KHTK AXIOMS: A Work in Progress

The following group of KHTK Axioms is an attempt to summarize the fundamentals that are consistent with Buddhism. This project may become part of a PhD thesis.

Even when all the ideas employed in this project may not appear original in themselves, the originality of this project resides in the clarity of what is presented.  I am very proud of the contributions from “Maria,” Chris Thompson and John Christmann of the Facebook Group “Philosophiles“.

.

INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS:

The implicit assumptions of this project are:

  1. KNOWLEDGE IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT RELATIVE.
  2. THE UNKNOWN MAY BE MADE KNOWN THROUGH THE RESOLUTION OF INCONSISTENCIES.

For an understanding of inconsistency please refer to: INCONSISTENCY & LOOKING.]

.

OBSERVATIONS:

The initial observations of this project are:

  1. THERE IS LOOKING AND PERCEIVING
  2. ANYTHING THAT CAN BE PERCEIVED IS MANIFESTED. 
  3. ANYTHING THAT IS MANIFESTED IS EXISTING.
  4. CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC IS BUILT INTO THE LANGUAGE AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO CIRCUMVENT IT AT TIMES.

.

CONJECTURES:

  1. EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON THE ABILITY TO LOOK AND PERCEIVE.
  2. THE ABILITY TO LOOK AND PERCEIVE EXISTS.
.

KHTK AXIOMS:

KHTK AXIOM ONE: EXISTENCE IS EVERYTHING THAT IS MANIFESTED.

Corollary: There is no existence that is not manifested.

Corollary: Anything that is manifested is capable of being perceived.

The ultimate knowledge seems to be that existence is what is. There is no separate cause.

.

KHTK AXIOM TWO: CONJECTURES ABOUT EXISTENCE ARE MANIFESTED AS CONJECTURES.

Corollary: Anything, whether physical or not, when manifested exists.

Ideas, such as,  ”Uncaused cause,” “Unmoved mover,” “God,” “Supreme or Unconditioned Being,” etc., which are proposed as source of existence, exist as ideas, and, therefore, they are also part of existence.

.

KHTK AXIOM THREE: ANYTHING THAT CAN BE PERCEIVED IS MANIFESTED.

As long as God is perceived to be a being with certain properties, then God is also part of existence. God that is “unknowable” may not be part of existence.

.

KHTK AXIOM FOUR: EXISTENCE IS “WHAT IS” WITHOUT ANY FURTHER QUALIFICATION.

Observe things as they are, not as they seem to be. You don’t know what is actually there as long as there are inconsistencies present.

.

KHTK AXIOM FIVE: ABSENCE OF  MANIFESTATION GIVES RISE TO MANIFESTATION.

Considerations, such as, questions, speculations, conjectures, etc., are manifested when faced with unmanifested unknown.

.

KHTK AXIOM SIX: A MANIFESTATION CONSISTS OF BEINGNESS AND PERCEPTIBILITY.

Perceptibility does not exist independent of beingness. Nor does beingness exist independent of perceptibility.

.

KHTK AXIOM SEVEN: OBJECTIVITY CAN NEVER BE ABSOLUTE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DEGREE OF SUBJECTIVITY.

Corollary: Subjectivity comes from the viewpoint one assumes.

Corollary: A viewpoint acts as a filter.

True objectivity would be seeing something for what it is without any filters. That would mean, “Seeing something without any viewpoint.

.

KHTK AXIOM EIGHTSPACE IS THE CONSIDERATION OF MANIFESTATION.

The consideration of a manifestation may be visualized as a field, or an expanse, made up of points or locations. Each point is recognized by the consideration attached to it. This expanse of points is limited by consideration only.

The consideration at some point may acquire the dimension of being a reference. That point then becomes a viewpoint from which other points may be viewed or considered.

The manifestation is then being considered through this viewpoint, rather than simply being considered. This gives us space. Space is represented by dimensions. A dimension is a perceivable aspect of space that gives it quality and quantity.

When a certain aspect of a manifestation is being used as a reference to perceive the manifestation itself, we have a filter.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    This OP is a work in progress. It may be made part of a PhD thesis. So, try and shoot holes in it as best as you can.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 8:40 AM

    Based on the discussion at AXIOMS OF REASON, I have added the following axiom to the OP:

    KHTK AXIOM ______: TRUTH IS THE RECOGNITION OF WHAT IS.

    The sequence of this axiom is to be determined later.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:12 AM

      Maybe you should leave off “of what is.” Otherwise, the emphasis can be misplaced. TRUTH IS RECOGNITION is a bit cryptic, oh well.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

      ….and my reason as expressed elsewhere is that “what is” is fleeting. Locate something travelling the speed of light. Think about it. There is your calculus.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 9:19 AM

        It is fleeting only after it is recognized. Isn’t it?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM

          I’m not sure. I have to come to terms with my conundrum about continuous vs discrete. (and I have to fly out the door right now – need quantum power now.)

