Having Answers?

[JosephM]

Personally i see no cause and effect in this visual world. I only see sequences that we conceptualize and compartmentalize as events and then try to attach a cause when to me it seems there is no causes to be seen. Seems to me more like a story written and we are viewing the sequences or frames of the equation already written.

[romansh]

Personally i see no cause and effect in this visual world. I only see sequences that we conceptualize and compartmentalize as events and then try to attach a cause when to me it seems there is no causes to be seen. Seems to me more like a story written and we are viewing the sequences or frames of the equation already written.

 

This will require some clarification for me Joseph .... photons hit an object, some are absorbed, some are reflected or radiated back, some are focussed on to your retina, photochemical reactions occur, electrochemical pulses pass down the optic nerve, the brain does it stuff, causes electrochemical pulses in the nerves to your fingers, which causes buttons to be depressed which in turn cause electrons to move, which in turn cause photons to go down a glass fibre cable to my telephone line which transmit electrons to my router which transmits photons to my computer which causes electrons to radiate photons to my eyes.

 

Sure these might be determined (almost surely are) ... but to say one does not see it? OK the whole thing might be an illusion in the sense that time is an illusion. Having said that I have done a little bit of planning for my retirement regardless that some think the future is an illusion. It still exists.

[romansh]

Buddhism is a bit weak when it comes to beginnings and often it seems difficult to discern ends. Unlike Christianity with its "In the beginning........" and then its various eschatologies, the "last things" AKA the "end times".

 

"No discernable beginning" seems an ongoing mantra of various texts. Dependant origination, as I understand it ( and there seems subtle variations between Theravada and Mahayana ) is not at all about initial causes or beginnings, nor about any sequence of cause and effect. I would see it more as yet another take on "emptiness", that there are no self existent/self explanatory entities that remain through time.

 

 

Beginnings are irrelevant (I think) and I would argue Buddhism is wise not to dwell upon them. I certainly find them interesting but we will by definition never see that far back and even the first cause might not be a valid concept. [why is a first cause a default position, a similar question for nothing]? My understanding of dependent origination is that you and I are caused as is everything else. And we are related through cause. This is where oneness comes from. cf Interbeing

 

I would agree intrinsic selves are a nonsense ... A self is just an arbitrary boundary.

[romansh]

Rom,

 

I know it does; I believe it comes with the territory: man, using language, trying to say something about 'God.' Even here you have a duality in that 'a being' tries to say something about Being, seemingly other and therefore two but the being is 'of' Being and/or Being is manifest in the being, seemingly one (in some way).

 

I agree Thomas language leads to into dualism .... Thomas the concept .... the rest of are not Thomas. Is Thomas truly human every moment? At which point did he become more truly human.

 

If by being [lower case] you are pointing simply to existence .n the sense of a verb then fine, we are in agreement to some degree. The upper case Being noun is a non starter for me.

[tariki]

Beginnings are irrelevant (I think) and I would argue Buddhism is wise not to dwell upon them. I certainly find them interesting but we will by definition never see that far back and even the first cause might not be a valid concept. [why is a first cause a default position, a similar question for nothing]? My understanding of dependent origination is that you and I are caused as is everything else. And we are related through cause. This is where oneness comes from. cf Interbeing

 

I would agree intrinsic selves are a nonsense ... A self is just an arbitrary boundary.

"You" and "I", once coming into being, are "related"? Exactly what is related? Dependant origination is the "ground", the "firm ground of emptiness" as one buddhist comic once said.

[tariki]

Tariki,

 

 

I did not follow your question: "Does invoking the word "other" and "seeing" them as living lives without love, does this lead to the resolution of a world of "vulnerability that entails risk"? What is it that causes us to act?"

 

However:

I am not the only one who can speak of "paradox." And if I follow this, "I spoke of Buddhist non-dualism........not that "all is one" but rather that all is NOT two," then, I like it.

But let me ask, what does - "not that 'all is one' but rather that all is NOT two" mean to you? Are we (you and I) not two? And if not, how not? And could we both not be two and still be one?

 

For me, it is not that reality can get lost but that man, without Love, can lose reality.

