Happy Atheist Forum

In this thread I will philosophically demonstrate, that all is empty, and void. The whole of existence is predicated on the Cartesian presumption cogito, ergo, sum: I think, therefore I am. All existence is predicated on I think, therefore I am. The Buddha, is however able to draw a unique inference, that Descartes is not. He has experienced Nirvana, the blowing-out. The suspending of subjectivity. Lack of self -- he awakens. From this, the Buddha knows because he has experienced, that he doesn't think and therefore, is not. The Buddha is above the gods, because he suspends all mental fictions, and the duality between subjectivity, and objectivity melts away, the Buddha witnesses the void, and they become one, reality awakens from the illusion, and glimpses itself, and it is void. The Buddha is the only thing that is permanent, and the only thing that exists, because he is the void. He is the ultimate awareness of himself, and thus reality, because there is no duality, and knowing one, necessarily leads to knowing the other.

There is no death, because there is no life -- all of the necessary components for the "mind" to sustain permanents from one moment to the next are mental fictions, objects of perception. The mind no more dies upon the ceasing of the function of the body, than it dies from one moment to the next. Reincarnation, is the actualization of subjective phenomena again. We are all one, and we are all the void. Existence is an illusion, generated by perception, which itself is part of the illusion as "perception" is a mental fiction, and all mental fictions do not exist. When the Buddha achieved Nirvana, and tripped away the duality of subjectivity, and objectivity, and become one with the void, he realized that the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained. It isn't real.

Objects of perception are unthinkable in absence of the perceiving mind, because of the nature of perception, it is fractured, split images, taken almost like a camera, and we interpret a type of picture show. This gives the illusion of solidity, form, substance, and non-contingency. In actuality, all of existence can be represented as spikes of broken-symmetry, in a sea of fluctuating potentiality, in a void. All is void.

Hi, Wosret.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Hi, Wosret.  

Yup, also Wosret on the Philosophy forum there. Using the same Avatar, signature, and everything.

Am I not allowed to be members of both at the same time? Or are you just letting me know that you are a fan?

All of my arguments are all still unique to me.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The Buddha is the only thing that is permanent, and the only thing that exists, because he is the void.

What about the love energy? Does that exist?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The Buddha is the only thing that is permanent, and the only thing that exists, because he is the void.

What about the love energy? Does that exist?

It's a mental fiction -- but it is a mental fiction that leads to the path to enlightenment, so it is objectively tethered. One ought to follow dharma, and the path to enlightenment, if they truly want to achieve objective truth, and ultimate reality. The path to enlightenment is compassion, peace, love, self-awareness, awareness of the world, and detachment. The causes of suffering are attachment, self-ignorance, anger, greed, and delusion, because they so distinctly deviate from the path to enlightenment.

The Buddha flipped everything around. People think of themselves as subjects, observing objects, but it is entirely the inverse. We are objects, observing subjectivity. Observing an illusion. Introspection becomes outrospection, and outrospection, introspection. We can understand the ultimate truth about reality by learning things about ourselves, and we can learn the ultimate truth about ourselves, by learning things about reality. Because there is no duality, all is one. The mind is an illusion, it doesn't exist. All is void.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The causes of suffering are attachment, self-ignorance, anger, creed, and delusion, because they so distinctly deviate from the path to enlightenment.

Does the path to enlightenment exist?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The causes of suffering are attachment, self-ignorance, anger, creed, and delusion, because they so distinctly deviate from the path to enlightenment.

Does the path to enlightenment exist?

Most definitely. When one achieves the suspending of all mental fictions, and the duality between subjectivity, and objectivity melts away, they experience lack of self, the blowing-out of all cognitive facilities. The mind ceases to exist, and they awaken the void, from the illusion. They become reality, and experience the only objective truth. They escape the illusion, and see only truth. Everything else is impermanent because they are contingent on mental fictions, but the Buddha is permanent, the Buddha is eternal, and above the gods -- because he is reality itself.

One achieves enlightenment when they experience Nirvana, and understand what it means.

You did not demonstrate anything I am afraid, though your spiel certainly sounds like it would go down well after a few joints.

If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The causes of suffering are attachment, self-ignorance, anger, creed, and delusion, because they so distinctly deviate from the path to enlightenment.

Does the path to enlightenment exist?

