Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
It is not just a thought. It is the history of our cosmos.
Are you sure it is not a thought? Did such a history exist in Aristotle's time?
or in the words of a well known koan
Is there sound when there is no one listening? In other words without the organ of hearing can you even know what sound is?
Consciousness and its object arises together. Ear + sonic waves gives rise to sound. Mind + sound gives rise to thoughts like its characteristics(loud, harsh etc.) then more thoughts (like a human cry, mewing etc.) There is me here listening to the cry over there is nothing more than a thought. I was born at this time and this place are also thoughts. That piece of rock called Diaoyu by China and Senkaku by Japan are nothing more than thoughts but see how much anguish such thoughts caused.
It is not just a thought. It is the history of our cosmos.
Are you sure it is not a thought? Did such a history exist in Aristotle's time?
Yes. They just didn't know about it.
Aristotle's history was "complete" at that time as ours is "complete" now as those that come after are "complete" in the future.
Do you think you will ever have "real" story? Think atoms, electron, quarks, muon, God particle, matter-energy etc.
That is why there is a teaching by the Buddha that goes like this:
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
Buddha still recognised the waves or he wouldn't have bothered acknowledging us let alone save us from suffering.
Have you carefully read the Diamond Cutter Sutra?
And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion (samjñâ) of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self (âtma) or of a being (sattva) should take place, or the notion of a living soul (jiva) or of a person (pudgala).
It is not just a thought. It is the history of our cosmos.
Are you sure it is not a thought? Did such a history exist in Aristotle's time?
Yes. They just didn't know about it.
Aristotle's history was "complete" at that time as ours is "complete" now as those that come after are "complete" in the future.
Do you think you will ever have "real" story? Think atoms, electron, quarks, muon, God particle, matter-energy etc.
That is why there is a teaching by the Buddha that goes like this:
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
I don't think anyone is under the impression that we have the whole story about anything. Everything is subject to change upon acquiring new information, but we're closer to the truth than at any point in history. Our understanding has taken a pretty linear route of evolution.
So yes, the history of the cosmos existed, of course it did, just as the things they'll discover a hundred years from now probably exist today. Our not knowing about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that we don't know.
It is not just a thought. It is the history of our cosmos.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
So yes, the history of the cosmos existed, of course it did, just as the things they'll discover a hundred years from now probably exist today. Our not knowing about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that we don't know.
That's a really nice teaching btw.
That is the point. The "world" is nothing more than your 6 sense consciousness - sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch and mental objects. There is nothing else outside of them.
Don't know means does not "exist" yet. Spaceships did not exist before their invention, black-holes did not exist before their discovery. They are nothing more than the product of our minds -
"All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made." Dhamappada 1
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....."
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2012
Why have compassion for something that doesn't really exist?
Buddha still recognised the waves or he wouldn't have bothered acknowledging us let alone save us from suffering.
Have you carefully read the Diamond Cutter Sutra?
And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion (samjñâ) of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self (âtma) or of a being (sattva) should take place, or the notion of a living soul (jiva) or of a person (pudgala).
Yes.
A being is not the same thing as simply being. One is a noun and one is a verb. He wasn't a teacher, he was teaching.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Labels are funny... Drop them away and what is there?
An epiphenomenon of brain activity. Part of the wonderful imaginary realm of objects of consciousness. Tat tvam asi. Thou are that. Magnificent manifestation of the void.
That is the point. The "world" is nothing more than your 6 sense consciousness - sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch and mental objects. There is nothing else outside of them.
Don't know means does not "exist" yet. Spaceships did not exist before their invention, black-holes did not exist before their discovery. They are nothing more than the product of our minds -
"All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made." Dhamappada 1
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....."
So if you're blind, objects don't exist? And if you're deaf, sound doesn't exist?
That's doesn't make any sense. Sound still exists if you're deaf, you just can't hear it. To deny that seems like solipsism to me. Not knowing about something is just ignorance of it, not its lack of existence. Orherwise, the things we think we know must then become true. So the Earth must have been flat at one point because we believed it to be so. And I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct in what I'm saying, I might be missing the point altogether, this is just what it looks like from where I'm stood.