 

I agree with Merton: "we were already one, but did not know it, that we must become what we are." Others have said we forget Being (God) and get distracted (perhaps out of necessity??) by the world of beings. Or others that, in creation, there are more beings but not more Being. Yet, even in Merton we have a seeming duality: we are one and, as you indicted, the paradox.

 

Still not sure what 'recoil' means and it appears to be in opposition to the Love that has no why - the opposite of recoiling, it seems.

 

We do all speak from our own perspective but as for a set of "master words," I have always suspected that the Way (Dao), although One, can only be 'heard' and lived in the words of men where it finds them. There is one Word but one hears and responds in their words, in the particularity of their lives and in their books. And it is great fun to grapple and try to understand and see the similarities with other traditions, to try to 'translate' the insights of one into the language of another but, at the end of the day, the Word is not merely to be heard, it must be a lived.

 

Simply put, Buddhist non-dualism:-

 

There is conventional truth

There is ultimate truth

Conventional truth and ultimate truth are One.

 

Or, samsara = nirvana

 

That is it. For me, to enter the world of conventional truth in order to understand or attain ultimate truth is, in the words of the Buddhist texts, to enter a world of speculative views, the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, we do not end suffering.

 

Now it may be that striving to "understand", entering such a "thicket of views", is just not my cup of tea, I may just not like the sheer effort of seeking to understand, but for now I rest in what is for me the only "view" that does not betray THIS world for some imagined "other", an "other" that may exist beyond death or some time in the future. Yes, I recoil from the effort to try to understand using dualistic logic, a logic that sends me into ever decreasing circles, into the world of dukkha, one that for millennia has resolved nothing.

 

A Pure Land Master, Honen, said:- when a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu. Gratitude tells me that all is given, not attained.

 

Just so.

 

As far as "emptiness", forget it if it does not tick your box. Perhaps read the essay "Wisdom in Emptiness", a dialogue between Merton and Suzuki contained in the book "Zen and the Birds of Appetite".

[tariki]

Well, a vague sense of disatisfaction with my supposed "answers" here and there.

 

The central, maybe unique, contribution of Buddhism to the great debate ( what is Reality? ) is "Not-self". One Theravada based Dictionary states that failure to understand this "doctrine" leads to failure to understand all else of the Dharma, even to misunderstand and misrepresent.

 

"Not-self". Anatta.

 

Not that there is a self to get rid of, or to work upon. There is no self. End of story.

 

But here we are.

 

Thus T S Eliot and returning to where we started and knowing it for the first time. Nothing has changed yet all has changed. And what was the point of it all? ( Maybe the genesis of a theodicy there if we are that way inclined )

 

"For the garden is the only place there is yet we shall not find it until we have searched everywhere and found nowhere that is not a desert"

(Auden)

 

We can enter the "thicket of views" and get lost in the small print. Or there is simple trust, a letting go.

 

"And a little child shall lead them"

 

(Just to add, as I understand it, the distinction between Theravada and Mahayana is that "Not-self" is extended to all of Reality. Thus "emptiness ". All is empty. Yet here it is)

Edited December 20, 2016 by tariki

[JosephM]

 

This will require some clarification for me Joseph .... photons hit an object, some are absorbed, some are reflected or radiated back, some are focussed on to your retina, photochemical reactions occur, electrochemical pulses pass down the optic nerve, the brain does it stuff, causes electrochemical pulses in the nerves to your fingers, which causes buttons to be depressed which in turn cause electrons to move, which in turn cause photons to go down a glass fibre cable to my telephone line which transmit electrons to my router which transmits photons to my computer which causes electrons to radiate photons to my eyes.

 

Sure these might be determined (almost surely are) ... but to say one does not see it? OK the whole thing might be an illusion in the sense that time is an illusion. Having said that I have done a little bit of planning for my retirement regardless that some think the future is an illusion. It still exists.

 

What you see as a cause in your example is nothing more than a pre-condition or sequence when trying to find cause in a logical world. Sure we say this causes that... but then what causes this and we continue on a seemingly infinite number of causes that takes us through all of time.. Yes, i see causality in this world as an illusion and yet as you, i have planned for my retirement. While one might attribute my planning as the cause to a successful retirement i know that also is an illusion.

Joseph

[thormas]

 

I agree Thomas language leads to into dualism .... Thomas the concept .... the rest of are not Thomas. Is Thomas truly human every moment? At which point did he become more truly human.

