Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:Everything you observe has it's roots in the unseen world. The forms may change, but the essence stays the same. Every awesome sight will disappear, and every sweet word will fade away; but do not be dejected—for their source is eternal, growing, branching out, and giving new life and new joy. The source is in you, and this whole world is springing up from it.

You cannot see what's looking. But what's looking is what you are always.

And that always is ever here now. The present is the reflection of the past, and the future is the re-echo of the present.

Sounds like it's only you who know the unseen world?

HexHammer wrote:Sounds like it's only you who know the unseen world?

What is it you think is going to reincarnate? except what you you think? ...except there is no thinker? so this idea gets a little tricky.

There is no you at all nothing and no one behind experience, but always only the experience. There is no ''you'' out of which everything emanates. ''You'' have only ever been an idea, a notion, created out of nowhere.


The unseen world is everything that is happening right here now without division. There's just everything without beginning nor end. Everything here has an inseparable interrelatedness to everything else which means that not one single thing can exist independently in and of itself.
(the knowledge of this statement is formed via ideas...which are empty and transient.

The fixed belief in a division between life and death, is a great misunderstanding. There is no identifiable location from which things are born, or to which they return and so, there is no place to die. Nor is there a human species or self who from out of nowhere becomes conscious.

There are relative, conventional differences between life and death, loss and gain, mind and matter, the animate and inanimate, that are of consequence. The issue is to note that these contrasts are dependently arisen, dependently identified and therefore without their own nature.

There is not a separate self with it's own cemented mind-body continuity that can be overtaken by a force called death. Thought, feeling, sensation, perception and a body are all vastly interrelational and impermanent, never remaining the same for an instant. The notion that there exists a separate, permanent self above and beyond a vast web of dependent conditions is a fiction. Death, which is merely impermanence, has been here all along.

All form, both gross as in a tree, and subtle as in thought, depend upon innumerable conditions and are not the fixed entities that they appear to be. Nothing actually remains the same for an instant. What is perceived to be an unchanging object is on the contrary, an instantaneous, indivisible movement of disintegration and formation, even though this transience is imperceptible. It is in this sense that what is called death is also life, as the ongoing transformation of all phenomena.

Dontaskme wrote:

The unseen world is everything that is happening right here now without division. There's just everything without beginning nor end. Everything here has an inseparable interrelatedness to everything else which means that not one single thing can exist independently in and of itself.
(the knowledge of this statement is formed via ideas...which are empty and transient.

It's a good idea. There is an alternative idea which also fits with the view from eternity. This alternative is that reality is composed of all the perspectives that have happened plus all the perspectives yet to happen.

Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:

The unseen world is everything that is happening right here now without division. There's just everything without beginning nor end. Everything here has an inseparable interrelatedness to everything else which means that not one single thing can exist independently in and of itself.
(the knowledge of this statement is formed via ideas...which are empty and transient.

It's a good idea. There is an alternative idea which also fits with the view from eternity. This alternative is that reality is composed of all the perspectives that have happened plus all the perspectives yet to happen.

And yet nothing is actually happening from any point of view. Any reference point is a transient idea, empty at it's core.

Look again at what is happening. Can you actually see awareness is doing the looking? Or is awareness just another word for the looking happening? Is there something doing the looking?

Awareness is empty because it depends on other things. It depends on the object it is aware of. It depends on a previous moment of awareness and it's own temporal parts. It depends on a sentient being who has the ability to be aware of things. Things depend on awareness, and awareness depends on things.

Things don’t arise from emptiness or subside back into emptiness. Instead, emptiness is the mode of existence that things have. It means that things cannot be found when looked for closely. Emptiness is not applied to things. That is, things aren’t empty because of something big called “emptiness.” Rather, to be in the first place is already to be empty.

Dontaskme wrote:

And yet nothing is actually happening from any point of view. Any reference point is a transient idea, empty at it's core.

But the idea is happening .

Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:

And yet nothing is actually happening from any point of view. Any reference point is a transient idea, empty at it's core.

But the idea is happening .

Yes, it's a happening, but it's not happening to or for any one or thing.

Life is never personal simply because it is not in relationship with itself except in a fictional sense.

