Socrates knew it.

Sure there's something to know. What you know makes the difference between understanding the nature of reality and not understanding it.

K: Suffering is caused by lack of understanding about the nature of things, and consequent belief that there really are things that can be attached and disconnected, held and abandoned. That is where I think you are.

Well you're right that I am in a state where I do still suffer, yes. Believe it or not I also think the idea that attachment causes suffering(although maybe not physical suffering) seems pretty viable too. If what I wanted was to remove all suffering, I might try to remove attachment. I have no argument with that.

But my primary goal is not to remove suffering, I'm after fundamental truth and reality. I don't see removing attachment, or the underlying QSRish philosophy that propels that, as a correct understanding of the nature of reality.

[Jason]

Kelly,

Jason: if you are part of a system, and that system is literally everything, then you cannot define the system perfectly without falling into an infinite regress.

Kelly: You have just contradicted yourself.

I don't see it, how am I contradicting myself? Do you think I perfectly defined the system? I think you're probably using a different definition of "perfect definition".

J: the map you are creating is also in, and thus part of the room. So to create a perfect map of the room, you also have to include a representation of the map itself on your map. Do you see how this becomes an infinite regress?

K:The "map" is a logical definition , not an empirical accumulation of evidence of the Totality.

The definition is "the system is literally every thing". Since the "map" (the definition) is also a thing, it is already included in the "map". The map isn't "drawn" empirically, ie. thing by thing.

It seems we're talking about different types of maps. That probably also explains the contradiction you think you see above. I realize Jivano was responding to you and your posts, but I was simply showing how what Jivano wrote can be seen to make sense from a certain perspective - not necessarily comforming to your perspective and definitions. His points are not what I'd call "insane."

It's possible I may be misrepresenting Jivano's views though.

J: Another way to come to a similar point is just to realize that the definition is not the reality it supposedly defines. The map is not the territory.

K: The definition, being a thing, is a manifestion of Everything, so it is, in a sense, the territory.

That's true, but you know what what I mean.

Playing Devil's advocate:

Say we did take your definition "the system is literally every thing". If it is necessary to define "system", isn't it also necessary, in order to be consistent, to define each individual term making up that definition? System=literally every thing. What is the definition of "literally"? The definition of "every"? The definition of "thing"? Is that the smell of another of my beloved infinite regress coming on, or am I mistaken?

[Kelly Jones]

"Jason" -- is it a pseudonym?

K: I'm trying to work out your reasoning. For one, how you can be passionately interested in inventing "cool" devices.

J: I'm also interested in inventing wicked, radical, sick, mad, hot, neato and swell devices. Cowabunga.

K:This mentality of being enthralled with the latest gimmick, is starting to make sense, given how you express your understanding of Reality.

J: Don't get too confident in your attempts at psychoanalyzing me Kelly. You do realize what I wrote above was a bit of a joke?

It's impossible to joke about joking, because it's the same as saying, "I always lie".

It's very revealing, no doubt about it.

J: What is a "gimmick" exactly? I wouldn't call all inventions and technology a gimmick. Do you consider the computer and the internet you are using to communicate with me the "latest gimmick"?

Being enthralled with the latest gimmick is a psychological habit of being attracted to cool devices for no other reason, than, say, the belief that whatever is wierd, unexpected, unusual, sudden, and mysterious, is the fundamental face of Reality.

J: Instead of being a gimmick I think you should think of this passion for invention and technology in terms of pushing the limits, exploring new terrain, not being content to rest in the known and common, wanting to overcome challenges, using will and determination to shape reality, using problem-solving skills, thinking outside the norm, breaking convention, being creative, using forms of rationality and logic and principles and so on. Think of how m-m-masculine it all is(not that I agree with the masculine/feminine ideas that float around here constantly.)

I can't do it, because it isn't.

It's just shoddy gimcrack garbage that passes itself off as wisdom. You do claim to have completed your search for enlightenment, don't you?

Are you suggesting that my current understanding of reality is just a gimmicky fad or something?

