Serious conversations about important issues, Part II: Truth is the root of all evil.

[Avolith]

Unhappiness is bound to be the norm in the kind of project that QRS ideally should be (and instead merely simulates, as I claim). If you reject the values of other people, i.e. the way they interact with the world and each other, then they will reject you. To the extent possible, you have to think and act independently of your affections for or allegiance to the people in your life, so your relationships with them can never be very intimate or fulfilling. At the same time you must love everyone in a deeper sense, i.e. in the sense of recognising yourself in them and wanting them to be more like you.

Rejection is a superficial thing - it happens on the surface level, a practical thing that can be managed with worldly skills. Therefore, whether or not you act in such a way that people reject you or not is a superficial detail that doesn't necessarily reflect an inner state of enlightenment or non-enlightenment.

I'm talking about rejecting ordinary human values, interests and activities on principle, and being rejected by others to the extent you follow this through. It's a different context than one's ability or willingness to handle particular instances of it like a relationship that isn't working out.

Take the other extreme, a confrontational attitude, the angry preacher of truth complaining about the ways of the world from the sidelines. How 'true' is that, as far as its effects go?

He may genuinely think confronting specific things he personally has no stake in amounts to an unswerving dedication to reason or whatever, while only valuing reason to the extent it benefits him. He may be right about those things but his deeper relationship to those things is a deluded one and will have bad consequences. Kierkegaard makes the same point in "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" with the example of an escaped lunatic trying to make everyone believe he is sane by repeatedly shouting "the earth is round!".

Regardless of being rejected or not rejected, in the case of enlightenment there could not be any satisfying feelings of companionship or 'group-belonging'. I think in my own case, I'm subconsciously dealing with it by being in companionship with myself to some degree. There's ideas, images that were thought up to function as some replacement. It may sound like a mental disorder, but I'd say it's something that keeps me sane.

I can understand that, but you have to figure out how to live without these mental processes. If lack of enough interaction/intimacy with other people causes actual mental trauma in you then I suggest dialing it down or taking a break. Other people may not despise your goals or behaviour but you still have to live with them and treat them with compassion. Besides, many group activities do not explicitly require lying to yourself and others. Also, exercising regularly will make you feel better. There are plenty of ways besides idea-companions that can help you bear the suffering of trying to live honestly.

This tension between what you expect of others and what they expect of you will cause a lot of loneliness and fear, and it will stay with you no matter how many absolute truths you understand. Wisdom cannot make you stop wanting intimacy, companionship etc. or suffering from their lack. All it can do is confront suffering and its causes honestly, both in yourself and in others. That confrontation itself makes you resilient to suffering and able to selflessly work for the good of others.

Wouldn't you say that there is such a thing as skillfully managing the divide between the inner and outer worlds, to alleviate and deal with this tension. It may even be part of skillfully applying your understanding in such a way that it lands in the world effectively. This would mean that enlightenment involves skill.

You'll get better at dealing with the suffering but it won't go away. This should be contemplated very seriously before going down such paths. You will also have to make exceptions about how strictly you want to abide by the implications of total honesty, but you should at least try to be honest about how dishonest you are. But figure it out for yourself. I'm only telling you what seems to work for me.

I'd say the most 'real' thing about the ego is that it's a very strong, constantly present, biologically evolved, internal sense perception - like the senses of hunger, exhaustion, sleepiness and so forth.

I don't think the ego is an independent mental process. It's kind of like videos - pictures seem to move but it's an illusion created by viewing similar pictures in rapid succession. Our thoughts, desires, actions etc. are related to the same types of things, or our memories of them. Our memories of the occurrences of such mental processes combine with other thoughts, desires etc. and we experience that phenomenon as a continuity. And this continuity isn't necessarily even an illusion, just like movie scenes aren't necessarily illusions even though they're collections of still images.

It mingles itself with a particular set of other perceptions to create the divide between two categories of perceptions - self and other. It's like a piece of code that classifies perceptions as 'self' or 'other'.

This is closer to what I said above, except there is no "it" mingling with perceptions. The similarity of perceived things, and of our interactions with them through time, creates the self. Then we make up assorted bullshit about this self to suit our needs.

do you want to talk or do you want to put on your big pants all the time. Because the latter is too tiring for me, also given that there's three of you doing it, showing off yer big L shaped penises (that's L for Logic). I'll tell you now, an L shaped penis doesn't look as cool as you think it does.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback I don't believe that Kevin, David or Dan are suggesting that the transition between ignorance and wisdom can be reduced down to a comprehension of abstract logical deductions. Rather that logical deductions act as the fire of (and for) the transformation beyond ignorance. I propose that it is precisely because logic is abstract that it ignites the experiential/material fire of inquisition and realization. Try to imagine non-abstract thought awakening non-abstract thought - a fizzle if ever there was one.

jupiviv: That was more or less my view of logic for the first few years of my time on this forum, but in the fullness of time, thought and experience I gravitated towards the one I intend to flesh out as extensively as I can with this article/essay series. Logic means being aware of things, so it occurs in all functioning adult human brains.

The key to wisdom lies in the *willingness* to think logically even if doing so is very painful and distressing. And that willingness is something different from, or perhaps more than, the phenomena called logical thought. I'm not implying it is supernatural by any means, or for that matter something unique or extraordinary like a prodigious talent. But it's a necessary condition for wisdom, in addition to logical thought including "spiritual logic" in the QRS sense.

I'd like to explore these ideas a little further.

Logic means beings aware of things:

I read this as meaning to be aware of distinction. Which can be applied to mundane things as well as spiritual things, i.e, the logic of a dog on a couch or the logic of dependent origination.

The key to wisdom lies in the willingness to think logically even when doing so is very painful and distressing.

I assume that by 'painful and distressing' you are alluding to the process of clearly away all relational attachments. For example, "I am aware of a mug of coffee" is a logical thought. However, the moment the personal sense is engaged by thinking 'my' coffee mug, relational thought, not logical thought appears to possibly include an extension into feelings about my coffee mug to possibly include an extension into feelings of attachment for my coffee mug which might then extend into emotional reactions (unhappiness) should my coffee mug be misplaced or broken or stolen.

I do believe something key has been introduced in the above with regards to wise use of feelings or meaningful, relational thought. That one can wisely enter into loving, joyful (even blissful) thoughts about things as long as they logically understand that to cross the line into attachment is to leave the wisdom of happiness behind.

Logically, meaningful relational thought and meaningless logical thought as conscious ways of being requires that one be solitary-minded. This is what I mean by having the delusion of 'other' because, of course, the logic of emptiness shows us there is no self, ergo, there is no other present. However, being solitary-minded does not mean being disengaged from the world. There is a different between being engaged via conscious logic and conscious meaning making and falling into the collective unconscious delusion of "I have or am a self."

As for intimate relationships for the emptiness-conscious, I do believe they are possible by virtue of your insight that every adult uses logic, so the key then to finding a friend or lover you can enjoy being with is to find someone who not only uses logic, but enjoys using logic. I have personal experience with this truth. My husband (while sober) does not enjoy using philosophical/intuitive logic as do I, however, he enjoys using logic in the concrete form of solving puzzles. While under the influence he can catches a glimpse of the logic of emptiness, but the moment the effects of the dope wears off, he shuts that intuitive insight down and returns to his Sudoku, jig-saws, Solitaire, etc. We've been married for 44 years and I dare say, our enjoyment of logic has much to so with that success. Also, and I believe this to be VERY important, I don't desire that he enjoys logic as do I, nor does he desire that I enjoy logic as does he.