Life is boundlessly free, it has no identity. No claim, no blame.

Dontaskme wrote:

Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:

And yet nothing is actually happening from any point of view. Any reference point is a transient idea, empty at it's core.

But the idea is happening .

Yes, it's a happening, but it's not happening to or for any one or thing.

Life is never personal simply because it is not in relationship with itself except in a fictional sense.

Life is boundlessly free, it has no identity. No claim, no blame.

So you are saying that reality is composed of ideas not entities. If this theory of reality is true fictional characters are eternally real.

Belinda wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:



But the idea is happening .

Yes, it's a happening, but it's not happening to or for any one or thing.

Life is never personal simply because it is not in relationship with itself except in a fictional sense.

Life is boundlessly free, it has no identity. No claim, no blame.

So you are saying that reality is composed of ideas not entities. If this theory of reality is true fictional characters are eternally real.

Every word is an idea, words have no independent existence apart from the idea ...which is empty.

Fictional characters ie: (earthly creatures) are real in the same sense a night time dream is real or a Disney character is real. It's real in the sense of the idea.

No thing is actually real...Only the idea of a thing is real.. only the mind/idea is born, no thing else.

There's just everything existing all at once...including ideas.

If there's just everything happening all at once, then no thing is ever born so no thing can die. Everything has always existed. This doesn't even have to be proved because it's all here now. Nowhere.

If it's here now then it must have always been here now else it wouldn't be here now which it is. Time is just an idea born now...time is fiction, it's an illusory appearance of timeless eternity or infinity.

Infinity is just another word for Everything.

No thing can be added or taken away from Everything...for there is no thing ''other'' than everything...''other'' is always inclusive of everything.

No human is living a life, there's just everything living life appearing as a human, a human does not do anything in life, it's just everything humaning....there is only and ever ''everything'' doing any thing...including the idea there is a human living life.

Even a grain of sand is everything, a grain of sand is ''everything'' sanding as a grain or even a whole sand castle. The only difference in the grain of sand and a whole sand castle is it's appearance.

Life is always and ever whole which ever way it appears. It's holographic in nature.

No thing in life can go anywhere for there is nowhere for any thing to go. Nothing can be lost or gained.Everything is always here right now... what is born is also dying in the same moment which is always and ever an idea now.

There's no reincarnation - no life after death...because no thing is living. Life is not a single thing it is everything infinitely.

Just to be clear about the concept of emptiness.... and what emptiness means....it's true meaning is often misunderstood...taken from the internet...

'' Emptiness is not complete nothingness; it doesn’t mean that nothing exists at all. This would be a nihilistic view contrary to common sense. What it does mean is that things do not exist the way our grasping self supposes they do. In his book on the Heart Sutra the Dalai Lama calls emptiness “the true nature of things and events,” but in the same passage he warns us “to avoid the misapprehension that emptiness is an absolute reality or an independent truth.” In other words, emptiness is not some kind of heaven or separate realm apart from this world and its woes.

The Heart Sutra says, “all phenomena in their own-being are empty.” It doesn’t say “all phenomena are empty.” This distinction is vital. “Own-being” means separate independent existence. The passage means that nothing we see or hear (or are) stands alone; everything is a tentative expression of one seamless, ever-changing landscape. So though no individual person or thing has any permanent, fixed identity, everything taken together is what Thich Nhat Hanh calls “interbeing.” This term embraces the positive aspect of emptiness as it is lived and acted by a person of wisdom — with its sense of connection, compassion and love. Think of the Dalai Lama himself and the kind of person he is — generous, humble, smiling and laughing — and we can see that a mere intellectual reading of emptiness fails to get at its practical joyous quality in spiritual life. So emptiness has two aspects, one negative and the other quite positive.''

I understand Dontaskme's thesis and I see its potential for ethics.

Rather than one , mental, aspect of reality I see that there are two aspects of reality, the mental and the physical, to which humans and probably all relative life forms have access to. Idealism like Dontaskme explains and dual aspect monism are both forms of monism.

I don't believe the form of monism which Dontaskme explains, because I find it impossible to believe that there is nothing "out there" .