Most definitely. When one achieves the suspending of all mental fictions, and the duality between subjectivity, and objectivity melts away, they experience lack of self, the blowing-out of all cognitive facilities. The mind ceases to exist, and they awaken the void, from the illusion. They become reality, and experience the only objective truth. They escape the illusion, and see only truth. Everything else is impermanent because they are contingent on mental fictions, but the Buddha is permanent, the Buddha is eternal, and above the gods -- because he is reality itself.

One achieves enlightenment when they experience Nirvana, and understand what it means.

Okay, so the path to enlightenment exists, reality exists, objective truth exists, and the Buddha, of course, exists. That's four things that definitely exist. No, wait, the duality between subjectivity and objectivity exists. That's five things that exist.

(Please, no Spanish Inquisition jokes.)

Now are there any other things that exist that we need to know about before we go on, or is it only those five?

If all is void how does form arise?

Quote from: "Dretlin"If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

We don't know "the way it is", we only know what it appears to be, in an illusion. Only the Buddha knows the truth about reality, and himself.

The subject is not observing objective reality, objective reality is observing subjectivity. The Buddha suspends this perpetual illusory observation, and experiences direct objectivity. The Buddha knows more than anyone else about the truth about himself, and reality -- and following the dharma, and the path to enlightenment relieves all pragmatic concerns as well. It promotes peace, love, compassion for all beings, self-awareness, detachment, honesty, and knowing reality.

Quote from: "penfold"If all is void how does form arise?

It's an illusion of perception, and illusions by their very nature don't exist.

QuoteIt's an illusion of perception, and illusions by their very nature don't exist.

Well then from where does illusion arise?

Void is void, what process leads us to the perception of form (illusion or otherwise)?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Okay, so the path to enlightenment exists, reality exists, objective truth exists, and the Buddha, of course, exists. That's four things that definitely exist. No, wait, the duality between subjectivity and objectivity exists. That's five things that exist.

No, no. All are mental fictions, only the void exists. Nirvana is the objective experience of the void awakening, and realizing its true nature -- and the truth about its nature is an objective truth -- but all of these are also mental fictions, and don't themselves exist -- only the void exists, and the Buddha exists because he is the void.

Quote from: "penfold"

QuoteIt's an illusion of perception, and illusions by their very nature don't exist.

Well then from where does illusion arise?

Void is void, what process leads us to the perception of form (illusion or otherwise)?

The illusion arises from spikes of broken-symmetry, in an endless sea of quantum potentiality, in a void. All is void.

All are one -- all dualities are mental fictions, all is void.

QuoteThe illusion arises from spikes of broken-symmetry, in an endless sea of quantum potentiality, in a void. All is void.

All due respect but a 'sea of quantum potentiality' is not the same thing as void. Void by definition does not have potential, potential is a function of form.

^ also 'quantum' means division into smallest possible parts, void cannot be divided.

Cogito ergo sum doesn't presume that the universe is a manifestation of one's mind, as implied in the OP.  If the Buddha doesn't think, he'd be unable to think up the thins attributed to him.  Everything else in the OP hinges on these.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Okay, so the path to enlightenment exists, reality exists, objective truth exists, and the Buddha, of course, exists. That's four things that definitely exist. No, wait, the duality between subjectivity and objectivity exists. That's five things that exist.

No, no. All are mental fictions, only the void exists. Nirvana is the objective experience of the void awakening, and realizing its true nature -- and the truth about its nature is an objective truth -- but all of these are also mental fictions, and don't themselves exist -- only the void exists, and the Buddha exists because he is the void.

Well, but hold on a minute and have a look at this:

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Does the path to enlightenment exist?

Most definitely.

But now you're saying that the path to enlightment does not exist, it's only a mental function. In fact, only two things exist, those things being the void and Buddha. Have I got that right? Only those two things exist and nothing else, correct?

Quote from: "penfold"^ also 'quantum' means division into smallest possible parts, void cannot be divided.

That is why all is void. The spikes of broken-symmetry create the illusion of division, and the illusion is the object of perception. It's all made of nothing at all. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Because their isn't. Something, in its entirety is illusory. The void is dreaming. We are the dream.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Cogito ergo sum doesn't presume that the universe is a manifestation of one's mind, as implied in the OP.  If the Buddha doesn't think, he'd be unable to think up the thins attributed to him.  Everything else in the OP hinges on these.

That isn't implied by the OP. I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status. The Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "Dretlin"If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

Only the Buddha knows the truth about reality, and himself.

The Buddha - is dead.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status. The Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

What is the Buddha?

