The Truth Trap.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

"while all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation"

Is that your absolute statement of certainty?

you aleady know that my definition of 'certainty' in this context is different from yours since it does not have the connotation of 'knowing something'.
Also 'absolute' in the context of language isn't appropriate because lingiustic expressions are relative by nature.
Therefore:
The expression you quoted is an appropriate expression of an experience from the perspective of my philosophical view. That is: The philosophical view and the application of its rational analysis resulted in the experience. So the view has been authenticated by experience.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Is there no chance that there is somthing hidden from you that you have not considered that may contradict it?
If the answer is "No"". do you realize the implications of that No? That you are aware of everything in the totality of the manifestation that may contradict that so called certainty. Is that actually your position?

Please clarify.

My view is no speculative view. In the context of my view only what can be known in my own sphere is expressed authentically. It is based on rationality. Speculation wouldn't be authentic. The basis is rational analysis of objects of knowledge.
Whether there is a chance that there is something hidden from me or not does not make a difference. It is completely irrelevant. Both answers, 'yes' and 'no', would be expressions of mere belief and thus subject to innate truth habits. Why should I affirm or deny something I can't know? My sphere of knowing is nothing other than my sphere of experience.

So you see my view is non-speculative and in being non-speculative it is very pragmatic.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

you aleady know that my definition of 'certainty' in this context is different from yours since it does not have the connotation of 'knowing something'.
Also 'absolute' in the context of language isn't appropriate because lingiustic expressions are relative by nature.
Therefore:
The expression you quoted is an appropriate expression of an experience from the perspective of my philosophical view. That is: The philosophical view and the application of its rational analysis resulted in the experience. So the view has been authenticated by experience.


My view is no speculative view. In the context of my view only what can be known in my own sphere is expressed authentically. It is based on rationality. Speculation wouldn't be authentic. The basis is rational analysis of objects of knowledge.
Whether there is a chance that there is something hidden from me or not does not make a difference. It is completely irrelevant. Both answers, 'yes' and 'no', would be expressions of mere belief and thus subject to innate truth habits. Why should I affirm or deny something I can't know? My sphere of knowing is nothing other than my sphere of experience.

So you see my view is non-speculative and in being non-speculative it is very pragmatic.

It was a straight question which you failed to answer. Repeat what certainty means for you and maybe we can try again to cut through all this smoke and mirrors.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

It was a straight question which you failed to answer.

Well you expected either 'yes' or 'no' and my reply can be translated into 'Maybe yes, Maybe no. It is of no concern.'
Whatever I would reply it would be again just be an imputation and 'all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation' and thus are empty of truth. But if there isn't any truth in linguistic expressions why then do I use some expressions but not others? Because I use authentic expressions only. If my authentic expressions do not satify you it is because our experiences are different which is because our conditionings are different.

Are you sure that you aren't just after another kind of truth? To me it appears as if you are just after another kind of truth and therefore you get trapped in speculative belief.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Repeat what certainty means for you and maybe we can try again to cut through all this smoke and mirrors.

Here I used 'certainty' as a synonym for 'imperturbability' and as such it refers to an experience empty of myself (subject) and object.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Well you expected either 'yes' or 'no' and my reply can be translated into 'Maybe yes, Maybe no. It is of no concern.'
Whatever I would reply it would be again just be an imputation and 'all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation' and thus are empty of truth. But if there isn't any truth in linguistic expressions why then do I use some expressions but not others? Because I use authentic expressions only. If my authentic expressions do not satify you it is because our experiences are different which is because our conditionings are different.

Are you sure that you aren't just after another kind of truth? To me it appears as if you are just after another kind of truth and therefore you get trapped in speculative belief.



Here I used 'certainty' as a synonym for 'imperturbability' and as such it refers to an experience empty of myself (subject) and object.

Ok thats clear. You trust whatever process you go through to reach that certainty as being free from distortions from conditioning because you believe that all your conditioning has been located and is not hidden from you.

Hope your right. Time will tell. Let me know if you start to doubt that. Until then I'm pleased its working for you.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ok thats clear. You trust whatever process you go through to reach that certainty as being free from distortions from conditioning ...

Again: What is called 'free from conditioning' refers to an experience and means that conditioning becomes irrelevant. 'refers to an experience' excludes 'freedom from conditioning' as inherently existing.

Originally Posted by Iamit

because you believe that all your conditioning has been located and is not hidden from you.

From what I already said you could rationally conclude that I do not believe anything. From my perspective belief necessarily is speculative and subject to innate truth habits.
If conditioning becomes irrelevant it is of no concern whether there is conditioning or not. The basis for this irrelevance is certainty as imperturbability and therefore (one)self being empty of truth/inherent existence.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Hope your right. Time will tell. Let me know if you start to doubt that. Until then I'm pleased its working for you.

