Formlessness (inside & outside)

[Leyla Shen]

[slaps her forehead] Doh!

So that’s the purpose of this forum; to impress you! Far out, how could I have got it so wrong?

Now, more seriously, I hate to risk disturbing you, but methinks you think far too highly of yourself, without good reason. It ain’t my fault your appreciation of paradox is limited to the mundane: dualistic notions, on the order of “the more love you want, the more you have to give away.”

[guest_of_logic]

So that’s the purpose of this forum; to impress you! Far out, how could I have got it so wrong?

That jibe speaks to the extent to which you're willing to manipulate the words of others. I said that I wasn't impressed - how you go from there to "the purpose of this forum is to impress me" is anyone's guess. But, you know, I understand that you get a lot of pleasure out of putting the boot into other people online, so please, by all means have at my other cheek.

OK, OK, I'll come clean: yes, that's exactly the purpose of this forum. I'll be handing out grades at the conclusion, so, yes, it is important for you to impress me. Based on your performance to date, Leyla, you'll be getting passing grades in constructive criticism (only just, mind you), Middle-Eastern studies, and in effective use of poetic/ironic wit. You'll need some remedial classes to get up to speed elsewhere.

Now, more seriously, I hate to risk disturbing you, but methinks you think far too highly of yourself, without good reason.

What's that tortured sound? Oh, it's just the irony meter twisting itself off the scale.

Anyhow, I can think of some very good reasons to think highly of myself, and some very good reasons to think poorly of myself. I can guess which ones you'd rather hear.

It ain’t my fault your appreciation of paradox is limited to the mundane: dualistic notions, on the order of “the more love you want, the more you have to give away.”

Just like it ain't my fault that you resort to personal attack rather than to rationally defend your contradiction. A paradox is backed by some kind of meaning. Kindly point out the meaning in yours.

[Jason]

I said existence as a whole is the collection of all finite phenomena, and thus if you were to know all finite phenomena you would therefore know all of existence - and you could know each individual finite phenomena by contrasting it against other finite phenomena.

Ignoring the fact that knowing all finite phenomena is absolutely impossible, by knowing all finite phenomena, you would only be knowing finite phenomena (one aspect of reality). Your understanding of Existence as a whole would not benefit from that kind of understanding. Only pure logic can help in accomplishing that goal.

Are you claiming that 'understanding of Existence' and 'pure logic' are not finite phenomena? Because that's the only way they could escape not being known by someone who knew all finite phenomena.

Oh come on, my bicycle analogy, of knowing all the parts of the bicycle and thus knowing the bicycle as a whole, was very simple and straightforward, why aren't you understanding my arguments?

I am, but you don't realize what you are actually implying, which is that form can arise by contrasting something with itself. Just because you go about naming the bike in a more complicated way, as opposed to just calling it a bike, doesn't mean you aren't saying the bike contrasts with the bike, which is absolutely false.

Show me what I have written in this thread that implies that I believe a thing would be contrasted against itself. That has never been a part of my argument.

Also, just to let you know, there comes a point where your bike analogy breaks down when comparing it to the Totality, something I don't think you've realized yet because as you said above, you don't really know what form is.

I know what form is: finite phenomena.

[Nick]

I don’t know about you, but I imagine it would be very difficult to experience formlessness as anything other than some kind of form. If one is consciously experiencing formlessness, and consciousness is distinction of/between form/s, how is formlessness not then a thing just like any other thing?

I agree form is a part of reality, but when we define the Totality to mean that there is nothing aside from it, form can not arise in an ultimate sense. Our disagreement with each other is that I am specifically talking about the formless nature of the Totality and I though you were trying to meld it with emptiness (the nature of form).

I think another point I haven't made clear enough is that although we can experience reality directly through forms, as soon as we go to talk about form we are actually talking about something that is less than the Totality. So when we do want to talk about the Totality as a whole, form should never actually enter the discussion.

So, what you are saying is that you want to leave the question of existence itself out of a discussion about the Totality?

For this particular discussion, yes, because I think that Jason and others will only understand formlessness by defining the Totality as to mean there is nothing aside from it, meaning form can not logically arise in an absolute sense. It's the best way I can think of to combat their desire to project the picture of a giant image of big bird or god knows what else on to it.

Wow. That seems like an illogical and arbitrary doctrine, to me. Frankly, I reckon you’re in the “no mountain” phase, myself. What do you think?

See above response.

