Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

Except in your version of "dual-aspect monism", one aspect has a shared essence which maintains at ontic level (awareness) and another aspect has no shared essence and does not maintain at ontic level. That is dualism... there is no way around that. Although you keep going back and forth between whether Thinking maintains at the ontic level or not.

I don't even actually know what's "ontic" and what's not. What I know as an experiential fact is that in every instance of conscious experience there is a non-changing/non-emergent aspect (beingness/awareness) and changing/emergent aspect - the specific appearance of each form, but all these aspects are inseparable, because each specific form always has a property/aspect of existence (beingness) and a property/aspect of being consciously experienced (=awareness), and they are mysteriously inseparable from the oneness/wholeness of this space of conscious experience. There is also an experience of an absence of any forms where the beingness and awareness still persist. These are experiential facts. Now, we can call the non-changing aspects as "fundamental" and changing ones as "non-fundamental" (or "ontic" and "non-ontic"), but these are just linguistic terms and they don't explain anything, and besides these are actually all Western philosophical terms, we never find those in the generic Eastern idealistic philosophies, I just used them so that we can speak the same Western language, but I admit that it might cause only more confusion. Buddha actually used different terms to describe the difference in these aspects:

"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)

[AshvinP]

Except in your version of "dual-aspect monism", one aspect has a shared essence which maintains at ontic level (awareness) and another aspect has no shared essence and does not maintain at ontic level. That is dualism... there is no way around that. Although you keep going back and forth between whether Thinking maintains at the ontic level or not.

I don't even actually know what's "ontic" and what's not. What I know as an experiential fact is that in every instance of conscious experience there is a non-changing/non-emergent aspect (beingness/awareness) and changing/emergent aspect - the specific appearance of each form, but all these aspects are inseparable, because each specific form always has a property/aspect of existence (beingness) and a property/aspect of being consciously experienced (=awareness), and they are mysteriously inseparable from the oneness/wholeness of this space of conscious experience. There is also an experience of an absence of any forms where the beingness and awareness still persist. These are experiential facts. Now, we can call the non-changing aspects as "fundamental" and changing ones as "non-fundamental" (or "ontic" and "non-ontic"), but these are just linguistic terms and they don't explain anything, and besides these are actually all Western philosophical terms, we never find those in the generic Eastern idealistic philosophies, I just used them so that we can speak the same Western language, but I admit that it might cause only more confusion. Buddha actually used different terms to describe the difference in these aspects:

I would not mind abandoning most of those terms too. We can just say, as you did above, every experience is interplay of formlessness (unchanging) and form (changing) aspects. We can further say, as you did above, Thinking-thoughts (formlessness-form) is present in all experience, i.e. not "emergent", along with Awareness-Being-Willing etc. That is simply a restatement of what we have already agreed on in the last few comments. Do you want to modify any part of that? I suspect you may want to sever Thinking from thoughts and hold the latter as "emergent", but then remember we are also severing formlessness from form.

[Eugene I]

I'm fine with your summary.
Except that there are states with no thoughts and perceptions, that's an experiential fact known to most advanced meditators. I don't know if we would categorize it as as state with "no forms" at all, or just a state with no thoughts and perceptions (because we can argue that memory is still functioning in such state and memory function is arguably still an emergent form). And also, such experience is only a "local" formless state in the individuated field of experience, with continuing form formation in unconscious realms and in other individuated spaces .

[AshvinP]

I'm fine with your summary.
Except that there are states with no thoughts and perceptions, that's an experiential fact known to most advanced meditators. I don't know if we would categorize it as as state with "no forms" at all, or just a state with no thoughts and perceptions (because we can argue that memory is still functioning in such state and memory function is arguably still an emergent form). And also, such experience is only a "local" formless state in the individuated field of experience, with continuing form formation in unconscious realms and in other individuated spaces .

I'm fine with that, as long as such a state is "local" and therefore has 'tuned itself out' to thought-formation process which still occurs.

[Eugene I]

A summary from my side:
There are two limited perspectives and one all-encompassing perspective on the reality.

Limited perspective #1 is to only know the forms and disregard the formless aspect of reality, in which case we get lost in the world of forms taking them as the only reality there is. Since the world of forms by itself seems to be very fragmented, we reflect such fragmentation in our worldview and perceive ourselves as separate fragments of the world, which in turn leads to the development of egotism and mental suffering.