 

If by being [lower case] you are pointing simply to existence .n the sense of a verb then fine, we are in agreement to some degree. The upper case Being noun is a non starter for me.

 

Rom, I do love humor. One hopes it is, at least, some moments.

 

With the use of being (which I sometimes capitalize for emphasis), I mean the very possibility that enables all to be. But so as not to mislead you, I also use the uppercase to denote 'something more' or what some have called Holy Being. So, if I read you right, we perhaps part ways here, but that is fine, I enjoy and learn from the discussions.

Edited December 20, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

 

Simply put, Buddhist non-dualism:-

 

There is conventional truth

There is ultimate truth

Conventional truth and ultimate truth are One.

 

Or, samsara = nirvana

 

That is it. For me, to enter the world of conventional truth in order to understand or attain ultimate truth is, in the words of the Buddhist texts, to enter a world of speculative views, the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, we do not end suffering.

 

Now it may be that striving to "understand", entering such a "thicket of views", is just not my cup of tea, I may just not like the sheer effort of seeking to understand, but for now I rest in what is for me the only "view" that does not betray THIS world for some imagined "other", an "other" that may exist beyond death or some time in the future. Yes, I recoil from the effort to try to understand using dualistic logic, a logic that sends me into ever decreasing circles, into the world of dukkha, one that for millennia has resolved nothing.

 

A Pure Land Master, Honen, said:- when a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu. Gratitude tells me that all is given, not attained.

 

Just so.

 

As far as "emptiness", forget it if it does not tick your box. Perhaps read the essay "Wisdom in Emptiness", a dialogue between Merton and Suzuki contained in the book "Zen and the Birds of Appetite".

Tariki,

 

First, thanks. I have yet to read your later post and thought I'd look at one at a time.

 

First I totally respect that, as you say, some of this is not your cup of tea. But just to clarify, in the past for many Christians, the emphasis seemed indeed to be on 'the other world,' however, even with such a focus, and in part the one I grew up with in the 50s and 60s, we still actually lived - very much lived - in this world. So too, in a newer understanding for more 'progressive' Christians, there is only life, we wake to it 'here and now'(for where else is there?) and the focus is on now but the belief/hope is that once given (and accepted), it 'continues' into.........different people have different names but I leave any details to 'God.' However, for me, 'the Love that has no why' also has no expiration date ("all is given, not attained" and not taken back). For such a person there is no betrayal of this life and not enough time in the day for imaging another world (although I might do it late at night).

 

As for dualistic logic, I don't see it as a conscious effort to impose such 'logic' on understanding, rather in trying to understand, we use our language with its limitations, which is dualistic and try to stretch it to capture what we suspect is one (yet many - again the damn paradox).

 

And I will read what you suggested. Then again, I will wait as it is $300 on Amazon!!!!!

Edited December 20, 2016 by thormas

[tariki]

 

And I will read what you suggested. Then again, I will wait as it is $300 on Amazon!!!!!

Ah ha! What price Wisdom ( empty or not ) ?

 

Just googling, and that seems to be the price of some signatured copy. The whole book, "Zen and the Birds of Appetite" is available at £7.99 ( UK ) and equivalent price elsewhere.

[thormas]

Thanks Tariki, got it on Amazon, will be reading it Christmas Day.

[romansh]

 

What you see as a cause in your example is nothing more than a pre-condition or sequence when trying to find cause in a logical world. Sure we say this causes that... but then what causes this and we continue on a seemingly infinite number of causes that takes us through all of time.. Yes, i see causality in this world as an illusion and yet as you, i have planned for my retirement. While one might attribute my planning as the cause to a successful retirement i know that also is an illusion.

Joseph

 

Interesting Joseph.

This is similar to one of the interpretations of general relativity. It is like a movie reel where each frame follows another but the frames are not causative. This movie reel came into being at the beginning of time.

 

The upshot of this not only are we not responsible for what we appear to do .... we don't cause it either.

[tariki]

Thanks Tariki, got it on Amazon, will be reading it Christmas Day.

