« Buddhism: the illusion of life is believing in a fixed reality | Main | Physicist Sean Carroll debunks unscientific religious myth-making »

November 25, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In regard to 'emptiness' I will call it "I" just for convenience (it's short). In saying 'I' I don't mean 'me'. What I am is no object like 'me' or 'you'.

If I am no objective thing then I am not a subject either because a subject is also an object.

I can't be a thought, or thought of, because what I am is necessarily unconscious of being conscious.

As a conceptualized thought I see what I am as a kind of object which is a non-object. But what I am is not a non-object. I am total objective absence which is total subjective presence that is as unaware of absence as of presence.

So, I am not, whereby I am...I who am necessarily everything and no thing, and neither any nor no thing.

All conceptualizing of what I am is a process by which subject seeks to objectify itself, which is THE primary illusory process.

If I am looked for objectively I will never be found because I am no object.
Non-objectively regarded, I can't be known at all.

Yet I unselfconsciously AM.


Immediately always.

Brian, you might be interested in this take on the two truths doctrine:


David, thanks for the link. I read it quickly. Need to go back to it. The piece seems well thought-out. I agree that it seems sort of crazy that only enlightened people can know ultimate truth.

Especially when ultimate reality is conventional truth plus an understanding of "emptiness." Which only exists conventionally, not ultimately. So the Crown Jewel of enlightenment is realizing a truth that doesn't exist, but rather explains why nothing permanent or unchanging exists.

Bizarre. But that's why I love philosophical Buddhism. It doesn't make sense when it tries to explain the world. However, if the world doesn't make sense, then Buddhism is on the right track!

The mind boggles. Its hilarious how many words are being used to describe "emptiness" and "nothingness". Maybe thats the point. Eventually the intellect will hit a brick wall and the mind will do a flip and it will be back to "chop wood, carry water".

brian said and of course I agree :
I agree that it seems sort of crazy that only enlightened people can know ultimate truth.

Only people IN LOVE can, . . and that's easy and makes us all equal ! <3


Here is a "real" problem. It appears as though all of our efforts are trying to understand everything/nothing through our sense fields. We might also add at least two more fields of daily/nightly experience ... sleep with dreams and sleep without dreams. Is it wrong to say these may be likened to the three kayas ... the form realm, the desire form realm and the formless realm?


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.