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The spikes of broken-symmetry create the illusion of division, and the illusion is the object of perception. It's all made of nothing at all. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Because their isn't. Something, in its entirety is illusory. The void is dreaming. We are the dream.

You have not actually answered my question. What gives rise to the illusion of division? Illusion itself presupposes a division. For that matter 'broken-symmetry' implies division.

Quote from: "i_am_i"But now you're saying that the path to enlightment does not exist, it's only a mental function.

I thought you were asking me whether or not I thought enlightenment was achievable. Forgive the misunderstanding. No, the path to enlightenment holds on objective, non-contingent ontology, it is a mental fiction, like everything else -- but it is a mental fiction, that alludes to the truth.

QuoteIn fact, only two things exist, those things being the void and Buddha. Have I got that right? Only those two things exist and nothing else, correct?

The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

Okay, but what exactly is this Buddha you keep talking about?

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "Dretlin"If you believe reality or our perception of it is an illusion, which I am not suggesting you do, or if you question its nature, we still have no choice but to accept it the way it is.

Only the Buddha knows the truth about reality, and himself.

The Buddha - is dead.

All thinks are impermanent, because all things necessary for the mind to sustain permanence from one moment to the next is a mental fiction, one no more dies upon the ceasing of the function of the brain than they do from moment to moment. There is no death, because there is no life. This is all mental fiction. There is only void.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"That isn't implied by the OP. I objected to Descartes' presumption that cognition demonstrates ontological status.

If I am not, then how do I think?

QuoteThe Buddha demonstrates that it does not.

I have yet to see this demonstration.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

Okay, but what exactly is this Buddha you keep talking about?

The Buddha, is the awakened one. He has achieved ultimate truth about reality, and himself. He strips away all mental fictions, and experiences lack of self. He realizes that the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained. His subjectivity is suspended, and experiences reality directly, and he is reality, and he is void. The void awakens from mental fiction, and bares witness to itself.

"The Buddha" is permanent, changeless, and free from all fiction, because he is the void, he is existence itself. He understands this, and has experienced it first hand. Buddha nature is realizing his cognitive phenomena again.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"All thinks are impermanent, because all things necessary for the mind to sustain permanence from one moment to the next is a mental fiction, one no more dies upon the ceasing of the function of the brain than they do from moment to moment. There is no death, because there is no life. This is all mental fiction. There is only void.

Unless you elaborate on "void", your musing are near meaningless.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If I am not, then how do I think?

You don't, there is no self. This is an illusion of perception. All thought is mental fiction, and "thinking" itself is mental fiction -- because it exists only in mental space.

QuoteI have yet to see this demonstration.

It must be personally experienced. One cannot present truths, using only fictions. This is an approximation. The Buddha demonstrates it by virtue of obtaining enlightenment, and his esoteric knowledge of reality. When the Buddhist Doctrines are examined, it is clean that the Buddha did achieve Nirvana through meditation -- it best explains the inferences about himself, and reality that he drew from it.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"You don't, there is no self. This is an illusion of perception. All thought is mental fiction, and "thinking" itself is mental fiction -- because it exists only in mental space.

Oh.  Well in that case, how do I think?

Quote from: "Dretlin"Unless you elaborate on "void", your musing are near meaningless.

A void as a synonym for emptiness, nothingness, lack of content, form, duality, solidity, temporality, cause, effect, contingency, quality, and all mental fictions. Empty of all objects of perception -- consistent of one, unified, nothingness.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Oh.  Well in that case, how do I think?

You, don't think. Subjectivity thinks, and subjectivity, is an illusion. We are not subjects observing objects, we are objects observing subjectivity. We are spikes of broken-symmetry, in a sea of quantum potentiality, in a void. We are the void, all else is made up of mental fictions, caused by the illusion of division from nothing.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"The Buddha is the void, he has crossed over from the illusion, and awakened the void. They are one, and they are void.

Okay, but what exactly is this Buddha you keep talking about?

The Buddha, is the awakened one. He has achieved ultimate truth about reality, and himself. He strips away all mental fictions, and experiences lack of self. He realizes that the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained. His subjectivity is suspended, and experiences reality directly, and he is reality, and he is void. The void awakens from mental fiction, and bares witness to itself.

"The Buddha" is permanent, changeless, and free from all fiction, because he is the void, he is existence itself. He understands this, and has experienced it first hand. Buddha nature is realizing his cognitive phenomena again.