Of course, in the case that there is a physical aspect of reality, fictional characters are not as real as physical entities. The reality of a fictional characters is the measure of how this mental concept influences matter and other mental concepts. In other words fictional characters are mind stuff and the reality which they own is the same as the effects that the fictional characters have upon other mind stuff and upon physical bodies.

I would like Dontaskme please to answer the following question. If it's thoughts and only thoughts which compose reality how is it possible to evaluate which concepts are better than other concepts?

Belinda wrote:
I don't believe the form of monism which Dontaskme explains, because I find it impossible to believe that there is nothing "out there" .

It's not that there is nothing ''out-there'' ....there's just ''everything'' aka boundless presence or beingness herenow/nowhere.
Out/In? ....where is that, except an idea?

Belinda wrote:Of course, in the case that there is a physical aspect of reality, fictional characters are not as real as physical entities. The reality of a fictional characters is the measure of how this mental concept influences matter and other mental concepts. In other words fictional characters are mind stuff and the reality which they own is the same as the effects that the fictional characters have upon other mind stuff and upon physical bodies.

Things are real in a mentally construed way only. An entity is a mentally construed idea, given autonomy by that which only appears to exist as the idea itself. The mental capacity here is also an idea, so there's no thing that owns any thing...again, except in the mentally constructed fictional story of myself...arising nowhere.

Belinda wrote: I would like Dontaskme please to answer the following question. If it's thoughts and only thoughts which compose reality how is it possible to evaluate which concepts are better than other concepts?

By pure experiencing. In the experience of human beingness, a thought will arise from nowhere in favor of another due to the dual nature of language. The outcome of any experience will be down to personal preference...albeit illusory preference...since any preference over any thing is an empty principle.

Nonduality is a beautiful subject to ponder. It's like having direct experience/intimacy with God...aka Everything...which is the only thing that's a happening anyway...''everything'' is intimately with itself... all one... all the time...it's only fictional language that separates this boundlessly free wholeness.

If your interested ...I would strongly suggest you listen to Tony Parsons or Lisa Cairns videos on youtube...these people are both what I consider the most clear and precise Nondual teachers that are around today....and we are very lucky to have them, especially Lisa.

Dontaskme wrote:

Belinda wrote:
I would like Dontaskme please to answer the following question. If it's thoughts and only thoughts which compose reality how is it possible to evaluate which concepts are better than other concepts?

By pure experiencing. In the experience of human beingness, a thought will arise from nowhere in favor of another due to the dual nature of language. The outcome of any experience will be down to personal preference...albeit illusory preference...since any preference over any thing is an empty principle

I cannot see any basis for ethics here . I believe you are right about eternity and how the view from eternity is calming and reassuring(I think that's the gist of what you said). However this view does nothing to help us to try to make the relative world better. The view from eternity lacks immediate access to the kindly human feelings which make the relative world better. Kindly human feelings of sympathy can exist only in a relative world where there are subjective entities. Subjective entities are both eternal as you explain, and also material-mental.

There is no need to abandon the material-mental only because of the vision of eternity, as each of those perspectives , the material-mental and the eternal can coexist.

If material-mental, relative being and beings exist then fictional characters are true only insofar as they reflect material-mental reality as revealed by inductive reasoning. I agree with Dontaskme that experience is necessary for evaluation to take place. Experiencing can't happen without experiencers because unless there are subjects of experience . The subjective is as necessary to continual creation of reality within time as the propeller is to a steam turbine ship. Eternity contains continuous creation and is timeless and non-relative however this is not the same as denying the existence of creation.

Belinda wrote:
I cannot see any basis for ethics here . I believe you are right about eternity and how the view from eternity is calming and reassuring(I think that's the gist of what you said). However this view does nothing to help us to try to make the relative world better. The view from eternity lacks immediate access to the kindly human feelings which make the relative world better. Kindly human feelings of sympathy can exist only in a relative world where there are subjective entities. Subjective entities are both eternal as you explain, and also material-mental.

There is no need to abandon the material-mental only because of the vision of eternity, as each of those perspectives , the material-mental and the eternal can coexist.