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM

          It is discrete within the continuum. Space is a continuum, but it produces mass by becoming concentrated at points within the continuum. But there is no cut-off of the concentrated space (particle) from the background continuum of space. This is what seems to be happening with the electron.

          This is my conjecture.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 7:19 PM

          I did not follow that. Please elaborate?

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 7:42 PM

          Imagine ice crystallizing in water. It is the same substance but different form. I believe that ice appears discrete but it still extends into the water. There is no clear-cut separation at the boundary between ice and water at microscopic or atomic levels.

          .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

      I thought it goes well with Buddha’s:

      Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

        Yes it does, but my point is that seem seems to be the closest we are going to get to what is until our clock speeds are accelerated by dozens of orders of magnitude. I would really like you to spend a minute on this because it remains my hang-up; my problem with what appears to me an inconsistency with our entire discussion on reason… Rafael? Maria? Please give a minute to my problem here. Possibly it resides completely within me and so doesn’t need an external resolution. And maybe that statement I’ve just made with reference to internal/external is junk as well.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM

        I think that the concept of ‘What is’ is relative to the context because there are deeper and deeper understandings as one widens the context. That is what happened to Scientology Axiom #1 when the context got widened by the use of “neti, neti.”

        So, “as they really are” is relative to the context of reality. The phrase “as they seem to be”, in my opinion, is the reality alloyed with considerations added by the viewpoint.

        Hope this makes sense.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

    I have revised the KHTK AXIOMS ONE to FOUR. They seem to be much simplified and more consistent now.

    Let me have your feedback.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 1:03 AM

    You are right. Much more streamlined.

    Axiom Zero seems to be an oxymoron. Maybe substitute the word TRUTH or “_____” for REALITY. Unless by using the word “ULTIMATE” you are trying to make the point. I’m trying to see clearly what you are trying to emphasize.

    I have not spent much time on these but I promise to. I like how much material you’ve produced and printed already.

  • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM

    These axioms seem to be changing faster than I can blink.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    My main focus is going to be on SPACE (KHTK AXIOM EIGHT) for now. This may take us into the subject of Geometry. The concept of viewpoint is also pertinent here and it shall be investigated.

    .

  • Maria  On November 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM

    Like Chris I`m pretty busy right now. But here is a start – more later.

    I think your work stands on its own merits.
    Therefore I recommend you drop these two paragraphs:

    There is a great fundamental divide between Abrahamic religions of the West, and the Brahmanic religions of the East.

    Scientology Axiom # 1 is more in line with the starting point of Western religions. A group of Scientology Axioms seems to summarize the fundamentals that are consistent with the Abrahamic religions.

    I also think you should drop any reference to Scientology or other philosophical works entirely. These axioms should be able to stand on their own merits. Any reference to works you wish to credit should be a part of the bibliography.

    • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM

      Wow Maria! You made me change the KHTK AXIOM ZERO. Hopefully, it will take the objection against “unknowable”.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

      If I could agree more, then I would! On each point! I more than recommend, I almost insist! That language is distracting.

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM

    Let’s tackle one axiom at a time and handle the hell out of it.

    I want to improve my write-up (see the link) of KHTK AXIOM ZERO.

    .

    .

  • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 1:13 AM

    I`d like to carefully examine the Buddha quotation. What is always fruitful for me is to thoroughly examine the phrase itself and its definitions.

    Buddha said: The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

    I am going to add emphasis to this statement:

    The absolute TRUTH is that there is noTHING absolute IN THE WORLD…

    …that everyTHING is relative, conditioned and impermanent,…

    …and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute SUBSTANCE like Self, Soul, or Ātman

    …within or without. (within the world or without the world)

    Comments:

    Buddha is not saying that there is no absolute. He is saying there IS an ABSOLUTE and it is an absolute TRUTH — that truth being that there is noTHING absolute IN the WORLD.

    Since he knows this and has reported on this, this is knowable — at the very least known about and reported on by Buddha. Otherwise he would not be able to make such a statement. The question is: does he know this? Yes he does. Evidently this knowing transcends (using transcends for lack of a better word) the world.

    TRANSCEND: Transcending, or reaching beyond, the limits of human knowledge; — applied to affirmations and speculations concerning what lies beyond the reach of the human intellect.

    ABSOLUTE: Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional; Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless; Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; — opposed to relative and comparative; Loosed from, or unconnected by, dependence on any other being; self-existent; self-sufficing.
    Capable of being thought or conceived by itself alone; unconditioned; non-relative. Positive; clear; certain; not doubtful; Pure; unmixed; Syn. — Positive; peremptory; certain; unconditional; unlimited; unrestricted; unqualified; arbitrary; despotic; autocratic.

