All is void.

[notself]

The Buddha never taught nihilism nor did he ever teach eternalism.

[Quan Yin]

I don't understand how you can claim to be speaking about Buddhism without referencing what Gotama actually taught. You are making authoritative statements without reading the authority.  If you did not claim that what you were saying is what the Buddha taught, I wouldn't have a problem.

Well, this is a philosophy thread, the teachings of the Buddha is religion, anthropology, culture, and things of that nature. I am only interested in the philosophical implications of the concepts on this thread.

The Buddha did not say there is no self.  There most certainly is a conventional self.  What he taught was this self was not an independent, stand alone, unchanging thing.  He taught that the self is a concept that enables us to interact with the world.

Which is what I'm saying. Saying that "the self is a concept that enables us to interact with the world", along side the acceptance that it is not independent, and stand alone, necessitates that it is a mental fiction, itself.

The self is aggregation of five things: form (the physical body), perception (the action of the five senses), feeling (hot-cold, rough-smooth), mental formations (good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant) and consciousness. The problem comes when one identifies with the conventional self as being more than the compilation of these five things (khandas).

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 that everything is an illusion.  What he said was that everything was dependent on conditions and empty of an eternal existence or eternal self.

Which is what I'm saying. That everything is mind-dependent, and minds don't exist. Infer the connections.

You mention in one of your posts that you want to become enlightened.  You will not make it if you do not read and analyze the actual words of Gotama.  You need to understand the teachings in order for mediation to be effective otherwise you will be just sitting on the floor to no purpose.   On another thread I provided some links that I think you will find interesting.

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.

[Quan Yin]

Ergo perception CAN'T happen.

It doesn't. Illusions aren't happening, they only appear that way.

I will stop worrying about specific mind products when you quit pretending they happen within nothingness.

They don't, they only appear to.

And therefore doesn't happen.

Indeed. You're getting it now.

Yet you claim this fictional mine DOES perceve itself.  You contradict your own bullshit.

No, because all mind workings are fictions, and the mind itself is a fiction, none of that is actually happening. It only appears that way. That is why I am calling it an illusion.

You didn't explain any of that.  You said 'nothing fractures into multiple nothingnesses, which also perceive other nothingnesses...'  Bullshit.  There is nothing or ther eis a mechanism.  Nothing "spiking" is not a mechanism, it's meaningless nothingness.

This is a well-established physical principle about voids. Read some cosmology. My explanation of the behavior of a void is certainly not controversial. Hawking new book even utilizes the same concept, in an attempt to rid science of the god of the gaps -- although he is unlikely to go as far (or is he?).

[epepke]

This is a well-established physical principle about voids. Read some cosmology. My explanation of the behavior of a void is certainly not controversial. Hawking new book even utilizes the same concept, in an attempt to rid science of the god of the gaps -- although he is unlikely to go as far (or is he?).

The difference is that Hawking understands it and can explain it.  You're just pattern-matching to support some vague hand-wavings.

[notself]

"Quan Yin"]

I don't understand how you can claim to be speaking about Buddhism without referencing what Gotama actually taught. You are making authoritative statements without reading the authority.  If you did not claim that what you were saying is what the Buddha taught, I wouldn't have a problem.

Well, this is a philosophy thread, the teachings of the Buddha is religion, anthropology, culture, and things of that nature. I am only interested in the philosophical implications of the concepts on this thread.

You are making statements about the philosophy without referencing the philosopher who first proposed them.  It would be clearer if you called your statements the philosophy of Quan Yin rather than claim it is Buddhism.

The Buddha did not say there is no self.  There most certainly is a conventional self.  What he taught was this self was not an independent, stand alone, unchanging thing.  He taught that the self is a concept that enables us to interact with the world.

Which is what I'm saying. Saying that "the self is a concept that enables us to interact with the world", along side the acceptance that it is not independent, and stand alone, necessitates that it is a mental fiction, itself.

It is not a mental fiction since it is dependent on the body as one of the aggregates.  You seem to be leaving form out of your calculation of what the self is.  Self is better described as a construct of the five aggregates. A construct is not necessarily a fiction or illusion.

[notself]

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?

[i_am_i]

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.

You're joking, right? "Propagating the dharma." You're just copying this crap out of a book, you must be. You're just reciting the words. I'm simply not convinced that you actually believe all this. No, I'm just not convinced.

I don't know what your game is but I'm just not convinced that it's Buddhism.

[PoopShoot]

It doesn't. Illusions aren't happening, they only appear that way.

How does it appear at all without perception taking place?

This is a well-established physical principle about voids. Read some cosmology. My explanation of the behavior of a void is certainly not controversial. Hawking new book even utilizes the same concept, in an attempt to rid science of the god of the gaps -- although he is unlikely to go as far (or is he?).

I don't take issue with your explanation of the behavior of a void, I take issue with you then stating 'the void then thinks it can think, but it actually can't think, it just thinks it can'.  Mechanism or you're just spewing woo.

At this point, since you've invoked cosmology, I assume you're talking about the effects of the uncertainty principle on a void.  In this case, you're really just overlaying mystical terminology onto string theory in order to try and make your personal bizarre version of nihilism seem scientific.  The problem is that you've made the science of it so ambiguous as to no longer be correct.

[Quan Yin]

One other thing, there is no word as enlightened in the Buddhist canon.  The accurate translation is awake [to how things are].  The European translators of the late 19th century thought that enlightenment sounded better.

I'm well aware. The Buddha is permanent, awaken, and beyond reincarnation, because he has awakened from the illusion of subjectivity. He woke the void, and saw that it was him. He is the void.

[Quan Yin]

This is a well-established physical principle about voids. Read some cosmology. My explanation of the behavior of a void is certainly not controversial. Hawking new book even utilizes the same concept, in an attempt to rid science of the god of the gaps -- although he is unlikely to go as far (or is he?).

The difference is that Hawking understands it and can explain it.  You're just pattern-matching to support some vague hand-wavings.

My description, of a void is pretty damn simplified. What else about it would you like clarified?

[PoopShoot]

This thread lacks substance.

[Asmodean]

This thread lacks substance.

You mean this thread is void and merely an illusion of our collectively schizophrenic minds, which are but illusions of... Nothing..?  

[notself]

One other thing, there is no word as enlightened in the Buddhist canon.  The accurate translation is awake [to how things are].  The European translators of the late 19th century thought that enlightenment sounded better.

I'm well aware. The Buddha is permanent, awaken, and beyond reincarnation, because he has awakened from the illusion of subjectivity. He woke the void, and saw that it was him. He is the void.

I get the feeling that you have been taken in by a quasi cult called SGI.  What a shame.  Since you refuse to answer my questions, I wont be responding to your posts.

[_7654_]

Interesting meme you have in there. While it may lack an "official" deity, it does retain all the constituting elements and functionality of one, and that includes many common dogmatic parts, and a few logical fallacies and other inconsistencies all so very common to many religions.

Also having brought quantum physics, space and void, and the personification of all these elements is a strong indicator as to where this belief system is going .... sorry, not buying it.

[Whitney]

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?

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.

Oh and it would be a good idea to not ignore my post...just saying.