Waking up to prime awareness is actually only part of the human path to the appreciation of being effortlessly alive, and must be balanced with ethics, compassion, humility and discipline if we are to then make a real difference for the better. It is much more valuable to ourselves and society to have an integrated healthy ego than it is to be disidentified. When we awaken to the illusion of separation we become every-thing and no-thing. This is a process of integration, not annihilation...we become better people that are not functioning from the fear of little ''i'' with no power and the false sense of not being good enough, or from fear of lack or purpose. Our reality-maps are here for a purpose to fulfil a dream, and that is our only existence, so it's up to us to make them a worthwhile experience.

Ultimately humans are born with minds that develop naturally to include a sense of separation, and thus appreciation. We develop a separate sense of self so that we become conscious with the capacity to self-reflect. And within that consciousness, if we are curious enough, we can eventually uncover the baseline of pure awareness where life is flowing completely wholesomely and effortlessly without want, desire or need all by itself.

Nonduality can all too easily be reduced to nihilistic philosophy when we try to disown the mind and ego in our efforts to reach awakening. These are integral parts of ourselves, and if we want authentic awakening, we need to lovingly accept and integrate them.

How awakening to oneness can improve the world and the human consciousness to evolve to God like status.

Taken from the internet....

"the perfect man has no self" "If there is no other, there will be no I. If there is no I, there will be none to make distinctions."

It is because there is right, that there is wrong; it is because there is wrong, that there is right. This being the situation, the sages do not approach things at this level, but reflect the light of nature. Thereupon the self is also the other; the other is also the self... But really are there such distinctions as the self and the other, or are there no such distinctions? When the self and the other lose their contrariety, there we have the very essence of the Tao.

This denial of the duality between self and other is a striking claim: so strange, so counter-intuitive, that we are not sure how to take it; yet the fact that it is a common claim in the mainstream Asian traditions suggests we should consider it quite seriously. Its ethical implications were realized early in Indian Vedanta: "He who sees all beings as the very Self and the Self in all beings in consequence of that abhors none" (Isa Upanisad, verse 6). Vidyaranya put it even better: "The knowledge of the Self leads to the identification of oneself with others as clearly as one identifies with one's own body." This brings us back to chapter 13 of the Tao Te Ching, which also recommends loving the whole world as if it were one's own body... And what if it is our body? What if the discrimination we usually make between our own body and the rest of the world is a delusion, as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism and Taoism claim? Such a realization would certainly have far-reaching ethical implications -- might be more important, perhaps, than any other fact about the world.

Dontaskme wrote;

"He who sees all beings as the very Self and the Self in all beings in consequence of that abhors none" (Isa Upanisad, verse 6). Vidyaranya put it even better: "The knowledge of the Self leads to the identification of oneself with others as clearly as one identifies with one's own body." This brings us back to chapter 13 of the Tao Te Ching, which also recommends loving the whole world as if it were one's own body... And what if it is our body? What if the discrimination we usually make between our own body and the rest of the world is a delusion, as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism and Taoism claim? Such a realization would certainly have far-reaching ethical implications -- might be more important, perhaps, than any other fact about the world.

I doubt if human life could be maintained unless there were subjects of experience each of whom is defined by a separate conatus i.e. conatus which pertains to individuals not collectives.If a living being were drowning in the ocean the rest of the world as exemplified by the ocean would be 'the other' and would certainly be experienced as a hostile other if the life is to be preserved. Morality depends upon social beings cooperating with each other. Increasingly in these days cooperation has to be cooperation with the rest of the world including the non-human environment. Morality qua cooperation would not exist if there were no physical-mental subjects of experience.

The converse of cooperation , competition and disunity, is also an adjunct of subjectivity. So we have both unity and disunity in our everyday experiences. Everyday experiences are relatively this or that, including relatively cooperative and competitive, unified and disunified.

I think that what the TaoteChing is saying is that there is the relative yin and the relative yang and that both spring from the Way, which is beyond human experience and cannot be told. This is what I believe, that the Way (or timeless eternity) is far 'beyond' all possible imagining.Perhaps by analogies we can sort of imagine the Way, or eternity. The trouble with analogies is that they can become idols.