All is void.

[Quan Yin]

Continuation:
Quan Yin said

The separation, and classification of cognitive modules aids in the practice of self-negation, which eventually leads to Nirvana, total self-negation...The separation, and classification of cognitive modules aids in the practice of self-negation, which eventually leads to Nirvana, total self-negation.

The Buddha never taught self-negation. He specifically said that nihilism was Wrong View.   Why do you believe that he did teach self-negation?

You mentioned that the mind was an illusion.  Mind is another word for the mental formation.  Mental formations (thoughts) are real.  They can be seen on scans of the brain as areas of electrochemical activity.

Quan Yin said:

I'm well aware of techniques of meditative negation, but this is only an experiment to me, to validate a suspicion. I realize that if this is true, personal enlightenment is both impossible, and nonsensical. It is clear that if Buddhism is true, propagating the dharma is what is important. Since I don't exist, I can't really awaken. I can merely glimpse the void in slumber. The only way to truly awaken, is to dissolve the illusion from the inside. To perpetuate universal, cosmological awakening. For we are all one.

What is meditative negation?  What is universal, cosmological awakening?  Where are you getting your ideas?  Have you read any actual teachings of the Buddha?  If so, please give the titles of the suttas you have read.  If you haven’t read any actual teachings, why haven’t you?

Okay then... just call me a heretic, and then move on to the topic at hand.

[Quan Yin]

This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

[Quan Yin]

Quain Yin,

Now do you believe me when I tell you that you aren't backing up the foundation of your beliefs with something objective (buddah doesn't count as a backup proof) and that you aren't engaging in a real discussion and are therefore preaching?

No... I have both supported the lack of mind, and that all is void. I think that the Buddha probably did manage to experience lack of self, lack of ego, or total self-negation, the blowing-out: nirvana, and that is trust, but I wouldn't say faith. I want to be a Buddhist because I think that the thrust of it is true (for the reasons I've argued) I don't think it's true, because I would like to be a Buddhist.

What specifically have I not supported that you would like supported?

It's now more than obvious that others also feel this way (as I already pointed out to you in the quick discussion following your first warning) yet you have done next to nothing to address that reaction.

Is it because they fail to offer significant challenge to my contention, or their unwillingess to take it seriously that reveals this to you? I have failed to address questions about Buddhism as a religion, but that is because none of that is pertinent to my negation ontology.

[PoopShoot]

This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

I knew you were going to say that.  Now demonstrate it.

[PoopShoot]

No... I have both supported the lack of mind, and that all is void.

Reiteration is not support.

Is it because they fail to offer significant challenge to my contention, or their unwillingess to take it seriously that reveals this to you?

Your lack of support for your contention is reason enough to not need challenge, the unwillingness to take you seriously is directly related to your piss-poor presentation and unwillingness to actually state HOW nothingness perceives itself.

[Quan Yin]

I knew you were going to say that.  Now demonstrate it.

Okay, name a single substantive quality that objects posses, that science has not ultimately dissolved to the reverberations of an unstable void.

The major problem is in thinking that things like "properties" "phenomena" and "emergence" hold objective water. They propose that because objective reality gives impressions to our subjectivity, or is perceivable by it, that it is in any way related to the way things actually are -- despite our complete failure to do more than infer such things, with our minds.

Objects of perception are unthinkable in absence of the percieving mind. They hold absolutely no qualities that they are perceived to. Science demonstrates this without question.

We can peer inside, and see that all things are hollow, and we can peer back in "time" and see that all things originate at a void. All else is perception of this, all else is fiction.

From this, we have the mind itself to explain. If subjectivity consists of minds, observing reality, then it should correlate in some ways -- but if objects observing subjectivity, then there is no reason to suppose it is at all representational of objective reality.

Negating the mind is more difficult, but at the very least, one must commit to some form of property dualism to salvage it. There is no "mind stuff" that is identifiable. Only minds, see minds.

[Quan Yin]

Reiteration is not support.

I have reiterated my conclusion, after demonstrations -- that is how arguments are done. I haven't merely asserted it, I have supported it. Other than the Buddha talk, but that was to offer perspective, and credit, rather than support arguments. I did that with evidence, and discursive prose.

Your lack of support for your contention is reason enough to not need challenge, the unwillingness to take you seriously is directly related to your piss-poor presentation and unwillingness to actually state HOW nothingness perceives itself.

Nothingness doesn't perceive itself. The mind does, and the mind does not exist. I have supported this as well.

[PoopShoot]

Okay, name a single substantive quality that objects posses, that science has not ultimately dissolved to the reverberations of an unstable void.