If the Buddha is all that then why is he a "he?" Why does he have a gender?

And my second question is this: Where did you hear about this Buddha? If you didn't discover him yourself then did someone tell you about him? Did you read about him in a book?

Quote from: "i_am_i"If the Buddha is all that then why is he a "he?" Why does he have a gender?

He doesn't, he's a void. That's a mental fiction. All, is mental fiction. One cannot represent the truth using only fictions, this is an approximation of the ultimate truth. Only Nirvana is objective knowledge, through experience.

QuoteAnd my second question is this: Where did you hear about this Buddha? If you didn't discover him yourself then did someone tell you about him? Did you read about him in a book?

I don't remember where I heard about him -- but I have been a vegan for three years, and vegetarian for two years prior to that, and a long standing atheist, and fan of philosophy, and science. I just kind of arbitrarily decided to begin studying the philosophy of Buddhism, it was on my too do list for sometime. I had absolutely no expectation for it to contain the ultimate truth about existence, and reality -- as well as the correct path in life to take... fictions, tethered on the only objective truth.

It explains everything.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"If the Buddha is all that then why is he a "he?" Why does he have a gender?

He doesn't, he's a void. That's a mental fiction. All, is mental fiction. One cannot represent the truth using only fictions, this is an approximation of the ultimate truth. Only Nirvana is objective knowledge, through experience.

QuoteAnd my second question is this: Where did you hear about this Buddha? If you didn't discover him yourself then did someone tell you about him? Did you read about him in a book?

I don't remember where I heard about him -- but I have been a vegan for three years, and vegetarian for two years prior to that, and a long standing atheist, and fan of philosophy, and science. I just kind of arbitrarily decided to begin studying the philosophy of Buddhism, it was on my too do list for sometime. I had absolutely no expectation for it to contain the ultimate truth about existence, and reality -- as well as the correct path in life to take... fictions, tethered on the only objective truth.

It explains everything.

Well, here's what I think. I think all this Buddha balderdash of yours is a mental fiction. But hey, welcome to the forum!

Woohoo! He said 'quantum'

What do I win?

Ready to be schooled on quantum mechanics now, the way Deepity Chopra was by Leonard Mlodinow?

Quote from: "Quan Yin"You, don't think.

Wrong emphasis.  Now, explain how I think.  I've emphasized the key points on which you should focus.

I don't see how a being can be one with a void nor how a void can contain something like existence even in the sense of it creating the illusion of existence.

Not to mention that even claiming that reality as an illusion takes a greater leap of faith than simply assuming that reality is, well, reality.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't see how a being can be one with a void nor how a void can contain something like existence even in the sense of it creating the illusion of existence.

Spot on!

QuoteNot to mention that even claiming that reality as an illusion takes a greater leap of faith than simply assuming that reality is, well, reality.

The refutation of solipsism in a nutshell. Even the illusion requires that something is real, or what is it that's experiencing the illusion?

You know for not being, and only being a void and a mind fiction - this toothache I have is a bitch of a NOTHING... how do I experience this pain in void of nothing, and if it's all mental fiction, then how the hell do I stop having this mental fiction and make my noexistent tooth ache STOP?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"You, don't think.

Wrong emphasis.  Now, explain how I think.  I've emphasized the key points on which you should focus.

It's an illusion. You don't.

Quote from: "Martin TK"You know for not being, and only being a void and a mind fiction - this toothache I have is a bitch of a NOTHING... how do I experience this pain in void of nothing, and if it's all mental fiction, then how the hell do I stop having this mental fiction and make my noexistent tooth ache STOP?

By following the path of the Buddha. The middle path, which emphasizes doing the things you want to, just not indulging yourself. So go to a doctor, and get that fixed.

I realise that utter demolition of your points is not pleasant, especially when you hold them close enough to be classified as 'belief' (an entirely useless concept, IMO), but a response would be nice, not least because I spent a fair bit of time in the evisceration of your nonsense. A simple acknowledgement of having no answer would be sufficient.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"It's an illusion. You don't.

Then by what mechanism does the illusion of thinking take place?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"It's an illusion. You don't.

Then by what mechanism does the illusion of thinking take place?

It is caused by the inherent instability of nothingness. Symmetry-breaks, and casts a shadow, which we perceive as something -- and we are part of the shadows -- when it is only the shadow of a fluctuation, it is the illusion of the division of nothing, caused by its inherent instability.