And when we define the Totality as the All, form can not logically arise because form needs boundaries and the All is boundless.

Sure, if you want to make it a particular thing which excludes form/things from the Totality rather than understand the essence of the statement. There’s no point in doing event that, though, except in order to arrive at an understanding of the impermanent nature of—form.

And that is exactly what I am trying to do for the sake of Jason and others. The problem I had with your initial statement I commented on was that I felt that it might complicate matters a bit too much to make any head way with the point I was trying to make to Jason, and I wanted to clear things up between you and myself to make sure we were on the same page.

The All is boundless, since it is not a thing; yet it is infinite because it is in the nature of all things. It is the all in any and every moment, regardless of what might happen to and with particular forms. I have defined it here without limiting it to any boundary at all and without having to say forms don’t/form doesn't exist (note: therefore, it must follow, only formlessness does) as part of the Totality, which they most certainly and by logical necessity do. Are you really prepared to say that the conception of any form whatsoever is deluded by default?

Absolutely not.

And, again, what about Emptiness? Are you saying it is the teaching that there is no form? Do you see any logical connection between the doctrine of Emptiness and the Totality?

I do, but I just wasn't sure if the time was right to bring up Emptiness, and being that I thought it was fairly obvious that Emptiness shouldn't be brought up, I thought I might probe you to see if there were any flaws in your own logic. Maybe it was a bad judgment call on my part and it was the perfect time for Emptiness to be brought up.

Sounds like experiencing an altered state of mind rather than arriving at truth, to me.

It would be silly for you to think otherwise.

You mustn’t get very much done (including thinking) when you talk about the Totality, then, eh?

Just because I got a little poetic and imaginative? Don't worry, it's not something I'm attached to.

Talking about the Totality, for me, is a matter of pure logic—no matter what might happen along the way. The question now becomes; can pure logic cause altered states of mind...

:)

Anything has the potential to alter one's mind. Logic has certainly altered my mind. Hasn't it altered yours?

[Nick]

Are you claiming that 'understanding of Existence' and 'pure logic' are not finite phenomena? Because that's the only way they could escape not being known by someone who knew all finite phenomena.

Finite in the sense that there are other things they are not, but they are absolute. And since no form is absolute truth, how could knowing all forms benefit your understanding of absolute truth?

Show me what I have written in this thread that implies that I believe a thing would be contrasted against itself. That has never been a part of my argument.

When you said the bikes parts give the bike form. Contrasting the parts of the bike only gives the PARTS of the bike form, not the bike. The bike is given form by the things that aren't the bike. As soon as you try to contrast the bike with one of its parts, the bike no longer exists because it no longer includes the part you are attempting to contrast it with, meaning the parts not being contrasted with the bike can no longer constitute an actual bike.

I know what form is: finite phenomena.

Sheer genius! Hey did you know that the sky is blue, because well, it's blue?

Sorry Jason, your shallow understanding of form doesn't cut it.

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

I agree form is a part of reality, but when we define the Totality to mean that there is nothing aside from it, form can not arise in an ultimate sense.

Well, if what you mean is that the Totality can never, by definition or in reality (i.e. either logically or empirically), be a finite “in itself” form since it would instantly be less than the Totality by virtue of Emptiness, then I—of course—agree.

Our disagreement with each other is that I am specifically talking about the formless nature of the Totality and I though you were trying to meld it with emptiness (the nature of form).

The two (the Totality and Emptiness—if you will, the nature of reality and the nature of form respectively) are inextricably intertwined. There is no part of reality (not even forms) that has a nature independent of (the nature of) the Totality. Thus, I stress, you are implicitly using form in order to conclude by contrast that the Totality is “itself” formless when I am pointing to the Totality’s formlessness as being a direct, logical consequence of the finite nature of form. Why? Because if all that there is, was and will be are finite things, then it necessarily follows that the infinite nature of the Totality lies not in the individual forms, but in the infinite continuation of form; form infinitely causing contrasting form/s. Else, there’d be nothing in existence, since all forms are impermanent. Starting with, or assuming, formlessness as some apriori knowledge pulled out of thin air appears to me as magical as pulling an omnibenevolent alien god out of one's head. If we are to reject the deistic position of first cause in favour of non-dualism and as a matter of pure logic only to imply that the infinite (Totality) depends by contrast upon finite form for its infinitude, we have done nothing but return to a dualistic notion with the opposing finite/infinite duality in which terms it is literally impossible to properly understand the Totality. Same deal with the form/formless, or any other, duality.