I'm not implying it is supernatural by any means, or for that matter something unique or extraordinary like a prodigious talent. But it's a necessary condition for wisdom, in addition to logical thought including "spiritual logic" in the QRS sense.

I'm very glad you said that logic is a necessary condition for wisdom, implying it isn't the only condition.

[jupiviv]

Logic means beings aware of things:

I read this as meaning to be aware of distinction. Which can be applied to mundane things as well as spiritual things, i.e, the logic of a dog on a couch or the logic of dependent origination.

And since logic applies to both types of things in the same way the distinction between them is one of convenience, at best.

The key to wisdom lies in the willingness to think logically even when doing so is very painful and distressing.

I assume that by 'painful and distressing' you are alluding to the process of clearly away all relational attachments.

Individual acts of reasoning cannot clear away all the attachments in our lives - that is magical thinking. Attachments will always exist and affect us but we should value absolute honesty despite that. The struggle against delusions is continuous and life-long.

I do believe something key has been introduced in the above with regards to wise use of feelings or meaningful, relational thought. That one can wisely enter into loving, joyful (even blissful) thoughts about things as long as they logically understand that to cross the line into attachment is to leave the wisdom of happiness behind.

We can love people wisely but joy and suffering are indistinguishable in that kind of love. Think about the way a mother usually loves her children. Does she only love those aspects of their lives or characters which make her happy? If anything her love is strongest precisely when she can't find any reason to feel it. Now amplify that to include all of humanity and try to imagine how that would feel.

Logically, meaningful relational thought and meaningless logical thought as conscious ways of being requires that one be solitary-minded. This is what I mean by having the delusion of 'other' because, of course, the logic of emptiness shows us there is no self, ergo, there is no other present. However, being solitary-minded does not mean being disengaged from the world. There is a different between being engaged via conscious logic and conscious meaning making and falling into the collective unconscious delusion of "I have or am a self."

Sure, wanting to think for yourself isn't the same thing as wanting to be alone. I would add that the "self" is only deluded to the extent it obscures our connection to the universe.

[jupiviv]

do you want to talk or do you want to put on your big pants all the time.

Okay then. Try to figure out what's worrying you without expecting it to go away. Unchain your thoughts from your desire to reach a preferred destination and they will find the correct one eventually.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am
[To jupiviv]Again, the problem is the criticism you offer is incoherent, which makes it ineffective. There is nothing for me to grab hold of and respond to.

Finding words for things related to Truth is inherently a very difficult thing to do, actually, probably impossible. Yet it has to be done. This is how I see Jupiviv's posts.

Logic of causality, A=A, and related absolute, 'clean', undeniable truths that are part of your philosophy - in the eye of someone who is not enlightened - are trivialities, similar to 'your current experience is absolutely true and cannot be denied'. Actual enlightenment has to come from truly thinking through the *implications* of those truths, which is the actual, nitty gritty, brutal, (?) work of enlightenment. From that perspective, the truth of such 'absolute truths' is not so absolute anymore. The effects that some truth might have, are part of how true it is. Given all of this, the absolute truth of causality seems self contradictory. Those 'clean' truths could be used to conceal and avoid dealing with the complexities of one's personal psychology, as I think Jupiviv was getting at when he said (and I'm roughly quoting by heart, which I can do because the words made an impression on me) "Global issues are not what's keeping people from enlightenment, it's the small, personal stuff" and "Truth is the root of all evil". I think your pedantry (which isn't a minor thing in my eyes) is employed to avoid dealing with the truth (forgive me Jupiviv) / actual criticism underlying his words.

From my point of view, what jupiviv has been doing in this thread (and the other “serious" thread) is blindly spray bullets in random directions with no real idea of whether they will hit their targets or not.

There is a lot of gushing, a lot of poorly-worded sentences and phrases that are almost impossible to decipher, a lot of assumptions and fantasies about who I am and what I am about, and a lot of frustration that seems to be aimed at noone in particular. He seems to be winging it and just throwing anything he can out there in the hope that some of it might stick.

"Global issues are not what's keeping people from enlightenment, it's the small, personal stuff" and "Truth is the root of all evil" - don’t make me laugh. This is the sort of guff that Kevin and I used to put into our satirical Life and Death Magazine back in the 90s. When I composed that "Definitive Guide to Life", I used to sit down and try to squeeze out of my brain the biggest load of drivel that is humanly possible to come up with. And yet here is jupiviv repeating it almost word for word in earnest. In a “serious” conversation no less!

Let me remind him again: Nihilism is not wisdom. Avoiding the reality of God does not make one more authentic. Hiding away in multiplicity does not equate to “absolute honesty". Belittling the use of logic to methodically eliminate all delusions from the mind does not make one a superior man.

What it does make him is a man of his times - namely, a postmodernist - the same common-garden variety postmodernism that has given rise to celebrity vacuousness, academic banality, New Age fluffiness and post-truth Trumpiness.

And you wonder why I can't take him seriously.

Logic of causality, A=A, and related absolute, 'clean', undeniable truths that are part of your philosophy - in the eye of someone who is not enlightened - are trivialities, similar to 'your current experience is absolutely true and cannot be denied'. Actual enlightenment has to come from truly thinking through the *implications* of those truths, which is the actual, nitty gritty, brutal, (?) work of enlightenment. From that perspective, the truth of such 'absolute truths' is not so absolute anymore. The effects that some truth might have, are part of how true it is. Given all of this, the absolute truth of causality seems self contradictory. Those 'clean' truths could be used to conceal and avoid dealing with the complexities of one's personal psychology....

Yes, that’s certainly true. It all comes down to your motivation. If a person is not motivated to do everything he can to eliminate all delusion from his mind, then he will inevitably allow his mind to remain deluded in various ways. He will subconsciously put a leash on his reasoning powers, for example. He will create mental blocks. He will unwittingly engage in compromises and self-justifications. He will join groups of other like-minded people and thus hide away in the herd. And so on.

These “clean” logical truths that I speak about are just tools. And as with any other tool they can be used well or poorly. Those who use them expertly can become wise.

Jupiviv I find your points on passion versus unhappiness/depression in relation to finding truth also resonate with my experience. They seem contradictory, yet both necessary. I ask myself, do they interact somehow, do they fuel eachother? David, why the focus on only the passion part - didn't you acknowledge that personal suffering is a vital part of finding truth?

Passion implies suffering. You’re right, they do feed each other - in a sense. The more passion you have for truth, the more your ego is challenged and undermined, and thus the more you are exposed to suffering in terms of clashing with the world, alienating yourself from everyone else and abandoning all personal hope for the future.

On the other hand, the more passion you have, the more you can generate the kind of momentum that can carry you beyond all those ego hells and into the bliss of nirvana itself.

Ideally, you want to be able to steamroll over everything and reach nirvana in an instant. In practice, it is not always that easy. And there's the rub.

Why go for truth if it brings unhappiness.

Who told you that? Only nihilists believe that.

Another thought, there is that truth of no-self, no inherent existence of the self. Given that as an absolute truth - what if it were to start dawning on someone. What could happen in a psychological sense? How could they be expected to continue to play the game of 'being a person', including, being polite, presenting oneself as one coherent entity with coherent ideas and thoughts, etcetera?!

It’s a process of growth. When you begin to see through the illusion of your own self, you are initiating a process of growth which involves identifying less and less with your human biological self and more and more with the All - that is, Nature as a whole, or the totality of all there is. You come to increasingly see the All as your true nature, as what you are really are, and you come to increasingly see “Avolith” or ”David Quinn” as illusory constructs of the mind.

