Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Soul_of_Shu]

Inspired by a spin-off discussion in the "I'm a materialist" thread, I'm thinking it might be interesting to once again inquire into a debate, dating back into the old MS forum, based on the following exchange between Ashvin and Peter Jones, as to whether or not formlessness precedes form as an uncaused, irreducible ontic state, existing exclusive of form, which gives rise to form at some point of origin. Or, as Scott Roberts posits with his mumorphism, formlessness><form is an inextricable dynamic as Consciousness, thus being the uncaused, irreducible, fundamental ontic state ~ or to put it more poetically, what Adyashanti has called 'emptiness dancing'. For the sake of reference, here's the discussion so far ...

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:27 pm
There is nothing in BK's idealism which rules out continuity of form or existence of real 'objects',

Peter Jones wrote:
Well, it might depend on how you are using 'real'. Metaphysically-speaking there would be no such thing as objects. They would not be truly real. Nor would time, so even continuity is reduced for an ultimate analysis.

The point being that form has an origin, and this must be prior to form.

AshvinP wrote:
That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible. Also if time is not "truly real" how can we even speak of an ontic "origin" and one "prior to" another?

Peter Jones wrote:
Ah, but you're assuming that what is formless has to exist in the same way as forms. But these forms do not really exist. There is endless discussion of this in the literature.

“Sometime I have said that there is a power in the soul that an alone be said to be free. Sometimes I have said that it is a refuge of the spirit and sometimes I have said that it is a light of the spirit. Sometimes I have said that it is a spark. But now I say that it is neither this nor that, and yet still it is a something which is as far above this or that as heaven is above earth. ….It is free of all names and is devoid of all forms, quite empty and free as god is empty and free within himself. It is so entirely one and simple, as God is one and simple, that no one can see inside it in a particular manner…If you could see this with my heart, then you would understand what it is I am saying : for it is true, and the truth itself tells it…. What I have told you is true, as truth itself is my witness and I pledge my soul on it.”

~ Meister Eckhart – Sermon 13

"He is devoid of form;
‘Tis your own form which is reflected back to you."

~ Jalaluddin Rumi

“As the spider weaves its thread out of its own mouth, plays with it and then withdraws it again into itself, so the eternal unchangeable Lord, who is without form, without attributes, who is absolute knowledge and absolute bliss, evolves the whole universe out of Himself, plays with it for a while, and again withdraws it into Himself.”

~ Srimad Bhagavatum

Clearly thinking activity cannot exist without thoughts. Not sure what you mean by this point.

In metaphysics the word 'prior' should not imply temporality. The issue is ontological, the question of what is prior to what in the manifestation of forms. A world of forms cannot arise from a form. For the nondual view the Ultimate is prior to the categories of thought, or 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' as de Cusa puts it, so beyond form. Thus Spencer Brown, explaining the origin of forms in his Laws of Forrm, , likens the Ultimate to a blank sheet of paper.

For a way into this idea consider Kant's formless 'thing in itself', which is defined as 'not a thing'. .

AshvinP wrote:
The only way to make sense of the above mystical references in a formal philosophical way is for God to be a polarity of formlessness and form, two poles of Being-becoming which constitute each other as they work through and against each other. The Eastern view tends to prioritize the formlessness of Reality while the Western prioritizes its forms, and the Western mystical perspective seeks a healthy balance between the two. Neither pole is any less "real" than the other. And, if we reflect on idealist metaphysics, we also see that must be the case for idealism to remain consistent. Formless mental activity cannot be more "real" than thought-forms and vice versa.


And to further inspire more discussion of this, a recent post from Thoughts-on-Thinking might be considered pertinent ...

[Eugene I]

That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible.

I can testify from my personal experience that it is possible. And any advanced (and many not so advanced) yoga, Advaita and Buddhist meditators would also confirm that. Returning to the formless state, at least in Buddhism, is not the aim of the spiritual path. The formless state is only useful because it facilitates the experiential recognition of the formless fundamental: whatever experience is left in the formless state - this is the experience of the fundamental which is prior to forms. But many people come to such realization without meditating in the formless state, so it is not really necessary.

Let me give you a Buddhist perspective on the topic. One quote to add to the above quotes is from Buddha:
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned." (Iti. 2.16)

This is perhaps the first "ontological" statement in the human history (made 600 yrs BC). Yet, in Buddhism there was never an assumption that the formless state ever preceded the unfolding of forms in time. What Buddha meant is that the "unborn" is an ontic fundamental that allows the forms to exist. If there would be no such fundamental, there would be no way for forms to exist at all. So, this is not a temporal precedence, but rather a causal one. And he further says that the direct experiential knowledge of this fundamental makes the emancipation of our spiritual activity possible, because the "unborn" fundamental is unconditioned by any forms, so by directly knowing our own Being AS the fundamental we also acquire the direct knowledge of our fundamental freedom from conditioning by forms. "Emancipation" means not shunning all forms and remaining in a formless state, but becoming unconditioned by circumstances of forms.