    SUBSTANCE: Body; matter; material of which a thing is made; hence, substantiality; solidity; firmness;

    SELF: The individual as the object of his own reflective consciousness; the man viewed by his own cognition as the subject of all his mental phenomena, the agent in his own activities, the subject of his own feelings, and the possessor of capacities and character; a person as a distinct individual; a being regarded as having personality; Personification; embodiment. (sometimes referred to as ego by Buddhist translators)

    SOUL: The spiritual, rational, and immortal part in man; that part of man which enables him to think, and which renders him a subject of moral government; — sometimes, in distinction from the higher nature, or spirit, of man, the so-called animal soul, that is, the seat of life, the sensitive affections and phantasy, exclusive of the voluntary and rational powers; — sometimes, in distinction from the mind, the moral and emotional part of man’s nature, the seat of feeling, in distinction from intellect; — sometimes, the intellect only; the understanding; the seat of knowledge, as distinguished from feeling. In a more general sense, “an animating, separable, surviving entity, the vehicle of individual personal existence.”

    ATMAN: The life principle, soul, or individual essence. The words ātman and atta derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath) and are cognate with Old English æthm, German Atem, and Greek atmo-.

    COGNIZANCE: cognizance (n.)
    mid-14c., from Anglo-Fr. conysance “recognition,” later, “knowledge,” from O.Fr. conoissance “acquaintance, recognition; knowledge, wisdom” (Mod.Fr. connaissance), from pp. of conoistre “to know,” from L. cognoscere “to get to know, recognize,” from com- “together” (see co-) + gnoscere “to know” (see notice).

    Notes: Apparently there is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that is known, at least to Buddha. Perhaps the ultimate reality is not cognizable?

    Well, I am tired. Perhaps tomorrow will bring greater insight.

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM

      Maria, that is a great start. 🙂

      (1) What seems to be absolute is that there is MANIFESTING.

      Something or other is always manifesting, changing and disappearing. That seems to be absolute.

      .

      (2) However, THAT, which manifests, is never absolute.

      According to Buddha everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.

      .

      This has been at the back of my mind for some time. What you wrote finally triggered it Now let’s try it out for size. What do you say?

      .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 7:44 AM

      We can modify axiom zero as follows:

      KHTK AXIOM ZERO: WHAT MANIFESTS IS ALWAYS RELATIVE, CONDITIONED AND IMPERMANENT.

      Corollary: There is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance.

      “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

      Something or other is always manifesting, changing or disappearing. That observation seems to be absolute but it is difficult to say if manifesting still goes on when there is no observation.

      So, the fact of manifesting is relative to observation, and all observations leads to the conclusion that whatever manifests is always relative, conditioned and impermanent.

      .

      • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 7:59 AM

        Or, we can keep KHTK AXIOM ZERO as it is in the OP but explain it better, such as,

        We may only observe what is manifested. We cannot observe what is not manifested. Therefore, our observation and knowing is relative to what is manifested.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

        Even our thoughts become known to us only after they are manifested.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

          Yes! We only know something once we know it!

        • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

          Yes, thoughts are known (and can be related / related to others) as they are manifested. The knowing process can result in consideration but may not necessarily result in consideration.

          Perhaps knowing is immanent:

          Remaining within; inherent; indwelling; abiding; intrinsic; internal or subjective; hence, limited in activity, agency, or effect, to the subject or associated acts; — opposed to emanant, transitory, transitive, or objective.

          Compare to emanant:

          Issuing or flowing forth; emanating; passing forth into an act, or making itself apparent by an effect; — said of mental acts; as, an emanant volition.

          Compare to relate:

          1. To bring back] to restore. [Obs.] 2. To refer; to ascribe, as to a source.
          [Obs. or R.] 3. To recount; to narrate; to tell over. 4. To ally by connection or kindred. Syn. — To tell; recite; narrate; recount; rehearse; report; detail; describe.

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

          I believe that there is a whole gradient of knowing:

          Perception
          Experience
          Information
          Hypothesis
          Theory
          Principles
          Axioms
          Self

    • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

      That there are manifestations beyond our personal perception is so basic that this needs its own axiom, and this axiom seems to be the source of mystery.

      • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

        I believe that anything manifested can be perceived. It is that, which is not manifested, is not perceivable.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    I have restored the word “unknowable” and have added two corollaries to expand upon Axiom Zero.

    I shall keep the word “unknowable” until I find a better word to replace it. The word “unknowable” is stimulating and challenging. It kick starts thinking. At this point it seems that LOOKING takes precedence over LOGIC.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

      Does it? Will one see the thing which doesn’t exist? Does looking see what is there, or does looking put there what one sees?

      Is logic junior to what one sees, or is logic senior to what one sees? Are the skewed dimensions of a drug hallucination senior or junior to one’s mind telling him that this is a temporary perception?

      • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

        Look and tell me what you see.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

          Maria: There is a knowing of truth and there is a knowing of absolute. But these are not manifestations.

          Chris: How can this be so?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

          I look and see what I see. What I don’t see, I don’t see. The tautology is complete.

        • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM

          Is seeing knowing? Is seeing the only means of knowing? Close your eyes. Do you still know? Is seeing the very mechanism that obscures or distorts knowing? Why not hearing? Or tactile / haptic? etc. There is a very long list of perceptics! And under all of this is the knowing — cognition. Cognition is instantaneous. At least it is for me. Cognition results in shift for me. But the action of cogniting is not a thing. It is more of a capability that I do.

          Capacious?

  • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    I shall continue to look at what Maria wrote in comment-6013.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM

      Maria, I like your definition of ABSOLUTE. Looks like the moment something is manifested and becomes knowable, it moves away from being absolute because it is no longer unconditioned. It is now relative to observation.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      We know something is manifested because we can observe it, and what we observe is relative to our capability to observe.

      Capability to observe, then, is a variable. What one is observing is a variable too. The moment variability comes into the picture, we get a scale.

      A scale covers the whole range of variability. But the essence of scale, or the underlying characteristic throughout the scale, may be considered to be constant.

      But that is subject to consideration. Capability to consider is a variable… [replace OBSERVE by CONSIDER in the above argument.]

      So, we have a sort of fractal from OBSERVE to CONSIDER.

      Next, we may observe that consideration, so the whole argument repeat itself again, and we do have a fractal on our hand.

      OBSERVATION (awareness, knowing) and CONSIDERATION (postulation, visualization) seem to be the fundamentals here.
      (1) One considers what is there.
      (2) One then observes what is there.
      (3) One is basically observing what one has considered.
      (4) One is then considering what one has observed.

      Again, we have a sort of circular phenomenon, or tautology, here.

      .

      • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

        We know something is manifested because we can observe it, and what we observe is relative to our capability to observe.

        YES

        Capability to observe, then, is a variable. What one is observing is a variable too. The moment variability comes into the picture, we get a scale.

        YES

        A scale covers the whole range of variability. But the essence of scale, or the underlying characteristic throughout the scale, may be considered to be constant.

        YES. THIS IS KEY. There is the ability to observe. Then there are the limitations of that ability produced by relativity, conditioning and impermanence.

        But that is subject to consideration. Capability to consider is a variable… [replace OBSERVE by CONSIDER in the above argument.]

        YES

        So, we have a sort of fractal from OBSERVE to CONSIDER.

        YES.

        Next, we may observe that consideration, so the whole argument repeat itself again, and we do have a fractal on our hand.

        YES

        OBSERVATION (awareness, knowing) and CONSIDERATION (postulation, visualization) seem to be the fundamentals here.

        YES. How about this? OBSERVING (perceiving, attending, recognizing) and CONSIDERING (mapping, comparing, visualizing, reflecting/deliberating, predicting, concluding, choosing/deciding, causing)

        ADD to this: the dynamic acts of these processes are continually/simultaneously re-mapped as the process unfolds as a feedback loop comprised of iterations. Part of the feedback loop is that as the acts are completed, they are preserved/mapped as observations and considerations

        (0) Perceptions impinge
        (1) One considers what is there.
        (2) One then observes what is there.
        (3) One is basically observing what one has considered.
        (4) One is then considering what one has observed.
        (5) One is then deciding / choosing response
        (6) One is then responding — receiving, transmitting, propagating, etc.

        It looks linear but its not. It is happening instantaneously and continually with each iteration feeding back.

        Also, this loop includes feedback from other selves.

        • vinaire  On November 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

          Brilliant!

          This seems to be how transition takes place from unmanifested to manifested reality. The seed seems to be an awareness of NOT MANIFESTED, but how does one know that?

          So, there must be a sense of how it should be but it is not that way. Is that the seed?

          How does the original visualization comes about?

          This seems to be a dance between MANIFESTED / UNMANIFESTED, and KNOW / NOT KNOW. It tells us how a manifestation evolves, but the starting point is shrouded in the unmanifested unknowable.

          Maybe there isn’t a starting point. It is just a merry-go-around.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM

          Vinaire: “Maybe there isn’t a starting point. It is just a merry-go-around”

          Chris: Bingo. I have been looking at this for a while now. For me, accepting being a 4-dimensional “consideration manifested being” viewing a 3-dimensional existence as a manifestation of a “more-dimensional potential” is both consistent and satisfying.

          Everything we know and discern about ourselves points to a piece of superior intellect buried within a mass of considerations. The purpose to uncover this mass; to “pick the scab” is woven into the fabric of our DNA. While the biology boils we are limited to experiencing the manifested universe. Everything is knowable, and what is not isn’t. Henceforth, I will now stop referring to MEST or to “the physical universe” and begin calling everything the “tautological universe.”

        • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

          Merry go round!! LOL! Yes, apparently that is exactly what it is and what everyone is complaining about! How the hell do you get off the thing?

        • vinaire  On November 18, 2012 at 5:54 AM

          The best conclusion is that manifestation is simply what it is… a manifestation. There is speculation as to how it is a manifestation, and that creates more manifestation.

          The proper way to understand manifestation would be to stop speculating, and recognizing and removing speculation that has already been injected.

          Hence the formula: SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE.