I'm not suggesting you'll grow out of it any time soon. You won't get bored of it easily, because you don't like being bored.

I recall your movement to this line of thinking was driven by avoidance of suffering. My take is that suffering is just suffering - don't bother trying to avoid it. The worst that can happen is one dies - but in the overall scheme of things, that's virtually nothing.

K: For another, why you haven't come to non-attachment as the natural consequence of understanding the nature of Reality.

J: Do you agree with most of QSR's philosophy?

K: Why non-attachment follows logically from understanding the Absolute is also expressed by Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hakuin.

J: So you do agree with QSR's philosophy, but you're intentionally avoiding giving a direct answer affirming that? Is this the work of ego perhaps?

If you define "QSR's philosophy" as "logical reasoning that indicates why non-attachment follows naturally from an understanding of the Absolute", then yes, I do agree with it.

Calling it "QSR's philosophy" or "Absolutist fundamentalism" or "radical Aussie eccentrics" or "arrogant misogynists" or "sex-deprived neurotics" --- it's all the same to me. Just a way of avoiding examining the actual reasoning, a way of preserving ignorance. The actual reasoning is expressed by many others, yet you do not ask whether I agree with them.

At first I thought it was just QSR, but you've also got Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hakuin - man you've got a whole army to follow don't ya! ;P

More jokes to distract oneself from the task at hand.

It's not that hard, not worth such an effort.

J: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

K: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

J: What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.

K: What little thought-model have I attempted to capture Reality in? Please present some reasoning.

J: You made a model in which reality is unchangeable.

K: You should think before you make such illogical claims.

J: Kelly, come on, what is that? Does being dismissive make you feel superior? Defensive are we? Did I hit too close to the bone?

More distraction.

K: The very act of contrasting an "unchangeable" model with a "changeable" model implies that the "unchangeable" model is really changeable. So it is illogical to call it a contrastable model.

J: Is this Kelly's ten trick questions? It was you who has repeatedly asked me to affirm or deny that Reality is unchangeable. It was you who previously wrote "only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable." And you say I'm being illogical? Some consistency on this issue would be appreciated.

I don't think you were focussing on my reasoning very well. Try reading it again.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

J: No.

K: What do you define delusion as?

J: I actually don't use the term "delusion" much naturally. I really only tend to bring it out if the person I'm speaking with uses it - tends to make communication a little easier that way perhaps. A more natural way for me to describe these things would be something like "understanding the nature of reality" vs "not understanding the nature of reality." Bit of a mouthful I suppose. To answer your question: delusion is not realizing/understanding that ultimate reality is simply things just as they are.

K: If delusion is understood to be how reality appears, then is that a deluded understanding?

J: I'm not sure I'm interpreting your sentence properly. But it seems you are posing a contradiction. If you understand that "things are just as they are" then you are not deluded by definition, so delusion cannot appear as reality - by default.

If one is free from delusion, no delusion will arise. But I won't agree with your "things are just as they are" slogan, as I don't agree with your meaning.

So....... the old "if I think things inherently exist, then they do. Huzzah!" is garbage, because this thought wouldn't arise unless it were believed to be true.

K: Is not delusion caused by intellectual errors, such that it does not arise when those errors are absent?

J: Correct. Possibly with a little addition: the understanding or misunderstanding of the nature of reality probably works its way down into subconscious areas of the mind too, which aren't usually described as "intellectual."

Right!

But whatever is in the subconscious can't be dealt with until it's in the conscious area of the mind, where any intellectual errors can be dealt with rationally.

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

J: No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

K: You said earlier that "things are what they are". Does this mean you believe that, if the belief arises that things intrinsically exist, therefore they really do? But if this belief doesn't appear, therefore they don't?

J: No neither. It means that if I have the belief that things inherently exist then: I have the belief that things inherently exist. On the other hand, if I have the belief that things don't inherently exist then: I have the belief that things don't inherently exist.

I'm describing things just as they are, rather than trying to say reality is something specific. I'm just saying: if you have either of these particular beliefs then you have those particular beliefs. That's just what happens, that's just what is.