But this process of growth can take a very long time. Old habits take a long time to die. So what we are talking about here is a gradual transition from an ego-based perspective to a wisdom-based perspective. Our brains have evolved to function as cohesive, autonomous units, so that doesn’t change. Only the focus of this cohesion changes. A Buddha, even though he no longer believes in the illusion of his own existence, still behaves as a cohesive being. But instead of protecting and promoting the mental construct of self, he instead protects and promotes the mental construct of wisdom.

[David Quinn]

There is no question that when a person starts out seeking the truth, he is doing it out of impure motives. After all, he still has an ego. He is still motivated to seek egotistical benefits such as social status, happiness and security. It is only later when he starts to comprehend the truth of his own lack of existence, that those motivations begin to fall away.

Firstly, the concept of the ego in Genius circles is problematic. For now it should suffice to point out that the "ego" in valid usage is not the cause or agent of egoistical motivations but a *category* for such motivations. Bearing that in mind - does egoism "fall away" as a result of comprehending the truth of non-existence? Things don't really exist, because they only exist through and in other things. Thus the truth of non-existence - which after all is just another thing, a thought in our minds - only exists through and in *other* truths, thoughts, actions, objects of desire, etc. The actual conscious awareness present in truth isn't special or isolated from all the other things, like deluded motivations.

True, nothing inherently exists and nothing is inherently special. Not even enlightened thoughts. Not even Buddhas. Not even wisdom itself.

But that doesn’t mean that a Buddha - i.e. a person who has eliminated all delusion from his mind - is still being motivated by delusion.

A tree also lacks inherent existence. But that doesn't mean it still possesses the form it once had as a seed.

The reality of dependent origination means that consciousness is no more inherent to truth than, say, pleasant circumstances that cater to a superficial form of consciousness by suppressing deeper unconscious tendencies. And yet all philosophies (including QRS) hold certain types of consciousness to be inherent to themselves and derive their power and legitimacy from those thoughts/ideas. They value the awareness of *some* real things only so that they can do what they want anyway, which inevitably requires the denial of other real things.

I don’t hold anything to be inherently existing, including my own consciousness or thoughts or wisdom.

Yes, I do value the awareness that all things are an illusion. And it is true that, in doing this, I am sweeping away the false perception that things inherently exist. The two go hand in hand.

None of this inherently exists either.

Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

These are the words of a nihilist pretending to a knowledge he doesn't have.

So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.

Someone is certainly creating stories out of a bunch of assumptions, yes.

Again, you're talking about a realm of existence or a mode of living that you haven't experienced yourself. Instead of vomiting out all this useless nonsense, why not drop it all and actually try to live without delusion. Empty your self of everything and plunge into the voidness of your own nature. Then maybe, just maybe, you will see what the magic of spiritual wisdom is all about.

What model would you propose for the dissolution of complex emotional and material realities through the introduction of a unique mode of reasoning about their non-existence? Why would you stop wanting adequate food and water, stop being willing to abandon honesty and integrity for their procurement if necessary, simply by virtue of your awareness of their non-existence? How does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it? I know for a *fact* that you can offer no response to any of the above that doesn't ultimately return to the value of a supposed deep truth that holds the key to paradise.

There is no deep truth. And there is no key. And there is no paradise. You're still grasping at things as though they were really there! You couldn't be missing the point any further if you triedI

[visheshdewan050193]

Generally, I would describe the masculine drive as the drive to make logical connections and the feminine drive as the drive to make meaningful connections, the key component of each being the drive to make connections. And although the masculine and feminine drives can be distinguished from each other, they cannot be separated, the yin yang symbol comes to mind.

The two-in-one drive for structure and relatedness is unconscious, however, one can become conscious of their interplay in the human world at large.

I think both the drives of making logical and meaningful connections can be accommodated within my broad definitions of masculine and feminine drives, although they would have to be hashed out a bit to make sense.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: Logic means beings aware of things:

Pam Seeback: I read this as meaning to be aware of distinction. Which can be applied to mundane things as well as spiritual things, i.e, the logic of a dog on a couch or the logic of dependent origination.

jupiviv: And since logic applies to both types of things in the same way the distinction between them is one of convenience, at best.

Although logic is used in both examples, one who has logically realized dependent origination will perceive the dog on the couch differently than one who has not. Which a) is no small feat and b) could, for the dog mean the difference between being perceived as a possession rather than as a formation of the All/the infinite. I doubt that if the dog could reason that it would consider both effects of using logic to be one of convenience, at best.

jupiviv: The key to wisdom lies in the willingness to think logically even when doing so is very painful and distressing.

Pam Seeback: I assume that by 'painful and distressing' you are alluding to the process of clearly away all relational attachments.

jupiviv: Individual acts of reasoning cannot clear away all the attachments in our lives - that is magical thinking. Attachments will always exist and affect us but we should value absolute honesty despite that. The struggle against delusions is continuous and life-long.

There is one primary attachment, that of being or having an inherent self. Which means there is only one delusion that needs to be cleared away. Which is good news in the sense of simplifying things so the hard work of clearing away the primary delusion can begin.

It is not logical to believe that one can be honest while they are being affected by attachments. It is also not logical for a young person such as yourself to think in terms of struggle as being 'life-long'. Can you honestly say that you know what your view of things will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years?

Pam Seeback: I do believe something key has been introduced in the above with regards to wise use of feelings or meaningful, relational thought. That one can wisely enter into loving, joyful (even blissful) thoughts about things as long as they logically understand that to cross the line into attachment is to leave the wisdom of happiness behind.

jupiviv: We can love people wisely but joy and suffering are indistinguishable in that kind of love. Think about the way a mother usually loves her children. Does she only love those aspects of their lives or characters which make her happy? If anything her love is strongest precisely when she can't find any reason to feel it. Now amplify that to include all of humanity and try to imagine how that would feel.

But one who has realized dependent origination knows why they love everything, including their children and logic. And while I identified with being a mother it is true that I experienced the suffering of joy and sorrow because of the natural biological and cultural attachment a mother has for her child, but that once they grew up and left home (20 years ago), that attachment, in concert with my growing pull toward wisdom, gradually waned.

Pam Seeback: Logically, meaningful relational thought and meaningless logical thought as conscious ways of being requires that one be solitary-minded. This is what I mean by having the delusion of 'other' because, of course, the logic of emptiness shows us there is no self, ergo, there is no other present. However, being solitary-minded does not mean being disengaged from the world. There is a different between being engaged via conscious logic and conscious meaning making and falling into the collective unconscious delusion of "I have or am a self."

jupiviv: Sure, wanting to think for yourself isn't the same thing as wanting to be alone. I would add that the "self" is only deluded to the extent it obscures our connection to the universe.

A deluded addition. Why? The 'self' doesn't have delusions nor does it obscure our connections to the universe - 'the self' is the delusion that obscures connections with the universe.

[jufa]

Regardless of what we sprout about important issues, the reality of truth cannot be envisioned within the human mind. The human mind is not aware of the whole of anything, not even its own capacity of awareness because the human mind's logic is out of sync. Regardless of what one thinks, or how good and far reaching they have morally been, there is a law call inevitability, (you reap what you sow) and it is insync with all we have projected by way of our thoughts irrespective of our remembrance.