          .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 1:36 PM

      I like the following definition from Maria:

      SELF: The individual as the object of his own reflective consciousness; the man viewed by his own cognition as the subject of all his mental phenomena, the agent in his own activities, the subject of his own feelings, and the possessor of capacities and character; a person as a distinct individual; a being regarded as having personality; Personification; embodiment. (sometimes referred to as ego by Buddhist translators)

      Thus, SELF is one’s awareness of oneself. It is the manifestation of the consideration of oneself. It is subject to CONSIDERATION and OBSERVATION.

      Thus, SELF is a variable. It is not something permanent. The same argument may be extended for THETAN in Scientology.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM


      SOUL: The spiritual, rational, and immortal part in man; that part of man which enables him to think, and which renders him a subject of moral government; — sometimes, in distinction from the higher nature, or spirit, of man, the so-called animal soul, that is, the seat of life, the sensitive affections and phantasy, exclusive of the voluntary and rational powers; — sometimes, in distinction from the mind, the moral and emotional part of man’s nature, the seat of feeling, in distinction from intellect; — sometimes, the intellect only; the understanding; the seat of knowledge, as distinguished from feeling. In a more general sense, “an animating, separable, surviving entity, the vehicle of individual personal existence.”

      A SOUL is basically the essence of SELF. It boils down to the capabilities: To CONSIDER and to OBSERVE. Is this immortal?

      Well we are using these capabilities to assess these capabilities here. Once again it is like a fractal or tautology. All other capabilities that we name and observe are simply extended from these two fundamental capabilities.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM


      ATMAN: The life principle, soul, or individual essence. The words ātman and atta derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath) and are cognate with Old English æthm, German Atem, and Greek atmo-.

      The bombshell that Buddha drops on us is that Atman, soul, or the fundamental capabilities to CONSIDER and OBSERVE, are relative, conditioned and impermanent.

      This is thinking outside the box of what we are. These capabilities are what gets extinguished upon NIRVANA. This is definitely something to be contemplated upon, and I would leave it to each person to contemplate on.

      But if one can look at these capabilities and realize them to be variable in themselves then one gets a good start in that contemplation.

      .

      • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM

        Considering and observing are abilities. What makes you think the ability is extinguished? The ,manifestations of the world are relative, conditioned and impermanent — that seems obvious to me, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the act / process that results in them and the myriad observations and considerations that are dependent on them, based on them and about them is extinguished. In fact, the Buddha, who claimed to have attained Nirvana, was quite capable of visiting the domain of the manifested and manifested perfectly well to others for a number of years, tirelessly communicating and teaching. He chose to do that. He spoke of clinging and attachment to the manifestations and the associative and relative thought processes. These must necessarily be variable. But there is an element of this that allows one to see that they are variable and to see at all even if it is simultaneous arising and perceiving when one gets down to the ground on this.

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

          It seems that the abilities of CONSIDERING and OBSERVING manifest themselves simultaneously with the manifestation that is being considered and observed. When there is no manifestation to be considered or observed then these abilities are not there either. So these abilities are not separate or independent of manifestation. The manifestations of the world are relative, conditioned and impermanent, and so would be these abilities. Extinguishing of the manifestation would be accompanied by the extinguishing of abilities also. .

          Buddha was a self. Like any self, Buddha was relative, conditioned and impermanent. My understanding of NIRVANA is that the self is completely extinguished along with its filters of considering and observing. Any abilities of observing and considering left are simply part of the manifestation out there.

          Just because Buddha’s body was there does not imply that Buddha’s “self-filters” were there too. This makes us look at what self is. I think that self is an “onion” of filters as conjectured in the following post..

          KHTK AXIOM ONE

    • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

      Maria noted:

      Notes: Apparently there is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that is known, at least to Buddha. Perhaps the ultimate reality is not cognizable?

      We may look at the state of NIRVANA as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, which is attained after the extinguishing of the abilities to consider and to observe. But that is theoretical until we step into that state somehow.

      Right now it is incomprehensible to me. 🙂

      .

  • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

    KHTK AXIOM ZERO: WHAT MANIFESTS IS ALWAYS RELATIVE, CONDITIONED AND IMPERMANENT.

    (possible rewording: Manifested reality is always relative, conditioned and impermanent)

    Something or other is always manifesting, changing or disappearing. That observation seems to be absolute but it is difficult to say if manifesting still goes on when there is no observation.

    So, the fact of manifesting is relative to observation, and all observations leads to the conclusion that whatever manifests is always relative, conditioned and impermanent.

    We may only observe what is manifested. We cannot observe what is not manifested. Therefore, our observation and knowing is relative to what is manifested.

    ********************************************************

    This works very well and describes the domain of the manifested.