Furthermore, a snapshot of the Totality as formless is just as potentially meaningless therefore as a snapshot of the Totality as an analogous whole, such as a bike. Conversely, they are both just as potentially meaningful in their own right in what they attempt to point to in regard to the Totality.

In this same way, just as the masculine and feminine appear to be distinct, they are not in fact separate. Can you, for example, say that either one resides anywhere else but in you? If it were true that things come into existence by contrast with other things (and, in this case, particularly by contrast with their opposite), how would it be possible to eliminate the feminine by becoming and remaining masculine? In this context, how would you define transcendence and enlightenment?

More later.

[Nick]

Thus, I stress, you are implicitly using form in order to conclude by contrast that the Totality is “itself” formless when I am pointing to the Totality’s formlessness as being a direct, logical consequence of the finite nature of form.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

Why? Because if all that there is, was and will be are finite things, then it necessarily follows that the infinite nature of the Totality lies not in the individual forms, but in the infinite continuation of form; form infinitely causing contrasting form/s.

How is this any different than me pointing out that form can only arise when there is something to contrast it with as dictated by A=A/causality, which directly leads us to the conclusion that, when we define the Totality as everything, it is logically impossible for form to be attached to it? How is this not a direct logical consequence of the finite nature of form as you say you are demonstrating?

Else, there’d be nothing in existence, since all forms are impermanent. Starting with, or assuming, formlessness as some apriori knowledge pulled out of thin air appears to me as magical as pulling an omnibenevolent alien god out of one's head. If we are to reject the deistic position of first cause in favour of non-dualism and as a matter of pure logic only to imply that the infinite (Totality) depends by contrast upon finite form for its infinitude, we have done nothing but return to a dualistic notion with the opposing finite/infinite duality in which terms it is literally impossible to properly understand the Totality. Same deal with the form/formless, or any other, duality.

All I was doing was demonstrating that if you try to picture the Totality as a giant cube like Jason was talking about, you would immediately be talking about something less than the Totality because the giant cube only gains it's form by contrasting with non-cubes, automatically making it a finite entity (less than the Totality). I never meant to imply that the Totality is some amorphous entity.

The problem I had with your initial statement was that I thought you were trying to give him wiggle room by saying the Totality "is both form and formlessness". I now understand that wasn't what you were trying to do, or implying, and I actually do agree with that statement.

Furthermore, a snapshot of the Totality as formless is just as potentially meaningless therefore as a snapshot of the Totality as an analogous whole, such as a bike. Conversely, they are both just as potentially meaningful in their own right in what they attempt to point to in regard to the Totality.

I agree.

In this same way, just as the masculine and feminine appear to be distinct, they are not in fact separate. Can you, for example, say that either one resides anywhere else but in you? If it were true that things come into existence by contrast with other things (and, in this case, particularly by contrast with their opposite), how would it be possible to eliminate the feminine by becoming and remaining masculine? In this context, how would you define transcendence and enlightenment?

Q1. It wouldn't be possible.
Q2. Transcendence/enlightenment would be to go beyond both the masculine and feminine.

[Leyla Shen]

How is this any different than me pointing out that form can only arise when there is something to contrast it with as dictated by A=A/causality, which directly leads us to the conclusion that, when we define the Totality as everything, it is logically impossible for form to be attached to it? How is this not a direct logical consequence of the finite nature of form as you say you are demonstrating?

The point we are discussing is subtle and often, for that reason, confused with semantics and generally quite difficult to reveal.

“Everything,” of course, doesn’t have intrinsic form, but it does necessarily encompass all forms (and this is an unbelievably important point that I believe, improperly addressed, sends people off onto unnecessary tangents), unless you (erroneously) think Emptiness is synonymous with “no thing exists” (and, as you may know, I think that's an absurd interpretation of Emptiness, myself).

When you make the statement that since form can only arise when there is something to contrast it with it logically follows that it is impossible for form to be “attached to it,” you are unnecessarily and erroneously contrasting the Totality with, and separating it from, form itself rather than deducing the formless nature of the Totality from form itself. That’s essentially all that saying “the Totality is formless” does. It sucks the living truth out of existence itself, which – I might add – also has no intrinsic form in this context! However, pointing at existence with Emptiness (rather than with, say, a solid object like a bike) exactly gives existence the intrinsic form of Emptiness—and that’s the A=A of it.