 

SPOILER ALERT! ( )

 

The essay ends with a vague disagreement between Merton and Suzuki....(perhaps if Suzuki had been a few years younger Merton might well have resorted to fisticuffs)

 

It concerns the eschatalogical dimension of Christianity, perculiar to itself, which "has no parallel in Buddhism", where the one "Son of God" will transfigure the cosmos and offer it resplendent to the Father (Merton's words). Suzuki is content with a realised eschatology in the here and now, and asserts that "Father Louis" has fallen from true emptiness, which has not gone far enough. Merton acknowledges that yes, he has drifted back into image and concept.

 

I think here we see the profound relevance of the character I spoke of earlier, in a Terry Pratchett novel, the guy who either knew where he was going or where he was, but never both at the same time. Such a state of being (or non-being) would seem to be in harmony with much of the new physics, which abounds in paradox, of which one said that if you claim to understand it you show that you don't.

 

I would just say that if we do live in the "empathic moment" (a realised eschatology) there is nothing to stop us getting anywhere eventually, while one who has their eye on the future is missing something somewhere. But maybe that is only my own perception.........I have no idea just where I am going.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by tariki

[thormas]

In Christianity there is a realized and a yet to be eschatology: the Kingdom at Hand, the Kingdom still to be (in fullness). And I would have to add, although not a Merton expert, not all Christians accept as 'literal' that "the one 'Son of God' will transfigure the cosmos and offer it resplendent to the Father." Also, this seems like classic theism.

 

But I do like and agree with your closing statement: ".... if we do live in the "empathic moment" (a realised eschatology) there is nothing to stop us getting anywhere eventually, while one who has their eye on the future is missing something somewhere.........I have no idea just where I am going." The hope that there is 'a getting anywhere eventually' is the future eschatology to which Merton points. However, even Suzuki must see that the eschatology is not fully realized in 'realized eschatology.'

 

​This idea of emptiness is one I have to think on because my idea, born of faith, is Fullness. Perhaps they are the same in that one could look at, for example, Jesus and see emptiness and another would see fullness of life.

Edited December 21, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

Joseph and Rom, I have to ask if any of your recent statements are tongue in cheek and in asking that I intend no disrespect, I am just left smiling at the notion that although you recognize that causality in this world is an illusion you still plan for retirement. I guess I can intellectually toy with the illusion part but if truly believed, why plan for retirement, why do anything? And then there is this: not only are we not responsible for what we appear to do .... we don't cause it either. Isn't that like someone else saying, the devil made me do it: I I am not responsible and I did not cause it?

 

Also, is it just causality that is the illusion or must (seemingly) time be a an illusion and supposedly everything and everybody, including those dearest to you? Including you?

Edited December 21, 2016 by thormas

[tariki]

In Christianity there is a realized and a yet to be eschatology: the Kingdom at Hand, the Kingdom still to be (in fullness). And I would have to add, although not a Merton expert, not all Christians accept as 'literal' that "the one 'Son of God' will transfigure the cosmos and offer it resplendent to the Father." Also, this seems like classic theism.

 

But I do like and agree with your closing statement: ".... if we do live in the "empathic moment" (a realised eschatology) there is nothing to stop us getting anywhere eventually, while one who has their eye on the future is missing something somewhere.........I have no idea just where I am going." The hope that there is 'a getting anywhere eventually' is the future eschatology to which Merton points. However, even Suzuki must see that the eschatology is not fully realized in 'realized eschatology.'

 

​This idea of emptiness is one I have to think on because my idea, born of faith, is Fullness. Perhaps they are the same in that one could look at, for example, Jesus and see emptiness and another would see fullness of life.

Somewhere I lost your thread. Where did the "hope" come from? What I said was that to have an eye on the future is to be missing something. Which becomes in your musings that Suzuki is missing something by living in the present. What "must" Suzuki see? That there is somewhere, sometime, a better place or state of being?

 

Another Buddhist once said that "the only extension to the present is intensity". If our "present" involves knowing it only as the preliminary to a better world then as I see it we are back to betrayal. Again I would ask the question........how exactly does the "better" come to be? By seeing our "lack" and the "lack" in others, or, "acceptance" and the paradox that it is pure acceptance itself that is the catalyst for transformation.

 

Emptiness? Empty of what? Empty of an intrinsic self. Empty of a particular state of "being", thus able to be all things ( or "the ten thousand things" in Buddhist speak )

 

When we look at Jesus, if that is indeed our thing, do we see an individual "self" who gives himself to us by extension to be known at some future date, or He that has emptied Himself in eternal participation?