    Observe is a much better choice than know.

    observe (v.)
    late 14c., “to hold to” (a manner of life or course of conduct), from O.Fr. observer, osserver “to observe, watch over, follow” (10c.), from L. observare “watch over, note, heed, look to, attend to, guard, regard, comply with,” from ob “over” (see ob-) + servare “to watch, keep safe,” from PIE root *ser- “to protect.” Meaning “to attend to in practice, to keep, follow” is attested from late 14c. Sense of “watch, perceive, notice” is 1560s, via notion of “see and note omens.” Meaning “to say by way of remark” is from c.1600. Related: Observed; observing.

    And it is congruent with the word consider:

    consider (v.)
    late 14c., from O.Fr. considerer (13c.) “reflect on, consider, study,” from L. considerare “to look at closely, observe,” perhaps lit. “to observe the stars,” from com- “with” (see com-) + sidus (gen. sideris) “constellation” (see sidereal). Perhaps a metaphor from navigation, but more likely reflecting Roman obsession with divination by astrology. Tucker doubts the connection with sidus, however, since it is “quite inapplicable to desiderare,” and suggests derivation instead from the PIE root of English side meaning “stretch, extend,” and a sense for the full word of “survey on all sides” or “dwell long upon.” Related: Considered; considering.

    It is inconsistent to use the word know in this series if you wish to rely on Buddha’s teachings. It is obvious that there is a knowing that does not depend on observation, consideration or manifestation, a knowing that eliminates them and dissolves them. That knowing comprises a domain that must be present for Buddha to say there is an absolute truth…

    There is a knowing of truth and there is a knowing of absolute. But these are not manifestations.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

      Maria: There is a knowing of truth and there is a knowing of absolute. But these are not manifestations.
      Chris: How can this be so?

      • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

        I don’t know. Ask Buddha. How did Buddha KNOW that there is an absolute truth? A truth that is not relative, conditioned or impermanent.

      • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM

        I am copying this comment down here as it is pertinent:

        Yes, thoughts are known (and can be related / related to others) as they are manifested. The knowing process can result in consideration but may not necessarily result in consideration.

        Perhaps knowing is immanent:

        Remaining within; inherent; indwelling; abiding; intrinsic; internal or subjective; hence, limited in activity, agency, or effect, to the subject or associated acts; — opposed to emanant, transitory, transitive, or objective.

        Compare to emanant:

        Issuing or flowing forth; emanating; passing forth into an act, or making itself apparent by an effect; — said of mental acts; as, an emanant volition.

        Compare to relate:

        1. To bring back] to restore. [Obs.] 2. To refer; to ascribe, as to a source.
        [Obs. or R.] 3. To recount; to narrate; to tell over. 4. To ally by connection or kindred. Syn. — To tell; recite; narrate; recount; rehearse; report; detail; describe.

      • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        KNOW is a verb. it is an act, not a thing at all. Knowledge, which can be related to things and to other knowledge is a thing.

        Knowing can result in knowledge, at which point it ceases being an act and becomes a thing, a thing that can be related. It may be so that in the domain of manifested reality this is an immediate and inevitable result.

        • Maria  On November 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

          Woops, didn’t finish my sentence.

          Knowing can result in knowledge, at which point it ceases being an act and becomes a thing, a thing that can be related. It may be so that in the domain of manifested reality this is an immediate and inevitable result of participation.

          Participate: v. i. To have a share in common with others; to take a part; to partake; — followed by in, formerly by of; as, to participate in a debate. v. t.
          1. To partake of; to share in; to receive a part of. [R.] 2. To impart, or give, or share of. [Obs.]

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM

          KNOWING seems to energy as covered in the axiom:

          KHTK AXIOM ___: ENERGY IS A SHIFT PROPAGATING THROUGH SPACE.

          Shifts may occur within beingness. These shifts propagate throughout the beingness resulting in evolution. The sense of this propagation may be referred to as ENERGY.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 18, 2012 at 8:04 AM

          The familiar Be-Do-Have fits your sentence. We cannot “know” before we exist. Then after knowing we can have knowledge.

  • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    I have made the following changes:

    Changed “ultimate” to “unmanifested” in AXIOM ZERO, which makes it a tautology.

    Added AXIOM ONE based on Buddha’s observation.

    Take numbering off from subsequent axioms because I have no idea how it will all end up.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    I have expanded AXIOM ONE with the wonderful feedback i have gotten from Maria and Chris..

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      I think you are doing an important work. It its an honor to participate.

  • vinaire  On November 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

    I have added the following to KHTK AXIOM ZERO:

    Corollary: Speculations on unmanifested reality are knowable.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM

      I added the following too, to AXIOM ZERO.

      Corollary: Speculations may become manifested reality.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM

        in this corollary are you differentiating between mental and physical? or what?

        • vinaire  On November 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM

          Not yet. It is all manifested reality at the moment. Differentiation as to what is mental and what is physical may come later.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 17, 2012 at 5:31 PM

      . . . and maybe another corollary: Everything is knowable.

  • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    I like the recent changes you made to axioms 0 and 1. Also like the recognition of the constant at play in scales of observation and consideration. I still want to go over this line by line and review the various comments to see what else might present.

  • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    I think you will like this essay: http://www.heartcom.org/HoloU2.htm

    • vinaire  On November 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM

      Yes I read this essay. I have a feeling that I’ll be running into this stuff as I work my way slowly through these axioms.

      .

  • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

    The root word of attention is tend.

    TEND:
    v. t. – To accompany as an assistant or protector; to care for the wants of; to look after; to watch; to guard; as, shepherds tend their flocks.
    v. t. – To be attentive to; to note carefully; to attend to.
    v. i. – To await; to expect.
    a. – To move in a certain direction; — usually with to or towards.
    a. – To be directed, as to any end, object, or purpose; to aim; to have or give a leaning; to exert activity or influence; to serve as a means; to contribute;

    Words using this root:

    attend, coattend, coextend, contend, distend, extend, hyperextend, intend, mistend, overextend, portend, pretend, protend, repetend, subtend, superintend, tendency, tender.

    EXPECT: 1550s, “wait, defer action,” from L. expectare/exspectare “await, look out for, desire, hope,” from ex- “thoroughly” (see ex-) + spectare “to look,” frequentative of specere “to look at” (see scope (n.1)). Figurative sense of “anticipate, look forward to” developed in Latin, attested in English from c.1600.

    SCOPE:
    “extent,” 1530s, “room to act,” from It. scopo “aim, purpose, object, thing aimed at, mark, target,” from L. scopus, from Gk. skopos “aim, target, watcher,” from PIE *spek- “to observe” (cf. Skt. spasati “sees;” Avestan spasyeiti “spies;” Gk. skopein “behold, look, consider,” skeptesthai “to look at;” L. specere “to look at;” O.H.G. spehhon “to spy,” Ger. spähen “to spy”). Sense of “distance the mind can reach, extent of view” first recorded c.1600

  • Maria  On November 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    The Vedic Process for conceiving the ultimate reality is: “Neti neti.” This basically tells us that ultimate reality is beyond manifestation. Anything that is not manifested may only be speculated upon. Thus, we may come to know our speculation, but not the ultimate, or unmanifested, reality.

    My notes:

    I may be nitpicking here but to my mind the wording of this statement is inconsistent

    In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe god. He states “The Divine is not this and it is not that” (neti, neti).

    So it could be said that Neti Neti is a vedic process used to recognize what is not Brahman. Through process of elimination (not this, not that) only Brahman finally remains and is known through a process of elimination. (neti is sandhi from na iti “not so”) The process breaks the habit and/or constraints of empirical thinking which is relative, conditioned and impermanent.

    Brahman is approximated only in empirical language as an understanding of “like this, like that” which why neti neti is used.

    Brahman is not described as ultimate reality per se in the Vedas, because reality as we empirically understand is a human construct and device based on the relative, conditioned and impermanent. Neti Neti brings us to Brahman is absolute, unconditioned and permanent..

    I think the word reality should be used with great caution. “Manifested reality” is far better as a description of the reality of the world of things and manifestations. And that leaves true reality which is unmanifested or perhaps existing in a way that is incomprehensible to the paradigm of relative, conditioned and impermanent manifested reality

    Some notes:

    Brahman is often described as the truth and the divine ground in the Vedas. God in Skt — deva-), from root *dyeu- “to gleam, to shine;” also the root of words for “sky” and “day.” Also see cf. Gk. delos “clear;” L. deus, Skt. deva “god,” lit. “shining one;”

    From the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman (“Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity”).

    Brahman is also sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything in and beyond this universe. Brahman is conceived as personal (“with qualities”), impersonal (“without qualities”) and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.

    Food for thought.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

      Pretty good meal.

    • vinaire  On November 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

      Maria, based on your input I have revised KHTK AXIOM ZERO quite radically. It now communicates much better.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM

    I have now expanded upon KHTK AXIOM ZERO, liberally using data from Wikipedia as reference. It has started to look like a thesis.

    There is text borrowed from Wikipedia, which may be frowned upon. There are ideas in this thesis, which are presented in an original fashion, even when none of the ideas are original in themselves.

    What is original is the clarity of the presentation, and I am proud of that. I am also proud of contributions from Maria and Chris.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 22, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    The KHTK AXIOMS now seem to have been fine tuned up to AXIOM FIVE. I am ready to tackle the next axiom.

    What really requires to be sorted out at this point are the ideas of beingness, awareness, “awareness of awareness,” etc.

    “Who is being aware?” is like that mind bending question, “What is the cause of cause?”

    One has to be aware of “who” before one may answer, “who is being aware?”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      Especially now is a good time for application of KHTK looking. In my opinion, if we relax, and if we calmly look at, as you say, “what is” then we may dissolve individuality and if we do, then we might find a better paradigm to help us understand.