Limited perspective #2 is to only know the formlessness and disregard the forms as if they are non-existent "illusions". This is a nihilistic trap found in some Eastern schools.

The all-encompassing perspective is to open one's perspective and to experientially know both formlessness and forms and fully experience them as real and inseparable parts of one reality. This perspective transcends the limits of fragmented worldview and egotism of separate selves, while still enabling the development and freedom of individuated subjects of consciousness. Transcending the fragmented and ego-centric perspective and achieving the all-encompassing perspective is at the core of most spiritual traditions, both Western and Eastern.

[AshvinP]

A summary from my side:
There are two limited perspectives and one all-encompassing perspective on the reality.

Limited perspective #1 is to only know the forms and disregard the formless aspect of reality, in which case we get lost in the world of forms taking them as the only reality there is. Since the world of forms by itself seems to be very fragmented, we reflect such fragmentation in our worldview and perceive ourselves as separate fragments of the world, which in turn leads to the development of egotism and mental suffering.

Limited perspective #2 is to only know the formlessness and disregard the forms as if they are non-existent "illusions". This is a nihilistic trap found in some Eastern schools.

The all-encompassing perspective is to open one's perspective and to experientially know both formlessness and forms and fully experience them as real and inseparable parts of one reality. This perspective transcends the limits of fragmented worldview and egotism of separate selves, while still enabling the development and freedom of individuated subjects of consciousness. Transcending the fragmented and ego-centric perspective and achieving the all-encompassing perspective is at the core of most spiritual traditions, both Western and Eastern.

Fully agreed! Let's enjoy this cease-fire while it lasts

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well, now that this is somewhat settled, perhaps this is a good place to insert Peter's comment and Meister Eckhart quote from the 'I'm a materialist' topic, which surely is more pertinent to this thread, as an invitation to Peter to join in here ...

Peter Jones wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:09 am

What do you make of this?

It seems that Meister Eckhart pledges his soul and on a different view. He tells us form is nothing, and not just nothing but 'literally nothing'.

“Sometime I have said that there is a power in the soul that can 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

Ashvin wrote: I don't think that's a different view. Eckhart is referencing and stressing formlessness, i.e. "power", which is one pole of mumorphism.

[Eugene I]

free of all names and is devoid of all forms, quite empty and free

Wow, if I would not know that it was written by a Christian, I would think it was written by a Buddhist.
But I agree with Ashvin, in this sermon Eckhart was clearly pointing to the formless aspect of reality in order to help people to discover it, but not in order to discard or shun the world of names and forms.

[Starbuck]

A summary from my side:
There are two limited perspectives and one all-encompassing perspective on the reality.

Limited perspective #1 is to only know the forms and disregard the formless aspect of reality, in which case we get lost in the world of forms taking them as the only reality there is. Since the world of forms by itself seems to be very fragmented, we reflect such fragmentation in our worldview and perceive ourselves as separate fragments of the world, which in turn leads to the development of egotism and mental suffering.

Limited perspective #2 is to only know the formlessness and disregard the forms as if they are non-existent "illusions". This is a nihilistic trap found in some Eastern schools.

The all-encompassing perspective is to open one's perspective and to experientially know both formlessness and forms and fully experience them as real and inseparable parts of one reality. This perspective transcends the limits of fragmented worldview and egotism of separate selves, while still enabling the development and freedom of individuated subjects of consciousness. Transcending the fragmented and ego-centric perspective and achieving the all-encompassing perspective is at the core of most spiritual traditions, both Western and Eastern.

Beautifully expressed. But a bit wordy. Now what we need is some kind of symbol - perhaps an interlocking vertical and horizontal axis to represent the integration of those world views. The vertical is the ontic primary, so we could make that slightly longer. If the axis was metaphorically some kind of torture or execution device, it might also 'point' towards suffering that the integrated view both embraces and transcends.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Beautifully expressed. But a bit wordy. Now what we need is some kind of symbol ...

The most evocative representative symbol of emptifullness I'm aware of is the Cosmos. However that is dreamed up is utterly brilliant. Doesn't fit very well on a t-shirt though