[Nick]

OK, I think what you are saying is that form requires change, and since the The All never changes, form never occurs. Correct?

[Leyla Shen]

I should hope not. :) But, of course, I am happy to see your reasoning as to how what I said may indeed be saying such a thing.

What I am attempting is two things:

1. To demonstrate that a deductive argument for the Totality cannot possibly comprise one side/part of a dichotomy* and remain logically valid; and thus,
2. To elaborate on the reason concluding “form never occurs” from a deductive argument for “the All/Totality” is fallacious reasoning.

*A dichotomy is the separating of a whole into two distinctly opposing or complementary elements. Therefore, by definition, the Totality is necessarily form and formlessness (as we have agreed) since it is defined as the infinite whole (known and unknown, present, past and future) of existence.

Confining one’s understanding to the negative aspect “formlessness” of a dichotomised whole (form/formlessness) is simply the attempt to point to the infinite nature of causality. But, again, the problem with that is, it also separates causality from the things it causes, i.e. from its manifest complement, form, as a distinct element rather than as a duly limited (bounded) aspect of the infinite, undivided whole. Then one is apt to conclude further strange things about it like, the Totality (formlessness) is merely a part of itself (formlessness); or, things/particular forms don’t exist/never occur—the “no mountain” phase.

We all know how dreadfully possible it is (particularly for others) to see things as they aren’t but, after that, how is it possible to see things as they are if one cannot even see that things exist?

[Jason]

Ok. Well, I'm ultimating aiming for truth and understanding. If what I find doesn't seem very meaningful, doesn't lead to change or to affecting our behavior in the world - then so be it, those aren't my primary goals. (Not that I wouldn't like great things to occur.)

Right, and I think the way you define the All, as a collection of things, is fine in and of itself. But then we have to ask what these "things" are.

Do we really have to ask what things are? There are some interesting assumptions that drive such questions: we assume that there must be more to know, we assume that we do not fully grasp things, we assume that we are fundamentally lacking in our understanding of things. I think we should examine those assumptions.

Let's take, as an example of a thing that makes up part of reality, the visual perception that we label "yellow." What exactly is missing or lacking when we perceive "yellow"? Does "yellow" really need further explanation? And if we did come up with some explanation of "yellow", what exactly would that add or uncover about the actual visual perception that is "yellow"?

Say we arrive at the explanation that "Yellow is particular frequencies of electromagnetic radiation impinging upon the photoreceptors in our eyes which are then interpreted and converted into sensation by our visual cortex."

Well, what is that explanation really? First, it's about yellow, it's not the visual perception of yellow itself. We have the explanation on one hand, and the thing that is explained on the other. The visual perception of yellow on one hand, and the explanation of yellow on the other. The explanation points to the explained thing. Have we really uncovered something about yellow, or have we instead just found more "things" that aren't actually yellow - in this case a bunch of concepts that we then point at the actual perception "yellow." What type of progress is being made here? I think such "explanation" looks kind of like a sleight of hand when seen in this way.

To ask what things fundamentally "are" or "really are" is to miss the point. At the most fundamental level, things are just themselves. Yellow is yellow. If you didn't know what yellow is you couldn't ask for an explanation of yellow in the first place. In this sense, most explanations actually attempt to say that things are not themselves, "That's not yellow, this is what yellow really is."

It's funny that we look at some thing in our experience, in our reality, and then think to ourselves "there must be more to this thing, I'm missing something", then search for and find another thing in our reality, and then decide that this other thing we've found somehow adds or shows us more about the first thing. It's quite bizarre really.

We even go so far as to believe that an explanation of a thing has more truth or reality than the very thing it supposedly explains, instead of realizing that an explanation is just another part of reality, just like the thing we think we're explaining.

Adding it all up, I think it becomes apparent that we always understand every thing in its entirely in a very deep and real way. I think we should deeply realize that explanations are just another piece of reality. They are not more special or real or revealing than the thing we imagine they somehow "explain." Maybe I could call this "the-ultimate-taking-of-reality-at-face-value-realization." Another way I like to think of it is "There is nothing hidden behind."

I think much of the time we humans look out into the world, see finite phenomena, and then try to figure out what to do with them conceptually, if anything. But if we turn the process around and see that it is our concepts that create the finite phenomena in the first place - for instance defining specifically how a seat, pedal, wheels and frame make a bike - then the brute fact of separation is loosened in a sense - at the very least it is a different kind of separation. Dividers may well exist, but only because we've willed them to exist - consciously or not.