And what is this fundamental "unborn"? Buddha points to the Awareness:
"Awareness without surface, without end, radiant all around, is not experienced through the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All.
— MN 49"

Anyone who recognized the Awareness can easily see that it is by itself formless, yet is inseparable from any forms when they arise. It is also unaffected by any forms and unconditioned by them. It is unborn and unfabricated because it is impossible to witness any beginning, fabricating or change of Awareness. Awareness is also empty of any "substance", "self" or "entity", it is just what it is the way it is directly experienced: pure and luminous experiential knowing . That is why it is also referred as "emptiness" in Buddhism. And when the forms appear, it is inseparable from them: you cannot separate a form that you experience from the experiencing/awareness of it. Therefore, whenever forms arise, the forms are no other than emptiness/awareness, and the emptiness/awareness is no other than these forms. Yet, it is possible for the Awareness to exist in a formless state, which is confirmed by meditative experiences of many people. There is also a lot of NDE accounts describing the experience of the formless "Void" state (I gave the quotes somewhere on the old forum).

In his statement of tetralemic polarity Scott took the phrase from the Heart Sutra "emptiness is no other than form" out from its Buddhist context and interpreted as if emptiness fundamental can not exist without forms. But what was meant in the sutra is that emptiness is no other that forms when the forms arise.

[AshvinP]

That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible.

I can testify from my personal experience that it is possible. And any advanced (and many not so advanced) yoga, Advaita and Buddhist meditators would also confirm that. Returning to the formless state, at least in Buddhism, is not the aim of the spiritual path. The formless state is only useful because it facilitates the experiential recognition of the formless fundamental: whatever experience is left in the formless state - this is the experience of the fundamental which is prior to forms. But many people come to such realization without meditating in the formless state, so it is not really necessary.

I think you, myself, Scott and Cleric have already beaten this horse to death on a number of different threads, old forum and new. Basically it comes down to whether we accept what you experience in the deep meditative state is without all form because formlessness is the fundamental reality or because you have chosen not to go any further towards the "two forces of one power". Related to that, it comes down to whether we accept there is a fundamental discontinuity between the primal mode of being and our normal everyday spiritual activity of thinking. I don't accept that and such an assertion should give any idealist-monist a lot of pause.

[Eugene I]

Related to that, it comes down to whether we accept there is a fundamental discontinuity between the primal mode of being and our normal everyday spiritual activity of thinking. I don't accept that and such an assertion should give any idealist-monist a lot of pause.

Right, you are free not to accept that. There are anti-ontological philosophical positions, and they have right to exist. Yet, idealism (BK's included) is an ontology and implies the existence of an ontic fundamental (of consciousness). Your favorite Heidegger was also an ontologist ("'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings.").

In any ontology the discontinuity you mentioned is "ontological". Here is an analogy: gold is a "substance". It can take many forms, and when it does, the form (a "thing" made of gold) is no other than gold, and gold is no other than that "thing". However, no form of gold would ever exist without the existence of gold itself, the existence of gold makes the golden forms/"thigs" possible to exist. So, the existence of golden forms is conditional on the existence of gold.

[AshvinP]

Related to that, it comes down to whether we accept there is a fundamental discontinuity between the primal mode of being and our normal everyday spiritual activity of thinking. I don't accept that and such an assertion should give any idealist-monist a lot of pause.

Right, you are free not to accept that. There are anti-ontological philosophical positions, and they have right to exist. Yet, idealism (BK's included) is an ontology and implies the existence of an ontic fundamental (of consciousness). Your favorite Heidegger was also an ontologist ("'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings.").

In any ontology the discontinuity you mentioned is "ontological". Here is an analogy: gold is a "substance". It can take many forms, and when it does, the form (a "thing" made of gold) is no other than gold, and gold is no other than that "thing". However, no form of gold would ever exist without gold itself, the existence of gold makes the golden forms/"thigs" possible to exist. So, the existence of golden forms is conditional on the existence of gold.