That doesn't prove material causation which is to believe mental events are caused by material events which makes mental events, including consciousness, inert.
What you are suggesting is somewhat akin to a person who believes an orchestra is in his radio because he hears music coming from the radio. But radios only amplify invisible signals, they don't create music—brains may well act in one respect as consciousness amplifiers. From a Buddhist perspective brains (and bodies) are mind created thought-forms which are imperfect representations of mind itself. This imperfect representation is what we in the west call matter: a psycho-physical body (avec brain) and a material universe. Samsara is the continuation of this process until mind recognizes (samâdhi) itself fully.
Another plausible theory, no consciousness, no brain since it is consciousness which continually collapses a superposition thus bringing a virtual world into view, including virtual brains and virtual skin bags.
So if you're blind, objects don't exist? And if you're deaf, sound doesn't exist?
That's doesn't make any sense. Sound still exists if you're deaf, you just can't hear it. To deny that seems like solipsism to me. Not knowing about something is just ignorance of it, not its lack of existence. Orherwise, the things we think we know must then become true. So the Earth must have been flat at one point because we believed it to be so. And I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct in what I'm saying, I might be missing the point altogether, this is just what it looks like from where I'm stood.
I'd suggest that the 'world' in this instance isn't referring to the Earth, but is a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.).
So if you're blind, objects don't exist? And if you're deaf, sound doesn't exist?
That's doesn't make any sense. Sound still exists if you're deaf, you just can't hear it. To deny that seems like solipsism to me. Not knowing about something is just ignorance of it, not its lack of existence. Orherwise, the things we think we know must then become true. So the Earth must have been flat at one point because we believed it to be so. And I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct in what I'm saying, I might be missing the point altogether, this is just what it looks like from where I'm stood.
I'd suggest that the 'world' in this instance isn't referring to the Earth, but is a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.).
But isn't it true that there was a time when consciousness was not? Only matter existed?
But isn't it true that there was a time when consciousness was not? Only matter existed?
It's possible, but beyond the range of my knowledge to answer. Whatever the case, the sutta in question seems to be dealing with the subject of views and how dependent co-arising relates to the development of right view and the cessation of suffering, not cosmological realities of the universe. Your mileage may very, however.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Teachings like dependent origination are both ontological and soteriological.
I've seen the Pacific ocean from opposite shores, but I've never seen a skandha or a self. Suffering makes ideas necessary; it doesn't make them real.
For one thing, that isn't my post you responded to (mine is at the bottom of the last page) and for another, what you just posted is yet just another idea.
For one thing, that isn't my post you responded to
Whoops :dunce: . Sorry.
for another, what you just posted is yet just another idea.
If dependent origination is incorrectly reified, can one point out that it's not self-existent?
I'm doing so because when I saw DO as self-existent, I was unable to see it in my experience.
It's not my idea that people should take away from this; my hope is rather that people may take another look at how dependent origination is suffering. I know I don't get any points if they do.
So if you're blind, objects don't exist? And if you're deaf, sound doesn't exist?
That's doesn't make any sense. Sound still exists if you're deaf, you just can't hear it. To deny that seems like solipsism to me. Not knowing about something is just ignorance of it, not its lack of existence. Orherwise, the things we think we know must then become true. So the Earth must have been flat at one point because we believed it to be so. And I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct in what I'm saying, I might be missing the point altogether, this is just what it looks like from where I'm stood.
I'd suggest that the 'world' in this instance isn't referring to the Earth, but is a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.).
But isn't it true that there was a time when consciousness was not? Only matter existed?
@RebeccaS - No worries- this thing take time to sink in for me too.
@ music
Everything that "you" or consciousness can know, literally the Universe in within your 6 senses, not outside. Whether things exist before there was consciousness is unknowable. It lies beyond range. You can only "reason" that they do. As they say, the eye cannot see itself, it can only see its own reflection which is not the same thing.
"Monks, I will teach you the All [World]. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All[World]? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
But isn't it true that there was a time when consciousness was not? Only matter existed?
It's possible, but beyond the range of my knowledge to answer. Whatever the case, the sutta in question seems to be dealing with the subject of views and how dependent co-arising relates to the development of right view and the cessation of suffering, not cosmological realities of the universe. Your mileage may very, however.