Notice the way you frame you're question with the "really"? You seem to be essentially asking something like "What is really the case, which one of those beliefs really reflects reality?" You're trying to specify reality, capture it, limit it, and say that only certain things or states are really reality.

K: You clearly think beliefs influence thoughts, given your comments later on.

Since you clearly don't believe that thoughts are completely random, I expect you also hold the belief that if "things are just as they are", then a belief that contradicts it, would not be valuable to you. So one sort of belief is likely to arise and not another.

J: Yes I (try to)value the thought "things are just as they are" more than thoughts that contradict it. Currently I'm still wrestling with which of those thoughts arise more though.

This belief doesn't reflect the nature of Ultimate Reality.

But in answer to your comment, one should work out what is absolutely true, then value it wholemindedly, and it will arise far more than any contradictory items.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move. I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

J: Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

K: As far as I know, what you're saying falls short of a correct intellectual understanding of Reality. I am interested in trying to propagate rational beliefs.

J: Ok, that seems like a good honest answer and I appreciate that. You've managed to do a good job here, thanks and congratulations, you've helped inspire me to futher integrate and investigate my understanding. Today I was seriously agitated and flustered by prolonged wrestling with negation, affirmation, negation of negation, and every other permutation: "Not this. Not that. But also not 'not this'. But also not 'not that'."-types of thoughts turning through my mind. Perhaps something like "neti neti" I suppose. I was hyperventilating a little bit at times it was getting to me that much. It hasn't been this intense in months, and you had something to do with that.

K: You obviously believe that it's important to find out what is true. So I expect you don't value the belief that it's not important to find out what's true --- and that it doesn't arise for you (much).

J: As far as ultimate matters are concerned, yes that is the case. I'd say I value finding out what is true extremely highly, and very rarely does the idea of avoiding finding out the truth occur to me.

Thus, you've already knocked over the belief that a truthful mental orientation to Ultimate Reality will include false orientations. This means you don't believe that delusions appear to an enlightened person.

So, the key is to work out, is the meaning you have for "things are just what they are", oriented truthfully to Ultimate Reality, or not?

J: There are sometimes more conventional situations where I might make a value judgement not to find out what is true. For example, if I saw politicians arguing on TV about something, and I don't know which one is telling the truth, I wouldn't necessarily then make it my goal to figure out what was true.

Since politicians arguing on tv are likely to be conducting smear campaigns, since their own policies are worthless and insubstantial, it is likely that neither are telling the truth. Meaning, speaking from a truthful mental orientation to Ultimate Reality.

K: I agree that how Reality appears can change (but Reality itself doesn't). But I disagree that those appearances will be of delusional beliefs, for an enlightened person. The meaning, or content, of those appearances will be Truth-oriented.

J: Where did I say that appearances of delusional beliefs can occur for an enlightened person? I don't believe that.

Interesting.

my fundamental understanding of reality differs considerably from QSR, it doesn't include a necessity to remove attachment, or a belief in self or the belief in the inherent existence of things.

-

[my current] understanding doesn't affirm that things inherently exist, nor does it affirm that they don't inherently exist. It also doesn't either affirm or deny that the self is illusory.

Having said that however, in one sense it could be said that the understanding affirms simply what is, whatever that may happen to be. So, if I think the self is illusory then: I think the self is illusory. But actually, personally, I currently think the self is real therefore: I currently think the self is real. Huzzah!

Do you think it is an absolute logical truth that things exist relative to other things?

J: I agree that no delusional belifs will appear, and it's simply a matter of definition isn't it?

It is not a logical definition to say that an enlightened person, who is free from delusion, is not free from delusion.

J: It's just the case that an enlightened person by definition doesn't have delusional beliefs. If reality changed so that the person did have delusional beliefs then they would no longer be enlightened.

If someone who was free from delusion, now entertains delusional beliefs, then they are no longer free from delusion. No change in the definition.

J: Something else I thought today, not for the first time:

Philosophy is the denial of what is.

