Why existence does not equal appearance

[movingalways]

Imported from the "For Kelly Jones" thread:

Elisabeth Isabelle: Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- again, when they are ad hominems. There are material differences between ad hominems and analyses.

Elisabeth, do you agree with David Quinn's assertion that "existence is appearance. To exist is to appear" (from chapter six of the Wisdom of the Infinite)? If you do, I would love to discuss your comments above in light of your agreement with this assertion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"appearance is form,form is emptiness"

"all phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness"

All pretty standard core Buddhism. It would be interesting to see an argument raised against it. But of course, it will never come.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I can agree with that the way that he explained it, and that it doesn't need to be perceived - but I can also see the perspective where existence would not equal appearance. It kind of depends on definitions of things.

[jufa]

"appearance is form,form is emptiness" If this is true, and you are form, how can you, as the form of Diebert, and according to Diebert give
this statement?

"all phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness" How can there be any phenomena when emptiness is empty?

All pretty standard core Buddhism. It would be interesting to see an argument raised against it. But of course, it will never come.

Perhaps it is core Buddhism to you, but Buddhism is no different than any other religious core when If the core cannot been visualized, understood, or comprehended. Why has not the core not appeared as the standard reality for all mankind to move with, and into?

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If this is true, and you are form, how can you, as the form of Diebert, and according to Diebert give
this statement?

Or why would the grass even bother to grow?

How can there be any phenomena when emptiness is empty?

Are you asking: how could there be space when nothing is there to fill it up?

Why has not the core not appeared as the standard reality for all mankind to move with, and into?

Because it would just appear as just another form. And moving with and into forms is what we're appearing as already.

[Kelly Jones]

Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- again, when they are ad hominems. There are material differences between ad hominems and analyses.

An analysis of anyone's writings is a judgment on the dead, because the person who created them is no more. The person can never defend themselves, because they no longer exist. The one that listens to the judgment is another person.

Also, judging or analysing anyone's character, or their writings, as flawed, demonstrating insanity, etc. is not an argumentum ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if their writings are regarded as wrong because of their character IF their writings have nothing to do with their character.

An assessment of someone's ideas as incoherent can lead to the conclusion that they're insane, and this is not an ad hominem. It's just an appendix. The writings aren't disputed because of the conclusion that they're insane; that conclusion comes afterwards.

Anyway, back to Pam's point, whether or not someone's views are false can only be judged on what they express. That's all an analysis can ever go on.

[jufa]

If this is true, and you are form, how can you, as the form of Diebert, and according to Diebert give
this statement?

Or why would the grass even bother to grow? Now this statement is what is called emptiness for it does not even begin to fill the space required by an answer.

How can there be any phenomena when emptiness is empty?

Are you asking: how could there be space when nothing is there to fill it up? Come on Diebert stop playing games. As the song goes: "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something" of existence -which means there must be something there for a phenomena to occur.

Why has not the core not appeared as the standard reality for all mankind to move with, and into?

Because it would just appear as just another form. And moving with and into forms is what we're appearing as already. But Diebert, how can there be an appearance if there is only emptiness?

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

how can there be an appearance if there is only emptiness?

That's taking it very literal and materialistic and would lead nowhere.

This is not about some "nothingness" but about challenging that what is being described by many as the "real", objective reality, intrinsic identity, "the thing itself" and so on. Basically one could also call it the truth of "relativity". A better question then to ask would be: how can there be truth or a notion of the absolute when everything would remain relative and intrinsically uncertain? This is the challenge of nihilism.

[movingalways]

"appearance is form,form is emptiness"

"all phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness"

All pretty standard core Buddhism. It would be interesting to see an argument raised against it. But of course, it will never come.

Diebert, the purpose of my original post was to question how a being can develop post-mortem if one asserts that that being's existence is synonymous with its appearance? If to be/to exist is to appear, then when one's appearance is no more, would not the logical outcome then be that one's being or existence would also be no more? You did not address this question, however, I will argue what you presented in your response to me.

The insight you present above of "all phenomena of existence" is not the same insight as "existence is appearance [phenomena]." As a matter of fact, what you presented supports my view of phenomena as being an emanation of existence, and not being the same thing as existence, which is my understanding of David's assertion in chapter six of his book.

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of what it is to "be marked by emptiness."

[movingalways]

Kelly: Anyway, back to Pam's point, whether or not someone's views are false can only be judged on what they express. That's all an analysis can ever go on.

Obviously, I wasn't clear as to what my point was. As I expressed to Diebert, my question to Elisabeth was to address her comment about the post-mortem development of one's being in relation to David Quinn's assertion that existence is appearance. How can one continue in their spiritual development if their appearance, which is also their existence, is no more?

[jufa]

how can there be an appearance if there is only emptiness?

That's taking it very literal and materialistic and would lead nowhere. Diebert, to say this, literal or otherwise, then you must produce and object of nothingness and make it relative to emptiness. You have not backed up any of your statements giving evidence to what you say.

