Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[AshvinP]

This is very interesting. You both are employing the Kantian divide at different ends of the spiritual spectrum. Eugene views the fundamental formlessness as being so 'other' that we cannot possibly relate it to our normal consciousness, and Simon views the fundamental form of God as being so 'other' we cannot possibly relate it to our normal relationships with children, parents, etc. Does anyone else see that happening?

Does Eugene do that? From my own experiences and limited understanding of the eastern way of seeing these things, the formless consciousness Eugene talks of is indeed nothing like what we think of as consciousness when we perceive things, but at the same time when, you do perceive it directly, you realise that it was all there all along. There is nothing new you have found, you have just removed all the jitter that was hiding it. It’s a profound revelation, but you don’t discover anything new as such. Nonetheless to describe it to someone is always going to be like the famous finger pointing at the moon.

I guess in a way there is something similar in what I am saying about god, in that all our descriptions like “father”, “god”, “being” etc are also in a way like fingers pointing at the moon. However the divine mystic experience is not one of ‘that which you always knew but weren’t aware of’. It truly is of other-than-us, which is why kenosis is so different from say, nirvana, despite some similarities in the ways people aim for them.

Well that's true... to circumvent the Kantian divide the Eastern mystic must then posit a state in which all particularity of perception vanishes (I am not claiming such a state does not exist, only that it is not the Ontic Primal state or process). Here is where Kant may actually come in handy with his categorical imperative (as well as the pragmatic argument) - if the Ontic Prime is such that everyone truly knowing it would cause the extinction of the species, or that continuation of the species would require most living under an illusion of forms forever, then we may want to rethink our understanding of the Ontic Prime. The notion that genuine knowledge of Truth requires extinction is itself a product of Kantian divide.

The Western adherent to traditional religious dogma, on the other hand, cannot escape the Kantian divide and must reduce the world of forms into an illusion for all intents and purposes. It must treat every human percept and every human concept as equally distant from the one true God. That must also lead to nihilism from a different direction. Now you may claim that the fact you aren't nihilistic disproves my hypothesis here, but I don't presume to know to what extent it affects any particular individual and the time humanity has spent with such a view of God is relatively short, especially if we accept that the medieval scholastic view of God was not at all as distant from humanity as we find in modern religious dogma.

[Simon Adams]

Well that's true... to circumvent the Kantian divide the Eastern mystic must then posit a state in which all particularity of perception vanishes (I am not claiming such a state does not exist, only that it is not the Ontic Primal state or process). Here is where Kant may actually come in handy with his categorical imperative (as well as the pragmatic argument) - if the Ontic Prime is such that everyone truly knowing it would cause the extinction of the species, or that continuation of the species would require most living under an illusion of forms forever, then we may want to rethink our understanding of the Ontic Prime. The notion that genuine knowledge of Truth requires extinction is itself a product of Kantian divide.

The Western adherent to traditional religious dogma, on the other hand, cannot escape the Kantian divide and must reduce the world of forms into an illusion for all intents and purposes. It must treat every human percept and every human concept as equally distant from the one true God. That must also lead to nihilism from a different direction. Now you may claim that the fact you aren't nihilistic disproves my hypothesis here, but I don't presume to know to what extent it affects any particular individual and the time humanity has spent with such a view of God is relatively short, especially if we accept that the medieval scholastic view of God was not at all as distant from humanity as we find in modern religious dogma.

I think you have a point about the ontic prime, although I guess my description of why it’s not nihilism is probably different to yours . When you experience formlessness, you don’t have a bounded ‘I’, but neither are you everyone. You are experiencing a common substrate that everyone is part of at some level, but our individuality is not a type of substance, it’s something given that I just don’t know the name for (maybe call it life-being). It’s late and I’m making up words so I should probably end this thought!

However I’m not sure why god being so different makes him distant? More than everything being contained in him and sustained by him, from a catholic perspective, god is present in the eucharist, and by “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” we become part of his body. The medieval scholastics would also say that you need to receive the eucharist, they wouldn’t claim that this is some default state as a human. It’s in a way separate from the direct experience of god which can tangible in different ways. But even though these are very ‘close’ experiences, they don’t make god any more conceivable.

[AshvinP]

Well that's true... to circumvent the Kantian divide the Eastern mystic must then posit a state in which all particularity of perception vanishes (I am not claiming such a state does not exist, only that it is not the Ontic Primal state or process). Here is where Kant may actually come in handy with his categorical imperative (as well as the pragmatic argument) - if the Ontic Prime is such that everyone truly knowing it would cause the extinction of the species, or that continuation of the species would require most living under an illusion of forms forever, then we may want to rethink our understanding of the Ontic Prime. The notion that genuine knowledge of Truth requires extinction is itself a product of Kantian divide.

