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.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Trying to isolate on object is like trying to isolate one moment in time.
Buddha said "I am awake"... WaselusionalI to think the non-existent could wake up?
No, because he well explains that speech and name is required to explain, but should be taken inaccurate labeling, temporary terms.
The brain. The brain is what distinguishes one process from the next.
No brain, no pain.
...wow. ok so the brain has a mechanism which separates objects according to import, danger, etc. If we start to ask what are the exact parameters that the 'brain' employs to delineate. Then we can ask to what extent we can alter and contol these parameters. ....but oh wait that doesn't interest you... I find that utterly incredible. Even an atheistic approach to Buddhism should find lots of interest here.
You're damn right I'm getting upset, because explaining this is very difficult, and what takes me an hour to word carefully, you trample fox news style in 5 minutes by basically making up your own meaning then responding to it. Straight out of congress bro, whomever yells the loudest is right. Its shameful, especially here...(maybe this is appropriate at a drunken beach party) But I have to continue to do it because you're making incorrect assertions about the Dharma and i can't let that stand in a public setting. Im worried that others reading this thread will come away with a wrong view.
Quote Buddha saying that we subjectively do not exist and we can talk.
I just did. Basically he equates all things to clear empty space. Emptiness, sunyata. This has a profound meaning. Thus it is the refined way of saying that subjectively things, we, don't exist. It won't generally say that things don't exist, without qualifiers, like (for the fourth time), explaining that nothingness does not exist either. This is a very good way of illuminating the principle that cannot be reached with words.
I think really you need to do some very basic reading.
. To be honest I just don't find them all too compelling.
I just can't get over this statement. You don't find practical awereness of the workings of mind the least bit interesting? You do realize that buddism is kinda big on knowing the nature of mind...right?
. If there are no objects, how can there be boundaries?
This was a very nice way of dodging the questions. Second time. Great job. You didn't even consider them for one second did you. Here, ill answer this anyway: Simply? There are neither, but terminology and name must be used to elucidate principles. More accurately. when I referenced conceptual boundaries here I was attempting to get you to see that these boundaries which exist with our minds are in fact arbitrary and based fundamentally inaccurate. The only reason I was referring to things this way is because you don't recognize sunyata correctly, so I was trying a backdoor roundabout method to get you to examine the nature of mind.
Does anyone else have genuine questions about how the non seperation of all things also implies their lack of self being? The OP is basically expressing an opinion that there is no intrinsic link between the two principles, this is not an opinion that is shared by many many buddhists. You can make up your own mind, but the OP's opinion is by no means prevalent or absolute as he tries to imply in the original post.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2013
@oceancaldera207, now I see what the problem is... Your horse is too high for you.
No, because he well explains that speech and name is required to explain, but should be taken inaccurate labeling, temporary terms.
That's also what I am saying but it doesn't go to say we aren't here. I mean, if we aren't here, why would anything need to be explained?
...wow. ok so the brain has a mechanism which separates objects according to import, danger, etc. If we start to ask what are the exact parameters that the 'brain' employs to delineate. Then we can ask to what extent we can alter and contol these parameters. ....but oh wait that doesn't interest you... I find that utterly incredible. Even an atheistic approach to Buddhism should find lots of interest here.
I'm not sure what atheism has to do with this but what I'm saying is that without a brain, there is no duality. A blade of grass is not a blade of grass except for one who uses duality because it has no brain to distinguish between itself and the rest.
You're damn right I'm getting upset, because explaining this is very difficult, and what takes me an hour to word carefully, you trample fox news style in 5 minutes by basically making up your own meaning then responding to it. Straight out of congress bro, whomever yells the loudest is right. Its shameful, especially here...(maybe this is appropriate at a drunken beach party) But I have to continue to do it because you're making incorrect assertions about the Dharma and i can't let that stand in a public setting. Im worried that others reading this thread will come away with a wrong view.
What if it is you that is seeing it wrong? That whole paragragh was quite unskilful.
I just did. Basically he equates all things to clear empty space. Emptiness, sunyata. This has a profound meaning. Thus it is the refined way of saying that subjectively things, we, don't exist. It won't generally say that things don't exist, without qualifiers, like (for the fourth time), explaining that nothingness does not exist either. This is a very good way of illuminating the principle that cannot be reached with words.
No you did not, sorry. You are only seeing half of the truth and the other half is needed for a good understanding of the importance of compassion. Parroting wisdom is not wisdom.
I just can't get over this statement. You don't find practical awereness of the workings of mind the least bit interesting? You do realize that buddism is kinda big on knowing the nature of mind...right?
It isn't that. I'm not trying to be rude but the questions you asked don't really do it for me. Why would I want to change any boundaries? I like to see each process unfold in their own unique style. I already know the boundaries are only perception so I can use duality as an investigative tool.
This is both ironically humorous and incredibly disrespectful to the Dharma. my hats off to you sir, this is a combination I've never seen before
You need to get over yourself. Please respond a little more skilfully next time. Because I have a different perspective on some teachings than you does not mean you have the correct one. You could be just understanding only what you want to understand.
"Monks, there are these four types of individuals to be found existing in the world. Which four?
"There is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first direction[1] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with compassion. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with compassion: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara devas.
[2] The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.[3]
"Again, there is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with appreciation.
Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with appreciation: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Subhakinha[4] devas. The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with equanimity.
Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with equanimity: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Vehapphala[5] devas. The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"These are four types of individuals to be found existing in the world."
The subjective truth is that we are all individuals with separate and unique qualities and perspectives but the absolute truth is that we are all part of the same process.
