Beyond the illusion of a separate sense of self

[Bassui]

Hey David,

But how do we know if things as they appear in our relative reality are not a manifestation of how they appear when you're out of Plato's cave?

The allegory of Plato's Cave is meant to demonstrate that belief does not always equal knowledge, believers in only empirical knowledge are trapped in a cave of misunderstanding (the shadows, from the perspective of the prisoners, are real and an empirical truth for them).

All things that appear in our relative reality are manifestations, coming and going, being created and destroyed, all without their own intrinsic nature. No theorizing needed, you can check this for yourself.

How do we know that the (relative) rose we are contemplating is not a form of expression of a rose in absolute reality?

The rose we are contemplating in relative reality has no intrinsic nature of its own. There is no "rose-ness" there that you can find, its merely a manifestation of the causes and conditions that allow it to exist in that form - which is empty (Heart sutra).

I have not read the book you cited, but the taglines read "The Conquest of Illusion aims to teach those in the modern world - an existence dominated by physical things and technological achievement - of a consciousness which has and will always exist".... so this book would essentially be arguing the same thing we're pointing at here.

BUT having said all this, you're putting the car way in front of the horse! If you'd oblige me, I'd like to recommend that you stop reading any and all things related to spirituality, awakening, the nature of existence, non-duality, etc. The top of the mountain looks the same but there are many paths to get there...let's focus on this path of inquiry for now. Once we're on the other side of the gate I'd be more than happy to help you work through remaining questions...if you still have them!

Sound good?

[dduport]

Thanks for the clarifications, Bassui.

BUT having said all this, you're putting the car way in front of the horse! If you'd oblige me, I'd like to recommend that you stop reading any and all things related to spirituality, awakening, the nature of existence, non-duality, etc. The top of the mountain looks the same but there are many paths to get there...let's focus on this path of inquiry for now.

Sounds good. I'll stop reading and focus on this path. I'm halfway through the Jed McKenna's book that you guys recommend in this website. The book got better when I found that Jed is a fictional character, but I'll put it away while I concentrate my energies here.

Once we're on the other side of the gate I'd be more than happy to help you work through remaining questions...if you still have them!

Thank you, Bassui. I'm eager to cross the gate.

[Bassui]

I'm eager to cross the gate.

Let us continue then!

So far we've been talking about how appearances (or things in general) have no intrinsic nature of their own. Here's where honesty comes into play, so please be honest with yourself and me here:

Do you fully understand and accept that things are without their own intrinsic nature, or is this point still not quite clear enough for you yet?

Again, no wrong answers. Your answer just tells me where I need to go next.

[dduport]

Do you fully understand and accept that things are without their own intrinsic nature, or is this point still not quite clear enough for you yet?

I understand the point, but I cannot seem to accept it in practice. I see the computer where I'm typing this message and find it extremely hard to deny that this object has an intrinsic "computerness" nature. Many different hardware and software pieces made this computer what it is, apparently. The same applies to the sun glasses that I just picked up. Their apparent sunglassesness make it an ideal object to reduce the sun light that reaches my eyes while driving my car (carness). Etc.

Accepting that things do not have an intrinsic nature is extremely hard to me.

Thank you again, Bassui.

[Bassui]

Hello David,

Thank you for the honest response. Feigning knowledge or understanding of concepts is like quicksand to seekers. Acknowledging when you don't know something, or are unsure of what is being communicated, is critical. So, hats of to you for asking for clarification!

Let's take this easy and start from step one.

What does the term "inherent nature" mean to you?

[dduport]

Hello Bassui,

Your latest question:

What does the term "inherent nature" mean to you?

After a long reflection, I realized that I don't know what "inner nature" means. I think I can relate to the notions of intrinsic or essential nature or defining characteristics, but I cannot really make sense of the idea of inner nature. But maybe is just about semantics.

If the idea is to discuss if things in this world posses an essential nature, that is, something that univocally characterizes a physical thing or being (e.g., a tree or a bridge), independently from any relationship with the rest of the world, then I must admit that my mind tends to believe quite consistently that things and beings exist in and for themselves. Put it differently, a random chechen tree in a Yucatan jungle has its "own thing going" (its treeness) and its existence seems to be completely independent from my own existence, for example.