 

Do we, in Christian speak, accept the cross ONLY to know the resurrection? In which case, has it really been accepted? Thus another betrayal of our suffering world.

 

Sorry, just musing and thinking out loud.

 

"Lay your sleeping head, my love,

Human on my faithless arm..

..but in my arms till break of day

Let the living creature lie,

Mortal, guilty, but to me

The entirely beautiful"

 

( Auden, lines from "Lullaby" )

[SteveS55]

Well, as Padmasambhava is reported as saying: "Although my view is higher than the sky, my respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."

 

Existence is "like" an illusion. It is a simile. It is a sensate and persistent illusion-like dream, mirage or hallucination. To ignore cause and effect in a causal universe would be foolish.This is why people plan for retirement, eat, drink, sleep, work, and so on.

 

Steve

[thormas]

Tariki,

 

A realized eschatology suggests 'this life' and I merely meant that as long as one is alive in the 'here and now' it is not yet done, i.e. realized. I do recognize that one could suggest that every moment is (potentially) realized, but there are many moments in a life and true realization takes time (time is not an illusion) . As for where did 'hope' come from for a 'future' eschatology, that comes from the belief that once given, Life/being (is not taken back but) continues. For me this ties into the other Buddhist saying, ""the only extension to the present is intensity". And, for the man of faith, such Intensity knows no bounds.

 

In this, there is no betrayal. Even when brought up in Roman Catholicism of the 50s/60s, and even more so now, I (and everybody I knew) never lived as though "our 'present' involved knowing it only as the preliminary to a better world." Further, I have no idea when such a future eschatology comes to be or what it is, but as for the how: we awaken to life, the grace of being (the Love that has no why), and it is the response to and 'taking' that gift into oneself that is the Way of Realization, Actualization, Fullness, Abundance, Intensity.

 

'How does the better come to be?' The same answer you gave: 'by pure acceptance - the catalyst for transformation.' Like all relationships when the lover gives self, the only response is faith - which is the giving and commitment of self to the other. This is acceptance which leads to transformation; diversity (the two) becoming one (in some very real way). Isn't this the truth in love relationships (married or otherwise), with true friends and with beloved children? This is incarnation: the Love, that one wakes to, The Love that has no why is 'taken in, made flesh' in a human life and there is transformation: humanity actually becomes this Love.

 

You asked about Emptiness but didn't I ask first? So what is emptiness for you? Empty of what? Empty of an intrinsic self. Empty of a particular state of "being", thus able to be all things?

 

In Jesus (and not necessarily limited to this one human being in one religious expression), I believe we see an individual who gives self (He is Love, he is the empathetic moment) and we can become what he is and 'the present is intensified.' For me, in Christian speak, what died on the cross, what died throughout the life of Jesus, was self-centeredness or selfishness. Throughout his life, Love, that has no why - was accepted, transformation takes place and (resurrection which I don't understand in theistic terms) Intensity follows. 'This is the Way, it only has to be taken up.' Has it really been accepted? Doesn't appear so and that is the risk and vulnerability of Love but apparently only such Love has the 'power' of transformation.

Edited December 21, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

Well, as Padmasambhava is reported as saying: "Although my view is higher than the sky, my respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."

 

Existence is "like" an illusion. It is a simile. It is a sensate and persistent illusion-like dream, mirage or hallucination. To ignore cause and effect in a causal universe would be foolish.This is why people plan for retirement, eat, drink, sleep, work, and so on.

 

Steve

 

You sure this isn't just 'hedging a bet?' :}

[SteveS55]

I don't see it as a "hedge", Thomas. It is a description of the way things appear to us. I'm not trying to convince anyone of this, it's up to the individual to investigate this or not.

[JosephM]

Joseph and Rom, I have to ask if any of your recent statements are tongue in cheek and in asking that I intend no disrespect, I am just left smiling at the notion that although you recognize that causality in this world is an illusion you still plan for retirement. I guess I can intellectually toy with the illusion part but if truly believed, why plan for retirement, why do anything? And then there is this: not only are we not responsible for what we appear to do .... we don't cause it either. Isn't that like someone else saying, the devil made me do it: I I am not responsible and I did not cause it?