If I look honestly at myself: I desired bliss and an end to suffering, and I managed to (con?)fuse this with my search for apparent "truth" and "ultimate reality". I wanted "real" reality to be something specific, I wanted it to be different to the suffering reality I experienced currently. That's (at least partly)why I decided that ultimate reality must be something other than simply what is, because what is, is often suffering, so ultimate reality must be other than that, right?

K: The main gist is correct, but you didn't take it far enough. You were holding onto a specific something: a false notion of Ultimate Reality, namely, "avoidance of what causes suffering". You still are, since your current belief is still driven by this false definition of the causes of suffering.

J: I agree that I am still often grasping for a specific something, and that grasping is powered at least partly by a desire to end suffering. It's a habit.

Is it a habit you value, or are you aiming to dismantle it?

J: Your last sentence however I find problematic. Ultimately my goal is truth and knowing ultimate reality, not an end to suffering. So I don't need to know necessarily need to know how suffering is caused, I just need to know truth.

The desire to end suffering often diminishes the will to truth. Dismantling it rationally, and persistently, is a way to stimulate rational thought. This in turn points that part of the mind towards truth, removing or reducing the interference. It is important to do this to all parts of the mind that remain divided.

J: Although since you are of the QSR faith(I kid, I kid!), you no doubt believe that knowing and realizing truth and ultimate reality necessary means an end to suffering. I disagree with that view.

This ongoing pooh-poohing of my own reasoning, and conclusions, reveals more about you than me.

I don't place wisdom at the service of "the end of suffering". I don't regard suffering or non-suffering as greatly important. If suffering, then there's some part of the mind that should be attended to, but I don't hurry towards Truth as a result, as if Truth is "Non-Suffering".

Emotions are just cause and effect. They're a foolish game one creates. Boring.

J: Philosophy as I had practiced it in the past was about trying to find out what reality really was. Could there be anything more silly or absurd? Reality is what is of course! So my searching for an answer was what reality really was. My philosophical doubting and uncertainty was also what reality really was. I was using reality to search for reality. Silly boy!

Now, knowing that reality is simply what is - is what reality really is! Shazam!

K: Logically, since there is no "isn't", there is ultimately no IS.

J: If you're saying what I think you may be, I agree. "Is" is simply the term I have chosen that I think most closely points to Reality. The map isn't the territory it represents, but it does point to the territory.(Yes the map is part of the territory too, but I think you know what I'm trying to get at.)

No, I don't know what you're trying to get at.

J: To me the term "Is" suggests the most universal and nonspecific state.

There's an implication here that there are possibly more universal and nonspecific states, but you haven't found them yet.

Are you saying "Is" refers to absolutely everything in the Universe? That it is the same as the Universe?

Why is that "nonspecific" rather than "specific" ?

J: Everything is. It's interesting to contrast that with your description of reality as "unchangeable" which to me seems to suggest a quite specific state.

Do you think things exist outside consciousness, completely separate to the values, perspective, and mental habits of an observer? If so, can you explain your reasoning?

K: There's nothing to know. But one does have to know it in the way Socrates knew it.

J: Sure there's something to know. What you know makes the difference between understanding the nature of reality and not understanding it.

Do you believe the boundary between knowing something and not knowing it, exists beyond consciousness?

K: Suffering is caused by lack of understanding about the nature of things, and consequent belief that there really are things that can be attached and disconnected, held and abandoned. That is where I think you are.

J: Well you're right that I am in a state where I do still suffer, yes. Believe it or not I also think the idea that attachment causes suffering(although maybe not physical suffering) seems pretty viable too. If what I wanted was to remove all suffering, I might try to remove attachment. I have no argument with that.

But my primary goal is not to remove suffering, I'm after fundamental truth and reality.

Attachment and delusion are the same.

J: I don't see removing attachment, or the underlying QSRish philosophy that propels that, as a correct understanding of the nature of reality.

Attachment is in the kind of meaning attributed to a wholly mental construct - to a thing.

That kind of meaning says, "This thing exists impervious to causes", and is delusional, since a thing is causes.

-

[Kelly Jones]

J: if you are part of a system, and that system is literally everything, then you cannot define the system perfectly without falling into an infinite regress.

