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.
Intrinsic value (derail from Buddhist Mythology thread)
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
This discussion was created from comments split from: Buddhist Mythology..
0
Comments
I think, perhaps, you're a little too caught up with the meaning of "intrinsic". For example, a Thai friend once gave me a ring. It had no intrinsic value beyond a couple of dollars. It's value was emotional in nature.
My uncle once gave me his gold ring. It, too, had an emotional value, but, because it was made of gold, it had intrinsic value.
The fact that some individual may not value gold is irrelevant. In our culture -- in fact in virtually all cultures -- gold has intrinsic value.
All money is just a collective projection. It forms a society because we all agree on it. If I get a job it's a collective agreement that I will be given paper that signifies the value of my work.
As mentioned, the two truths, separate 'market' or 'exchange value' from emptiness for which the price of diamonds can fluctuate.
A big reason diamonds are valuable is because advertisements by Debeers told us they were valuable. (hope that's not an urban legend
Why is a real fur coat more valuable than a synthetic one? Are the furs really prettier?
A silk suit is far more valuable in the United States than in Thailand, because silk is more rare here. In Thailand I can buy silk in virtually any significant market.
object x has intrinsic value.
object x has no intrinsic value other than the designation by culture, society, individuals, or human minds.
Rarity is also a designation and not intrinsic.
So we can break it down to the individual to the collective. Everyone may think or believe that diamonds are rare and have intrinsic value, beauty, whatever quality asserted.
But that doesn't mean it has intrinsic value. That just means the society deems what is rare and what is valuable. Rarity also dependent upon assumed quantities.
I think one has to understand dependent origination as emptiness and vice versa. When you say something has more value because of this and that = basically an argument for the lack of intrinsic value thus value only exists as a designation and because certain conditions are in play.
So basically we are agreeing, but we are not seeing what emptiness and dependent origination imply.
I read in the Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien that Frodo met some spirit man, Tom Bombadil. Not to be confused with ThailandTom hehe. Anyhow to Tom Bombadil Sauron's ring was just any other ring.
Personally I don't value a diamond, though I would sell it for a years supply of tobacco products
» show previous quotes
"There can be an independently existing fire outside in time and space. I could light up the grill in my back yard. I could make up a story about my lighting up the grill in my back yard, without actually having done it, and even that would not be a myth. It would be a false story or fiction. A myth is a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Well that is exactly what sentient beings do to conceptual thoughts and thus suffering because of their dualistic fixations.
An independently existent fire would not be in any mode of existence or non-existence. But in the realm of conceptual thought anything goes because any presupposes can justify any other assumed presupposition.
And regarding myths and fictions. A narrative is a narrative is a narrative is a narrative. A thought be it image, sounds, etc. Sure we can "give" value to the myth and give certain connotations and power, but it isn't intrinsic in the symbol of myth itself. Words are given power by arbitrary assumptions.
But atlas we are beating the chicken over and over and over.
Everything is coming from you and not at you.
-What this is saying is that the value in my skateboard is the value I place in it. The skateboard doesn't say I have value, but rather I bring the value to it. And even if the value was culturally or socially affirmed, I still have to buy into and project that value onto the skateboard.
Ignorance is the view and perception of value that is intrinsic to the skateboard. That is essentially dualistic fixation. Down to the value, quality, orientation of space and distance, time, relationship between the assumed object and subject, the objecthood.
The actual experience of the skateboard is just vision or colors meeting shapes meeting light thus making form and the projection of skateboard onto the various parts of shapes/colors/forms.
That is visual consciousness.
Now when it comes to tactile its a different dimension of sensate experience.
The mind collects all of this and labels and packages it as wholeness onto parts.
That is one way of seeing how things are dependent upon designation and upon assumed relationships.
Its not just a view, its right down to how we perceive reality.
Taiyaki said:
"Well value comes from many vantage points. Teachers value what they do. Parents value what teachers do. Administrators value what teachers do. And Politicians value what teachers do. Now we can say that some of these individuals are indifferent towards value. And some even place no value.
So value is completely relative.
An opinion is only valuable on the basis of the audience and other assumed conditions.
For instance if I value logic then a logical and rational opinion will have more value to me than say an irrational opinion. Of course that designation of rational and irrational is also dependent upon the designation as well.
Art has no intrinsic value. If it did then everyone would have the same opinion on art. Art for the most part has been reactions against other vision of what truth is. There is no one truth of art as there are multitudes. And if we do see one truth then that too is a designation. We can see multitudes and oneness because those are projections of the mind and not intrinsic to "things".
Well you will listen to what you deem as valuable. If this isn't valuable then its not worth listening to. So your choice.
We study art to find value in our lives. If one is to take life seriously and joyfully we study art. And I always make note that, that statement or rather any statement is my opinion and that each student is to find their own value of what art means in their life. Empowerment over hand feeding.
Hope this clarifies."
Vinlyn said:
"This is, in my view, a better delineation of your thoughts on this matter.