You see it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, feel, nor believe about the tricks being played on them about how they feel about the synchronicity machine, karma, our karma assures, whether agree with or not, Ecclesiastes warning: "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days." If we feel jilted because of the ongoing events in America, or things happening in our lives today, it is because we have jilted our Spirit integrity and replaced it with human moral integrity in some way or manner. You can believe this or not, but the harmony of the universe is always insync. When one is taken with an idea, they forget an idea exist only in their perception of thought images, which are divided, because they do not realize heaven and hell, nor absolutness, in the human mind, can ever be authenticate by ones belief, nor opinion. What it come down to is any reflection ones sees is their own projection of what they are aware of, not the reality of what is. This is why we are warned not to "judge by appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

What any individual think or see concerning truth, in their perception, is the human problem indoctrination to selfish idealism. The subconscious mind cannot be separated from conscious mind, it cannot separate itself from itself. This is what dualism deceitfully makes one think is possible. Dualism present fragmented images of supposed independence thoughts waves. But when one looks for an authority, in these thought waves which will conquer the human tongue, aging, or death, there is none to be found. Why? because the mind ignorantly has cause individuals to believe it has the power to changes the Principled Substance and Patterned Essence of the law of the Spirit of life. It is this brainwashing which has deceived people to believe whatsoever the mind envision can become achieved---this is true in the manifesting of building from materialism--- It is not the truth in the reality of what already is in the invisible, where nothing human can enter. And it is not the truth because death halts all human activity in the parenthesis of time, space, distance, and matter.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

.... a wisdom-based perspective. Our brains have evolved to function as cohesive, autonomous units, so that doesn’t change. Only the focus of this cohesion changes. A Buddha, even though he no longer believes in the illusion of his own existence, still behaves as a cohesive being. But instead of protecting and promoting the mental construct of self, he instead protects and promotes the mental construct of wisdom.

The last phrase would be the crux of the matter in this discussion while it sounds to me as the most clunky and confusing end of a reasonable post.

What is this "mental construct of wisdom"? Do you mean the wise, the Buddha mind, promotes one particular mental construct over other constructs? One construct to rule them all and bind them in the light? My guess would be that you mean promoting rationality, science, logic and possibly anything leading to a sense of progress, development and improvement of life? Because you mentioned evolution in a developmental, directional sense.

Perhaps you can elaborate? The idea of extending comprehension, concern or compassion to something way beyond some personal being or any particular manifestation is understood. But where does the mental construct, any construct, reside? And with which limitations would it come?

[jupiviv]

Belittling the use of logic to methodically eliminate all delusions from the mind does not make one a superior man.

Logic can not be used to eliminate all delusions, methodically or otherwise. You're flat out wrong here. It can only eliminate *specific* delusions, temporarily, if other conditions are met.

It all comes down to your motivation. If a person is not motivated to do everything he can to eliminate all delusion from his mind, then he will inevitably allow his mind to remain deluded in various ways. He will subconsciously put a leash on his reasoning powers, for example. He will create mental blocks. He will unwittingly engage in compromises and self-justifications. He will join groups of other like-minded people and thus hide away in the herd. And so on.

Like I said in my last response to you, my basic argument is entirely coherent to you on its own terms. Both us think motivations are fundamentally important in the practice of wisdom because they affect our ability to reason about things. I'm simply taking that to its conclusions - the motivation to use reason (or not) comes from our interactions with the things we are reasoning about. Thus, reason by itself - in any form, "absolute" or "relative" - can never be the motivation behind the use, abuse or abandonment of reason with respect to something, or things in general. Thus, the motivation to do reasoning in the absence of suffering differs from the motivation to do reasoning in its presence, even if the reasoning is identical in both cases. Thus, the former cannot merely be a less-developed version of the latter.

You strongly (and emotionally) disagree with these conclusions, especially the last one, yet haven't even provided any legitimate *reasons* for doing so! Most of your reasons are just character assassination based on lies about what my positions are. The only thing you've said that approaches a real argument is: the bad motivations of wisdom-aspirants simply disappear when they start reasoning about their own existence. So what special role does that particular type of reasoning play in ridding oneself of selfishness, hypocrisy, fear of loss, etc.?

These “clean” logical truths that I speak about are just tools. And as with any other tool they can be used well or poorly. Those who use them expertly can become wise.

This too isn't much different from what I'm saying, yet you're unwilling to follow these thoughts to their conclusions. If logic is a tool, and if logic applies equally to all things, why are certain tools like the truth of nonexistence inherently superior to others?

Why go for truth if it brings unhappiness.

Who told you that? Only nihilists believe that.

Wait, why is that nihilistic? You seem to be implying lack of happiness is reason enough not to value honesty, i.e. be "nihilistic". Which, ironically, is precisely what nihilism (Epicureanism/hedonism in this instance) amounts to - not this, therefore not that, and finally nothing at all.

When you begin to see through the illusion of your own self, you are initiating a process of growth which involves identifying less and less with your human biological self and more and more with the All - that is, Nature as a whole, or the totality of all there is.

Illusions about the self aren't hiding a "true" nature that exists apart from the ordinary things which constitute the actual self.

Firstly, the concept of the ego in Genius circles is problematic. For now it should suffice to point out that the "ego" in valid usage is not the cause or agent of egoistical motivations but a *category* for such motivations. Bearing that in mind - does egoism "fall away" as a result of comprehending the truth of non-existence? Things don't really exist, because they only exist through and in other things. Thus the truth of non-existence - which after all is just another thing, a thought in our minds - only exists through and in *other* truths, thoughts, actions, objects of desire, etc. The actual conscious awareness present in truth isn't special or isolated from all the other things, like deluded motivations.

True, nothing inherently exists and nothing is inherently special. Not even enlightened thoughts. Not even Buddhas. Not even wisdom itself.

But that doesn’t mean that a Buddha - i.e. a person who has eliminated all delusion from his mind - is still being motivated by delusion.

My point is that the truth of non-existence does not have the power to destroy egoistical motivations. Your definition of a person entirely devoid of such motivations doesn't address that at all.

Yes, I do value the awareness that all things are an illusion. And it is true that, in doing this, I am sweeping away the false perception that things inherently exist. The two go hand in hand.

This is the same misdirection as before, regarding the illusion of self. The awareness of all things being illusions doesn't exist apart from that of ordinary things. You can't escape all illusions about all specific things you will ever be aware of just by reasoning hard enough about how all of them are illusions. Now, I can understand why someone might say "all things are illusions" to metaphorically stress the importance of honesty even to the detriment of life and limb. But is that what you mean when you say things like this?

Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

These are the words of a nihilist pretending to a knowledge he doesn't have.

If your magical absolute truths can't lead to wisdom, nothing can! That is nihilism par excellence.

So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.

Someone is certainly creating stories out of a bunch of assumptions, yes.

Again, you're talking about a realm of existence or a mode of living that you haven't experienced yourself.

That is such a blatant appeal to authority.

Instead of vomiting out all this useless nonsense, why not drop it all and actually try to live without delusion.

I am challenging what I see as deluded ideas about what leads to and constitutes a life without delusions. I can assure you this gives me no pleasure. What should I do instead - ignore the many delusions of people who talk a lot about the value of reason and truth while talking a lot about it myself? If that is what living without delusions is about, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are great Buddhas effecting wondrous positive changes in the world.

What model would you propose for the dissolution of complex emotional and material realities through the introduction of a unique mode of reasoning about their non-existence? Why would you stop wanting adequate food and water, stop being willing to abandon honesty and integrity for their procurement if necessary, simply by virtue of your awareness of their non-existence? How does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it? I know for a *fact* that you can offer no response to any of the above that doesn't ultimately return to the value of a supposed deep truth that holds the key to paradise.