By what mechanism is the perception taking place?

Quote from: "hackenslash"I realise that utter demolition of your points is not pleasant, especially when you hold them close enough to be classified as 'belief' (an entirely useless concept, IMO), but a response would be nice, not least because I spent a fair bit of time in the evisceration of your nonsense. A simple acknowledgement of having no answer would be sufficient.

Ditto on a response to my post.

I think you also still owe someone an explanation of what a void is...you were asked at least twice with no clear response.  This is a discussion forum after all, not a tell us what you believe forum.

Looks like we got ourselves a Buddhist heah.  An unusually intelligent one who may be able slightly to apprehend the idea that the total energy of the universe is zero to within the uncertainty principle, but still characteristically of the type, able and willing to blur these otherwise interesting ideas into the banal, vapid, and smugly stupid.  I think I'll pass on the bong-hit "enlightenment" and stick to being able not only to calculate but also perceive entangled quantum amplitudes.

Quote from: "epepke"Looks like we got ourselves a Buddhist heah.  An unusually intelligent one who may be able slightly to apprehend the idea that the total energy of the universe is zero to within the uncertainty principle, but still characteristically of the type, able and willing to blur these otherwise interesting ideas into the banal, vapid, and smugly stupid.  I think I'll pass on the bong-hit "enlightenment" and stick to being able not only to calculate but also perceive entangled quantum amplitudes.

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.

An illusion requires a perceiver.  If the perceiver is not there, then who is fooled by the illusion?

Reality is not an illusion by definition. Reality is all we by consensus define as real - it is a concept, not a mathematial formula or natural phenomenon.

Nothing and everything have their areas of definition, which you've failed to specify, as does void.

If you are claiming that, philosophically, our subjective everything is cosmic nothing, yes, I agree. However, meditating does not in any way make you see any kind of "objective truth"

After reading this thread I would like to point out that Quan Yin is talking about Buddhism as it is practiced in the Northern schools of Chan, Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren Buddhism.  

The concepts of life as an illusion and all things being one do not appear in the oldest versions of what the Buddha taught.  He actually taught that everything is dependent, nothing is without change, and suffering caused by clinging and aversion can be eliminated.  I do not intend to get into a dispute with Quan Yin about Buddhist beliefs but if anyone is interested in reading the actual suttas, here is a link to an index of topics and the related teachings.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html)

Quote from: "PoopShoot"By what mechanism is the perception taking place?

"Taking place" is a mental fiction. Time, continuity, and permanence to any degree are reliant on mental fictions. No perception is taking place this is an illusion of perception itself. The mind observes itself, and not reality. The faint after images of reality give the impression of somethingness, where all is void. Because the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained, it is also self-contingent, and doesn't exist in reality for this reason.

All are mental fictions, including the mind itself.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"By what mechanism is the perception taking place?

"Taking place" is a mental fiction. Time, continuity, and permanence to any degree are reliant on mental fictions. No perception is taking place this is an illusion of perception itself. The mind observes itself, and not reality. The faint after images of reality give the impression of somethingness, where all is void. Because the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained, it is also self-contingent, and doesn't exist in reality for this reason.

All are mental fictions, including the mind itself.

I'm trying to figure out whether I like this quote or not.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't see how a being can be one with a void nor how a void can contain something like existence even in the sense of it creating the illusion of existence.

There are no beings, this is illusory. To say that we are "one" is to recognize that all dualities, and separation are mental fictions, and mental fiction itself, is a mental fiction. Because there are no selves, we are objective reality. We are that void. Subjectivity is an illusion -- it is what doesn't exist. All of existence as we know it is predicated on the ultimate fiction.

QuoteNot to mention that even claiming that reality as an illusion takes a greater leap of faith than simply assuming that reality is, well, reality.

This depends. The Buddha didn't take a leap of self, because he was able to negate the self through meditation. Science negates the self for me. Science reveals through examination of the objects of perception, that they are unthinkable in absence of the perceiving mind -- it further demonstrates that there is no self, no mind, by being incapable of reconciling the mind body duality.

Quote from: "Quan Yin""Mind" is itself, a mental fiction.

If the mind is an illusion, then what is there to think the thought that the mind is an illusion?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"An illusion requires a perceiver.  If the perceiver is not there, then who is fooled by the illusion?

The mind is perceiving, and is also a mental fiction.