      Maybe the cause and effect paradigm is lacking in understanding especially in terms of dimension. I am not put off by the “prime mover unmoved” paradigm, but neither am I stuck with it. The filters of individuality and anthropomorphism obfuscate the, for me, very real usefulness of “prime mover unmoved.” Not promoting this, neither am I attempting to falsify it. Anthropomorphism is maybe the most important filter that humans subscribe to that distorts our sense of “what is” existence. The physicist succeeds to a degree because he routinely looks beyond this but may be mistaken to create the filter of determinism to view through. The physicist truly fails when he layers a filter of determinism over a filter of anthropomorphism.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

      In summation of comment 6199 above; We really must be mindful to be cautious of using the pronoun “who.”

  • vinaire  On November 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    I have added the following two axioms:

    KHTK AXIOM SIX: EXISTENCE IS DEFINED BY BEINGNESS AND AWARENESS.

    Corollary: Awareness does not exist independent of beingness.

    Corollary: Awareness of a manifestation is specific to that manifestation.

    The fact of existing, or being may be referred to by the term BEINGNESS. The fact that existence is established by perceiving may be referred to by the term AWARENESS. Both beingness and awareness are aspects of existence that define each other.

    .
    .
    KHTK AXIOM SEVEN: PURE CONSIDERATIONS MANIFEST THEMSELVES AS SELF (A BEING).

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM

      How clear from anthropomorphism are we staying? For instance, if we roll this back to before there was man, so we still have a valid axiom? Or if we roll this back to before there were extant life-forms, then do we have a valid axiom? My questions are to gain a better understanding of what you mean.

    • vinaire  On November 23, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      These axioms are changing themselves right now. Just wait and see what shape they take.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 23, 2012 at 5:38 PM

      See AXIOMS FIVE, SIX and SEVEN above and tell me if they flow from earlier axioms.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2012 at 9:47 AM

    I have modified the opening lines of the OPENING POST as follows:

    “The following group of KHTK Axioms is an attempt to summarize the fundamentals that are consistent with Buddhism. This project may become part of a PhD thesis.

    “Even when all the ideas employed in this project may not appear original in themselves, the originality of this project resides in the clarity of what is presented. I am very proud of the contributions from “Maria,” Chris Thompson and John Christmann of the Facebook Group “Philosophiles“.”

    .

  • vinaire  On November 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    I have added CONJECTURES section to the beginning of the OP:

    CONJECTURES:

    The implicit assumptions of this project are:

    1. KNOWLEDGE IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT RELATIVE.

    2. THE UNKNOWN MAY BE MADE KNOWN THROUGH THE RESOLUTION OF INCONSISTENCIES.

    For an understanding of inconsistency please refer to: INCONSISTENCY & LOOKING.]

    .

    • Maria  On November 26, 2012 at 1:01 AM

      I really like your most recent edits on the opening post! Excellent!

    • vinaire  On November 26, 2012 at 5:56 AM

      Thanks. Currently, I am spending time in the Facebook Group “Philosophiles”, which is also helping me.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM

    I have refined all the axioms up to five, and have added the following:

    KHTK AXIOM SIX: IT IS THE ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION THAT GIVES RISE TO MANIFESTATION.

    Corollary: A manifestation immediately provides beingness and perceptibility.

    Absence of manifestation appears to be an unstable condition like vacuum. It is immediately filled by manifestation. Manifestation then immediately provides beingness and perceptibility.

    When one is confronted by the “unknown” speculations arise immediately. Question, such as, “Where do these manifestations come from?” may arise. But all such questions of where, when, who, what, how, etc., are themselves manifestations. They are answered by this axiom itself.

    Therefore, questions and speculations simply arise when things are not known.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    I have added the following:

    KHTK AXIOM SEVEN: OBJECTIVITY CAN NEVER BE ABSOLUTE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DEGREE OF SUBJECTIVITY.

    Perceptibility of a manifestation allows it to be perceived. However, any perception is subject to how that manifestation is being perceived. This aspect of perception may be called a filter. This filter can be so insubstantial that it is almost transparent, or it can be so substantial that the manifestation appears totally different from what it really is.

    It is the filter, which makes a manifestation appear to be separate from its perception. Essentially, the two should be the same, but, at that point the manifestation may simply appear as a consideration of itself.

    It is the the filter of how something is being perceived, which separates a thing from the consideration of that thing.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM

    I have added the following. Here seems to be the genesis of fractal:

    KHTK AXIOM EIGHT: SPACE IS THE CONSIDERATION OF MANIFESTATION.

    The consideration of a manifestation may be visualized as a field, or an expanse, made up of points or locations. Each point is recognized by the consideration attached to it. This expanse of points has limit by consideration only.

    The consideration at some point may acquire the dimension of being a reference. That point then becomes a viewpoint from which other points may be viewed or considered.

    The manifestation is then being considered through this viewpoint, rather than simply being considered. This gives us space and also the primary filter.

    Space is represented by dimensions. A dimension is a perceivable aspect of space that gives it quality and quantity.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 1, 2012 at 8:14 AM

    When a certain aspect of a manifestation is being used as a reference to perceive the manifestation itself, we have a filter.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: