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.
Is Enlightenment Just Part Of Ones Practice ? (Where Practice Will Eventually Make Perfect)
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Well, that's the point Nagarjuna was making but I don't see how it was used to make the argument @robot was going for. He is using it to bolster the idea that potential is just a thought. That is actually contrary to Nagarjuna
No, Nagarjuna's point is that there is no view that you can hang your hat on.
Including cause and effect. He refutes the notion that the effect is present in the cause.
Here:
"na svato nāpi parato na dvābhyāṃ nāpy ahetutaḥ | utpannā jātu vidyante bhāvāḥ kva cana ke cana || 1||
1. Not from itself, not from another, not from both, nor without cause:
Never in any way is there any existing thing that has arisen.
This is the overall conclusion for which Nāgārjuna will argue in this chapter: that existents do not come into existence as the result of causes and conditions. There are four possible ways in which this might be thought to happen, and he rejects all of them. According to the first, when an effect seems to arise, it does so because it was already in some sense present in its cause; its appearance is really just the manifestation of something that already existed. The second view claims instead that cause and effect are distinct entities. The third has it that cause and effect may be said to be both identical and distinct. The fourth claims that things originate without any cause; since there are thus no causes, an originating thing could not be said to originate either from itself or from something distinct—it does not originate from anything"
Of course the commentary on this verse is pages long. It's taken from a pdf preview of of mmk.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The view that there is no view to hang a hat on is just another view.
It makes sense that no one aspect of existence can be called the true existence and so not-self but to say that causes are not evident in consequent effects is a rejection of his teachings on the Two Truths.
@robot said: According to the first, when an effect seems to arise, it does so because it was already in some sense present in its cause; its appearance is really just the manifestation of something that already existed.
This is the bit I struggle with. I can see that the potential for the plant is in the seed, but that potential will not be realised without the necessary conditions, like sunlight and water. The plant arises in dependence on the seed ( among other things ), but the plant is not the same as the seed.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I just remembered one thing I notice about Nagarjuna. When he says we cant say karma exists and we can't say karma doesn't exist, he is being short sighted in my view as he acknowledges that it works.
I don't think something like action can take up space and neither does that which we would label "self".
So, can it be said to exist if it takes up no space?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@robot said:
Look Fede, you have made it clear that the Dhammapada is all you need. Thats cool. But could you please spare those that are interested in the other 83999 teachings your harsh judgmentalism.
How bout it? Just this once?
It's not 'harsh judgementalism' it's opinion. What's the matter, I can't have an opinion, now...?
Naturally, I don't expect all, or some - or even any - to be in any agreement to any level.
But simplicity cuts to the chase.
Pema Chodron - cuts to the chase.
Lama Surya Das - cuts to the chase.
HHDL - cuts to the chase.
TNH - cuts to the chase.
The Buddha - cuts to the chase.
I just personally fail to see the point in this kind of discussion which takes everyone around the houses, up and down the mountain, through the Dingly-Dell, and back out of the undergrowth, when we end up finding ourselves about a yard further on from our heading into the undergrowth.
By all means have an interest.
Just how far further along the path does it actually get you...?
It's easy to take Madhyamaka teachings out of context since most are aimed refuting the entrenched views of various other schools around at the time.
If someone is interested they might start with Shantideva. If you have no interest, probably best to leave it alone.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2015
@robot said:
And yes you are being judgemental. I know it when I see it.
If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything.
Not so. Being judgemental would have been picking on individuals personally and singling them out for unreasonable criticism.
I never actually mentioned names, nor have I condemned any individuals specifically.
But hey; if you choose to see it that way, that's up to you.
@federica said:
But hey; if you choose to see it that way, that's up to you.
How would you feel I said that those who are interested in Theraveda are too dim witted to understand deeper Mahayana?
Im pretty sure you'd have your knickers in a twist over it.
You said:
Ah.
So it's someone's philosophy, but not a universally accepted one.
Explains a lot.
These Mahayanists have a lot to answer for.
"Let's take a simple premise and screw it up beyond anyone's understanding!"
I say it's not beyond anyone's understanding. Mine maybe, but it's not over til it's over.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@robot said:How would you feel I said that those who are interested in Theravada are too dim witted to understand deeper Mahayana?
True in my case.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2015
@robot said:How would you feel I said that those who are interested in Theraveda are too dim witted to understand deeper Mahayana?
Im pretty sure you'd have your knickers in a twist over it.
To be totally honest with you, for my part, I'd agree entirely. It all whizzes over my head and I just can't be arsed. But that's in all probablility a problem I have....
When it comes to the metaphysical topics of emptiness non-self and the like....
