Nothing

[Guest guest]

Joyce: The word " nothing " refers to a state of non-existence, an

absence of

any

perceptible qualities or lacking in distinguishing

qualities. " Nothingness "

refers to an absence of everything-life, existence and all discernable

qualities.

 

" Qualities " are distinctive characteristics. So how would you know

" nothing is happening " ? This would make a good koan.

 

Philosophy is usually concerned with " being " - the essential nature

or state

of existing.

One might think of human beings as beings in search of their being or

beings

for whom their being is somewhat problematic.

 

My guess is the word " nothing " is being mis-used, or at least there

are

better terms for what the person is trying to communicate. Appearances

appear but they are fleeting and unsubstantial? Mirages? Phantoms?

Echoes?

With illusory qualities? Fairy-flowers? The essential nature of mind

or

being is not " nothing " as it has discernable qualities such as wisdom.

Buddhism points this out with the aim of showing the habitual

clinging to

phenomena, all mentality and materiality as substantial and real, is

delusional and the cause of suffering. This point seem to be what

underlies

most wisdom teachings. But what is fully present when clouds of

delusion

lift is not " nothing " .

 

Then one would have to see what " philosophizing " is for any

individual. A

remote set of abstract postulates or ideas and methods pragmatically

applied

to achieve some end result.

How does one test whatever philosophy one follows? Or whatever

philosophy

someone else tries to sell.

 

" Reality " is a matter of temporary agreements - we create consensus

reality

(duality) by agreeing that there are solid things named this and

that. This

is " mine " and that is " not-mine " etc. This is accepted and that

rejected and

hey presto one has creatively constructed a reality. Some think that

their

philosophy allows them to know " others " minds. These folks get

together and

allow each other to make pronouncements on others minds - usually the

dominant personality manages to persuade others to their view and

there is

an agreement not to challange. This group of folks enjoy their game

as do

all reality-creators and it works for them.

 

Others create different realities and they all seem to work

relatively well

based on agreement. People may decide to move from reality to reality.

Occasionally a person from one reality strays into the domain of

another and

attempts to enforce or insist that others come under control of their

view.

They may attempt to " beat it home " . One might want to look at the

motivation

here. All this is mind-created, imaginary, a temporary vehicle.

Interestingly, the Madhyamikans will use philosophical debate to

attempt to

persuade others to a certain view of reality but the full seeing has

to go

beyond conceptuality/dogma. The one they are trying to persuade is

seen as

" the object of my compassion " . One Lama skilled in debate states that

it is

impossible to debate with New Agers as they have no philosophical

position

and N.Age-ism is really just a confused expression of western

nihilism.

 

How do beings with various agreements about realities

see " philosophy " ? One

group does seem to somehow clearly know all about the mind of another

and

make pronouncements and judgments about it and, offer

endless " guideance " .

I dispute that what they are seeing is

any mental phenomena other than their own. I can be wrong about this.

Someone would have to use their philosophy to demonstrate to me my

error in

thinking.

 

Proposition: All views are fabricated and as such are fetters.

 

 

 

 

Joyce