Quote from: "Quan Yin""Taking place" is a mental fiction. Time, continuity, and permanence to any degree are reliant on mental fictions. No perception is taking place this is an illusion of perception itself.

The flaw in this follows:

QuoteThe mind observes itself, and not reality. The faint after images of reality give the impression of somethingness, where all is void. Because the mind is self-initiated, self-perceived, and self-contained, it is also self-contingent, and doesn't exist in reality for this reason.

All are mental fictions, including the mind itself.

If the mind itself doesn't exist, the mind itself can't examine itself.

Quote from: "notself"]The concepts of life as an illusion and all things being one do not appear in the oldest versions of what the Buddha taught.

That's nonsense, Hinduism is predicated on similar ideas, and Buddhism comes out of that tradition.

QuoteHe actually taught that everything is dependent, nothing is without change, and suffering caused by clinging and aversion can be eliminated.

This is splitting hairs. His affirmation that all is contingent merely eludes to his knowledge that all is contingent on mental fiction -- and because he experienced Nirvana, he also knows that the mind doesn't exist.

QuoteI do not intend to get into a dispute with Quan Yin about Buddhist beliefs but if anyone is interested in reading the actual suttas, here is a link to an index of topics and the related teachings.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html)

I don't really what to discuss that either -- but the thrust of this is ubiquitous forwarded by all Buddhas. The ones that don't are clearly just posers.  

I'm more interested in spreading the ultimate truth around than anything, really. Just shows how I'm not Buddha.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If the mind itself doesn't exist, the mind itself can't examine itself.

That's because it doesn't. "Examination" is mental fiction. There is no self, no mind. It only appears that way.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Quan Yin""Mind" is itself, a mental fiction.

If the mind is an illusion, then what is there to think the thought that the mind is an illusion?

The mind is thinking that, and the mind itself doesn't exist. It is an illusion, generated by itself, which is predicated on the appearance of division, in a void.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Quan Yin""Mind" is itself, a mental fiction.

If the mind is an illusion, then what is there to think the thought that the mind is an illusion?

The mind is thinking that, and the mind itself doesn't exist. It is an illusion, generated by itself, which is predicated on the appearance of division, in a void.

Right.  The mind doesn't exist, ergo there's nothing to perceive the illusion.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If the mind itself doesn't exist, the mind itself can't examine itself.

That's because it doesn't. "Examination" is mental fiction. There is no self, no mind. It only appears that way.

Without which "examination" the mental fiction can't exist.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Right.  The mind doesn't exist, ergo there's nothing to perceive the illusion.

Yes, because the mind is the illusion. It perceives itself. We are not subjects, observing objects -- we are objects, observing subjectivity. All is mental fiction.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Without which "examination" the mental fiction can't exist.

It doesn't. It's an illusion.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If the mind itself doesn't exist, the mind itself can't examine itself.

That's because it doesn't. "Examination" is mental fiction. There is no self, no mind. It only appears that way.

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

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

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Right.  The mind doesn't exist, ergo there's nothing to perceive the illusion.

Yes, because the mind is the illusion. It perceives itself. We are not subjects, observing objects -- we are objects, observing subjectivity. All is mental fiction.

It goes without saying that the not-real cannot perform any action at all, be it observing subjectivity, perceive itself, or be fooled.  So yeah, you can keep this thought, I'll pass.

Quote from: "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.

QuoteHow 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.

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

QuotePlease 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.

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

QuotePlease 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."

Quote from: "Quan Yin"Yes, because the mind is the illusion. It perceives itself.

Illusion cannot perceive itself.  Illusion cannot perceive.

QuoteWe 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?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

QuoteSubjects 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.

QuoteBy 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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

QuoteSubjects 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.

QuoteWe 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?

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

QuoteHow 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.

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

QuotePlease 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?)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq301%2Fhackenslash_album%2Feusa_pray.gif&hash=f6dd532fe2d71e1b8d13bb08dae4e1a75b22b65a)

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:

Quote...'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.

Quote...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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote...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.

QuoteThen, 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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

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

Perception is a mental fiction.

QuoteAnd therefore unable to actually exist.

Precisely.

QuoteTherefore unable to perceive of BE perceived.

Precisely. This is an illusion.

QuoteBy 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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuotePrecisely. This is an illusion.

And therefore doesn't happen.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteI 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.

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?  

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

Quote from: "notself"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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Ergo perception CAN'T happen.

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

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

They don't, they only appear to.