K: You have just contradicted yourself.

J: I don't see it, how am I contradicting myself? Do you think I perfectly defined the system? I think you're probably using a different definition of "perfect definition".

A definition of something that exists accumulatively can be perfectly and logically defined in an instant, as that.

You defined this system in just this way, without falling into the "infinite regress".

Please note your definition: "that system is literally everything".

J: the map you are creating is also in, and thus part of the room. So to create a perfect map of the room, you also have to include a representation of the map itself on your map. Do you see how this becomes an infinite regress?

K:The "map" is a logical definition , not an empirical accumulation of evidence of the Totality.

The definition is "the system is literally every thing". Since the "map" (the definition) is also a thing, it is already included in the "map". The map isn't "drawn" empirically, ie. thing by thing.

J: It seems we're talking about different types of maps. That probably also explains the contradiction you think you see above. I realize Jivano was responding to you and your posts, but I was simply showing how what Jivano wrote can be seen to make sense from a certain perspective - not necessarily comforming to your perspective and definitions. His points are not what I'd call "insane."

It's possible I may be misrepresenting Jivano's views though.

Even if you are talking about a system that is literally everything within a part of the Totality which excludes everything else that is not that part, it is still defined logically, perfectly, and virtually instantaneously --- not progressively in an unending process of accumulating data.

Jivano's view was definitely about the Totality, even though he doesn't actually know what the Totality is, for the reason that his attitude was dogmatic. As soon as people make dogmatic absolutist statements, you can take it as read that they're talking about the nature of the entire Universe. Jivano was not saying, "You are a part of the whole, which is one specific part of the Totality", but "You are a part of the Totality".

J: Another way to come to a similar point is just to realize that the definition is not the reality it supposedly defines. The map is not the territory.

K: The definition, being a thing, is a manifestion of Everything, so it is, in a sense, the territory.

J: That's true, but you know what what I mean.

Playing Devil's advocate:

Say we did take your definition "the system is literally every thing".

That's your definition, not mine. I still don't know what you mean by "everything", but suppose you're talking about the Absolute.

J: If it is necessary to define "system", isn't it also necessary, in order to be consistent, to define each individual term making up that definition? System=literally every thing. What is the definition of "literally"? The definition of "every"? The definition of "thing"? Is that the smell of another of my beloved infinite regress coming on, or am I mistaken?

System = the Totality
Totality = all things
Thing = causes
causes = what makes up the Totality
Literally = exactly, identical with (A=A)
A=A (thing is what it is)
Every = all (characteristic of the Totality)
Characteristic = causes

So ultimately, all we are left with is a system of causes.

Causes.
Causes.
Causes.
Causes.
Causes.
Causes.
Causes.
Causes.

Causes causes causes causes causes causes causes causes causes.

causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses
causescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescausescauses

[Sapius]

David: It is not unlike how a Christian uses the concept of God to deal with all manner of issues. In his mind, everything becomes resolved by making use of the pat answer that "God created it", or "It is God's will".

Sapius: How is Causality, as you conceive of it, ultimately any different?

D: There is a danger in using causality in the same way.

The question of danger does not even arise because in no way can I USE causality; it is always the other way around, isn’t it? So where does “I” (and all that seems to originate from ME, as in what I think is logical) fit in?

It depends on whether you use it as a springboard to greater understanding, or as a refuge to avoid things.

Ah! So in this instance it depends on how YOU or I use IT, not how causality plays it out either way?

S: So what is ultimately the difference between “logical” and “illogical” conclusions? Isn’t then, individual reasoning and individual conclusions reached thereof comparably meaningless?

D: I don't understand the point of these questions.

It is causality either way, so what exactly is YOUR point? Is the question.

How are your values any more differently created than Jason’s? Or my questioning of it?

It is causality (God) doing it ALL; playing it out either way; so the distinctions WE experience are illusory; hence the distinctions between truth/lies, logical/illogical, etc, have to then be illusory as well. No?