The Western adherent to traditional religious dogma, on the other hand, cannot escape the Kantian divide and must reduce the world of forms into an illusion for all intents and purposes. It must treat every human percept and every human concept as equally distant from the one true God. That must also lead to nihilism from a different direction. Now you may claim that the fact you aren't nihilistic disproves my hypothesis here, but I don't presume to know to what extent it affects any particular individual and the time humanity has spent with such a view of God is relatively short, especially if we accept that the medieval scholastic view of God was not at all as distant from humanity as we find in modern religious dogma.

I think you have a point about the ontic prime, although I guess my description of why it’s not nihilism is probably different to yours . When you experience formlessness, you don’t have a bounded ‘I’, but neither are you everyone. You are experiencing a common substrate that everyone is part of at some level, but our individuality is not a type of substance, it’s something given that I just don’t know the name for (maybe call it life-being). It’s late and I’m making up words so I should probably end this thought!

That could be the case under the Western view when experiencing much higher realms of cognition, but not under the Eastern view where any sense of "I" or "Self" must be an illusion. Basically, I don't see how humanity could go on existing if experience of Reality meant a failure/refusal to make qualitative distinctions between forms (I am taking numerical distinctions as quality of "twofoldness" etc.). Eugene's response may be that the Eastern mystic can be genuinely aware of the illusory nature of forms while still making qualitative distinctions to survive, but then I have to wonder what right we have to claim something is "illusory" when we keep using it while we are also experiencing Reality.

However I’m not sure why god being so different makes him distant? More than everything being contained in him and sustained by him, from a catholic perspective, god is present in the eucharist, and by “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” we become part of his body. The medieval scholastics would also say that you need to receive the eucharist, they wouldn’t claim that this is some default state as a human. It’s in a way separate from the direct experience of god which can tangible in different ways. But even though these are very ‘close’ experiences, they don’t make god any more conceivable.

I don't see how we can maintain the reality of transubstantiation in the eucharist if God is as 'other' and unrelatable/unconceivable as you are claiming. The question basically comes down to whether we think experiences and relationships within our daily lives can point to God or not. Whether God can be ineffable to our basic perceptions but also immanent to our higher order thinking. We are not simply pointing at the Sun perception without adding any ideal content, but combining the real Sun perception with the real Sun conception through our spiritual activity of Thinking.

[Eugene I]

I guess in a way there is something similar in what I am saying about god, in that all our descriptions like “father”, “god”, “being” etc are also in a way like fingers pointing at the moon. However the divine mystic experience is not one of ‘that which you always knew but weren’t aware of’. It truly is of other-than-us, which is why kenosis is so different from say, nirvana, despite some similarities in the ways people aim for them.

Right, this "otherness" is the intrinsic and (seemingly?) irresolvable dualism in Christianity that we discussed in the other Ashvin's tread.

[ScottRoberts]

I don't know, but I can speculate, based on Merrell-Wolff's experience. Which was: experiencing what he called "Nirvana", which he defined as "awareness of absence of objects", as distinct from normal consciousness as being "awareness of objects". Then he moved on to a higher state, in which he recognized these two "awarenesses" as being the same. So my speculation is that in normal consciousness we are polarized in the direction of objects, but this polarization can reverse to being in the direction of absence of objects. Or to put it another way, in normal consciousness, formlessness (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated, while in Nirvana, form (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated.

Sorry to say that, but Merrell-Wolff obviously had a wrong understanding of the Buddhist Nirvana, which is actually the awareness in the second sense - the awareness which is independent of the presence or absence of "objects" (forms). Which means that in the actual Nirvana neither formlessness not form is obfuscated, but both are clearly experienced as possible states of consciousness experienced with the same fundamental unconditional awareness. The "awareness of absence of objects" is called the 6-th jhana in Buddhism and is considered as a meditation technique from where, as the next step, the unconditional awareness can be discovered. This was explained in some Pali Canon suttas by Buddha. So, basically, Merrell-Wolff rediscovered for himself what has been known to Buddhists for 2.5 millennia.

So why did you ask your question if you were already aware of the framework for answering it?

By the way, to avoid confusion, I would call what you call "unconditional awareness", "awareness of mumorphism". This because a condition is a form, so "unconditioned" is just another word for "formless".