My point is, in the beginning there was only inorganic matter, and only later on did 'life' come about. Based on that, one can say that world exists regardless of consciousness.
I'm doing so because when I saw DO as self-existent, I was unable to see it in my experience.
Aren't the experiences of contact, feeling, craving and clinging observable in experience? DO is describing a series of dependently arising processes, it's both objective and subjective.
I'd suggest that the 'world' in this instance isn't referring to the Earth, but is a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience
The canonical information (Nikayan & Mahayana) paints an extraordinary picture of consciousness (P., viññâna; S., vijñâna). While mind (citta) is fundamental in Buddhism, consciousness is a splitting of mind into a mutually conditioning dyad of subject and object. Under this condition, we are consciousnesses trapped by mutual conditioning because we harbor misrepresentations of mind (in this sense absolute Mind). This imperfect representation is otherwise called the material universe.
My point is, in the beginning there was only inorganic matter, and only later on did 'life' come about. Based on that, one can say that world exists regardless of consciousness.
I understand your point, but my point is that it's still an assumption, a theory. An educated one perhaps, but not something I could ever observe for myself. Sure, it's assumed that matter preceded mind, consciousness, intellect, or what have you, that the latter evolved much later on out of the former. But if you ask me, "Isn't it true that there was a time when consciousness was not?", I can honestly only answer one way, "It's possible, but beyond the range of my knowledge to answer." It could be, for example, that if the multiple universe theory is correct, life (and mind) preceded the existence of this universe. Or it could be that consciousness is part of the fabric of the universe itself, which material sense organs are simply able to tune into like a radio does radio waves. There are numerous possibilities.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
For one thing, that isn't my post you responded to
Whoops :dunce: . Sorry.
No worries.
for another, what you just posted is yet just another idea.
If dependent origination is incorrectly reified, can one point out that it's not self-existent?
Forgive me but I can't quite make sense of that... How would dependant origination be "called into being" or "made to be real"? And how would it be done incorrectly?
Dependant origination is a process, not a thing to materialise...
I'm doing so because when I saw DO as self-existent, I was unable to see it in my experience.
I don't quite get this either... Maybe I'm a dope but it seems as if you are saying that you see no action in your experience. In my experience, action is all there really is. Afterall, what experience arises with no cause? Experience is action...
It's not my idea that people should take away from this; my hope is rather that people may take another look at how dependent origination is suffering. I know I don't get any points if they do.
For me, I see dependant origination as a process that when recognised, helps immensly in the allieviation of suffering.
I agree this isn't about points... It is about right understanding.
As I replied to fivebells in the other thread, the response to your questions about dependent origination, and to PedanticPorpoise's questions, is to cite the Buddha's speech on dependent origination again.
I've seen just enough of the results of accepting this response to know that this is satisfactory, providing it isn't clung to.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Ok, but that sutta doesn't talk of dependant origination. That is Buddha saying why he didn't get into that which he didn't get into.
But he did indeed get into dependant origination.
Is that the sutta you meant to post?
Not to go in circles but @Pegambara already posted the Rohitassa Sutta which does talk of dependant origination quite nicely.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
We are dependant origination, not just products of it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2012
And here is just a snippit from the Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse
"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress.
Action is all there really is. Saying we don't really exist is foolish even as there is no individual self to say exists. We are together and not really individual... As action.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
DOH! Not that it changes my points but when I saw DO, I thought "action" and it didn't dawn on me it stood for dependant origination.
I am not a typist, I am typing.
Forgive me for the overkill of posts but wanted to clarify my mistaken notion, lol.
Comments
Did such a history exist in Aristotle's time?
or in the words of a well known koan
Is there sound when there is no one listening? In other words without the organ of hearing can you even know what sound is?
Consciousness and its object arises together.
Ear + sonic waves gives rise to sound.
Mind + sound gives rise to thoughts like its characteristics(loud, harsh etc.) then more thoughts (like a human cry, mewing etc.)