Kelly, your obsession with causes is quite apparent otherwise too, so could you please remove the breathless chant part. It creates a horizontal scroll bar.

[David Quinn]

Sapius,

David: It is not unlike how a Christian uses the concept of God to deal with all manner of issues. In his mind, everything becomes resolved by making use of the pat answer that "God created it", or "It is God's will".

Sapius: How is Causality, as you conceive of it, ultimately any different?

David: There is a danger in using causality in the same way.

Sapius: The question of danger does not even arise because in no way can I USE causality; it is always the other way around, isn’t it? So where does “I” (and all that seems to originate from ME, as in what I think is logical) fit in?

It's a figure of speech. A short-hand convenience.

I could say, "If Nature causes me to take refuge in the concept of causality as a way of avoiding things, then that will cause problems for me." But couching things in that way can easily become a mouthful. It is much easier to simply say, "I did this" or "I did that" - understanding all the while that causality is the underlying doer of all things.

I'd like to think that those who read my words are intelligent enough to understand this, without me having to spell it out all the time.

David: It depends on whether you use it as a springboard to greater understanding, or as a refuge to avoid things.

Sapius: Ah! So in this instance it depends on how YOU or I use IT, not how causality plays it out either way?

See above.

The above sentence of mine is equivalent to saying, "It depends on whether Nature causes you to use causality as a springboard to greater understanding, or whether Nature causes you to use it as a refuge to avoid things."

Sapius: So what is ultimately the difference between “logical” and “illogical” conclusions? Isn’t then, individual reasoning and individual conclusions reached thereof comparably meaningless?

David: I don't understand the point of these questions.

Sapius: It is causality either way, so what exactly is YOUR point? Is the question.

How are your values any more differently created than Jason’s? Or my questioning of it?

It is true that causality creates all values and views, both true and false. Those who are caused to experience true views and adopt wise values are said to be sages, and those who don't are said to be deluded.

An example of a false view that Nature causes many people to adopt is the view that causality doesn't create all things.

It is causality (God) doing it ALL; playing it out either way; so the distinctions WE experience are illusory; hence the distinctions between truth/lies, logical/illogical, etc, have to then be illusory as well. No?

No. True views remain true and false views remain false, regardless of how they originated. The mere fact that all views are causality created doesn't have any bearing on whether a particular view is true or false.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'd like to think that those who read my words are intelligent enough to understand this, without me having to spell it out all the time.

David,

You are patiently operating under the assumption that when people ask clarification, they are directly seeking wisdom - even though you know that some people are just playing "let's see if we can trip David up." It is good that you are writing for the third party reader who may just happen to stop in on this thread without having read the few hundred other times you have explained this. It's also instructive that you play along with the games, because even though people who do this are not directly seeking wisdom when they do, occasionally some may inadvertently learn something.

[Sapius]

David wrote,

It's a figure of speech. A short-hand convenience.

Wouldn’t you agree that such “figure of speech” may distort what you really mean, and it would be better if you stuck to what you really mean, all the time?

I could say, "If Nature causes me to take refuge in the concept of causality as a way of avoiding things, then that will cause problems for me."

Why? What makes YOU think that it will cause problems for YOU? After all, it is “nature” that causes “you” to think so, and you KNOW it; so who exactly should be worried here?

But couching things in that way can easily become a mouthful. It is much easier to simply say, "I did this" or "I did that" - understanding all the while that causality is the underlying doer of all things.

In other words nature causes you to deliberately lie in the face of your nature caused understanding?

I'd like to think that those who read my words are intelligent enough to understand this, without me having to spell it out all the time.

David, if it were that plain and simple, your book would have been more than enough then. But how many do you think have been questioning you on your understandings over the years? You will have to necessarily spell it out all the time in the name of wisdom and your realization; you cannot and should not be bored since you have seriously taken up such a cross. Are you getting bored specially from me, David? If so, I will stop questioning you, otherwise I will question every time I find that half-a-truth is being spoken in the name of ‘figure of speech’.

David: It depends on whether you use it as a springboard to greater understanding, or as a refuge to avoid things.