My linguistic expressions are necessarily the right ones because my view is authenticated by my experience. In certainty/imperturbability doubt is impossible because certainty/imperturbability is not belief but empty of subject and object since it belongs to the sphere of non-conceptuality/non-intuition.
If your experience makes you use different linguistic expressions that does not damage the rightness of my expressions but merely shows that our conditionings are different. Whether your linguistic expressions are authenticated by your experience is something only you can know and is of no concern for me. In the same vein it should be of no concern for you whether my view is authenticated by my experience because you cannot know even if I say that it is. But what is relevant for you is only your view.

Nevertheless - as said earlier - exchanging words in this conversation from different perspectives is very inspiring for me because my view that is based on rationality is always challenged in terms of consistency when confronted with different views. And in terms of innate truth habits it is always challenged in terms of authentication. The former challenge is dealt with by rational analysis while the latter is dealt with a kind of introspection or mindfulness.

Having said that my rational view expounded here in your threads is not my final view but my rational view is the view appropriate for our conversation which takes place in the sphere of dialectics. If I would apply my final view which actually is not inherently different from certainty/imperturbability I would not be able to deal with your words in a way appropriate for conventional conversation and conversation would be impossible. Nevertheless my rational view is perfectly compatible with my final view and actually my final view is a necessary conclusion of my rational view and thus my rational view is kind of embedded in my final view.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Again: What is called 'free from conditioning' refers to an experience and means that conditioning becomes irrelevant. 'refers to an experience' excludes 'freedom from conditioning' as inherently existing.


From what I already said you could rationally conclude that I do not believe anything. From my perspective belief necessarily is speculative and subject to innate truth habits.
If conditioning becomes irrelevant it is of no concern whether there is conditioning or not. The basis for this irrelevance is certainty as imperturbability and therefore (one)self being empty of truth/inherent existence.

My linguistic expressions are necessarily the right ones because my view is authenticated by my experience. In certainty/imperturbability doubt is impossible because certainty/imperturbability is not belief but empty of subject and object since it belongs to the sphere of non-conceptuality/non-intuition.
If your experience makes you use different linguistic expressions that does not damage the rightness of my expressions but merely shows that our conditionings are different. Whether your linguistic expressions are authenticated by your experience is something only you can know and is of no concern for me. In the same vein it should be of no concern for you whether my view is authenticated by my experience because you cannot know even if I say that it is. But what is relevant for you is only your view.

Nevertheless - as said earlier - exchanging words in this conversation from different perspectives is very inspiring for me because my view that is based on rationality is always challenged in terms of consistency when confronted with different views. And in terms of innate truth habits it is always challenged in terms of authentication. The former challenge is dealt with by rational analysis while the latter is dealt with a kind of introspection or mindfulness.

Having said that my rational view expounded here in your threads is not my final view but my rational view is the view appropriate for our conversation which takes place in the sphere of dialectics. If I would apply my final view which actually is not inherently different from certainty/imperturbability I would not be able to deal with your words in a way appropriate for conventional conversation and conversation would be impossible. Nevertheless my rational view is perfectly compatible with my final view and actually my final view is a necessary conclusion of my rational view and thus my rational view is kind of embedded in my final view.

Hope that continues to work for you and something hidden in one of Kierkegaard's ditches doesn't crawl out and say hello:)

Good luck

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Hope that continues to work for you and something hidden in one of Kierkegaard's ditches doesn't crawl out and say hello:)

Certainty/imperturbability is beyond hope and fear and beyond causality. So there is nothing that could 'work' (have effects') in this or that way.

I think I should again mention the different categories of language because when talking about certainty/imperturbability I have actually switched to linguistic expressions that refer to experience and left behind linguistic expressions of rational analysis.
E.g. saying 'Everything is conditioned. There is no absolute.' is a rational and analytical expression but saying 'Whether there is conditionality or not is irrelevant' is an expression referring to a state of experience. This state of experience is another mode of consciousness which is a state of unboundedly open equalness empty of self and other, a state where all phenomena are of one taste - 'one taste' being a metaphor for the quality of perception in that mode of consciousness.
And focusing on this 'one taste' it is perfectly appropriate to say 'there is no wavering from oneness'.
So you see that we may even use the same word 'oneness' although our views are different. But because our views are different your 'oneness' differs from my 'oneness' in terms of meaning/connotations.

Now the good thing about this mode of consicousness, this state of unboundedly open equalness empty of self and other, is that it is the basic mode of all other modes of consciousness, the mode from which all other modes incl. so called 'ordinary mind' originate and that therefore it is spontaneously present since all other modes are transient and/or interrupted. This basic mode actually is the reason why rational analysis of the mode of existence of self and other can entail the experience corresponding to the analytical expression 'emptiness of inherent existence and truth'.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Certainty/imperturbability is beyond hope and fear and beyond causality. So there is nothing that could 'work' (have effects') in this or that way.