There is me here listening to the cry over there is nothing more than a thought. I was born at this time and this place are also thoughts. That piece of rock called Diaoyu by China and Senkaku by Japan are nothing more than thoughts but see how much anguish such thoughts caused.
One must always question one's assumptions.
Do you think you will ever have "real" story? Think atoms, electron, quarks, muon, God particle, matter-energy etc.
That is why there is a teaching by the Buddha that goes like this:
I don't think anyone is under the impression that we have the whole story about anything. Everything is subject to change upon acquiring new information, but we're closer to the truth than at any point in history. Our understanding has taken a pretty linear route of evolution.
So yes, the history of the cosmos existed, of course it did, just as the things they'll discover a hundred years from now probably exist today. Our not knowing about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that we don't know.
That's a really nice teaching btw.
A being is not the same thing as simply being. One is a noun and one is a verb. He wasn't a teacher, he was teaching.
So tell us how consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biological matter shaped as a brain.
That's doesn't make any sense. Sound still exists if you're deaf, you just can't hear it. To deny that seems like solipsism to me. Not knowing about something is just ignorance of it, not its lack of existence. Orherwise, the things we think we know must then become true. So the Earth must have been flat at one point because we believed it to be so. And I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct in what I'm saying, I might be missing the point altogether, this is just what it looks like from where I'm stood.
What you are suggesting is somewhat akin to a person who believes an orchestra is in his radio because he hears music coming from the radio. But radios only amplify invisible signals, they don't create music—brains may well act in one respect as consciousness amplifiers. From a Buddhist perspective brains (and bodies) are mind created thought-forms which are imperfect representations of mind itself. This imperfect representation is what we in the west call matter: a psycho-physical body (avec brain) and a material universe. Samsara is the continuation of this process until mind recognizes (samâdhi) itself fully.
Another plausible theory, no consciousness, no brain since it is consciousness which continually collapses a superposition thus bringing a virtual world into view, including virtual brains and virtual skin bags.
For one thing, that isn't my post you responded to (mine is at the bottom of the last page) and for another, what you just posted is yet just another idea.
I'm doing so because when I saw DO as self-existent, I was unable to see it in my experience.
It's not my idea that people should take away from this; my hope is rather that people may take another look at how dependent origination is suffering. I know I don't get any points if they do.
@ music
Everything that "you" or consciousness can know, literally the Universe in within your 6 senses, not outside.
Whether things exist before there was consciousness is unknowable. It lies beyond range. You can only "reason" that they do. As they say, the eye cannot see itself, it can only see its own reflection which is not the same thing.
The canonical information (Nikayan & Mahayana) paints an extraordinary picture of consciousness (P., viññâna; S., vijñâna). While mind (citta) is fundamental in Buddhism, consciousness is a splitting of mind into a mutually conditioning dyad of subject and object. Under this condition, we are consciousnesses trapped by mutual conditioning because we harbor misrepresentations of mind (in this sense absolute Mind). This imperfect representation is otherwise called the material universe.
No worries. Forgive me but I can't quite make sense of that... How would dependant origination be "called into being" or "made to be real"? And how would it be done incorrectly?
Dependant origination is a process, not a thing to materialise... I don't quite get this either... Maybe I'm a dope but it seems as if you are saying that you see no action in your experience. In my experience, action is all there really is. Afterall, what experience arises with no cause? Experience is action... For me, I see dependant origination as a process that when recognised, helps immensly in the allieviation of suffering.
I agree this isn't about points... It is about right understanding.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
I've seen just enough of the results of accepting this response to know that this is satisfactory, providing it isn't clung to.
Ok, but that sutta doesn't talk of dependant origination. That is Buddha saying why he didn't get into that which he didn't get into.
But he did indeed get into dependant origination.
Is that the sutta you meant to post?
Not to go in circles but @Pegambara already posted the Rohitassa Sutta which does talk of dependant origination quite nicely.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html
We are dependant origination, not just products of it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
Action is all there really is. Saying we don't really exist is foolish even as there is no individual self to say exists. We are together and not really individual... As action.
I am not a typist, I am typing.
Forgive me for the overkill of posts but wanted to clarify my mistaken notion, lol.
Emptiness is dependently originated, that is why we call it the real world.