I am not denying the existence of an ontic prime (OP), just disputing that the OP can be formlessness without form. The existence of gold essence is also dependent on the existence of forms of gold. A formless essence must be instantiated in forms to be real - in fact, formlessness strives for fixity in form and forms strives for the flux of formlessness. Heidegger recognized that in his discussion of Being and beings. Athanasius said, “God became man that man might become God". And it's hard to beat these two:

"The primary imagination I hold to be the living power and prime agent of all human perception, and as a repetition in the finite mind of the eternal act of creation in the infinite I Am." (Coleridge)

"The Infinite defines itself in the finite, the finite conceives itself in the Infinite. Each is necessary to the other's complete joy of being. The Infinite pauses always in the finite; the finite arrives always in the Infinite. This is the wheel that circles forever through Time and Eternity." (Sri Aurobindo)

Although I think the best is this:

"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me". (John 17)

[Eugene I]

I am not denying the existence of an ontic prime (OP), just disputing that the OP can be formlessness without form. The existence of gold essence is also dependent on the existence of forms of gold. A formless essence must be instantiated in forms to be real - in fact, formlessness strives for fixity in form and forms strives for the flux of formlessness. Heidegger recognized that in his discussion of Being and beings. Athanasius said, “God became man that man might become God".

OK, so you are still in the ontology camp, that's good

The answer also depends on what we mean by "formless" state. Let's first differentiate between the "void" (thoughtless and phenomena-less) state and entirely formless state. The thoughtless and phenomenal-less state is definitely possible (as was witnesses by many people, me included). Yet, it can be argued that it is not the formless state per se, because memory would have to exist in order for that state to be recalled and claimed to have been experienced. So, the thoughtless state is not a proof of the existence of a formless state. There are still two metaphysical possibilities: a) the formless state is in principle possible, b) the formless state is not possible in principle and the ontic prime can only exist as a form. Now, because memory has to exist in order to testify a formless state, and memory is (arguably) a form (or is it?), it is obviously impossible to experimentally verify the existence of a formless state. But it is also impossible to prove the proposition a) wrong. Same applies to b). This question IMO in undecidable and neither a) nor b) are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. This makes the dispute between a) and b) pointless. Also, I don't think a choice between a) or b) has any spiritual, psychological or practical significance or can make any practical difference anyway.

[ScottRoberts]

The answer also depends on what we mean by "formless" state. Let's first differentiate between the "void" (thoughtless and phenomena-less) state and entirely formless state. The thoughtless and phenomenal-less state is definitely possible (as was witnesses by many people, me included). Yet, it can be argued that it is not the formless state per se, because memory would have to exist in order for that state to be recalled and claimed to have been experienced. So, the thoughtless state is not a proof of the existence of a formless state. There are still two metaphysical possibilities: a) the formless state is in principle possible, b) the formless state is not possible in principle and the ontic prime can only exist as a form. Now, because memory has to exist in order to testify a formless state, and memory is (arguably) a form (or is it?), it is obviously impossible to experimentally verify the existence of a formless state. But it is also impossible to prove the proposition a) wrong. Same applies to b). This question IMO in undecidable and neither a) nor b) are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. This makes the dispute between a) and b) pointless. Also, I don't think a choice between a) or b) has any spiritual, psychological or practical significance or can make any practical difference anyway.

In my TP essay I said that formlessness should be regarded as a force, not a state. If so, then, with this modification, one has (b), and not (a). That is, names for formlessness are 'power', 'force', 'action'. These concepts are meaningless without form, e.g., action requires something to act against. One can abstract the concept of power from powerful acts, but it doesn't exist without powering something.

Which is why I think it is better to name the OP as "conscious activity" rather than "consciousness". This also makes the process folk happy.

[AshvinP]

I am not denying the existence of an ontic prime (OP), just disputing that the OP can be formlessness without form. The existence of gold essence is also dependent on the existence of forms of gold. A formless essence must be instantiated in forms to be real - in fact, formlessness strives for fixity in form and forms strives for the flux of formlessness. Heidegger recognized that in his discussion of Being and beings. Athanasius said, “God became man that man might become God".

OK, so you are still in the ontology camp, that's good

The answer also depends on what we mean by "formless" state. Let's first differentiate between the "void" (thoughtless and phenomena-less) state and entirely formless state. The thoughtless and phenomenal-less state is definitely possible (as was witnesses by many people, me included). Yet, it can be argued that it is not the formless state per se, because memory would have to exist in order for that state to be recalled and claimed to have been experienced. So, the thoughtless state is not a proof of the existence of a formless state. There are still two metaphysical possibilities: a) the formless state is in principle possible, b) the formless state is not possible in principle and the ontic prime can only exist as a form. Now, because memory has to exist in order to testify a formless state, and memory is (arguably) a form (or is it?), it is obviously impossible to experimentally verify the existence of a formless state. But it is also impossible to prove the proposition a) wrong. Same applies to b). This question IMO in undecidable and neither a) nor b) are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. This makes the dispute between a) and b) pointless. Also, I don't think a choice between a) or b) has any spiritual, psychological or practical significance or can make any practical difference anyway.

And that brings us back to the Kantian divide. It can only be a practically insignificant dispute if there is no meaningful ontological-epistemic continuity between things-in-themselves and the world of appearances we live our daily lives in. That is a downgrading of metaphysics to the point of complete irrelevance which necessarily follows from the phenomenon-noumenon split.