I think, perhaps, you're a little too caught up with the meaning of "intrinsic". For example, a Thai friend once gave me a ring. It had no intrinsic value beyond a couple of dollars. It's value was emotional in nature.
My uncle once gave me his gold ring. It, too, had an emotional value, but, because it was made of gold, it had intrinsic value.
The fact that some individual may not value gold is irrelevant. In our culture -- in fact in virtually all cultures -- gold has intrinsic value. "
Taiyaki said:
"Ah I am just using the word intrinsic because it is the flavor of the month. These teachings lead to openness, peace, and love.
So until they don't do their job in my practice I won't toss them.
I totally agree that the gold ring has emotional value and seemingly intrinsic value. That is in fact the functioning of dependent arising and emptiness.
We can focus on the negative aspect of emptiness which is in a way groundless, life denying, hopeless but fearlessness.
We can also focus on the positive aspect of emptiness which is the interconnectedness of this sacred life and how everything completely matters. And not just as an intellectual proposition but emptiness as a realization that the heart assimilates.
And on the last point we'll have to agree to disagree. My girl friend hates diamonds and she loves opals. Most girls love diamonds and see the value of diamonds. But if know the history of diamonds they weren't always valuable. And not everyone gives the damn about them. But when it comes to power and money, well it seem then the diamond is definitely powerful and beautiful.
Somedays I see beauty in things and are just blown away. And in a way its like the whole intrinsic or non intrinsic argument falls away. And we look at a flower and just go wow.
So I really value your opinion as it keeps me on my toes.
Thanks! "
Words, words, words.
Life has no intrinsic value, either, would follow next. And the thing-in-itself has no value, either, except for what we can mine from it for our own benefit. This is all pointless intellectualism. It won't buy you any bread. But what would you need bread for? Its value is only relative to your hunger. Hey, how 'bout doling out a limited amount of bread to penniless hungry people based on your opinion of how hungry you think they are?
Nay, everything useful or beautiful has value to a lover of humankind. Intrinsically. Art especially has essential value —in that, like a magnet, it has power to lift us up if we have the eyes to see or ears to hear. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. The essential is by definition that which can be squeezed out of something—its core.
This thread is useless as it is all just intellectual assertions.
But idk about dismissing it that quickly because essentially what is spoken about is dependent origination and that essentially is Buddhism.
The heart essence is something I totally believe in and lately I have falling into a more shentong view of intrinsic qualities of enlightened activity.
Theses mental exercises if correctly assimilated lead to a state of joy and freedom because we learn to step over our conditioned view/perception of reality to touch the sacred within and around us.
So that would help to put all this into context prior to reading any of this stuff.
But its possible someone may find value in this and it may motivate them to practice and realize emptiness/dependent origination in their mind and hearts.
It also has a possibility to confuse the hell out of people and drive them mad and away from their practice and study.
But like all forums. When you put yourself out there in any expression, you set up your own demise.
But I have trust in people to see and interpret the teachings shared here as they are of great value to myself and many other than I know of.
"Dependent-arising refers to the fact that all impermanent phenomena—whether physical, mental, or otherwise—come into existence dependent upon certain causes and conditions. Whatever arises dependent upon certain causes and conditions is not operating exclusively under its own power."
-HHDL.
"Just as it is known That an image of one’s face is seen Depending on a mirror But does not really exist as a face, So the conception of “I” exists Dependent on mind and body, But like the image of a face The “I” does not at all exist as its own reality."
-NAGARJUNA’S PRECIOUS GARLAND OF ADVICE
"Just so, Candrakirti says that tears of joy may spontaneously flow and one’s hair may stand on end when one hears the teachings on emptiness. This indicates that there are seeds, or potentialities, present that stimulate the awareness of one’s naturally abiding buddha nature, and this means that you are fit to realize emptiness. Then Candrakirti says that the teachings on emptiness should be offered to such recipients"
-How to Realize Emptiness
by Lamrimpa
"If I had any thesis, that fault would apply to me. But I do not have any thesis, so there is indeed no fault for me."
-- Nagarjuna, Vigrahavyāvartanī, Verse 29
But idk about dismissing [these discussions] that quickly
because essentially what is spoken about is dependent
origination and that essentially is Buddhism.
The heart essence is something I totally believe in and
lately I have falling into a more shentong view of intrinsic
qualities of enlightened activity.
These mental exercises if correctly assimilated lead to a state
of joy and freedom because we learn to step over our conditioned
view/perception of reality to touch the sacred within and around us.
So that would help to put all this into context prior to reading any of this stuff.
But its possible someone may find value in this and it may motivate them
to practice and realize emptiness/dependent origination in their mind and hearts...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What a sweet response to my post. Believe me, @taiyaki, I didn't intend to be dismissive. It's just that arguments need to be based on solid ground. Quaking earth drives me crazy.
BTW, all my relatives have relatives.
Here is what it reminded me of:
http://integrateddaniel.info/the-eleventh-army-of-mara/
Enjoy !
To me the phase "form has intrinsic existence" merely suggests permanence, which is apparently false.
What does the phrase mean to you?
