All is void.

[pinkocommie]

QY has been issued the following warning after having already received an in thread reminder and given plenty of time to read it:

Please read the forum rules as well as my in thread message to you, preaching is not allowed at HAF.  If you can't engage in a philosophical discussion about the merit of the core basis of your belief then this isn't the place for you.

Zomgthanks!    I see very little difference between the way this thread is going and someone answering every question posed to them with some slight variation of "because God did it."

[PoopShoot]

Yes, because the mind is the illusion. It perceives itself.

Illusion cannot perceive itself.  Illusion cannot perceive.

We are not subjects, observing objects -- we are objects, observing subjectivity. All is mental fiction.

Subjects are inherently objects and objects are not nothing.  By your own philosophy, this statement is necessarily false, as you claim NOTHING is perceiving itself, yet this statement claims that we are OBJECTS perceiving nothing.  You can't have it both ways, so are we objects, or are we nothing?

[Quan Yin]

Illusion cannot perceive itself.  Illusion cannot perceive.

The void generates spikes of broken-symmetry, because of its unstable nature, these reverberations are perceived by themselves, but don't exist. The void is dreaming -- the only difference is, that minds are part of the dream itself.

Subjects are inherently objects and objects are not nothing.

Subjects don't exist and objects are the illusion of something, being generated by symmetry-breaking, in a void. The illusion of the division of nothingness, into somethingness.

By your own philosophy, this statement is necessarily false, as you claim NOTHING is perceiving itself, yet this statement claims that we are OBJECTS perceiving nothing.  You can't have it both ways, so are we objects, or are we nothing?

We are objective reality. We are all that exists. We are the void, the illusion of minds, and separateness, and everything else is generated by the reverberations of an unstable void. Both spiritualism and materialism are false. Both are mental fictions.

[PoopShoot]

these reverberations are perceived by themselves, but don't exist.

Internal inconsistencey.  They cannot perceive if they don't exist, neither can nothingness be perceived.

Subjects don't exist and objects are the illusion of something, being generated by symmetry-breaking, in a void. The illusion of the division of nothingness, into somethingness.

Still nothingness.  Still unable to perceive.  Still unable to be perceived.

We are objective reality. We are all that exists. We are the void, the illusion of minds, and separateness, and everything else is generated by the reverberations of an unstable void. Both spiritualism and materialism are false. Both are mental fictions.

And therefore unable to actually exist.  Therefore unable to perceive of BE perceived.

By what mechanism does nothingness perceive?  By what mechanism is nothingness perceived?

[Davin]

How do you know that the concept you're preaching here is not mental fiction?

I know that it is mental fiction. All is mental fiction. The fictions can still elude to the truth, and those fictions are methodologically outlined, in Buddhist philosophy, and practice.

I didn't ask you to restate that you know in a different way, I asked you how you know.

How did you get to this conclusion that there is no self and no mind?

The Buddha did, I didn't. I just realize its truth. The Buddha achieved it through ultimate introspection, and inferred the ultimate truth about the illusion from that. Through his ultimate introspection, he negated the self, and experienced pure existence. He then understood that there was no self, and all that that entailed.

So it's really just an appeal to authority, got it.

[hackenslash]

QY has been issued the following warning after having already received an in thread reminder and given plenty of time to read it:

Please read the forum rules as well as my in thread message to you, preaching is not allowed at HAF.  If you can't engage in a philosophical discussion about the merit of the core basis of your belief then this isn't the place for you.

Can we keep him a while longer please? It's late, and I require slumber and repast, but I'm not nearly done chewing on this one yet. Please don't suspend him before I return, which will be tomorrow, at which point I will address this and all other threads that await my response. (where's that prayer smiley?)

[notself]

Quan Yin,

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the actual teachings of Siddhattha Gotama.  This is one of the most often quoted suttas that is one of my personal favorites.

Kalama Sutta:

...'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" â€" then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then you should enter & remain in them.

I also like this one where the Buddha refuses to answer whether there was or was not a self.  It is known as the Ananda Sutta.

...Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self â€" were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self â€" were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self â€" were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self â€" were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

I look forward to the quotes of the Buddha that support your statements.

[Quan Yin]

Quan Yin,

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the actual teachings of Siddhattha Gotama.  This is one of the most often quoted suttas that is one of my personal favorites.

Kalama Sutta:

...'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" â€" then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then you should enter & remain in them.

The morale of the quotes are to become a student when you are learning, and to become a teacher, when you have learned. These are not about self-negation.

...Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Buddhism also has a rich history in support of ethical-lying. Although, this is just omission.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self â€" were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self â€" were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self â€" were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I â€" being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self â€" were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

I look forward to the quotes of the Buddha that support your statements.

This conversation can only take place in context, because both Buddha, and Ananda know (or at least accept) that there isn't a self.

What are is your take on my negative cosmology? I consider it based on philosophical Buddhism, rather than being authoritative quotes.

[Quan Yin]

I didn't ask you to restate that you know in a different way, I asked you how you know.

You asked me how I knew that it wasn't a mental fiction. I responded by telling you that it is -- kind of negates your question, perhaps you would like to reword it.

So it's really just an appeal to authority, got it.

I didn't appeal to authority, I merely gave credit, where credit is due. You asked me how I came to the conclusion. I didn't, the Buddha did. I can certainly support it, however.

[epepke]

I'm with you on that.  Nothing can't perceive nothing, there isnothing by which to perceive its nothingness.  That said, this is a discussion forum, so let's discuss.

I won't even try to prove things philosophically here, because all these words tend to eat themselves.

However, I do think that the idea of an enlightened one who accurately perceives reality who cannot even give a satisfactory account of the two-slit experiment is missing a few screws.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, many philosophical explanations are taken as deep when in fact they are not even superficial.

[Quan Yin]

Internal inconsistencey.  They cannot perceive if they don't exist, neither can nothingness be perceived.

That is because perception itself, is also a mental fiction. You are stuck on this. All mind stuff is fiction, including minds. This is not inconsistent at all, it is internally-consistent, internally-persistent, internally-existent, and internally-negating.

Because the mind itself is fiction, no mind products can be said to be real. So continuing to ask about specific mind products misses this entirely.

Still nothingness.  Still unable to perceive.  Still unable to be perceived.

Perception is a mental fiction.

And therefore unable to actually exist.

Precisely.

Therefore unable to perceive of BE perceived.

Precisely. This is an illusion.

By what mechanism does nothingness perceive?  By what mechanism is nothingness perceived?

The mind perceives, and the mind is a fiction. For this reason, your questions make no sense. I explained how it is a fiction, and by the mechanisms it arises, and what reality consists of which makes this possible. I don't know what else to tell you. You just keep restating the same questions, expecting different answers.

[notself]

This conversation can only take place in context, because both Buddha, and Ananda know (or at least accept) that there isn't a self.
What are is your take on my negative cosmology? I consider it based on philosophical Buddhism, rather than being authoritative quotes.

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.

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.  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 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.

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.

[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.

[PoopShoot]

That is because perception itself, is also a mental fiction. You are stuck on this. All mind stuff is fiction, including minds. This is not inconsistent at all, it is internally-consistent, internally-persistent, internally-existent, and internally-negating.

Because the mind itself is fiction, no mind products can be said to be real.

Ergo perception CAN'T happen.

So continuing to ask about specific mind products misses this entirely.

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

Precisely. This is an illusion.

And therefore doesn't happen.

The mind perceives, and the mind is a fiction. For this reason, your questions make no sense.

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

I explained how it is a fiction, and by the mechanisms it arises, and what reality consists of which makes this possible. I don't know what else to tell you. You just keep restating the same questions, expecting different answers.

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.

[Sophus]

What I'm seeing here is something is happen yet nothing exists.

I'm a Nihilist too but for entirely different reasons. I just think that we can't fully know we exist, but regardless, it is only reasonable to assume it de facto.
This type of Buddhist Nihilism, however, doesn't make any sense to me because.... are we to know that while our brain is a non existent noun it is still executing a verb?