Call me a Buddhist fundamentalist, but I put my understanding or lack of understanding down to the intricate workings of karma
"When the pupil is ready the master will appear!" (And if the pupil is not ready, the master will busy himself elsewhere)
I guess one could also say it's a thinking style I picked up from Shantideva (In other words I don't get my knickers in a twist.... because I don't wear any-that's keeping things simple )
My raft BTW is put together by driftwood, found on different Buddhist shores...
It is not uncommon to have a very nuanced, philosophical debate to enhance ones understanding of dharma.
This understanding may be useful to our relationship with practice. As far as I understand when this occurs in a friendly way nothing but depth or knowledge and perhaps even wisdom ensues.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
See, I love THIS kind of insight:
"I was once instructed to meditate on thoughts. I investigated the nature of thought for two whole months. I can tell you firsthand that you can never find a thought. There is nothing there of substance, but with our mind we make it an Extremely Big Deal."
~ Pema Chödrön
Says all I need to know. As I said - 'Cuts to the chase'.
@SpinyNorman said:
Indeed, and such discussions can be fascinating. For me the challenge is always trying to relate these ideas to everyday experience.
It helps if you for example look at a flower, observe the emptiness of it. When you consciously observe something it's like the brain has a realisation. The intellectual understandings never satisfy wholly
Oh yes, I'm a bit of an amateur naturalist ( not naturist! ) and it's fascinating to observe the natural world, plants, trees, animals, the weather, the sea, and then consider these observations in relation to Buddhist teachings. I notice that a lot of natural processes are cyclical and also seem to be fractal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
@SpinyNorman yes like Pi in drawn sequence spiral is the same shape as sunflowers, honeycombs etc. And those fractals are incredible. All this (whatever it is) is truly beyond comprehension. Incredible really.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
So is it fair to say that causality is a very convincing illusion based on how we think?
I gotta admit, I'm also starting to struggle with this one.
I don't see how the thinking process would work without causality. The illusion couldn't even be based on how we think because well... That's causality.
That would mean that this post was not even inspired by your question.
Is this kind of notion beneficial to living mindfully?
Because causation takes up no space, Nagarjuna and others claim it cannot be said to exist and cannot be said not to exist while at the same time say it works. Kinda like the self.
However, it is just like saying gravity cannot exist because it takes up no space. Try telling yourself that during a free fall.
Simply put, not all aspects of existence take up space.
@ourself said:I don't see how the thinking process would work without causality. The illusion couldn't even be based on how we think because well... That's causality.
Indeed. I don't see how denying conditionality enhances our understanding of the way we experience stuff.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
I would suggest that anyone that questions the reality of things like self, causation and gravity climb a tree and fall out of it. Not a tall one though.
During the fall perhaps it will all be the very same process but once the ground is hit, all three should be apparent even if they are still just the same process broken into relative chunks.
It probably goes without saying but I wouldn't really want anyone to do that, lol.
Comments
Well, that's the point Nagarjuna was making but I don't see how it was used to make the argument @robot was going for. He is using it to bolster the idea that potential is just a thought. That is actually contrary to Nagarjuna
No, Nagarjuna's point is that there is no view that you can hang your hat on.
Including cause and effect. He refutes the notion that the effect is present in the cause.
Here:
"na svato nāpi parato na dvābhyāṃ nāpy ahetutaḥ | utpannā jātu vidyante bhāvāḥ kva cana ke cana || 1||
1. Not from itself, not from another, not from both, nor without cause:
Never in any way is there any existing thing that has arisen.
This is the overall conclusion for which Nāgārjuna will argue in this chapter: that existents do not come into existence as the result of causes and conditions. There are four possible ways in which this might be thought to happen, and he rejects all of them. According to the first, when an effect seems to arise, it does so because it was already in some sense present in its cause; its appearance is really just the manifestation of something that already existed. The second view claims instead that cause and effect are distinct entities. The third has it that cause and effect may be said to be both identical and distinct. The fourth claims that things originate without any cause; since there are thus no causes, an originating thing could not be said to originate either from itself or from something distinct—it does not originate from anything"
Of course the commentary on this verse is pages long. It's taken from a pdf preview of of mmk.
The view that there is no view to hang a hat on is just another view.
It makes sense that no one aspect of existence can be called the true existence and so not-self but to say that causes are not evident in consequent effects is a rejection of his teachings on the Two Truths.
This is the bit I struggle with. I can see that the potential for the plant is in the seed, but that potential will not be realised without the necessary conditions, like sunlight and water. The plant arises in dependence on the seed ( among other things ), but the plant is not the same as the seed.
I just remembered one thing I notice about Nagarjuna. When he says we cant say karma exists and we can't say karma doesn't exist, he is being short sighted in my view as he acknowledges that it works.
I don't think something like action can take up space and neither does that which we would label "self".
So, can it be said to exist if it takes up no space?
It's not 'harsh judgementalism' it's opinion. What's the matter, I can't have an opinion, now...?
Naturally, I don't expect all, or some - or even any - to be in any agreement to any level.