So, you have stated that The origination of suffering is ignorance of the four noble truths. My question to you is what is the ignorance of the 2nd truth if it is not misapprehending the world? Holding a false view of existence or non existence? Which I believe is what Taiyaki was getting at.
Fixation and grasping are the root cause of ignorance and consequently clinging or grasping is the root cause of ignorance.
For there to even be aversion or attachment one has to presuppose inherent existence of self and phenomena. If there was no self and phenomena apphrended then there is no aversion and attachment. The afflictive emotions are cut at the root.
I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass. These are very straight forward logics that can be experienced directly in practice.
Another way to frame this is how you propose. If one ends the process of fabrication then there is letting go. When there is letting go there is cessation and peace. When there is peace there is no defilements such as aversion or attachment. But when there is attachment or aversion the world is built, fabricated and thus the whole chain of suffering begins.
Read this post very carefully and look past your bias.
That is essentially dualistic fixation.
Nevermind said:
"Seeing essential characteristics in things is not dualistic fixation, nor is it ignorance. It is merely how our minds work."
Yes it is how the conceptual mind works, but that doesn't mean that is the status quo for all individuals on this planet. Seeing an essence of anything is fixation, a narrowing of attention and constructing of inherent existence.
Dualistic fixation = giving inherent existence to self and other (phenomena).
The finger that points to the moon.
Once people arrive at that they grasp onto the moon.
But even the moon has the same status as the finger.
Like paintings on water.
We cannot give the four modes of existence, non existence, both or neither because we realize that is how the world is constructed, fabricated, and assumed to be. Reality is much more mysterious, dynamic and ungraspable than we can ever imagine.
To end this intellectual bull shit we must examine our experience.
Where exactly is the thought? When does it arise? Where does it abide? Where does it go to?
And no intellectual answer is good enough one has to see how dependent arising works in the immediate experience and how that is intuited as emptiness and vice versa.
We divide emptiness from appearance but actually that is ignorance.
When we see emptiness as the appearance then that is wisdom. In hearing just sound, no hearer. When sound is examined it is arisen dependently upon causes/conditions, thus location, time and objecthood do not apply other than conventions. Thus the sound is said to be empty. How does the heart express this? Whats it like in the body?
Just some suggestions.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/01/marshland-flowers.html?m=1
Here is a small part:
"136. More on Fallacy of Language and Modern Thinking
Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
<< Previous Next >> Table of Contents
Continuing with the discussion on the limitedness of language - the very sentence 'I see the table' assumes that the table 'I' see is out there somewhere separate from me. And as a corollary which we will deal with later on, this 'I' which sees really existing is in fact the center of the seeing and the table out there, which 'I' see also really exist.
Let us take another example. We say the lighting flashed, this is similar in structure to I see. This grammatical structure implies that there is a lighting that flashed. The lighting is the subject (like the 'I which sees), which does the action of flashing (verb). This act is different from the lighting. But, and a big but is that is there really a lighting separate from flashing, or is flashing itself lighting? Can we really separate flashing or take away flashing and say - here is lighting that had flashed, which is separate thing from flashing? Can we really do that? If we removed flashing, would lightening really remain per se? But just a few minute ago we thought and felt and experience (or seem to experience) that there is a lighting that had done the action of flashing, didn't we?
Now, let us take this analysis back to 'I see the table'. Some people may say the mind sees the table just to be clever, but really we aren't changing the structure of the language and thus the structure of the experience. We have just substituted the word 'mind' for 'I' and the rest of the implications are still the same. There is a mind which is the subject, which exists independently and it is thus independent and separate mind which does that action of seeing the table, which is the object and which too is independent out there (like the lighting that flashes, the mind or I see). If we look at the seeing out, would there still remain a mind which sees or is the act of seeing itself the ......... "
So I don't share your sentiment.
There are infinite ways to deconstruct and construct the understand of dependent origination.
Conceptual thought does play a role in the construction of suffering.
And I agree that concepts are useful, but its narrow and concepts imply a lot of assumptions, which in turn through conditions force us to perceive reality in a mode of existence that isn't inherent to reality, thus we suffer.
Our deepest intuitions are flawed regardless of how great they function or whatever value we give or is assumed to have and the conceptual landscape just replicates that.
Form and conceptuality arise co-dependently.
If that is understood at a deep level in both the head and heart that is the gateway towards liberation.
Dharmakaya is the space of all possible and manifest. Everything manifest and non-manifest. I'm not sure how much of a basket this dharmakaya is. And I am not sure of it's nature as indeed it is a rare realization of mind to match dharmakaya. That may be enlightenment itself!
Thank you. We are in agreement then.
True nature, emptiness=lack of inherent/ intrinsic existence.
robot said:
» show previous quotes
So what is the origination of suffering if not mistakenly believing that form has intrinsic existence?
And taiyaki said basically the same thing. Although he was speaking more specifically on topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)
taiyaki said:
Ignorance is the view and perception of value that is intrinsic to the skateboard.
Why is there a "lack of inherent/intrinsic existence" ?