[Eugene I]

In my TP essay I said that formlessness should be regarded as a force, not a state. If so, then, with this modification, one has (b), and not (a). That is, names for formlessness are 'power', 'force', 'action'. These concepts are meaningless without form, e.g., action requires something to act against. One can abstract the concept of power from powerful acts, but it doesn't exist without powering something.

Which is why I think it is better to name the OP as "conscious activity" rather than "consciousness". This also makes the process folk happy.

Well, than what would you say about the evidences of non-active state of consciousness with an absence of any thoughts, conscious phenomena and any phenomenal activity at all? Those states were experienced by many people (me included). You could argue of course that this state has memory function "running", and therefore technically is not an entirely "inactive" state.

My most "pure" experience of void was when I was experimenting with continuous state of awareness and lucid dreaming. I had an experience of remembering and mindfully watching drowning into sleep, losing awareness of the body, watching dreams in a lucid state (knowing that they are dreams) and then at some point entering the dreamless sleep where there was literally nothing at all whatsoever other than pure experiencing/awareness (of nothing, or in other words, pure experiencing of experiencing), even the knowing that this is a dream vanished, yet that state was still recorded in the memory and I remember it now very well.

[Starbuck]

That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible.

I can testify from my personal experience that it is possible. And any advanced (and many not so advanced) yoga, Advaita and Buddhist meditators would also confirm that. Returning to the formless state, at least in Buddhism, is not the aim of the spiritual path. The formless state is only useful because it facilitates the experiential recognition of the formless fundamental: whatever experience is left in the formless state - this is the experience of the fundamental which is prior to forms. But many people come to such realization without meditating in the formless state, so it is not really necessary.

Let me give you a Buddhist perspective on the topic. One quote to add to the above quotes is from Buddha:
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned." (Iti. 2.16)

This is perhaps the first "ontological" statement in the human history (made 600 yrs BC). Yet, in Buddhism there was never an assumption that the formless state ever preceded the unfolding of forms in time. What Buddha meant is that the "unborn" is an ontic fundamental that allows the forms to exist. If there would be no such fundamental, there would be no way for forms to exist at all. So, this is not a temporal precedence, but rather a causal one. And he further says that the direct experiential knowledge of this fundamental makes the emancipation of our spiritual activity possible, because the "unborn" fundamental is unconditioned by any forms, so by directly knowing our own Being AS the fundamental we also acquire the direct knowledge of our fundamental freedom from conditioning by forms. "Emancipation" means not shunning all forms and remaining in a formless state, but becoming unconditioned by circumstances of forms.

And what is this fundamental "unborn"? Buddha points to the Awareness:
"Awareness without surface, without end, radiant all around, is not experienced through the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All.
— MN 49"

Anyone who recognized the Awareness can easily see that it is by itself formless, yet is inseparable from any forms when they arise. It is also unaffected by any forms and unconditioned by them. It is unborn and unfabricated because it is impossible to witness any beginning, fabricating or change of Awareness. Awareness is also empty of any "substance", "self" or "entity", it is just what it is the way it is directly experienced: pure and luminous experiential knowing . That is why it is also referred as "emptiness" in Buddhism. And when the forms appear, it is inseparable from them: you cannot separate a form that you experience from the experiencing/awareness of it. Therefore, whenever forms arise, the forms are no other than emptiness/awareness, and the emptiness/awareness is no other than these forms. Yet, it is possible for the Awareness to exist in a formless state, which is confirmed by meditative experiences of many people. There is also a lot of NDE accounts describing the experience of the formless "Void" state (I gave the quotes somewhere on the old forum).

In his statement of tetralemic polarity Scott took the phrase from the Heart Sutra "emptiness is no other than form" out from its Buddhist context and interpreted as if emptiness fundamental can not exist without forms. But what was meant in the sutra is that emptiness is no other that forms when the forms arise.

I practiced as a buddhist monk in the Theravadan school . The Buddha was very clear (from his own experiences seeking enlightenment) that one could attain complete realisation of formlessness, yet this has nothing to do with enlightenment. Through high level concentration we just develop temporary respite from the the causes and affects of suffering.

In this sense, that formless realm is still part of the deluded mind (albeit a highly refined illusion). They are still products of ignorance - therefore projections of Vijnana (subject object consciousness). Even consciousness is a 'trap'., as from it all name and form proceed.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

And that was the Buddhas genius - all these debates on forums about ultimate reality and form/emptiness - he saw that they are born out of seeking the end of suffering which drives all beings, whether they know it or not. And yet he was also clear that Nibanna was not annihilation. Man can embody truth but he cannot know it.