But simplicity cuts to the chase.
Pema Chodron - cuts to the chase.
Lama Surya Das - cuts to the chase.
HHDL - cuts to the chase.
TNH - cuts to the chase.
The Buddha - cuts to the chase.
I just personally fail to see the point in this kind of discussion which takes everyone around the houses, up and down the mountain, through the Dingly-Dell, and back out of the undergrowth, when we end up finding ourselves about a yard further on from our heading into the undergrowth.
By all means have an interest.
Just how far further along the path does it actually get you...?
There is no me. There is no path.
How's that for flaky?
And yes you are being judgemental. I know it when I see it.
If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything.
It's easy to take Madhyamaka teachings out of context since most are aimed refuting the entrenched views of various other schools around at the time.
If someone is interested they might start with Shantideva. If you have no interest, probably best to leave it alone.
Not so. Being judgemental would have been picking on individuals personally and singling them out for unreasonable criticism.
I never actually mentioned names, nor have I condemned any individuals specifically.
But hey; if you choose to see it that way, that's up to you.
How would you feel I said that those who are interested in Theraveda are too dim witted to understand deeper Mahayana?
Im pretty sure you'd have your knickers in a twist over it.
You said:
Ah.
So it's someone's philosophy, but not a universally accepted one.
Explains a lot.
These Mahayanists have a lot to answer for.
"Let's take a simple premise and screw it up beyond anyone's understanding!"
I say it's not beyond anyone's understanding. Mine maybe, but it's not over til it's over.
Whatever floats your raft....
True in my case.
To be totally honest with you, for my part, I'd agree entirely. It all whizzes over my head and I just can't be arsed. But that's in all probablility a problem I have....
When it comes to the metaphysical topics of emptiness non-self and the like....
Call me a Buddhist fundamentalist, but I put my understanding or lack of understanding down to the intricate workings of karma
"When the pupil is ready the master will appear!" (And if the pupil is not ready, the master will busy himself elsewhere)
I guess one could also say it's a thinking style I picked up from Shantideva (In other words I don't get my knickers in a twist.... because I don't wear any-that's keeping things simple
)
My raft BTW is put together by driftwood, found on different Buddhist shores...
It is not uncommon to have a very nuanced, philosophical debate to enhance ones understanding of dharma.
This understanding may be useful to our relationship with practice. As far as I understand when this occurs in a friendly way nothing but depth or knowledge and perhaps even wisdom ensues.
See, I love THIS kind of insight:
"I was once instructed to meditate on thoughts. I investigated the nature of thought for two whole months. I can tell you firsthand that you can never find a thought. There is nothing there of substance, but with our mind we make it an Extremely Big Deal."
~ Pema Chödrön
Says all I need to know. As I said - 'Cuts to the chase'.
As an accursed, and unfashionable Hinayanist I can only aspire to reach the heights of dim wit, half wit or twit.
Must try harder, or just give up trying ...
@ourself and @robot
So is it fair to say that causality is a very convincing illusion based on how we think?
I gotta admit, I'm also starting to struggle with this one.
@federica
I see where you're coming from. But really, I don't see anything wrong with discussing so to clear stuff up.
Different strokes maybe...
Indeed, and such discussions can be fascinating. For me the challenge is always trying to relate these ideas to everyday experience.
It helps if you for example look at a flower, observe the emptiness of it. When you consciously observe something it's like the brain has a realisation. The intellectual understandings never satisfy wholly
Oh yes, I'm a bit of an amateur naturalist ( not naturist! ) and it's fascinating to observe the natural world, plants, trees, animals, the weather, the sea, and then consider these observations in relation to Buddhist teachings. I notice that a lot of natural processes are cyclical and also seem to be fractal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
@SpinyNorman yes like Pi in drawn sequence spiral is the same shape as sunflowers, honeycombs etc. And those fractals are incredible. All this (whatever it is) is truly beyond comprehension. Incredible really.
I don't see how the thinking process would work without causality. The illusion couldn't even be based on how we think because well... That's causality.
That would mean that this post was not even inspired by your question.
Is this kind of notion beneficial to living mindfully?
Because causation takes up no space, Nagarjuna and others claim it cannot be said to exist and cannot be said not to exist while at the same time say it works. Kinda like the self.
However, it is just like saying gravity cannot exist because it takes up no space. Try telling yourself that during a free fall.
Simply put, not all aspects of existence take up space.
Indeed. I don't see how denying conditionality enhances our understanding of the way we experience stuff.
I would suggest that anyone that questions the reality of things like self, causation and gravity climb a tree and fall out of it. Not a tall one though.
During the fall perhaps it will all be the very same process but once the ground is hit, all three should be apparent even if they are still just the same process broken into relative chunks.
It probably goes without saying but I wouldn't really want anyone to do that, lol.