It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The swing is yellow;142352 said:Cut off your finger and tell me if this reality exists. :D With Metta,Todd
samahita;111047 said:Friends:In the Maha-suññata Sutta (MN 122) The Blessed Buddha points out that suffering arises from clinging and attaching to all impermanent things:"I do not see even a single kind of form from the change and alteration of which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who lusts for it and takes delight in it!" The same is true of all transient feeling, perception, mental construction=intention & sorts of consciousness! If we tenaciously cling to any of them, then we suffer, when they decay...[The above passage of scripture] clearly states, that suffering arises from the attachment to form, not because the form is impermanent, but because we are attached to impermanent form. When we attain full enlightenment, we do not suffer!This happens not because we make any impermanent things now everlasting! This happens only because we release our clinging to all impermanent things.Impermanent phenomena continue to be impermanent, whether we ever gain enlightenment or not.
fivebells;142809 said:Buddhism has nothing to say on this question, except that it is not where Buddhist practice leads.
The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard;143000 said:[...] So then we have to get to the "meat" of Buddhist discussion. If, given that there is no permanent "self", we are subject to suffering how then is a person liberated from suffering?How then does a person come into a state of no longer able to being in a state of becoming?
compassionate_warrior;142957 said:Doesn't it? Doesn't Buddhism say something about this life is an illusion, but the experience in-between lifetimes is not illusion? Doesn't the Tibetan Book of the Dead have something to say along those lines? I'm not sure.
Cloud;142704 said:Well, it is all in your head, right? Whether it's real or virtual?
The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard;143000 said:Let's look at logic here for a moment:If solipsism is true, then everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this cause must be my perceptions or by an internal faculty able to cause perceptions.
compassionate_warrior;142957 said:Doesn't Buddhism say something about this life is an illusion, but the experience in-between lifetimes is not illusion? Doesn't the Tibetan Book of the Dead have something to say along those lines? I'm not sure.
Whoknows;143243 said:Error #1: Initial premise: initial premises are always ultimately faulty if causation is seriously considered as they have no causation. Following from this, if you start the reasoning process with an uncaused premise then the foundation is lacking and a fatal fault in the reasoning process will always be found.
Error #2: How is solipsism related to causation, you seem to assume that solipism implies causation.
Error #3: Assuming solipism is valid then there is no internal and external as there is no differentiation between the two domains so the "external" realm and the "internal" realm are actually the same realm. So you cannot refer to an "internal" cause.
compassionate_warrior;143262 said:Fascinating. Thank you, Whoknows. Can you give an explanation of "Ultimate reality" without taking up a whole page? (I realize some of these concepts can be quite challenging to encapsulate.)
Whoknows;143273 said:Just a quick one on solipism, another slighting different view and I'm not sure if its got a name:1) "It" is all in "your" mind, and,2) Your mind is all in your mind (self referencing)3) From the POV of other beings "it" is also all in "their" mind, 4) from their POV "you" are in their mind.So others have the same status as yourself, so its not so one-sided. Try to play with that with logic :eek:Cheers, WK