Sapius: Ah! So in this instance it depends on how YOU or I use IT, not how causality plays it out either way?

David: See above.

The above sentence of mine is equivalent to saying, "It depends on whether Nature causes you to use causality as a springboard to greater understanding, or whether Nature causes you to use it as a refuge to avoid things."

So either way however, an individual is absolutely helpless in that regard, since eventually it is causality playing the game form either end of the field, so which team has an upper hand ultimately? Who is to be the referee? Causality can’t speak, and either of us are in the same boat, irrespectively on the mercy of causality. How can we then say that “causality causes YOU to use causality to do this or that”? Because causality remains operation when saying that too.

Even if you say that ‘the concept of causality can be used to alter your thinking either way’, it still does not work then too, because an individual in not in control any ways; it would be yet another delusion. Wouldn’t that be correct?

It is true that causality creates all values and views, both true and false. Those who are caused to experience true views and adopt wise values are said to be sages, and those who don't are said to be deluded.

Sure, but is causality directly defining the values? Or is a “thing” involved in-between somewhere? Forms for example; those that do not inherently exist, but are there anyways.

An example of a false view that Nature causes many people to adopt is the view that causality doesn't create all things.

Well, I say that causality "creates" all things; including forms, which are made capable of bearing fruits according to their own caused nature, which however work through the process of causality but not causality directly, hence the diversities in the nature of each individual thing. Causality is not God, for it is necessarily dependent on things, forms if you like, and vice versa. In fact, “causality” is not an underlying force of some profound kind, but is just the effect we experience because of the dynamic interactivity of forms itself. Hence, one could say that causality is the real illusion if any, especially if one takes IT for an Ultimate “creator”, and not the dynamically shifting forms from which we sense such “creative power”. I would say causality is a two-sided liar, with no shame or responsibility, either way (this reminds me of a theological God); at least forms are true to each dimensionally interdependent moment that they are.

S: It is causality (God) doing it ALL; playing it out either way; so the distinctions WE experience are illusory; hence the distinctions between truth/lies, logical/illogical, etc, have to then be illusory as well. No?

D: No. True views remain true and false views remain false, regardless of how they originated. The mere fact that all views are causality created doesn't have any bearing on whether a particular view is true or false.

Why not?

[David Quinn]

Sapius,

DQ: It's a figure of speech. A short-hand convenience.

Sapius: Wouldn’t you agree that such “figure of speech” may distort what you really mean, and it would be better if you stuck to what you really mean, all the time?

Referring to the "I" as a practical reality isn't a distortion. The "I" does actually exist as a practical reality.

DQ: I could say, "If Nature causes me to take refuge in the concept of causality as a way of avoiding things, then that will cause problems for me."

Sapius: Why? What makes YOU think that it will cause problems for YOU? After all, it is “nature” that causes “you” to think so, and you KNOW it; so who exactly should be worried here?

If Nature causes me to worry, then I worry.

DQ: But couching things in that way can easily become a mouthful. It is much easier to simply say, "I did this" or "I did that" - understanding all the while that causality is the underlying doer of all things.

Sapius: In other words nature causes you to deliberately lie in the face of your nature caused understanding?

It isn't a lie to use the term "I" as a practical convenience.

I think you are making the mistake of trying to capture the truth with words and neglecting to realize that language is simply a tool of convenience and nothing more.

DQ: I'd like to think that those who read my words are intelligent enough to understand this, without me having to spell it out all the time.

Sapius: David, if it were that plain and simple, your book would have been more than enough then. But how many do you think have been questioning you on your understandings over the years? You will have to necessarily spell it out all the time in the name of wisdom and your realization; you cannot and should not be bored since you have seriously taken up such a cross. Are you getting bored specially from me, David? If so, I will stop questioning you, otherwise I will question every time I find that half-a-truth is being spoken in the name of ‘figure of speech’.

I find your questions on this thread overly-pedantic, which makes them rather boring, yes.

As you must know, I do take the trouble to spell out the truth of causality rather frequently on this forum, but I don't feel compelled to make reference to it in every statement I make. As I say, I rely on the intelligence of the readers to be able to treat language for what it is and to read between the lines.