There is no deep truth. And there is no key. And there is no paradise. You're still grasping at things as though they were really there! You couldn't be missing the point any further if you triedI

Can you really not answer any of those questions, not even the second one? Let's say one group of people is denying another group adequate food and clean water. As a member of the first group, if you are honest about this injustice and take action against it you will find yourself in the second group. How can the "truth" of the non-existence of all things convince you to do what is necessary despite being afraid of what the consequences will be?

I myself would suggest that it won't. Abstract deductions about causality will not prevent you from thinking of adequate food and clean water as inherently good things that it makes no sense to give up. You may even justify such thoughts using those exact same deductions. Being scared of hunger is irrational because fear and an empty belly are both empty of their own existences. Therefore, we shouldn't choose to act in ways that lead to such wanton irrationality. The people who are indulging in such irrationality aren't inherently at fault just like rational people like us aren't inherently rational.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: Logic means beings aware of things:

Pam Seeback: I read this as meaning to be aware of distinction. Which can be applied to mundane things as well as spiritual things, i.e, the logic of a dog on a couch or the logic of dependent origination.

jupiviv: And since logic applies to both types of things in the same way the distinction between them is one of convenience, at best.

Although logic is used in both examples, one who has logically realized dependent origination will perceive the dog on the couch differently than one who has not. Which a) is no small feat and b) could, for the dog mean the difference between being perceived as a possession rather than as a formation of the All/the infinite. I doubt that if the dog could reason that it would consider both effects of using logic to be one of convenience, at best.

No realisation can make you perceive a dog in some new light if your ordinary perception of it is correct. The only way to discover its true nature as a manifestation of the All is to be as honest about all things as you are about the dog's existence. The dog's nature is the nature of other things, and the nature of other things is the All. Thus, selective honesty is dishonesty even about the things you are willing to be honest about, and also the All.

There is one primary attachment, that of being or having an inherent self. Which means there is only one delusion that needs to be cleared away. Which is good news in the sense of simplifying things so the hard work of clearing away the primary delusion can begin.

Fine, there is one primary delusion. But this one delusion will take many different guises throughout your life and you have to clear all of them away.

It is not logical to believe that one can be honest while they are being affected by attachments. It is also not logical for a young person such as yourself to think in terms of struggle as being 'life-long'. Can you honestly say that you know what your view of things will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years?

Reason can dilute the suffering caused by attachments or even get rid of them for a time, but it cannot eliminate them entirely from our lives. It shouldn't be thought of as a lack of attachments. I realise I'm putting a lot of emphasis on that point, but it's necessary.

But one who has realized dependent origination knows why they love everything, including their children and logic. And while I identified with being a mother it is true that I experienced the suffering of joy and sorrow because of the natural biological and cultural attachment a mother has for her child, but that once they grew up and left home (20 years ago), that attachment, in concert with my growing pull toward wisdom, gradually waned.

I'm saying that wise love is not specifically predicated upon blissfulness. It is as willing to suffer as it is to be happy.

Pam Seeback: Logically, meaningful relational thought and meaningless logical thought as conscious ways of being requires that one be solitary-minded. This is what I mean by having the delusion of 'other' because, of course, the logic of emptiness shows us there is no self, ergo, there is no other present. However, being solitary-minded does not mean being disengaged from the world. There is a different between being engaged via conscious logic and conscious meaning making and falling into the collective unconscious delusion of "I have or am a self."

jupiviv: Sure, wanting to think for yourself isn't the same thing as wanting to be alone. I would add that the "self" is only deluded to the extent it obscures our connection to the universe.

A deluded addition. Why? The 'self' doesn't have delusions nor does it obscure our connections to the universe - 'the self' is the delusion that obscures connections with the universe.

The self naturally exists as a collection of thoughts, emotions and memories connected to specific circumstances and people. Thinking of it in that way isn't deluded at all. The delusion of self is denial of the reality of the self or its relation to other things as a result of attachments.

[David Quinn]

.... a wisdom-based perspective. Our brains have evolved to function as cohesive, autonomous units, so that doesn’t change. Only the focus of this cohesion changes. A Buddha, even though he no longer believes in the illusion of his own existence, still behaves as a cohesive being. But instead of protecting and promoting the mental construct of self, he instead protects and promotes the mental construct of wisdom.

The last phrase would be the crux of the matter in this discussion while it sounds to me as the most clunky and confusing end of a reasonable post.

What is this "mental construct of wisdom"? Do you mean the wise, the Buddha mind, promotes one particular mental construct over other constructs? One construct to rule them all and bind them in the light? My guess would be that you mean promoting rationality, science, logic and possibly anything leading to a sense of progress, development and improvement of life? Because you mentioned evolution in a developmental, directional sense.

Perhaps you can elaborate? The idea of extending comprehension, concern or compassion to something way beyond some personal being or any particular manifestation is understood. But where does the mental construct, any construct, reside? And with which limitations would it come?

First off, it needs to be recognized that all things are mentally constructed. Everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction that involves the use of mental processes like memory, categorization, attention, desire, conditioning, emphasis, exclusion, etc. And also it is the mind that decides where things begin and end - where the “self” ends and “other” begins, or where “ignorance” ends and “wisdom” begins. The mind draws the lines that separate the world into "things".

This doesn’t mean, however, that the self and wisdom are similar in nature. They might be constructions, but they refer to two entirely different realities. Wisdom is defined (by me at least) to be consciousness of ultimate reality, while the self is the interconnected bundle of illusions that a deluded person instinctively identifies with.

[David Quinn]

Belittling the use of logic to methodically eliminate all delusions from the mind does not make one a superior man.

Logic can not be used to eliminate all delusions, methodically or otherwise. You're flat out wrong here. It can only eliminate *specific* delusions, temporarily, if other conditions are met.

A “specific delusion” can refer to maya (the core illusion of inherent existence) and “temporarily” can refer to the span of a Buddha’s life.

Like a stack of cards, once maya crumbles, the rest of the mind’s delusions also begin to crumble.

It all comes down to your motivation. If a person is not motivated to do everything he can to eliminate all delusion from his mind, then he will inevitably allow his mind to remain deluded in various ways. He will subconsciously put a leash on his reasoning powers, for example. He will create mental blocks. He will unwittingly engage in compromises and self-justifications. He will join groups of other like-minded people and thus hide away in the herd. And so on.

Like I said in my last response to you, my basic argument is entirely coherent to you on its own terms. Both us think motivations are fundamentally important in the practice of wisdom because they affect our ability to reason about things. I'm simply taking that to its conclusions - the motivation to use reason (or not) comes from our interactions with the things we are reasoning about. Thus, reason by itself - in any form, "absolute" or "relative" - can never be the motivation behind the use, abuse or abandonment of reason with respect to something, or things in general. Thus, the motivation to do reasoning in the absence of suffering differs from the motivation to do reasoning in its presence, even if the reasoning is identical in both cases. Thus, the former cannot merely be a less-developed version of the latter.

You strongly (and emotionally) disagree with these conclusions, especially the last one, yet haven't even provided any legitimate *reasons* for doing so! Most of your reasons are just character assassination based on lies about what my positions are. The only thing you've said that approaches a real argument is: the bad motivations of wisdom-aspirants simply disappear when they start reasoning about their own existence.

I'm sorry, but your writing style is as confusing as ever. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, nor do I know what I am supposed to be strongly disagreeing with.

These “clean” logical truths that I speak about are just tools. And as with any other tool they can be used well or poorly. Those who use them expertly can become wise.

This too isn't much different from what I'm saying, yet you're unwilling to follow these thoughts to their conclusions. If logic is a tool, and if logic applies equally to all things, why are certain tools like the truth of nonexistence inherently superior to others?

As I don’t hold anything to be inherently existing or inherently special, the idea that something could be “inherently superior” would never occur to me.

I thus approach the matter in this way: Truths such as “all things have causes” and “all things lack inherent existence” gain their value in the context of trying to comprehend the nature of reality. The task of comprehending the nature of reality involves unearthing the fundamental attributes and properties that all things share, which in turn helps us to uncover the timeless, changeless reality that underlies everything. Understanding the manner in which all things come into existence via causality goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

Other kinds of logical truths don’t have that sort of power and scope. For example, the logical truth of 1+1=2 only applies in mathematical situations or in practical situations that require some arithmetic, such as in commerce. While useful in those contexts, it doesn’t have the power to shine a light on the fundamental nature of all things.

Why go for truth if it brings unhappiness.

Who told you that? Only nihilists believe that.

Wait, why is that nihilistic? You seem to be implying lack of happiness is reason enough not to value honesty, i.e. be "nihilistic". Which, ironically, is precisely what nihilism (Epicureanism/hedonism in this instance) amounts to - not this, therefore not that, and finally nothing at all.

In the end, a nihilist is anyone who shies away from God.

When you begin to see through the illusion of your own self, you are initiating a process of growth which involves identifying less and less with your human biological self and more and more with the All - that is, Nature as a whole, or the totality of all there is.

Illusions about the self aren't hiding a "true" nature that exists apart from the ordinary things which constitute the actual self.

That’s true. They hide the true nature of the ordinary things themselves. There is no such thing as a “true nature” that is separate from the ordinary things of this world.

Firstly, the concept of the ego in Genius circles is problematic. For now it should suffice to point out that the "ego" in valid usage is not the cause or agent of egoistical motivations but a *category* for such motivations. Bearing that in mind - does egoism "fall away" as a result of comprehending the truth of non-existence? Things don't really exist, because they only exist through and in other things. Thus the truth of non-existence - which after all is just another thing, a thought in our minds - only exists through and in *other* truths, thoughts, actions, objects of desire, etc. The actual conscious awareness present in truth isn't special or isolated from all the other things, like deluded motivations.

True, nothing inherently exists and nothing is inherently special. Not even enlightened thoughts. Not even Buddhas. Not even wisdom itself.

But that doesn’t mean that a Buddha - i.e. a person who has eliminated all delusion from his mind - is still being motivated by delusion.

My point is that the truth of non-existence does not have the power to destroy egoistical motivations. Your definition of a person entirely devoid of such motivations doesn't address that at all.

On the contrary, it does indeed have that power. When a person makes that all-important breakthrough and sees through the existence of utterly everything, his whole attitude towards the world changes. He suddenly finds nothing of value in the world. Past and future become meaningless to him. He looks at other people as though they were mindless simpletons who chase after mirages. He has no reason to hold onto anything. No matter where he turns, he is fulfilled.

In short, everything changes. One's egotistical motivations don't completely disappear overnight. But when the breakthrough is made, they are significantly weakened. And as one becomes more familiar with the Infinite and learns to dwell in there on a daily basis, they become increasingly weaker as time goes on.

Yes, I do value the awareness that all things are an illusion. And it is true that, in doing this, I am sweeping away the false perception that things inherently exist. The two go hand in hand.

This is the same misdirection as before, regarding the illusion of self. The awareness of all things being illusions doesn't exist apart from that of ordinary things. You can't escape all illusions about all specific things you will ever be aware of just by reasoning hard enough about how all of them are illusions. Now, I can understand why someone might say "all things are illusions" to metaphorically stress the importance of honesty even to the detriment of life and limb. But is that what you mean when you say things like this?

No, I am referring to something far more powerful and immediate than this. I'm referring to a complete change in how one experiences the world in each moment and how one interacts with it.

Again, you're talking about a realm of existence or a mode of living that you haven't experienced yourself.

That is such a blatant appeal to authority.

Or to absolute honesty.

What model would you propose for the dissolution of complex emotional and material realities through the introduction of a unique mode of reasoning about their non-existence? Why would you stop wanting adequate food and water, stop being willing to abandon honesty and integrity for their procurement if necessary, simply by virtue of your awareness of their non-existence? How does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it? I know for a *fact* that you can offer no response to any of the above that doesn't ultimately return to the value of a supposed deep truth that holds the key to paradise.

There is no deep truth. And there is no key. And there is no paradise. You're still grasping at things as though they were really there! You couldn't be missing the point any further if you triedI

Can you really not answer any of those questions, not even the second one? Let's say one group of people is denying another group adequate food and clean water. As a member of the first group, if you are honest about this injustice and take action against it you will find yourself in the second group. How can the "truth" of the non-existence of all things convince you to do what is necessary despite being afraid of what the consequences will be?

I myself would suggest that it won't. Abstract deductions about causality will not prevent you from thinking of adequate food and clean water as inherently good things that it makes no sense to give up. You may even justify such thoughts using those exact same deductions. Being scared of hunger is irrational because fear and an empty belly are both empty of their own existences. Therefore, we shouldn't choose to act in ways that lead to such wanton irrationality. The people who are indulging in such irrationality aren't inherently at fault just like rational people like us aren't inherently rational.

Well, there are a lot of things going on in these two paragraphs. I don’t want to write an essay, so I’ll just make a couple of brief points:

- How a Buddha would behave in the scenario you present is impossible to determine, because your depiction of it is too vague. Being a Buddha, his focus would be exclusively on the promotion of wisdom. So he would try and determine, as best he can, what is actually happening on the ground. Perhaps continuing to deny food and water from the second group is the best course of action? Or perhaps it would be better to help the second group stage a coup against the first group? Or to help work out a compromise so that both groups can share equally? Or to go off and live as a hermit and leave the two groups to duke it out for themselves? Without further details, it is impossible to say.

- You seem obsessed with the word “inherent’. It comes up time and time again. It makes me wonder why. In any case, I am compelled to interpret the way that you depict wisdom/spirituality - i.e. as a kind of rotting, insipid process that involves making feeble academic deductions and self-serving rationalizations - as yet another sign that you are currently inflicted with a severe bout of nihilism.

To Pam you wrote:

We can love people wisely but joy and suffering are indistinguishable in that kind of love. Think about the way a mother usually loves her children. Does she only love those aspects of their lives or characters which make her happy? If anything her love is strongest precisely when she can't find any reason to feel it. Now amplify that to include all of humanity and try to imagine how that would feel.

I'm saying that wise love is not specifically predicated upon blissfulness. It is as willing to suffer as it is to be happy.

Wise love, by definition, is not predicated on anything at all. Thus, suffering never enters the picture, any more than happiness does. If you experience suffering, it means you are no longer loving the All.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: Fine, there is one primary delusion. But this one delusion will take many different guises throughout your life and you have to clear all of them away.

Why battle ten demons when you can battle one?

Pam Seeback: It is not logical to believe that one can be honest while they are being affected by attachments. It is also not logical for a young person such as yourself to think in terms of struggle as being 'life-long'. Can you honestly say that you know what your view of things will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years?

jupiviv: Reason can dilute the suffering caused by attachments or even get rid of them for a time, but it cannot eliminate them entirely from our lives. It shouldn't be thought of as a lack of attachments. I realise I'm putting a lot of emphasis on that point, but it's necessary

.
Perhaps our definitions of attachment are different. My definition matches that of Buddhist thought which is attachment is equivalent to craving or clinging. When you are reasoning something, are you clinging to or craving that thing?

But one who has realized dependent origination knows why they love everything, including their children and logic. And while I identified with being a mother it is true that I experienced the suffering of joy and sorrow because of the natural biological and cultural attachment a mother has for her child, but that once they grew up and left home (20 years ago), that attachment, in concert with my growing pull toward wisdom, gradually waned.