This is not about some "nothingness" but about challenging that what is being described by many as the "real", objective reality, intrinsic identity, "the thing itself" and so on. So then describe this

real, objective reality, intrinsic reality

, and you have established your point of order is what I am asking you to do.Basically one could also call it the truth of "relativity". One could call it such just as one could call it a table spoon.A better question then to ask would be: how can there be truth or a notion of the absolute when everything would remain relative and intrinsically uncertain? You have finally seen the light. One can't call it anything and be in the absolute when one cannot give relative, real,objective reality, with intrinsical certainty when one cannot define logic for their own existence beyond an assumptive human mind. This is the challenge of nihilism. There is no challenge of nihilism. Life is, and all remembrance of It proves it had always been, and will always be.

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

[movingalways]

I can agree with that the way that he explained it, and that it doesn't need to be perceived - but I can also see the perspective where existence would not equal appearance. It kind of depends on definitions of things.

When seeking the truth of one's being, is it not important to identify, for oneself, the principle of their identity? If one rides both sides of the fence, as you appear to be doing above, how can there be a known principle of identity by which to live one's thoughts? Either existence equals appearance or existence does not equal appearance. Both ways of being cannot be true.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth Isabelle: Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- again, when they are ad hominems. There are material differences between ad hominems and analyses.

Pam: the purpose of my original post was to question how a being can develop post-mortem if one asserts that that being's existence is synonymous with its appearance?

As far as we know by any evidence we have today, a person can not develop post-mortem. That was the point.

If a person is attacked enough while they are still alive, not only is it possible that others will dismiss everything that person says, but it is also possible that the person who was attacked sufficiently may stop sharing their thoughts or stop sharing their thoughts so much, which will lead to less development through less interaction with others who could assist their development, or even lead a person to giving up on development altogether. They may stay the same, or more likely regress through disuse.

No matter how much a person is attacked while dead, the only similar impact to being attacked while living is that their work might not be paid attention to or might be seen through a different lens. I'll use terms like "probably" or "likely" to give a nod to unprovable and undisprovable beliefs and considerations, but those considerations don't have enough basis to be worth explaining here or debating. Therefore I state that attacking the dead probably is not going to cause the dead to talk about their beliefs less with the living (which I don't think the dead do anyway), nor would attacking the dead likely cause them such disappointment as to not use the tools of growth (which I don't believe they have as the living do).

[movingalways]

Pam: the purpose of my original post was to question how a being can develop post-mortem if one asserts that that being's existence is synonymous with its appearance?

Elizabeth Isabelle: As far as we know by any evidence we have today, a person can not develop post-mortem. That was the point.

If that was the point, then you supported my point to you above that

When seeking the truth of one's being, is it not important to identify, for oneself, the principle of their identity? If one rides both sides of the fence, as you appear to be doing above, how can there be a known principle of identity by which to live one's thoughts? Either existence equals appearance or existence does not equal appearance. Both ways of being cannot be true.

which was in respond to your riding-the-fence response to me:

I can agree with that the way that he explained it, and that it doesn't need to be perceived - but I can also see the perspective where existence would not equal appearance. It kind of depends on definitions of things.

If you cannot tell me whether or not your existence and your appearance are definitively one and the same thing or definitively not one and the same thing, how are you adding anything to the wisdom of those who went before you?

My unconditional answer to the same question I asked you is "no", my existence and my appearance are the same thing. My principle or core identity is my "thing-in-of-itself", which is my infinity existence, my omniety, which is not the same thing as my appearance, my finiteness. Which means my task is to allow my appearance of finiteness to be gathered into or to be consumed by, my infinite "thing-in-of-itself." Which is the Way of being transformed of infinity, of keeping one's thought pattern turned in one direction and one direction only, that of the gathering-consumption, of making the two, one.

[Dennis Mahar]

Which means my task is to allow my appearance of finiteness to be gathered into or to be consumed by, my infinite "thing-in-of-itself." Which is the Way of being transformed of infinity, of keeping one's thought pattern turned in one direction and one direction only, that of the gathering-consumption, of making the two, one.

What you say is appearing in Languaging isn't it?
It appears by saying it over and over, again and again.
It would vanish if you stopped saying it.
It's a possibility that shows up in Languaging.
Like a story.
like a hypnotic spell.
Something that lives you as inspiring for you.

Is it outside of the Languaging of it that shows up as a certainty?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

which was in respond to your riding-the-fence response to me:

Since you read Wisdom of the Infinite, you know that there isn't necessarily a fence to ride.

[Dan Rowden]

Any thing is differentiated from that which it is not, which makes it a particular thing with identity.

Whence differentiation?

[movingalways]

Pam: Which means my task is to allow my appearance of finiteness to be gathered into or to be consumed by, my infinite "thing-in-of-itself." Which is the Way of being transformed of infinity, of keeping one's thought pattern turned in one direction and one direction only, that of the gathering-consumption, of making the two, one.

Dennis: What you say is appearing in Languaging isn't it?

Yes. Languaging that is awareness of dualism, but does not arouse dualism.