Poorly worded string theory.  From nothing came something.  You haven't shown how this is an illusion, nor how an illusion can perceive itself.  Additionally, string theory is as yet unsupported outside of mathematics and has yet to be tested.  It is just as scientifically likely that quantum particles exist ad infinitum and it is merely their configuration that was reformed at the big bang.  Finally, even string theory admits that space has substance and isn't nothing, while admitting that this "stuff" is likely the same "stuff" that matter is made of.  That said, your arguments are an ambiguous reorganizing of legitimate cosmological theory, but your ambiguous mystical language makes your assertions half almost right and half woo.

Objects of perception are unthinkable in absence of the percieving mind. They hold absolutely no qualities that they are perceived to. Science demonstrates this without question.

Evidence of said mind is the fact that things are being perceived by it.  Evidence that said mind exists is that it does indeed think.  In an absolute absence of said mind, there would be no way to perceive your as yet undemonstrated illusion.

We can peer inside, and see that all things are hollow, and we can peer back in "time" and see that all things originate at a void. All else is perception of this, all else is fiction.

I originated from a fertilized egg, yet I am not a fertilized egg.

From this, we have the mind itself to explain. If subjectivity consists of minds, observing reality, then it should correlate in some ways -- but if objects observing subjectivity, then there is no reason to suppose it is at all representational of objective reality.

But there is correlation, hence independent verification.

Negating the mind is more difficult, but at the very least, one must commit to some form of property dualism to salvage it. There is no "mind stuff" that is identifiable. Only minds, see minds.

This makes no sense.  Dualism need not be true in order to explain the properties of the mind, emergence does that just fine.  There is most certainly "mind stuff", dendrites, axons, myelin, various monoamines... all of these are the stuff from which minds are made.

[PoopShoot]

I have reiterated my conclusion, [strike:1kxnbqel]after demonstrations[/strike:1kxnbqel] -- that is how arguments are done. I have[strike:1kxnbqel]n't[/strike:1kxnbqel] merely asserted it, [strike:1kxnbqel]I have supported it[/strike:1kxnbqel]. Other than the Buddha talk, but that was to offer perspective, and credit, rather than support arguments. [strike:1kxnbqel]I did that with evidence, and discursive prose.[/strike:1kxnbqel]

FYP.

Nothingness doesn't perceive itself. The mind does, and the mind does not exist. I have supported this as well.

The mind must exist if it perceives stuff.

[Dretlin]

This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

I knew you were going to say that. Now demonstrate it.

This has not quite been done yet.

[Quan Yin]

Poorly worded string theory.

String theory is mental fiction. I am talking about ultimate reduction. Original metaphysical entity.

From nothing came something.  You haven't shown how this is an illusion, nor how an illusion can perceive itself.

I have certainly argued for this being an illusion. The fact that every single quality of any given object or perception is unthinkable in absence of the perceiving mind. As for showing that minds perceive themselves -- do you have some mechanical mind detector, I'm unaware of? Last I checked, only minds can perceive minds, they are not reducible to objects of perception. Calling a mind a brain will not escape this, as we do not perceive minds from brains, we infer it.

It is just as scientifically likely that quantum particles exist ad infinitum and it is merely their configuration that was reformed at the big bang.  Finally, even string theory admits that space has substance and isn't nothing, while admitting that this "stuff" is likely the same "stuff" that matter is made of.  That said, your arguments are an ambiguous reorganizing of legitimate cosmological theory, but your ambiguous mystical language makes your assertions half almost right and half woo.

You're speaking about perceptions of quantum events, and not the originator of quantum events. Space itself, is a product of the big bang, and quantum particles are products of fluctuations, which supports my thesis.

Evidence of said mind is the fact that things are being perceived by it.

Not if the mind is an illusion. Perceiving an illusion doesn't make it real -- and minds perceive themselves, and each other. They are not reducible to anything beyond this point, they are inferred in objects of perception, which are illusions also.

Evidence that said mind exists is that it does indeed think.  In an absolute absence of said mind, there would be no way to perceive your as yet undemonstrated illusion.

Minds are an illusion, just as objects are, and because objects are. The spikes of broken-symmetry are grasping at existence, and minds are generated by this, only, they perceive everything, even themselves. It is objective reality that is observing subjectivity, and not the other way around. You are expecting some level of correspondence to reality, because you figure there is a little man in your brain, looking out a window -- when it is reality that is looking in.