QuoteAnd therefore doesn't happen.

Indeed. You're getting it now.

QuoteYet 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.

QuoteYou 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?).

Quote from: "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.

Quote"Quan Yin"]

Quote from: "notself"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.

Quote

QuoteThe 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.

Continuation:
Quan Yin said

QuoteThe 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:

QuoteI'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?

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"It doesn't. Illusions aren't happening, they only appear that way.

How does it appear at all without perception taking place?

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "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?

This thread lacks substance.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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..?  

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "notself"Continuation:
Quan Yin said

QuoteThe 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:

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

Quote from: "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?

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?

QuoteIt'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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

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

Quote from: "Quan Yin"No... I have both supported the lack of mind, and that all is void.

Reiteration is not support.

QuoteIs 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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

QuoteYour 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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

QuoteObjects 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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteFrom 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.

QuoteNegating 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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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.

QuoteNothingness 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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This thread lacks substance.

Everything does.

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

This has not quite been done yet.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Poorly worded string theory.

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

QuoteFrom 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.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteEvidence 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.

QuoteEvidence 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteBut there is correlation, hence independent verification.

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

QuoteThis 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.

QuoteThere 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind)

Quote from: "Dretlin"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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"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?

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.

Quote from: "i_am_i"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?

QuoteWait, 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.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"

Quote from: "i_am_i"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?

Oh brother. Look, whatever it is that you're full of please don't bottle it and put it on the market. I'd be worried about it getting into the hands of children.

We are all one -- doesn't that invigorate you? We are objective reality. Ignore mental fictions.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"We are all one -- doesn't that invigorate you? We are objective reality. Ignore mental fictions.

No, it doesn't in the least little bit invigorate me. What invigorates me is living, being alive, being a human being in this very strange life in this very strange universe. Not knowing and not needing to know what it all means is invigorating. Meeting head-on the next situation that comes up and doing it very well invigorates me.

Smoking a rack of ribs until the meat falls off the bones, that invigorates me. Reading a great book, hearing great music, observing my fellow human beings going about their day-to-day lives and connnecting with those human beings in a meaningful way, that invigorates me.

All this talk about voids and non-existence...no, I don't get anything invigorating from that. There's just too much life to live, too much fun to have, too many fascinating things to experience, to sit around pondering about what it all means.

This is where you fall down, this is where all religions fall down, and yours is very much a religion. Whenever I hear someone say that this life doesn't matter, that human beings don't matter, that our minds and what we do with them don't matter, then I smell the stink of the breath from the plague that is the life's blood of religion.

It would suit religions very well if it were true that human beings don't matter, that their lives don't matter, but it simply doesn't work out that way. Humanity is nothing to be taken lightly. Religion takes humanity lightly and that, to me, is where religion falls down.

Quote from: "Quan Yin"We are all one -- doesn't that invigorate you?

Does this mean Bono is the Buddha reincarnated?

[youtube:2xrji9gl]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqyW1XQrNhk[/youtube:2xrji9gl]

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Quan Yin"We are all one -- doesn't that invigorate you?

Does this mean Bono is the Buddha reincarnated?

[youtube:1rjltjc4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqyW1XQrNhk[/youtube:1rjltjc4]

With the available information, yes.  

At least we understand that OP's mind is an illusion.  Of that, we have hard evidence.

I am reminded of two Beatles songs.

QuoteI Am The Walrus: I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

and

QuoteTomorrow Never Knows: Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream
It is not dying, it is not dying
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void
It is shining, it is shining.

It's been admitted that John was high on acid while writing the track.

I see now that I was wrong in my formulation. I was stuck on negation, and only seeing half of the puzzle. It is false to say that there is no self, or that subjective reality is an illusion. One must hold the dissonance in their mind -- I was not seeing past the duality of subjectivity, and objectivity -- it is that things are simultaneously empty, and substantive. Nothingness, and  somethingness. Top-down, and bottom-up. Individuals, and one. The spike of symmetry breaks, and goes forward in time, complexity reaches the point of the emergence of minds, and they rationalize backwards in time. It is holistic, and cyclical. It is self-contained.

Reality in a nutshell.

That sounds about like a colloquial version of string theory.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"That sounds about like a colloquial version of string theory.

Then you misunderstand one of us. My speculations are metaphysical, string theory is not.

Metaphysics is mental fiction.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Metaphysics is mental fiction.

Lol, touche.

Sounds like horseshit to me.