No way to know anything, so what's the point?

Q: There is no way to know anything in my opinion.

A: Well then you must be wrong about that... haha! Get it?

I have found that when people are challenged to rethink their opinions about the nature of reality, they often come up with this idea that "nothing can be known" and therefore they need not take the challenge into consideration. This happens to me all the time, but less now than it used to. 

In fact, to say that nothing can be known, aside from being an oxymoronic statement, means that there is no point in trying to liberate ourselves, since the path to freedom cannot be known. However, if we look at those who have attained the deathless, we see that most (all?) of them have used the mind to know the path out of mind (and thus out of suffering). 

Buddha said that all of the teachings must eventually be left, just as one who crosses onto shore leaves their raft on the beach, but if one leaves the raft of logic while still in the ocean, they are in for some trouble.

Here is a post regarding how to view the mind practically, in a middle-path kind of way.

And here's a useful snippet I snagged:

And as Kyle Dixon quoted,

"…The process of eradicating avidyā is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance."

Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103

This post is also very useful on the three modes of knowing reality.

Is everything "nothing"? Is it all "One Mind"? Or dependently originated?

I often find that folks have a few illogical ideas about the nature of reality which crop up once the common views are seen thru.

First, the "everything is nothing" idea:  Actually, I can see why a very rough understanding of dependent origination would be simply that "there is nothing." That's because when we commonly think of "something," we are imagining some kind of essence. In reality, there are no essences to anything, since everything arises dependent upon everything else, so to that simple mindset used to imputing inherency to things, dependent origination may as well be "there is nothing." But compare the simplicity of "there is nothing" (which also makes no sense of reality, merely negating it all), to the incredible profundity of dependent origination: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/10/dzogchen-rigpa-and-dependent.html

The most obvious problem with the "everything is nothing" idea is that it explains nothing. Which is fine, if you don't mind being completely ignorant. But then what is the point of having this view if everything is nothing? The view itself is nothing, so does not even exist?

Tell me what you think of this,

Everything that's happened, never happened, it's a thought living in your consciousness falsely perceived as being in the nonexistent past. The point is the past doesn't exist so nothing that ever happened really happened and of course

the same holds true for the future and the present which is undefinable. I'm enjoying this.

Again, I think you are getting stuck in this either/or mode of perception. Either things are real, or they aren't, for you. 

What I'm trying to show you is that the either/or is not the way reality is. Buddha said that self neither exists, nor doesn't exist, nor both exists and doesn't exist, nor neither exists nor doesn't exist. That's the famous "tetralemma" which he applied to all things. What is the point of that? The point is that dependent origination is not simply about denying reality as it is experienced. It is about explaining it logically so that it can be seen for what it is.

Perhaps it would be better to say, "everything that's happened happened as interdependent processes functioning perfectly and ultimately timelessly, but was misperceived to be independent, linear and discrete events which caused suffering."

Second, the "everything is One Mind" idea: I can say that I have experienced One Mind many times... so I understand it from that level of experience.

But I've also come to realize, as Bill F. explains, that One Mind experience is simply the last illusion that remains due to conditioned belief in the self. In other words, we still cling to the notion of self, the background permanent awareness that all things spring from or are contained in, even tho we can't locate it, so instead, we say, oh, well then everything is self, it is all One Mind. Thus, we are still suffering in order to continue splitting reality into two: the universe (let's say appearances), and that universal consciousness which is aware of everything. In order to stop splitting reality up like this, we have to let go of the idea that there is something separate containing everything else. Then we arrive at dependent origination, the view that everything is a reflection of everything else (NOT that everything IS everything else)... i.e. it is not possible for anything to affect anything else without also itself being affected, nor is it possible for anything to be unaffected or not affect the rest of the universe. This much I actually did see with ayahuasca originally, but somehow this infinite reflection (Indra's Net) also had the One Mind identity traces within it.

With One Mind, we haven't actually gotten away from self or any of the suffering caused by self. We've simply expanded our view of self and lost sight of much of the previously clearly visible suffering. Why does one in One Mind consciousness still suffer, even if almost imperceptibly? Because the clinging to a fixed nature remains, yet in reality there is nothing that is fixed or unchanging ever. Since the One Mind is a fabrication, clinging to it does not lead to freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Every fabrication will eventually dissolve due to the changing conditions which it relies upon for its support.

Also, importantly, One Mind does not have much explanatory power. It does not explain why there are such a variety of appearances rather than just one appearance of the One Mind. It also does not explain how so much of the one mind can be apparently unaware of the One Mind. The one thing that One Mind does explain is the amazing sense of unity among all apparently separate appearances that can be realized. This unity is actually the infinite interpenetration and reflection of all appearances which dependently originate from each other, but without seeing dependent origination, we have no choice but to imagine that there must be One Mind.  

Zen teachings have some interesting things to say about the illusion of One Mind. Check the fourth paragraph on this page:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/02/bill-f-practice-and-insights.html

---

Buddha said that the first being in each universe falls under the delusion that it created the universe, since it finds itself alone in it and only after wishing for company does it find others existing in it. This first being thinks it is the God of the universe, but with the demise of the universe comes the demise of this and all other beings. I find this an interesting idea, although it isn't necessarily important for the current discussion.