[Eugene I]

That could be the case under the Western view when experiencing much higher realms of cognition, but not under the Eastern view where any sense of "I" or "Self" must be an illusion. Basically, I don't see how humanity could go on existing if experience of Reality meant a failure/refusal to make qualitative distinctions between forms (I am taking numerical distinctions as quality of "twofoldness" etc.). Eugene's response may be that the Eastern mystic can be genuinely aware of the illusory nature of forms while still making qualitative distinctions to survive, but then I have to wonder what right we have to claim something is "illusory" when we keep using it while we are also experiencing Reality.

I think I tried to explained it before elsewhere, but I can try again. There is nothing illusory in our conscious experience of forms. The experience (of forms, or of no forms when there is none of them) is in fact our most basic reality. Forms are natural expressions of consciousness and there is nothing wrong or illusory with that. Making qualitative distinctions between forms is also a perfect way for consciousness to function, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as well. The thoughts are also type of consciousness forms and there is nothing wrong with them too, on the contrary they represent a fascinating thinking ability of consciousness, ability to manipulate meanings. The meanings and imaginations are the "content" (qualia) of our thoughts.

However, that thinking ability is a double-edged sword, and this is where the "illusions" happen within the realm of our imaginations and meanings. Imagine you are looking at a picture and see am image of Santa. The visual perception of the image is totally real - it's a phenomenon (form) appearing and experienced in consciousness. Our thinking recognizes an image of Santa there, and that is natural and normal too, so a thought bearing a meaning of "Santa" as an image appears in our consciousness. But what happens next is: if I am a child looking at that picture, I will start believing that this meaning of "Santa" represents some "real" entity living "out there", I will literally "see" the Santa in the picture as if he is real in a full sense. and that is an illusion: there is no "real" Santa anywhere at all, the only way it "exists" is only within the meaning of my thought about it. This is an amazing ability of consciousness to be able to "fool" itself into believing in the reality of "things" and "entities" that do not exist anywhere. Now, this same scenario applies to our everyday life and to our beliefs about the world, "material" objects, selves, etc. We literally "live" in the imagined world taking it for reality. In the analogy that Hoffman uses, we live in the world of the "icons", but instead of knowing that they are only icons, we actually believe that they represent actual realities, and that is an illusion. There is nothing wrong with operating and manipulating the "icons", through these icons the reality presents itself to us directly. Also, on top of those icons we overlay (through thinking) a "universe" of our interpretations and meanings of those icons and derive a whole network of other derivative meanings, and there is also no problem with that. The "illusion" occurs when we develop special kind of meanings - "naive realistic" meanings that are beliefs in the actual reality of the "entities" which those interpretations of the icons seemingly represent. Another word for "illusion" is "misrepresentation".

So, the difference between "illusory" and "non-illusory" perception is like the same picture of Santa seen by an adult and a child: the child believes in his imagination that the imagined Santa is a real "person", while an adult also has a discernment of the image of Santa and an imagination of Santa in his though, but there is no belief in the reality of Santa apart from his own imagination. Likewise, when we perceive the world, we have images and ideas, but the difference is whether we believe in the "independent" reality of "things" and "entities" that these images "represent", or whether we do not have such beliefs. Those beliefs are most often unconscious for us, we just take them for granted as "obvious", like most people who are naive materialists unconsciously believe in the realities of material "things" existing in the external "material world".

I apologize, I'm not good at explaining things so my explanations are probably confusing... This is also a simplified and "shallow" scheme of what actually happens.

[AshvinP]

That could be the case under the Western view when experiencing much higher realms of cognition, but not under the Eastern view where any sense of "I" or "Self" must be an illusion. Basically, I don't see how humanity could go on existing if experience of Reality meant a failure/refusal to make qualitative distinctions between forms (I am taking numerical distinctions as quality of "twofoldness" etc.). Eugene's response may be that the Eastern mystic can be genuinely aware of the illusory nature of forms while still making qualitative distinctions to survive, but then I have to wonder what right we have to claim something is "illusory" when we keep using it while we are also experiencing Reality.

I think I tried to explained it before elsewhere, but I can try again. There is nothing illusory in our conscious experience of forms. The experience (of forms, or of no forms when there is none of them) is in fact our most basic reality. Forms are natural expressions of consciousness and there is nothing wrong or illusory with that. Making qualitative distinctions between forms is also a perfect way for consciousness to function, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as well. The thoughts are also type of consciousness forms and there is nothing wrong with them too, on the contrary they represent a fascinating thinking ability of consciousness, ability to manipulate meanings. The meanings and imaginations are the "content" (qualia) of our thoughts.