Are "we", who have supposedly willed the dividers into existence, finite phenomenon ourselves? If we are finite phenomenon, how would we initially become divided and come into existence ourselves? Pulled up by our own bootstraps perhaps?

I think this has all to do with controlling our categories. Knowing always what we are doing when sorting and filing things into contextual definition and understanding. Knowing deeply at every turn that they belong where we put them because they happen to be useful there, not because they must be there.

I think it's important to realize that all "things" simply are there, and that this is reality. Some people seem to think that mind-created divisions are less real and makes things less intrinsic. The fact is that mind itself is intrinsic to reality, thus so are any and all of its creations. That mind-created divisions may easily change or disappear doesn't show that they are not intrinsic to reality, it doesn't show that they don't have to be there, it shows that they can be transient, which is a different thing altogether.

Yeah I agree, I didn't mean that my concept is the All, I meant it existed within(as part of) the All.

It seems to me your concept of the All is the only form of its existence. What else could it be?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere along the line in this little pocket of our discussion.

[guest_of_logic]

To ask what things fundamentally "are" or "really are" is to miss the point. At the most fundamental level, things are just themselves. Yellow is yellow. If you didn't know what yellow is you couldn't ask for an explanation of yellow in the first place. In this sense, most explanations actually attempt to say that things are not themselves, "That's not yellow, this is what yellow really is."

It's funny that we look at some thing in our experience, in our reality, and then think to ourselves "there must be more to this thing, I'm missing something", then search for and find another thing in our reality, and then decide that this other thing we've found somehow adds or shows us more about the first thing. It's quite bizarre really.

We even go so far as to believe that an explanation of a thing has more truth or reality than the very thing it supposedly explains, instead of realizing that an explanation is just another part of reality, just like the thing we think we're explaining.

Adding it all up, I think it becomes apparent that we always understand every thing in its entirely in a very deep and real way. I think we should deeply realize that explanations are just another piece of reality. They are not more special or real or revealing than the thing we imagine they somehow "explain." Maybe I could call this "the-ultimate-taking-of-reality-at-face-value-realization." Another way I like to think of it is "There is nothing hidden behind."

Interesting thoughts; one thing that strikes me though is that you seem to be discounting the value of explanations. Granted, an explanation is not the thing itself, but one thing that needs to be said about explanations is that they are powerful. If you can explain something, then you can predict its behaviour, and, given the right tools, even manipulate its behaviour, and even find ways to get it to interact with other things to your advantage - this is essentially what applied science (technology) is all about, isn't it? Isn't it the case that explanations are what have granted humanity so much control over their environment?

In this light, I think that your sentence "Adding it all up, I think it becomes apparent that we always understand every thing in its entirely in a very deep and real way", is misguided. Deep and real understanding is what allows us to manipulate our environment; you are really talking about the shallowest of understandings: an acceptance that "what is, is" - if humanity had been content to settle for such an understanding then we would never have left the caves.

[brokenhead]

That last post was very interesting, Jason. To my mind, the phrase "there is nothing hidden behind" is quite true when you think about it. But that doesn't mean "there is nothing behind." What you are describing is a realization you encounter on the way to truly understanding things, that it must be possible to perceive something simply as it is and nothing more, nothing less. It must be possible, i.e., always potentially what a person can do, not what a person always should do. It is the path to non attachment, is it not? You will perceive things as a functioning human being, but doing more than just that - perceiving yellow as just yellow - is the road to attachment. When one becomes attached in this manner, the same road back to the non-attached state can be impossible to find, in practice. But it is the same road.

I think if you can function in a detached manner, as opposed to always non-attached, you have a real advantage. Detached means you know you have gone down the road to attachment, but you have only gone so far as you can remember the way back.

What's behind is not hidden. But it shouldn't be said it is not there. I think that is what guest is saying, and I agree. For to say that yellow is light of a certain wavelength entering your eye is only one level of abstraction one can make as far as an "explanation" goes. You can go on to study how the photon with that wavelength affects the rod and cone cells, etc. This one explanation - the wavelength explanation - then can be applied to any color in precisely the same manner. The body of insights and explanations enable one to postulate and interact with things that cannot be perceived, such as ultra violet, infrared, radio waves, X-rays, and so on. This is why I agree with guest's assessment that such "explanations" are "powerful." They are indeed other parts of "reality," but to say that all concepts - as parts of reality - have the same meaning and significance seems to be counter to experience.