I'm saying that wise love is not specifically predicated upon blissfulness. It is as willing to suffer as it is to be happy.

Love because of wisdom of dependent origination causes happiness, I can't think of a better or simpler description. As for the willingness to suffer in relation to coming to realize the happiness of love, I can see how that fits.

Pam Seeback: A deluded addition. Why? The 'self' doesn't have delusions nor does it obscure our connections to the universe - 'the self' is the delusion that obscures connections with the universe.

jupiviv: The self naturally exists as a collection of thoughts, emotions and memories connected to specific circumstances and people. Thinking of it in that way isn't deluded at all. The delusion of self is denial of the reality of the self or its relation to other things as a result of attachments.

It seems that the important thing here is that it is not the relating to things that causes suffering (on the contrary, relating is absolutely necessary to the causality of logic and love), it is the attachment to things that causes suffering. And since you seem convinced that it is not possible to eliminate attachment, it would seem that you are denying yourself a logical, loving life.

Are you absolutely sure that it is not possible to relate to things in the absence of craving and clinging?

[jupiviv]

A “specific delusion” can refer to maya (the core illusion of inherent existence)

There is no core illusion apart from specific illusions, just like there is no infinite apart from finite things. A core illusion in the literal sense would be a reality concealed by lesser illusions, which makes no sense.

and “temporarily” can refer to the span of a Buddha’s life.

And the span of a Buddha's life can refer to a single moment, or the series of moments comprising that moment, or one segment of that series, all at the same time. The fact remains that illusions have to be tackled on their own terms, not yours.

Like a stack of cards, once maya crumbles, the rest of the mind’s delusions also begin to crumble.

Minds are not inherently distinct from each other, either in time or space. If destroying some "core illusion" leads to the destruction of all others, the efforts of the original Buddha would have liberated the entire human race from delusion for all time.

Truths such as “all things have causes” and “all things lack inherent existence” gain their value in the context of trying to comprehend the nature of reality. The task of comprehending the nature of reality involves unearthing the fundamental attributes and properties that all things share, which in turn helps us to uncover the timeless, changeless reality that underlies everything. Understanding the manner in which all things come into existence via causality goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

You're just asserting inherent superiority in a roundabout way. Concepts like "causes", "all things" and "inherent existence" lack inherent existence and are caused, like everything else. Specific things express the nature of these concepts in the exact same way that they express the nature of specific things. Which of the two expressions is more important and useful? This question is meaningless. The real question is how much do you *want* something to be what it really is, what other things are, and finally the All.

In the end, a nihilist is anyone who shies away from God.

Thus, only nihilists shy away from the unhappiness which is bound to accompany the work of wisdom.

When a person makes that all-important breakthrough and sees through the existence of utterly everything, his whole attitude towards the world changes. He suddenly finds nothing of value in the world. Past and future become meaningless to him. He looks at other people as though they were mindless simpletons who chase after mirages. He has no reason to hold onto anything. No matter where he turns, he is fulfilled.

In short, everything changes. One's egotistical motivations don't completely disappear overnight. But when the breakthrough is made, they are significantly weakened. And as one becomes more familiar with the Infinite and learns to dwell in there on a daily basis, they become increasingly weaker as time goes on.

Limiting how inherently superior a thing is doesn't make it any less inherently superior. The "breakthrough" you speak of doesn't come from reasoning about one special thing, regardless of whether you think the effects of such reasoning are instantaneous or gradual. Egoistical motivations become weaker over time if we challenge them but the conditions that cause them remain. They are largely out of our control, perhaps even products of our choice not to abandon our principles when convenient. The best we can do is get better at confronting them.

Again, you're talking about a realm of existence or a mode of living that you haven't experienced yourself.

That is such a blatant appeal to authority.

Or to absolute honesty.

What is honest about declaring yourself the arbiter of wisdom just to avoid addressing criticism?

- How a Buddha would behave in the scenario you present is impossible to determine, because your depiction of it is too vague. Being a Buddha, his focus would be exclusively on the promotion of wisdom. So he would try and determine, as best he can, what is actually happening on the ground. Perhaps continuing to deny food and water from the second group is the best course of action? Or perhaps it would be better to help the second group stage a coup against the first group? Or to help work out a compromise so that both groups can share equally? Or to go off and live as a hermit and leave the two groups to duke it out for themselves? Without further details, it is impossible to say.

The scenario describes a situation where acting wisely entails a great deal of suffering. You're asking irrelevant questions to avoid the real one: how does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it?

I'm saying that wise love is not specifically predicated upon blissfulness. It is as willing to suffer as it is to be happy.

Wise love, by definition, is not predicated on anything at all.

This is a very demented kind of logic. If love isn't predicated on anything then what is the point of it? No, wise love is predicated on lots of things. It just doesn't discriminate on the basis of delusions.

Thus, suffering never enters the picture, any more than happiness does. If you experience suffering, it means you are no longer loving the All.

This is nihilistic ideation. You obviously believe that the occurrence of suffering by itself is a reason not to be wise, not to challenge delusions regardless of the consequences, not to love others intensely yet indifferently. Evidently, suffering has you squirming in its grasp.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: Fine, there is one primary delusion. But this one delusion will take many different guises throughout your life and you have to clear all of them away.

Why battle ten demons when you can battle one?

It's a continuous battle with many forms of the same delusion.

When you are reasoning something, are you clinging to or craving that thing?

Reasoning isn't craving but they can occur at the same time or even fuel each other. I'm not saying that is ideal, but it is a reality we have to contend with if we decide to categorically value reason over emotions and selfish thoughts.

[visheshdewan050193]

Minds are not inherently distinct from each other, either in time or space. If destroying some "core illusion" leads to the destruction of all others, the efforts of the original Buddha would have liberated the entire human race from delusion for all time.

Thus, only nihilists shy away from the unhappiness which is bound to accompany the work of wisdom.

sigh, back to soporific drivel, jups. You ought to get on with your serious conversations part III post soon.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: Why battle ten demons when you can battle one?

jupiviv: It's a continuous battle with many forms of the same delusion.

Fair enough, but at some point, weariness of battling the many forms of the same delusion sets in. Don't get me wrong, the weariness to which I refer is a necessary part of The Hero's Journey (if I may borrow the genius of Joseph Campbell). Delusion breakthrough, by necessity of the need for a logical, orderly path or way, involves a multitude of inner narratives of subject-object conflict, primarily of self and God or self versus God, but eventually one comes face to face with the root cause of the suffering of 'feeling conflicted' and the many forms of delusion become one.

What helped me keep focused on battling the one form of delusion rather than dispersing my energy in battling its multitude of forms was to keep coming back to the absolute truth of no-separation. One of the longest lasting 'extension' forms of this truth for me was the form of forgiveness, which took on the dual role of God forgiving me for believing in separation and me forgiving God for causing the ignorance of separation belief. I realize how arrogant and/or vain such an experience would sound to one who believes God and human consciousness are separate entities or realities, a belief in separation between 'creator and created' I had to reconcile within my own mind because of my own cultural conditioning.

So yes, there are many forms of the delusion of being separate from God and each of these forms causes suffering, but as one gets closer to the imagined edge between self and God, they find that the different feeling forms of delusion come primarily as the different forms of love. You mentioned compassion, the form of sympathy and/or empathy with deluded humanity - I believe it is honest to declare compassion to be the suffering form of love.

[David Quinn]

A “specific delusion” can refer to maya (the core illusion of inherent existence)

There is no core illusion apart from specific illusions, just like there is no infinite apart from finite things.