However, that thinking ability is a double-edged sword, and this is where the "illusions" happen within the realm of our imaginations and meanings. Imagine you are looking at a picture and see am image of Santa. The visual perception of the image is totally real - it's a phenomenon (form) appearing and experienced in consciousness. Our thinking recognizes an image of Santa there, and that is natural and normal too, so a thought bearing a meaning of "Santa" as an image appears in our consciousness. But what happens next is: if I am a child looking at that picture, I will start believing that this meaning of "Santa" represents some "real" entity living "out there", I will literally "see" the Santa in the picture as if he is real in a full sense. and that is an illusion: there is no "real" Santa anywhere at all, the only way it "exists" is only within the meaning of my thought about it. This is an amazing ability of consciousness to be able to "fool" itself into believing in the reality of "things" and "entities" that do not exist anywhere. Now, this same scenario applies to our everyday life and to our beliefs about the world, "material" objects, selves, etc. We literally "live" in the imagined world taking it for reality. In the analogy that Hoffman uses, we live in the world of the "icons", but instead of knowing that they are only icons, we actually believe that they represent actual realities, and that is an illusion. There is nothing wrong with operating and manipulating the "icons", through these icons the reality presents itself to us directly. Also, on top of those icons we overlay (through thinking) a "universe" of our interpretations and meanings of those icons and derive a whole network of other derivative meanings, and there is also no problem with that. The "illusion" occurs when we develop special kind of meanings - "naive realistic" meanings that are beliefs in the actual reality of the "entities" which those interpretations of the icons seemingly represent. Another word for "illusion" is "misrepresentation".

So, the difference between "illusory" and "non-illusory" perception is like the same picture of Santa seen by an adult and a child: the child believes in his imagination that the imagined Santa is a real "person", while an adult also has a discernment of the image of Santa and an imagination of Santa in his though, but there is no belief in the reality of Santa apart from his own imagination. Likewise, when we perceive the world, we have images and ideas, but the difference is whether we believe in the "independent" reality of "things" and "entities" that these images "represent", or whether we do not have such beliefs. Those beliefs are most often unconscious for us, we just take them for granted as "obvious", like most people who are naive materialists unconsciously believe in the realities of material "things" existing in the external "material world".

I apologize, I'm not good at explaining things so my explanations are probably confusing... This is also a simplified and "shallow" scheme of what actually happens.

What you described by analogy is also known as metaphysical idealism-monism. No image or ideal content exists independent of consciousness and no consciousness exists independently of any other consciousness. Everyone agrees on that. We also agree on the bolded statement, and all we need is the ontic reality of that one meaning, i.e. that one ideal content of the image, to necessitate the Ontic Prime Trinity of formlessness-form and self-awareness. Any perceptions-conceptions within that One is just added bonus which may indeed reflect Reality but not metaphysically necessary.

[Starbuck]

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.

That was his genius at that time. Later another genius perspective evolved - we can learn to contend with suffering, rather than end it, by seeking out sufficient meaning to justify it's existence in our lives. Thereby the focus shifts back to what we can do right now, in this lifetime, in any given moment. It becomes about deep Self-knowledge and authentic relationship with our Self and with others; about sacrifice and adoption of responsibility, i.e. spiritual rebirth and maturation.

It's a misreading of buddhism to say its doesn't contend with suffering or is not interested in here and now. What a strange assertion! Any buddhist who passionately 'wants to end suffering' will undoubtedly suffer because they are ignoring the entity that wants that and denies its reality in the world. Meaning is fine, but if one seeks it like a concept to hang in ones collection they too will suffer.

Buddhism is actually the eastern counterpart of the early christian/Gnostic teaching, and were both trying to resolve the above confusion.

Christianity (The bedrock of the western tradition) evolved out of gnostic teachings which survives in fragments of the new testament particularly relating to "deny thyself". The whole metaphor of the cross is the death of the separate illusory self and arising in an integrated yet transcendent form. He consistently states that those who truly know themselves 'will not taste death' \(because they no longer identify with the impermanent). The Buddha too did not run away from suffering, he faced it head on till there was no more 'him'. Yet that 'him' continued to teach and guide for over 40 years, simply because that's is the way truth moves. They were both talking about the same thing. It was the gift of the Axial age.

[AshvinP]

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.

That was his genius at that time. Later another genius perspective evolved - we can learn to contend with suffering, rather than end it, by seeking out sufficient meaning to justify it's existence in our lives. Thereby the focus shifts back to what we can do right now, in this lifetime, in any given moment. It becomes about deep Self-knowledge and authentic relationship with our Self and with others; about sacrifice and adoption of responsibility, i.e. spiritual rebirth and maturation.