But to avoid becoming what you study, Jason's observation must always be possible. A non-attached viewpoint should always lie within one's reach, and to ensure this, it is necessary to practice detachment, that is, being involved in the world but not letting it govern you through emotional attachments.

Jason, having this vantage point available at all times is really what enlightenment is all about, IMO. But it's a realization that needs vigilance to maintain.

[Nick]

Confining one’s understanding to the negative aspect “formlessness” of a dichotomised whole (form/formlessness) is simply the attempt to point to the infinite nature of causality. But, again, the problem with that is, it also separates causality from the things it causes, i.e. from its manifest complement, form, as a distinct element rather than as a duly limited (bounded) aspect of the infinite, undivided whole. Then one is apt to conclude further strange things about it like, the Totality (formlessness) is merely a part of itself (formlessness); or, things/particular forms don’t exist/never occur—the “no mountain” phase.

So how's this sound; The Totalitly is formlessness (causality) and form (A=A) as dictated by the logic of Emptiness.

[Jason]

Sorry for the delay in answering this...

Are you claiming that 'understanding of Existence' and 'pure logic' are not finite phenomena? Because that's the only way they could escape not being known by someone who knew all finite phenomena.

Finite in the sense that there are other things they are not, but they are absolute. And since no form is absolute truth, how could knowing all forms benefit your understanding of absolute truth?

As long as your so-called 'understanding of Existence' and 'understanding of absolute truth' are themselves forms(aka finite phenomena), which you seemed to agree they are, then these understandings would, simply by default, be known by someone who knew all forms.

Show me what I have written in this thread that implies that I believe a thing would be contrasted against itself. That has never been a part of my argument.

When you said the bikes parts give the bike form. Contrasting the parts of the bike only gives the PARTS of the bike form, not the bike.

The bike is the parts. If you perceive all the parts of the bike then you perceive the bike. And all the parts can be perceived without recourse to anything external to the bike. We're going in circles.....

The bike is given form by the things that aren't the bike. As soon as you try to contrast the bike with one of its parts,

Ahhhh! I'm not trying to contrast the bike as a whole with one of its parts - I'm proposing contrasting parts with parts, that's what I've been saying all along. You can know all the parts by contrasting parts against other parts, and once you know all the parts you know the whole - because the whole is the collection of all the parts.

I know what form is: finite phenomena.

Sheer genius! Hey did you know that the sky is blue, because well, it's blue?

Sorry Jason, your shallow understanding of form doesn't cut it.

It does "cut it" actually, finite phenomena are divisions after all. ;)

[Jason]

Interesting thoughts; one thing that strikes me though is that you seem to be discounting the value of explanations.

I'm only discounting the value of conventional explanation as it relates to the most fundamental understanding and realization of things.

Granted, an explanation is not the thing itself, but one thing that needs to be said about explanations is that they are powerful. If you can explain something, then you can predict its behaviour, and, given the right tools, even manipulate its behaviour, and even find ways to get it to interact with other things to your advantage - this is essentially what applied science (technology) is all about, isn't it?

Absolutely, and I'm very pro-science and pro-explanation in the more mundane and less fundamental areas of human endeavor and understanding.

Isn't it the case that explanations are what have granted humanity so much control over their environment?

It certainly seems that this is the case to me yes, and for all intents and purposes I hold this to be true.

In this light, I think that your sentence "Adding it all up, I think it becomes apparent that we always understand every thing in its entirely in a very deep and real way", is misguided. Deep and real understanding is what allows us to manipulate our environment;

I didn't say it was the only deep and real understanding.

you are really talking about the shallowest of understandings: an acceptance that "what is, is"

I suppose it could be called shallow, yet I don't think most people are consciously aware of the understanding and its ramifications in the way that I outlined in my post.

- if humanity had been content to settle for such an understanding then we would never have left the caves.

If they had this understanding they would have realized that staying in their caves and building space shuttles are both examples of what is(or what can be.) You sound like you may be confusing 'is' and 'ought.'

[morningstar]

dark energy creates 70 percent of the atmoshpere in space.. dont quote me i beleive that is right. the eye cannot see it so if your defonition of formlesness is something the eye cannot see than i beleive it is very possible, maybe i misunderstood the question?

[Nick]

Sorry for the delay in answering this...

Perfect timing actually, I think me and Leyla finally squared things away.