The mind is contingent on the event, and perceives itself, and perceives the illusion of division, the spike of broken-symmetry, as what we see as objective reality. Because all necessary components to sustain permanence from one moment to the next is a mental fiction, there is no continuity of thought, no process. These require mental fictions, memories, ideas, perceptions, and these are not objective, they are constructs of thought themselves. For this reason, it makes no sense to say that minds exist, they only appear to, to themselves, and to other minds. Objects of perception do not exist, because they are empty of everything that they are perceived to contain.

The mind does not exist, because in order for it to sustain existence, from one moment to the next, it would require mental fictions to be real, and the reason that objective reality is not as it appears, is because science has shown that it isn't -- but if we had only known that we are objective reality observing subjectivity, the illusory nature of the perceptions would have been more obvious -- unfortunately most of us are born dualists, in so many more ways than one.

I originated from a fertilized egg, yet I am not a fertilized egg.

This is a false analogy, because the void is only exhibiting the illusion of division. You can't divide zero. Spikes of broken-symmetry only give the illusion of division. Like throwing a rock into a pond disrupts its topology, fluctuations in the void disrupt its symmetry.

But there is correlation, hence independent verification.

How can something be verified independently of the mind? Care to present an example?

This makes no sense.  Dualism need not be true in order to explain the properties of the mind, emergence does that just fine.

What is "emergence"? Is it empirical? How is this not dependent on your level of perception? The pixels on my monitor emergence into an image, but only on the level of my perception. It is not different than its parts, nothing new can come about objectively, this is all dependent on a perceiving mind.

There is most certainly "mind stuff", dendrites, axons, myelin, various monoamines... all of these are the stuff from which minds are made.

I already preempted this attempted obfuscation with brains. The mind and the brain are not analogous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

[Quan Yin]

This has not quite been done yet.

Four posts up from the one I'm quoting here. If you don't think satisfactorily, then please elaborate -- I can only perceive your mind, not read it.

[i_am_i]

Nothingness doesn't perceive itself. The mind does, and the mind does not exist.

I grant you the full right to have a non-existent mind. All I ask in return is that you grant me the right to actually have a mind, an existing mind, my mind, my mind that I use every day to keep food on my table, gasoline in my car and a roof over my head.

So, what do you say?

Wait, let me put it another way. What, other than being something to ponder, pontificate and argue about, is the practical application of this Buddha/void/non-existence ideology or yours?

[PoopShoot]

Still arguing and not demonstrating as well as flip-flopping between "noting" and "something" (see "void=pond surface" argument) showing how intellectually bankrupt your ramblings are.  Have fun with your woo.

[Quan Yin]

I grant you the full right to have a non-existent mind. All I ask in return is that you grant me the right to actually have a mind, an existing mind, my mind, my mind that I use every day to keep food on my table, gasoline in my car and a roof over my head.

You think that abstract notions like "time" "continuity", and "process" have ontological status of their own? They are free floating? If these concepts are mind-dependent, then how does the mind exist objectively?

Wait, let me put it another way. What, other than being something to ponder, pontificate and argue about, is the practical application of this Buddha/void/non-existence ideology or yours?

If the Buddha is right, that we are one, we are the void, trapped under an illusion of division, and an illusion of perception -- and if he truly did discover the way to awaken from this illusion, then I for one am all for that.

Not to mention that it makes sense that most hardships seem to be caused by the things Buddha said they were, which relates to ego-indulgence, ego-subversion, attachment to fictions, and lack of self-awareness -- because these most radically diverge from the truth that we are one, and unified, and that egos don't exist. When we harm one, even ourselves, we harm reality. We harm everything. When we attach ourselves to fictions, we fear, lust, hate, and fail to progress. When we fail to understand ourselves, then we fail to understand reality, itself.

If what Buddha thought was bullshit -- which is quite possible -- and didn't really achieve awakening, and escape from the illusion, then I still think that the togetherness, and path of the Buddha is still pretty good advice, but if he did -- then the significance is massive. If he did, then we all could, we could perpetuate Buddha nature throughout the cosmos, and initiate a cosmological awakening. This could be the ultimate end to cosmic evolution. Shattering the illusion, and awakening, all as one.

Sounds fantastic, I know. I can't bring myself to believe that just yet though, so I am in the process of attempting to achieve nirvana myself. I'll believe it when I "see" it.

So far though, through meditation, and mental exercises, I have come to understand what the Buddha was getting at, what he meant by all of that mumbo-jumbo. What it really means to negate the self. When you do it conceptually, you realize that everything goes along with it, and all that can intelligibly be said to exist, is the fluctuating void -- even that takes mental fictions by virtue of existing in mental space, but it takes the least amount of them.