 

Also, is it just causality that is the illusion or must (seemingly) time be a an illusion and supposedly everything and everybody, including those dearest to you? Including you?

 

For myself.... no tongue in cheek.

 

I still have to play out my part ... which now includes enjoying retirement, contributing to my grandchildren's college fund, maintaining this site, answering posts, and a myriad of other so called things. My life must continue to unfold .... how could i resist its unfolding?

 

I have no blame to shift and nowhere to shift it if i did. If someone has an objection to such a supposition as i might seem to have .... i would ask them... (this is not personal or directed at any reader) Who makes you to differ? What have you that you have not received or been given? and If you have received it then why would you boast as if you had not?

 

Illusion - a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. Yes in a sense " everything and everybody, including those dearest to (me) you? Including you (me)? seems to me an illusion.

 

Thormas,

 

This i find as an interesting quote from a summary of the Pali canon concerning the essence of Buddhism.

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,

all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-believe fiction,

a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints,

with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-ignorance, "

 

Joseph

[tariki]

Thomas, without quoting all you have said again in your last response to me, it appears that you agree with everything I have said myself yet then imply that a "realised eschatology" in the here and now is inadequate and "must have" more. Then you offer your own "master words", words which for me add nothing.

 

We must leave it at that.

[tariki]

For myself.... no tongue in cheek.

 

I still have to play out my part ... which now includes enjoying retirement, contributing to my grandchildren's college fund, maintaining this site, answering posts, and a myriad of other so called things. My life must continue to unfold .... how could i resist its unfolding?

 

I have no blame to shift and nowhere to shift it if i did. If someone has an objection to such a supposition as i might seem to have .... i would ask them... (this is not personal or directed at any reader) Who makes you to differ? What have you that you have not received or been given? and If you have received it then why would you boast as if you had not?

 

Illusion - a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. Yes in a sense "[/size] everything and everybody, including those dearest to (me) you? Including you (me)? seems to me an illusion.

 

Thormas,

 

This i find as an interesting quote from a summary of the Pali canon concerning the essence of Buddhism.

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,

all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-believe fiction,

a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints,

with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-ignorance, "

 

Joseph

Joseph, who offered that as a summary of the Pali Canon?

 

( By the way, just reading again from Stephen Batchelor's latest, and his deconstruction, then reconstruction, of the "There must be an Unborn, an Unconditioned" passage, drawn from the Udana, makes for good reading, if nothing else. Mr Batchelor would, I think, see the "summary" offered as more a neo-hinduism in need of its own deconstruction)

Edited December 21, 2016 by tariki

[thormas]

I don't see it as a "hedge", Thomas. It is a description of the way things appear to us. I'm not trying to convince anyone of this, it's up to the individual to investigate this or not.

 

This was actually tongue in cheek for me (note the smile). I didn't think you were trying to convince anyone, I was just looking at the posts and trying to wrap my arms around causality as an illusion, illusion as a simile, existence as a dream or mirage and retirement planning.

 

I did see Joseph's note about an unfolding life, planning and lots to do (with no blame in the details), which I get and respect, yet, if I follow him: it's still an illusion - even those he loves, an illusion.

 

But who is illusion-ating? It can't be the changeless reality because illusion, any illusion, any make-believe fiction, any delusion would be something 'new:' it would be a change; it wouldn't be permanent; it wouldn't be absolute; and, it wouldn't be reality. So, it can't be Absolute changeless permanent reality! And, it can't be anything else, because there is nothing else. Yet, it must be Absolute changeless permanent reality, but, if so, why does 'it' engage in make-believe fiction? Why would absolute unchanging permanent reality create, permit or need such illusions? And, again, the very illusions would be a change from total changelessness.

If illusions are, then Absolute changeless permanent reality cannot be Absolute changeless permanent reality.

 

I am curious if this is Buddhism and, if so, how it dovetails with Tariki's Buddhism and the comments on Love and empathy. If all is illusion and love goes out from itself to the other, then the 'Love that has no why' cannot be Love - because it comes from the Absolute Alone and goes back to the Absolute Alone: there is nowhere else to go because all else is illusion and is not. What does the Alone empathize with, what does Love, love?

Edited December 21, 2016 by thormas