David: It depends on whether you use it as a springboard to greater understanding, or as a refuge to avoid things.

Sapius: Ah! So in this instance it depends on how YOU or I use IT, not how causality plays it out either way?

David: See above.

The above sentence of mine is equivalent to saying, "It depends on whether Nature causes you to use causality as a springboard to greater understanding, or whether Nature causes you to use it as a refuge to avoid things."

Sapius: So either way however, an individual is absolutely helpless in that regard, since eventually it is causality playing the game form either end of the field, so which team has an upper hand ultimately? Who is to be the referee? Causality can’t speak, and either of us are in the same boat, irrespectively on the mercy of causality. How can we then say that “causality causes YOU to use causality to do this or that”? Because causality remains operation when saying that too.

That's right. Causality is always in operation - in everything. But this doesn't negate the validity of using the concepts of "you" and "I". If we didn't make use of these concepts, practical life would become impossible.

A wise person can use these terms and not be fooled by them. He doesn't project anything deluded onto them. He doesn't imagine that they are anything other than practical tools of convenience. He is fully aware that their existence is imaginary only.

Even if you say that ‘the concept of causality can be used to alter your thinking either way’, it still does not work then too, because an individual in not in control any ways; it would be yet another delusion. Wouldn’t that be correct?

It depends on the meaning that the person uttering this sentence is giving it. The wording is largely irrelevant. The meaning is all important.

A Buddha could say, "I am going to the shop because I am hungry" and he would be a thousand times more truthful than a deluded person who says, "Nature is causing the experience of hunger, and thus this body which is conventionally labeled as 'mine' is being caused to want to go to the shop".

DQ: It is true that causality creates all values and views, both true and false. Those who are caused to experience true views and adopt wise values are said to be sages, and those who don't are said to be deluded.

Sapius: Sure, but is causality directly defining the values? Or is a “thing” involved in-between somewhere? Forms for example; those that do not inherently exist, but are there anyways.

Both causality and forms are involved. Causality cannot operate without forms, nor is it ever separate from them. Wherever there is causality, there are forms, and wherever there are forms, there is causality.

Well, I say that causality "creates" all things; including forms, which are made capable of bearing fruits according to their own caused nature, which however work through the process of causality but not causality directly, hence the diversities in the nature of each individual thing. Causality is not God, for it is necessarily dependent on things, forms if you like, and vice versa. In fact, “causality” is not an underlying force of some profound kind, but is just the effect we experience because of the dynamic interactivity of forms itself.

Right.

Hence, one could say that causality is the real illusion if any, especially if one takes IT for an Ultimate “creator”, and not the dynamically shifting forms from which we sense such “creative power”.

Again, it depends on how it is done. The only way we can conceive of causality in the first place is because our minds can temporarily ignore the differences between objects and focus on the "sameness of manner" by which all objects come into being. That is, we can use abstract thought to detect a timeless principle which is in operation everywhere. But you're right in saying that a person would be deluded if he imagined this principle to be some kind of independent, objective law of the universe, standing apart from things. In reality, it is just things giving rise to other things. There is no other principle involved.

In other words, causality is an abstract principle that it is vitally important to know, but which doesn't actually refer to anything specific in the world. The thinker who reasons it into being in the first place, will, if he continues to push his reasoning all the way, eventually reason it back out of existence again. The end result is a radical change in his conscious relationship to things.

S: It is causality (God) doing it ALL; playing it out either way; so the distinctions WE experience are illusory; hence the distinctions between truth/lies, logical/illogical, etc, have to then be illusory as well. No?

D: No. True views remain true and false views remain false, regardless of how they originated. The mere fact that all views are causality created doesn't have any bearing on whether a particular view is true or false.

S: Why not?

Because the truth of a view depends on the logic residing in it as a finished product. How it became that finished product is irrelevant.

For example, 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are both causally created, yet only one of them is true.

-

[Unidian]

Jason wins a Zen toilet brush.

That is a good thing, BTW. "Gold and dung."