Buddha points to the middle path and doesn't adhere to the extreme views of permanence or nihilism.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2013
Why would Buddha bother walking away from his tree if he wasn't there?
Why would we be taught to show compassion when there is nothing to show compassion or receive it?
If nothing exists then don't worry about it because that would mean there is no dharma to take refuge in and nothing to take refuge.
It seems silly to me to defend a teaching that doesn't exist...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I am quite aware of these concepts but thanks for the offering.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_origination
On a general level, it refers to one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.
To arise is to exist and not only that causes and conditions must also exist on some level to dictate that which will arise.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
Śūnyatā, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatā), in Buddhism, translated into English as emptiness, voidness,[1] openness,[2] spaciousness, is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context. In Mahayana Buddhism, it often refers to the absence of inherent essence in all phenomena. In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the not-self (Pāli: anatta, Sanskrit: anātman)
To be empty is to be full of potential... Potential is what makes change possible and because there is change, all things lack a permanent essence. Empty of permanence but full of potential.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatman
According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways, only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary
Why would Buddha bother walking away from his tree if he wasn't there?
Why would we be taught to show compassion when there is nothing to show compassion or receive it?
If nothing exists then don't worry about it because that would mean there is no dharma to take refuge in and nothing to take refuge.
It seems silly to me to defend a teaching that doesn't exist...
Who said there is nothing?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Why would Buddha bother walking away from his tree if he wasn't there?
Why would we be taught to show compassion when there is nothing to show compassion or receive it?
If nothing exists then don't worry about it because that would mean there is no dharma to take refuge in and nothing to take refuge.
It seems silly to me to defend a teaching that doesn't exist...
Who said there is nothing?
At least one person said that nothing exists which is the same as saying there is nothing. No thing (process) exists apart from everything else but that isn't to say that nothing exists because there are processes.
It is easy doctrine to get confused by and I think those that are could greatly benefit from the teachings on inter-being by Thich Nhat Hanh. It makes Dependent Origination easy to understand.
You are right, though, people do get the whole emptiness thing really mixed up. I know I did and that's not to say I fully understand and realize emptiness, but I was set straight on where I was missing the boat intellectually.
I think what really trips people up is that while there is most certainly something, we experience it as appearance and not directly. We mistake the appearance for the actual object and cling to that appearance, mistaking it for the real. The appearance is what doesn't exist
Enlightenment is seeing things as they are. This is not the same as acknowledging some intellectual construct. Anyone can do that. A Buddha, on the other hand ......
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Comments
You're damn right I'm getting upset, because explaining this is very difficult, and what takes me an hour to word carefully, you trample fox news style in 5 minutes by basically making up your own meaning then responding to it. Straight out of congress bro, whomever yells the loudest is right. Its shameful, especially here...(maybe this is appropriate at a drunken beach party) But I have to continue to do it because you're making incorrect assertions about the Dharma and i can't let that stand in a public setting. Im worried that others reading this thread will come away with a wrong view. I just did.
Basically he equates all things to clear empty space. Emptiness, sunyata. This has a profound meaning. Thus it is the refined way of saying that subjectively things, we, don't exist. It won't generally say that things don't exist, without qualifiers, like (for the fourth time), explaining that nothingness does not exist either. This is a very good way of illuminating the principle that cannot be reached with words.
I think really you need to do some very basic reading.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_origination
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatman I just can't get over this statement. You don't find practical awereness of the workings of mind the least bit interesting? You do realize that buddism is kinda big on knowing the nature of mind...right?
This was a very nice way of dodging the questions. Second time. Great job. You didn't even consider them for one second did you.
Here, ill answer this anyway:
Simply? There are neither, but terminology and name must be used to elucidate principles.
More accurately. when I referenced conceptual boundaries here I was attempting to get you to see that these boundaries which exist with our minds are in fact arbitrary and based fundamentally inaccurate. The only reason I was referring to things this way is because you don't recognize sunyata correctly, so I was trying a backdoor roundabout method to get you to examine the nature of mind.
Does anyone else have genuine questions about how the non seperation of all things also implies their lack of self being? The OP is basically expressing an opinion that there is no intrinsic link between the two principles, this is not an opinion that is shared by many many buddhists. You can make up your own mind, but the OP's opinion is by no means prevalent or absolute as he tries to imply in the original post.
click for video (I tip my hat to you
Buddha points to the middle path and doesn't adhere to the extreme views of permanence or nihilism.
Why would we be taught to show compassion when there is nothing to show compassion or receive it?
If nothing exists then don't worry about it because that would mean there is no dharma to take refuge in and nothing to take refuge.
It seems silly to me to defend a teaching that doesn't exist...
I am quite aware of these concepts but thanks for the offering. To arise is to exist and not only that causes and conditions must also exist on some level to dictate that which will arise. To be empty is to be full of potential... Potential is what makes change possible and because there is change, all things lack a permanent essence. Empty of permanence but full of potential. Why bother if there is nothing to develop?
What were you trying to show me?
It is easy doctrine to get confused by and I think those that are could greatly benefit from the teachings on inter-being by Thich Nhat Hanh. It makes Dependent Origination easy to understand.
You are right, though, people do get the whole emptiness thing really mixed up. I know I did and that's not to say I fully understand and realize emptiness, but I was set straight on where I was missing the boat intellectually.
I think what really trips people up is that while there is most certainly something, we experience it as appearance and not directly. We mistake the appearance for the actual object and cling to that appearance, mistaking it for the real. The appearance is what doesn't exist
Enlightenment is seeing things as they are. This is not the same as acknowledging some intellectual construct. Anyone can do that. A Buddha, on the other hand ......