It appears by saying it over and over, again and again.
It would vanish if you stopped saying it.

Every pattern of thought within the law of dualism must be fulfilled before the law of dualism itself is fulfilled. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Therefore, it is not a matter of 'saying it over and over again', that is the hypnotic spell you mention below, but of contemplating or analyzing a thought born of dualism until its karmic seed is fulfilled, finished, and then, uprooted. That thought of 'two' is now made one.

It's a possibility that shows up in Languaging.
Like a story.
like a hypnotic spell.

A hypnotic spell is not the same activity of consciousness that is contemplation of an idea for the purposes of its fulfilment [transcendence]. The first is an activity of control, as if one can memorize a patterned essence of a thought or idea, the second is the living, moment by moment experience of tasting the patterned essence of a thought or idea. For example, one must live the patterned essence of reasoning, until one is fulfilled of the patterned essence of reason, therefore transcending the patterned essence of reason.

Something that lives you as inspiring for you.

The Something being forms living you inspiring you to taste their essence until your tasting is done, is transcended. Forms such as music, art, taste, hearing, reason, love, compassion...

Is it outside of the Languaging of it that shows up as a certainty?

There is no outside your awareness of you. You are both the pure consciousness of infinite spirit forms and of its emanation, the law [of dualism].

[movingalways]

which was in respond to your riding-the-fence response to me:

Since you read Wisdom of the Infinite, you know that there isn't necessarily a fence to ride.

There is fence to ride until we stop riding the fence. As I said to Dennis above, we taste an idea until we are done tasting. In this case, there was a tasting of the idea of post-mortem development. Until that idea is fully tasted, both by you and by me, it will continue to arise in both our consciousness', this continuum of "taste me/analyze me" being its mark of emptiness.

[movingalways]

Any thing is differentiated from that which it is not, which makes it a particular thing with identity.

Whence differentiation?

The world of 'that which it is not' is a individual, sentient, complex world of accepting and rejecting 'particular things', none of which is the consciousness of the thing itself. A rat running from a cat gives life to the cat in his mind for the sake of its breath survival, but the rat knows nothing of the consciousness of cat. A male rejecting female consciousness or vice versa for the sake of ego/breath survival knows nothing of the consciousness of the other. In both examples, life has been given to things because of belief in mortality, but at no time, is this mortal life given to the thing perceived the truth of the immortal consciousness of the thing.

Reason is the activity of form differentiation, of the dualism of acceptance or rejection, emotion or affectation being that which is the conditioned life given to the forms accepted or rejected. When reason is not present, when emotion or affect is not present [differentiation] does the thing itself disappear?

[Dennis Mahar]

Human Being is always/already A=A.
expression of the unconditioned essence of reality which is opposed to the empirical reality.

Being is,
normally, in it's nature, dealing with practical ontological categories, eg. we distinguish between persons and things, the real and the imaginary.
If somebody treats a person as a thing or a real object as imaginary, we would notice they were confused.
If someone fell in love with a hammer or parked her children in the garage, that would stand out as having the ontologucal categories 'wrong'.

We are always/already that, in that way.

Prior to accessing empirical world ( sensory input) where A=A is applied to garner knowledge.

What we know about empirical reality is things change and things exist, not from their own side , but arise dependently.

What's permanent and what's not?

Empirical reality is 'empty' of intrinsic existence?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Until that idea is fully tasted, both by you and by me, it will continue to arise in both our consciousness', this continuum of "taste me/analyze me" being its mark of emptiness.

Oh? So if I have fully tasted/analyzed that idea, it will still arise in both of our consciousness if you have not also fully tasted/analyzed the idea? If there are fences, then my satiation negates the emptiness on my side of the fence.

The fences are false, and can be ripped up and plunked down with words of definition and redefinition, perspective, context - any of a multitude of changes to the landscape.

Any thing is differentiated from that which it is not, which makes it a particular thing with identity.

Whence differentiation?

Convenience.

[Dennis Mahar]

You are the principle of Identity.
receiving sense impressions.
'thoughting' them..
grouping them together.
Being-in-action.
Machine.

[Blair]

Reason is the activity of form differentiation, of the dualism of acceptance or rejection

Aha. Ahahaha. Ahahahahahaha!!!!

I reject that, I must be reasoning.

Ehehehehe. You fucking twit.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay Blair, please explain how ^that post of yours^ contributes to the wisdom of anyone in any way.

Over here you seemed to be trying to indicate that you had a deeper purpose to your snide remarks:

uncledote wrote:
Lots and lots of blunt, cynical 'one liners' don't provide anything constructive for anyone to build on...

Blair wrote:
They do if you are paying attention to the goal, not the defense.

It seems to me that your goal in your above post is to indicate to Pam that you believe that her line of reasoning about reason is unreasonable. However, using the logical fallacy Appeal to Ridicule is neither a logical argument nor is it tailored to Pam's state of mind in such a way as to provoke a growth response.

Please explain your goal and your tactics. Thank you in advance.