As long as your so-called 'understanding of Existence' and 'understanding of absolute truth' are themselves forms(aka finite phenomena), which you seemed to agree they are, then these understandings would, simply by default, be known by someone who knew all forms.

I don't like using the words form and finite phenomena interchangeably because logical (absolute) truths are not what I would define as a form. Form is something I can experience through the five physical senses, logical truths are in the realm of meta physics based on the way I define them.

The bike is the parts. If you perceive all the parts of the bike then you perceive the bike. And all the parts can be perceived without recourse to anything external to the bike. We're going in circles.....

Regardless, the bike would still need a non-bike to contrast with in order to mean anything (posses form). Whether it's empty space or anything else doesn't matter, as long as there is something else it is not.

I'm not trying to contrast the bike as a whole with one of its parts - I'm proposing contrasting parts with parts, that's what I've been saying all along.

Then the bike ceases to exist as a whole bike once you begin contrasting it's individual parts, e.g. it becomes a frame and two wheels.

You can know all the parts by contrasting parts against other parts, and once you know all the parts you know the whole - because the whole is the collection of all the parts.

Ok, but it doesn't work this way with the Totality, because the parts (finite phenomena) are infinite, i.e. there is no beginning and no end to their occurrences due to the nature of causality.

[guest_of_logic]

I'm only discounting the value of conventional explanation as it relates to the most fundamental understanding and realization of things.

Italicisation mine. I guess then that you're saying that your approach - understanding things just as they are - is unconventional. Do you believe in the possibility of other unconventional explanations? I guess I'm trying to ask if you believe that you can ever understand in a meaningful and ultimate way - beyond understanding the brute fact of their existence - why and how matter and energy exist, and why and how the basic laws of the universe exist allowing for form?

- if humanity had been content to settle for such an understanding then we would never have left the caves.

If they had this understanding they would have realized that staying in their caves and building space shuttles are both examples of what is(or what can be.) You sound like you may be confusing 'is' and 'ought.'

I don't think I'm going quite as far as to say that we ought to have trodden this path, but I am implying that our current lifestyle is superior to that of the cavemen. I suppose that it's debatable though. Some would argue that we lost Eden when we started down the path of technology.

[Jason]

That last post was very interesting, Jason. To my mind, the phrase "there is nothing hidden behind" is quite true when you think about it. But that doesn't mean "there is nothing behind." What you are describing is a realization you encounter on the way to truly understanding things, that it must be possible to perceive something simply as it is and nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, fundamentally, I don't think it's possible to do other than perceive something simply as it is. However, and here's the catch - it is possible to believe that something is other than what it simply is. In such a case, one is perceiving that belief(that something is other than it is) itself just simply as it is.

Which brings me to my favourite Zen saying "If you understand: things are jut as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."

It must be possible, i.e., always potentially what a person can do, not what a person always should do. It is the path to non attachment, is it not?

No, I don't think there's a necessary link between understanding that things are simply what they are and non-attachment. Having attachments is things simply as they are too.

What's behind is not hidden. But it shouldn't be said it is not there. I think that is what guest is saying, and I agree. For to say that yellow is light of a certain wavelength entering your eye is only one level of abstraction one can make as far as an "explanation" goes. You can go on to study how the photon with that wavelength affects the rod and cone cells, etc. This one explanation - the wavelength explanation - then can be applied to any color in precisely the same manner. The body of insights and explanations enable one to postulate and interact with things that cannot be perceived, such as ultra violet, infrared, radio waves, X-rays, and so on.

In the context of explaining that things are simply what they are, as I have been doing, I also tend to posit the position that there is no such thing as a thing that is not perceived. So, in that context, your "things that cannot be perceived, such as ultra violet, infrared, radio waves, X-rays" is simply a series of thoughts that you are perceiving. I think you'll find that is the reality of the situation if you're completely honest and straightforward.

This is why I agree with guest's assessment that such "explanations" are "powerful." They are indeed other parts of "reality," but to say that all concepts - as parts of reality - have the same meaning and significance seems to be counter to experience.

What is significant is significant, and what is insignificant is insignificant - again, things simply as they are.

But to avoid becoming what you study, Jason's observation must always be possible. A non-attached viewpoint should always lie within one's reach, and to ensure this, it is necessary to practice detachment, that is, being involved in the world but not letting it govern you through emotional attachments.

Jason, having this vantage point available at all times is really what enlightenment is all about, IMO. But it's a realization that needs vigilance to maintain.