You’re still not getting it.

Yes, it is true there is no infinite apart from finite things. Rather, the infinite - i.e. Nature as a whole, the totality of all there is - is the sum total of all finite things. This is something which is true by definition. Even if we wanted to imagine an “infinite” that somehow existed apart from finite things, it would only result in that “infinite" being another finite thing. It would just be another limited portion of the Totality. It would mean that the Totality (i.e. the real infinite) is composed of the imaginary “infinite” + all other finite things.

In other words, to assert an “infinite” apart from finite things is to assert a contradiction.

The core illusion of maya has nothing to do with this. It is an entirely different matter. What the illusion of maya conceals is the fundamental nature of all things. This fundamental nature is the same everywhere. Whether it be a chair, or an electron, or a galaxy, or a banana, or a thought - they all exhibit the same fundamental nature. As such, there is no need, for those who are piercing the core illusion, to push things away and seek an “infinite” or a “fundamental nature” somewhere else. That would be deluded.

In other words, the core illusion of maya is a specific illusion about all things.

A core illusion in the literal sense would be a reality concealed by lesser illusions, which makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Most people have no knowledge or awareness of the core illusion of maya because their minds are continuously being distracted by the more superficial illusions of their daily lives.

The bottom line is this: If you are not fully comprehending the nature of God and dwelling in His boundless freedom, then you can take it as read that your mind is under the spell of the core illusion.

Like a stack of cards, once maya crumbles, the rest of the mind’s delusions also begin to crumble.

Minds are not inherently distinct from each other, either in time or space. If destroying some "core illusion" leads to the destruction of all others, the efforts of the original Buddha would have liberated the entire human race from delusion for all time.

Back here on planet earth, it doesn’t work like that. Maya is very subtle and hard to discern. It requires an intense inward focus to unearth it. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to convey its existence and meaning to others, even to those who are keen and bright.

As for the average person whose mind is coarse and philosophically undeveloped, forget it. It is impossible to convey it to them. They just look at you and blink.

As the Buddha said, “If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.”

- How a Buddha would behave in the scenario you present is impossible to determine, because your depiction of it is too vague. Being a Buddha, his focus would be exclusively on the promotion of wisdom. So he would try and determine, as best he can, what is actually happening on the ground. Perhaps continuing to deny food and water from the second group is the best course of action? Or perhaps it would be better to help the second group stage a coup against the first group? Or to help work out a compromise so that both groups can share equally? Or to go off and live as a hermit and leave the two groups to duke it out for themselves? Without further details, it is impossible to say.

The scenario describes a situation where acting wisely entails a great deal of suffering. You're asking irrelevant questions to avoid the real one: how does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it?

Let’s consider a different example, one that is more relevant to the times we currently live in - namely, the fate of the whistle-blower.

Imagine a person deciding to expose corruption taking place in a government department. Straight away, as soon as he does this, he will be putting his life and well-being at risk. He will likely start to receive death threats, he will probably have to go into hiding, he will have to watch his reputation being shredded, he will probably be fired or demoted, he could easily become a social outcast - all for the sake of wanting to stand up for an ideal such as truth, democracy, or justice.

If the whistle-blower was a Buddha, how would he cope? He would have no problems at all. Because he is no longer spellbound by the core illusion, he no longer seeks happiness in any particular thing and thus he doesn't have any kind of emotional investment in how his life is supposed to unfold. The change of lifestyle that would fall upon him would not be experienced as suffering or loss.

I'm saying that wise love is not specifically predicated upon blissfulness. It is as willing to suffer as it is to be happy.

Wise love, by definition, is not predicated on anything at all.

This is a very demented kind of logic. If love isn't predicated on anything then what is the point of it?

Now there’s a Zen koan for the ages!

[visheshdewan050193]

It makes perfect sense. Most people have no knowledge or awareness of the core illusion of maya because their minds are continuously being distracted by the more superficial illusions of their daily lives.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by 'more superficial illusions'?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

First off, it needs to be recognized that all things are mentally constructed. Everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction that involves the use of mental processes like memory, categorization, attention, desire, conditioning, emphasis, exclusion, etc. And also it is the mind that decides where things begin and end - where the “self” ends and “other” begins, or where “ignorance” ends and “wisdom” begins. The mind draws the lines that separate the world into "things".

And this "mind", as you referred to, would also be mentally constructed and demarcated, where it starts and ends, what it can do and can't. Since this is then a mind constructing itself and defining its own boundaries, it wouldn't have any reliability without some external factor, a non-mind, a non-moving, non-flexible framework imposing some standard. This is what the mind would posit as absolute, as reference, but is it knowable as such?

Wisdom is defined (by me at least) to be consciousness of ultimate reality, while the self is the interconnected bundle of illusions that a deluded person instinctively identifies with.

Yes but this doesn't clarify why a Buddha would be said to promote the "mental construct of wisdom", since you already indicated a mind handles nothing but momentary constructions - deciding where ignorance ends and wisdom begins. It sounds then a lot like "believe me" or "simple so".

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: The bottom line is this: If you are not fully comprehending the nature of God and dwelling in His boundless freedom, then you can take it as read that your mind is under the spell of the core illusion.

If one has anti-Trump views, are they under the spell of the core illusion or are they dwelling in God's boundless freedom?

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert van Rhijn to David Quinn: And this "mind", as you referred to, would also be mentally constructed and demarcated, where it starts and ends, what it can do and can't. Since this is then a mind constructing itself and defining its own boundaries, it wouldn't have any reliability without some external factor, a non-mind, a non-moving, non-flexible framework imposing some standard. This is what the mind would posit as absolute, as reference, but is it knowable as such?

It is precisely because the absolute cannot be known by the constructing, demarcating mind that infinite possibilities and potentialities of the unknown absolute can be manifested in any given moment to the constructing, demarcating mind. This is what is meant by 'seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened.'

It is when the constructing, demarcating mind superimposes its constructions and demarcations onto the absolute that the door 'between the two' remains shut.

[David Quinn]

First off, it needs to be recognized that all things are mentally constructed. Everything that we experience and know is a momentary construction that involves the use of mental processes like memory, categorization, attention, desire, conditioning, emphasis, exclusion, etc. And also it is the mind that decides where things begin and end - where the “self” ends and “other” begins, or where “ignorance” ends and “wisdom” begins. The mind draws the lines that separate the world into "things".

And this "mind", as you referred to, would also be mentally constructed and demarcated, where it starts and ends, what it can do and can't. Since this is then a mind constructing itself and defining its own boundaries, it wouldn't have any reliability without some external factor, a non-mind, a non-moving, non-flexible framework imposing some standard. This is what the mind would posit as absolute, as reference, but is it knowable as such?

It ultimately comes down to whatever the mind appears to be in any given moment. Given that appearances are what we directly experience in each moment, the mind is both absolute and knowable.

Wisdom is defined (by me at least) to be consciousness of ultimate reality, while the self is the interconnected bundle of illusions that a deluded person instinctively identifies with.

Yes but this doesn't clarify why a Buddha would be said to promote the "mental construct of wisdom", since you already indicated a mind handles nothing but momentary constructions - deciding where ignorance ends and wisdom begins. It sounds then a lot like "believe me" or "simple so".

I said that in the context of describing the transition from an ego-centered perspective to a wisdom-centered one. The focus of the mind shifts from egotism to wisdom. It should be noted that how wisdom is defined will change as this transition takes place. As one becomes wiser (and thus less deluded), one’s definition of wisdom becomes less deluded.