I think I should again mention the different categories of language because when talking about certainty/imperturbability I have actually switched to linguistic expressions that refer to experience and left behind linguistic expressions of rational analysis.
E.g. saying 'Everything is conditioned. There is no absolute.' is a rational and analytical expression but saying 'Whether there is conditionality or not is irrelevant' is an expression referring to a state of experience. This state of experience is another mode of consciousness which is a state of unboundedly open equalness empty of self and other, a state where all phenomena are of one taste - 'one taste' being a metaphor for the quality of perception in that mode of consciousness.
And focusing on this 'one taste' it is perfectly appropriate to say 'there is no wavering from oneness'.
So you see that we may even use the same word 'oneness' although our views are different. But because our views are different your 'oneness' differs from my 'oneness' in terms of meaning/connotations.

Now the good thing about this mode of consicousness, this state of unboundedly open equalness empty of self and other, is that it is the basic mode of all other modes of consciousness, the mode from which all other modes incl. so called 'ordinary mind' originate and that therefore it is spontaneously present since all other modes are transient and/or interrupted. This basic mode actually is the reason why rational analysis of the mode of existence of self and other can entail the experience corresponding to the analytical expression 'emptiness of inherent existence and truth'.

Your attempt to screw it all down tightly to those definitions wont last my friend. Life will bust out one day. It always finds a way to beat such attempts at containment no matter how tightly you try to hang on in there.

The only escape is to embrace the idea that your impurturbability/certainty is as vulnerable to distortion and contradiction by what may be hidden as anything else.

You wont do that of course from where you are at but for you and I there is no point going round and round the same track again and again,

Good luck

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Your attempt to screw it all down tightly to those definitions wont last my friend.

From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is impermanent to assume permanence would be speculation.
Referring to experience: It is of no concern whether impermanent or permanent because in certainty/imperturbability not even time exists.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Life will bust out one day. It always finds a way to beat such attempts at containment no matter how tightly you try to hang on in there.

From the perspective of rationality: Life and all phenomena imputed to life are impermanent so fixation on or attachment to this or that is futile because all phenomena including life are like empty bubbles ready to disintegrate every moment.
Referring to experience: In lucid emptiness nothing is of concern since self and other are spontaneously freed.

Originally Posted by Iamit

The only escape is to embrace the idea that your impurturbability/certainty is as vulnerable to distortion and contradiction by what may be hidden as anything else.

From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is only imputedly existent even the phenomenon called 'what may be hidden' is only imputedly existent. And both 'escape' and that from which escape is imagined, these exist depending only on imputation too. What remains when conceptual and intuitive imputations subside?
Referring to experience: How could that which is empty of inherent existence be distorted? It is impossible. How could contradiction arise from that which is empty of inherent existence? It is impossible.
When conceptual and intuitive imputations disintegrate what remains is certainty/imperturbability and what is thus revealed is that certainty/imperturbability has been spontaneously present from the outset.

Originally Posted by Iamit

You wont do that of course from where you are at ...

From the perspective of rationality: you should not speculate about where I am since your sphere of knowing is your sphere of experience.

Originally Posted by Iamit

but for you and I there is no point going round and round the same track again and again,

Referring to experience: I cannot affirm 'the track' (metaphorically for 'inspiration') being always the same since inspiration continually changes although the certainty/imperturbability that pervades inspiration does neither change nor come nor go.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is impermanent to assume permanence would be speculation.
Referring to experience: It is of no concern whether impermanent or permanent because in certainty/imperturbability not even time exists.

From the perspective of rationality: Life and all phenomena imputed to life are impermanent so fixation on or attachment to this or that is futile because all phenomena including life are like empty bubbles ready to disintegrate every moment.
Referring to experience: In lucid emptiness nothing is of concern since self and other are spontaneously freed.


From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is only imputedly existent even the phenomenon called 'what may be hidden' is only imputedly existent. And both 'escape' and that from which escape is imagined, these exist depending only on imputation too. What remains when conceptual and intuitive imputations subside?
Referring to experience: How could that which is empty of inherent existence be distorted? It is impossible. How could contradiction arise from that which is empty of inherent existence? It is impossible.
When conceptual and intuitive imputations disintegrate what remains is certainty/imperturbability and what is thus revealed is that certainty/imperturbability has been spontaneously present from the outset.



From the perspective of rationality: you should not speculate about where I am since your sphere of knowing is your sphere of experience.

Referring to experience: I cannot affirm 'the track' (metaphorically for 'inspiration') being always the same since inspiration continually changes although the certainty/imperturbability that pervades inspiration does neither change nor come nor go.

Have it your way my friend. Contact me when it all crumbles:) Until then I am done with this repetition.

Good Luck