Jason: Reality is right here, right now, everywhere, everything. Isn't it obvious? How could you ever avoid it? Is there anything more that needs to be said or done?
Jason: So now reality should include plenty more saying and doing. More reality just as it is.
DQ: What you're describing, while important and true, is only one aspect of Truth.
Jason: I'm actually not describing "one aspect ", I'm pointing to all aspects. What I wrote, the writing itself, is one aspect of reality, but what the writing refers to is all aspects.
DQ: What about the aspect of formlessness, for example? How does simply pointing to the fact that Reality is everything help people break free of the illusion of objective existence and realize the formlessness of everything?
As I said, I am refering to literally all aspects of reality. What you are presenting is again simply another possible aspect of reality. So yes, it is certainly possible for reality to include the viewing of objective existence as an illusion. But that's just another example of "reality just as it is."
I have a feeling you may accuse me of using this technique to evade attempts to introduce other truths, but I see it as the most accurate and fundamental answer I can give.
I could address your question in a more rational/logical/argumentative way, for example I could say: "formlessness is a finite and limited concept/state, and reality is not finite or limited." but I am liable to get us into trouble, because really what I am pointing to is a realization.
I could go back and show you where I may disagree with certain ideas in your "The Wisdom of the Infinite" that lead to your idea of objective existence being an illusion. I could argue "realize that your concepts and ideas are a part
of reality, not a hold
on reality." but in the end all we would be doing is exchanging our disagreements and this too would be reality as it is. Just more suchess. Do you see?
That's not to say that I myself stand outside this, I operate fully within this type of suchness existence too, all the time, everything I have written here conforms to it too.
Now you hopefully understand where I'm coming from, I will
enter into one of these arguments, because it still may offer some value. Firstly, and I think you can probably relate to this, I can and do operate from various philosophical viewpoints or levels, depending on what I am discussing and who I am discussing with. When I'm discussing evolution, for example, I would generally fall back to the empirical/scientific level.
My most fundamental understanding of reality, is what I call "suchness" or "isness", which I talked about above. Beyond that I have varying levels of less refined philosophical viewpoints, and these levels largely reflect the path I took to reach my final realization.
So just before the final realization, I viewed reality as being composed entirely of appearances, so this is the next level up from the most fundamental suchness. Then the next level would probably be something similar to idealism, which basically holds that my mind is the creator of all values and boundaries. Then there might be a relativism/post-modernist type view, then after that an empirical/scientific/materialist type of view.
The level that your idea of formlessness relates to, in my opinion, is the one where the mind is seen as creating all values and boundaries. So if I were operating from that particular viewpoint I would tend to agree. But, in my journey, as I began to move beyond that viewpoint I found some problems with this idea. One of the the central problems is: in a similar fashion to the fact that there is no way to get a glimpse beyond our own sense perceptions, there is no way to ever observe anything beyond the boundaries our minds create, the former rules out the possibility that a world existing beyond our direct sense perceptions can be perceived or proven, the latter rules out the possibility of knowing an undivided unity that exists beyond our minds, and also precludes knowing alternative ways that existence could be divided up other than exactly the way we observe that it is
So in my view you are essentially arguing a variant of the idea that there is a external independent reality beyond the senses and perception, with the associated problems that brings.
The problem I describe, which effects your formlessness idea, also relates to this post
you made, and probably makes my points clearer:
David Quinn wrote:"From my perspective, the "I" is nothing more than a conceptual construct, and thus the idea that we really do have an "I" is an illusion. The "I" exists in the same way that the lines of longitude and latitude exist - as a kind of arbitrary demarcation that we project onto reality. The seperation between ourselves and the rest of the world is not really there, and so any pursuit of the "I" will always end in failure. It is like chasing a mirage. "
I also see potential contradiction in the way that you say that the "I" is "nothing more than a conceptual construct". Which thus makes it "an illusion", an "arbitraty demarcartion", something that we "project onto reality" and "chasing a mirage". Yet everything from the infinite, to cause and effect, to every single idea you use is based on conceptual constructs. You appear to want to deny the validity of divisions by using divisions.
I do have other arguments against your ideas of formlessness and the "illusion of divisions" to raise, but I'll leave it at that for now.