It's a misreading of buddhism to say its doesn't contend with suffering or is not interested in here and now. What a strange assertion! Any buddhist who passionately 'wants to end suffering' will undoubtedly suffer because they are ignoring the entity that wants that and denies its reality in the world. Meaning is fine, but if one seeks it like a concept to hang in ones collection they too will suffer.

Buddhism is actually the eastern counterpart of the early christian/Gnostic teaching, and were both trying to resolve the above confusion.

Christianity (The bedrock of the western tradition) evolved out of gnostic teachings which survives in fragments of the new testament particularly relating to "deny thyself". The whole metaphor of the cross is the death of the separate illusory self and arising in an integrated yet transcendent form. He consistently states that those who truly know themselves 'will not taste death' \(because they no longer identify with the impermanent). The Buddha too did not run away from suffering, he faced it head on till there was no more 'him'. Yet that 'him' continued to teach and guide for over 40 years, simply because that's is the way truth moves. They were both talking about the same thing. It was the gift of the Axial age.

I don't necessarily disagree and was responding to a comment which said the Eastern way is to end suffering by ending attachment to the world of forms. I may have misread the comment though.

Except i don't agree with the part about Gnostic tradition being the source of Christian tradition. The former appears to be only half the story. We can trace back roots of Judeo-Christian tradition to at least ancient Egpyt-Babalon and then to Zoroastrian teaching in ancient Persia.

[Simon Adams]

That could be the case under the Western view when experiencing much higher realms of cognition, but not under the Eastern view where any sense of "I" or "Self" must be an illusion. Basically, I don't see how humanity could go on existing if experience of Reality meant a failure/refusal to make qualitative distinctions between forms (I am taking numerical distinctions as quality of "twofoldness" etc.). Eugene's response may be that the Eastern mystic can be genuinely aware of the illusory nature of forms while still making qualitative distinctions to survive, but then I have to wonder what right we have to claim something is "illusory" when we keep using it while we are also experiencing Reality.

Yes I think we can oversimplify things. At one level you can say that everything is just mind and the all the ‘patterns’ in it are temporary excitations, interactions and loops that form an illusion of separation. However this is a one dimensional view of the bigger picture, and the texture has it’s own transcendent reality and meaning distinct from the nature of the substance. To use an extreme example, as christians we believe that at some point, the whole of, lets call it mind at large, will be folded up, and a new heaven and earth created. The behaviour of this new reality will be completely different, no more survival of the fittest, no more rich and poor, no more struggling for survival and suffering pain and loss. So do respond to this by saying, “As this is temporary and not as fundamental as it seemed from the deepest level we could investigate, we will just ignore it all as unreal and meaningless”? No you be true to yourself and to your best understanding of what has value, albeit appreciating that some perspectives have a greater level if transcendence across wider parts of the whole of reality.

I don't see how we can maintain the reality of transubstantiation in the eucharist if God is as 'other' and unrelatable/unconceivable as you are claiming. The question basically comes down to whether we think experiences and relationships within our daily lives can point to God or not. Whether God can be ineffable to our basic perceptions but also immanent to our higher order thinking. We are not simply pointing at the Sun perception without adding any ideal content, but combining the real Sun perception with the real Sun conception through our spiritual activity of Thinking.

I do think god is always ineffable to both our our basic perceptions and our higher order thinking. People can feel his presence at times, sometimes he speaks to people, and sometimes people have full mystic experiences of god, but even they remain ineffable at the time and afterwards. I do think that god is present in our relationships, but I personally don’t think there is a metaphysical way in which such things can be described. The whole downward knowledge of god is theology where we can try to apply reason, but all we really have is revelation. The upward scientific and spiritual knowledge can only get us so far. There seem to me to be severe limits to how far we can go in joining these, even though they are both very much overlapped. Some people live purely from the downward revelation, and that is enough for them to have good lives and to deal with the difficulties that come. Others want to only rely on things they can know via their own direct spiritual, scientific or reasoned experience, which may all help in their ways, but I’m not sure any have full truth as a telos. Even those who reach nirvana don’t suddenly know about the source of maths, why the outer stars move faster than they should do, or even how it is that rainbows don’t have any objective existence.

If you try to detach anything spiritual from a lived life, from relationships with people, what you do and what you say, and assign all of that as low value reality, and focus your life on the formless reality out of which it emerges, you’re a bit like an actor who goes on a stage, says “this is all make believe”, and sits down. Good spirituality should make you more thoughtful and careful about those things, or as an actor, to play your part well.