So yes, waking life experience suggests to me that things have their own separate existence, necessarily possessing an essential nature or defining characteristics that make them what they are. After some examination, we know, however, that this is an illusion, but the illusion is persistent for some of us.

Thank you,

david

[Bassui]

Good morning David,

I realized that I don't know what "inner nature" means.

Well, I don't know what it means either! I've only used the term inherent nature so far.

I think I can relate to the notions of intrinsic or essential nature

Right now we're only discussing what intrinsic nature is, so that's good.

If the idea is to discuss if things in this world posses an essential nature, that is, something that univocally characterizes a physical thing or being (e.g., a tree or a bridge), independently from any relationship with the rest of the world, then I must admit that my mind tends to believe quite consistently that things and beings exist in and for themselves.

This is the general idea, yes.

When we speak of something having intrinsic nature, we're suggesting that said object appears to be there under its own steam, so to speak. Intrinsic nature is independent of causes and conditions, independent of its parts, and independent of being perceived (it is there whether or not you're looking at it). There is an "isness" about it, or a "treeness" about it like you mentioned.

In your own direct experience there probably seems to be a Davidness going on, yes? Something inside you suggestion that it is independent of causes and conditions, independent of its parts, and independent of being perceived. Davidness seems separate from all else in the known world. The tree in the Yucatan has it's own thing going on, as does your favorite coffee/tea cup, and all other phenomena you can conjure up.

Does this definition of intrinsic nature work for you?

[dduport]

Sorry about my confusion, Bassui. For some reason I read "inner" at first and then I never got it our of my mind, even when I copied your text including the expression (!). I think this is a good example of how we can program or get our minds programmed to see what the program wants us to see.

In your own direct experience there probably seems to be a Davidness going on, yes? Something inside you suggestion that it is independent of causes and conditions, independent of its parts, and independent of being perceived. Davidness seems separate from all else in the known world. The tree in the Yucatan has it's own thing going on, as does your favorite coffee/tea cup, and all other phenomena you can conjure up.

Does this definition of intrinsic nature work for you?

Yes, your definition of intrinsic or inherent nature works for me wonderfully. Again, I understand theoretically that intrinsic nature or essence is an illusion, but it's hard for me to translate that into everyday constant and deep practical understanding.

Thanks and sorry again for my confusion in my previous reply,

david

[Bassui]

it's hard for me to translate that into everyday constant and deep practical understanding.

Constant and deep. Why does it need to be either of these things?
It sounds as if you understand the theory but have not accepted it.
Have you spent any time directly looking for intrinsic nature in the phenomena around you?

[dduport]

Sorry again for the delay.

I think that "constant and deep" refers to a state where one is... awake or liberated?

It sounds as if you understand the theory but have not accepted it.

You're right. You mentioned earlier that this acceptance or realization was very difficult.

I try to spend the little free time I have looking for intrinsic nature in the world, but it's extremely hard to accept that things do not possess an intrinsic nature. I'll keep trying!

Thank you,

david

[Bassui]

I think that "constant and deep" refers to a state where one is... awake or liberated?

If you would only rid yourselves of the concepts of ordinary and Enlightened, you would find that there is no other Buddha than the Buddha in your own Mind. The arising and the elimination of illusion are both illusory. Illusion is not something rooted in Reality; it exists because of your dualistic thinking. If you will only cease to indulge in opposed concepts such as ‘ordinary’ and ‘Enlightened’, illusion will cease of itself.

Huang Bo

it's extremely hard to accept that things do not possess an intrinsic nature.

How many times must you jump in the air and come back down to accept gravity?
On a relative level you don't have to deny the existence of anything. A cup is a cup. It's only the empty space inside that makes it useful, however. And moreover, ultimately a cup is also not a cup. There is nothing "cupness" intrinsic to it.

Take your time with your own inquiry. Let me know when you're ready to continue.

[dduport]

Hello Bassui.

I'm ready to continue after a fairly long hiatus.
Are you still there?


David

[Bassui]

Hello David.

Sorry for the late reply! Been wrapped up in some projects.

I'm here now, if you're interested in continuing still.

Let me know where you'd like to start off at!