Obviously there is some misunderstanding, because non-attachment is not something that I see as a necessary or inherent outcome of this realization.

[Jason]

I'm only discounting the value of conventional explanation as it relates to the most fundamental understanding and realization of things.

Italicisation mine. I guess then that you're saying that your approach - understanding things just as they are - is unconventional.

Yes that was what I was implying by using "conventional" there. However, perhaps I should have been a little more careful, because what I've been describing in these posts isn't itself really an attempt at an explanation. I'm not trying to give an explanation of things. That's unnecessary, obviously. I'm showing why explanations of things fail at the most fundamental level. It's meant to undermine explanations not construct another one. I think of it kind of like a cure in sense, for those who are afflicted with certain very fundamental philosophical misunderstandings.

Do you believe in the possibility of other unconventional explanations? I guess I'm trying to ask if you believe that you can ever understand in a meaningful and ultimate way - beyond understanding the brute fact of their existence - why and how matter and energy exist, and why and how the basic laws of the universe exist allowing for form?

Any explanation of matter and energy etc will be subject to the same limitations and issues that I've been describing. Any such explanation will be "just" another example of a thing that is simply what it is.

Also, I'm not actually pointing to a thing's brute existence when I say that "things are just what they are." I can understand how it is easy to get that idea, and as approximations go it's pretty damn close to what I'm saying. But in reality, "things are just what they are" is exquisitely more subtle than that. The fact is, even saying that something "exists" is a very subtle form of explanation too. A thing is itself. So it's 'yellow is yellow' not 'yellow is existing' - if you catch my drift.

- if humanity had been content to settle for such an understanding then we would never have left the caves.

If they had this understanding they would have realized that staying in their caves and building space shuttles are both examples of what is(or what can be.) You sound like you may be confusing 'is' and 'ought.'

I don't think I'm going quite as far as to say that we ought to have trodden this path, but I am implying that our current lifestyle is superior to that of the cavemen. I suppose that it's debatable though. Some would argue that we lost Eden when we started down the path of technology.

Oh, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant. What I meant was that understanding that things are just simply what they are doesn't inherently lead to devaluing of conventional explanations or devaluing of progress. It only devalues explanations which attempt to explain things at this most fundamental of levels. Science doesn't actually come anywhere near even attempting such fundamental explanations, it's just that some people erroneously believe it does. If anything, it undermines such erroneous beliefs about science, not science itself. Personally, I love progress, conventional explanations, science and technology.

[Leyla Shen]

Confining one’s understanding to the negative aspect “formlessness” of a dichotomised whole (form/formlessness) is simply the attempt to point to the infinite nature of causality. But, again, the problem with that is, it also separates causality from the things it causes, i.e. from its manifest complement, form, as a distinct element rather than as a duly limited (bounded) aspect of the infinite, undivided whole. Then one is apt to conclude further strange things about it like, the Totality (formlessness) is merely a part of itself (formlessness); or, things/particular forms don’t exist/never occur—the “no mountain” phase.

So how's this sound; The Totalitly is formlessness (causality) and form (A=A) as dictated by the logic of Emptiness.

I'm not testing you or looking for agreement, I'm trying to bleed your (and whoever else's) mind for insight. In that spirit, I'll give the above some thought and see what I can come up with. :)

[Nick]

Leyla,

If you do come up with something, make sure it's insightful. :p

[Leyla Shen]

Who, me? Well, I'll tr-r-r-r-r-y. :)

Now, for my next questions.

J: As long as your so-called 'understanding of Existence' and 'understanding of absolute truth' are themselves forms(aka finite phenomena), which you seemed to agree they are, then these understandings would, simply by default, be known by someone who knew all forms.

N: I don't like using the words form and finite phenomena interchangeably because logical (absolute) truths are not what I would define as a form. Form is something I can experience through the five physical senses, logical truths are in the realm of meta physics based on the way I define them.

So, what is a logical/absolute truth and is it, or its form (since it clearly does have the form "absolute truth"), caused to come into existence by what it is not, or by the Totality? Is/are form/s known by way of perception or absolute truth? Is it not possible for absolute truth to both possess form and be infinite?

[Nick]

Logical truths are in the realm of meta physics based on the way I define them, which means nothing more than they are "beyond the physical" i.e. they can't be touched, tasted, heard, etc. etc. I find that it's a useful distinction from time to time. This doesn't mean they are beyond causality or the Totality, they are still finite phenomena, but they are absolute in that the knowledge they contain can never be proved false.