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.
THE ANSWER
ive been thinking about existence. and in so thinking, i also comprehended non-existence, or death. it occurs to me that the very essence of everything is mirrored in its opposite. take any example you can think of, substance, morality, truth. from here you can think of its exact opposite, that is to say, void, immorality, and lies. everything and anything have an opposite. the sums of these would therefore equal 0, or that is to say, they balance out to a zero sum. the universe itself is a zero sum, it both exists and does not exist at the same time, and at no time. always and never. this i will touch on more.
now one has to understand that although that may look like the total conclusion, the answer, it is not. because the answer would be dependent on the question, and questions are limitless. literally infinite. and all of these infinite instances of thought that spark these questions exist in the same moment. if we define existence to mean something having an impression on the universe, causing some kind of reaction, then anything that has a POSSIBILITY of happening is in reality happening at that exact instance. one can think of an eventuality for every possible instance, and therefore that instance, whether physically real or not, is real in your mind. which makes it have an impression, or effect, on the universe. which makes it EXIST. the fact that it exists however, is contrary to it NOT existing, for anything we believe possible, we can also believe to be impossible. which again leads to the zero sum.
this is not the real answer. because that answer would depend on your question. but maybe this can help you come to your own answer.
now one has to understand that although that may look like the total conclusion, the answer, it is not. because the answer would be dependent on the question, and questions are limitless. literally infinite. and all of these infinite instances of thought that spark these questions exist in the same moment. if we define existence to mean something having an impression on the universe, causing some kind of reaction, then anything that has a POSSIBILITY of happening is in reality happening at that exact instance. one can think of an eventuality for every possible instance, and therefore that instance, whether physically real or not, is real in your mind. which makes it have an impression, or effect, on the universe. which makes it EXIST. the fact that it exists however, is contrary to it NOT existing, for anything we believe possible, we can also believe to be impossible. which again leads to the zero sum.
this is not the real answer. because that answer would depend on your question. but maybe this can help you come to your own answer.
0
Comments
side note, thats an awesome book.
My brain hurts! :buck:
.
Non-existence Example: a rabbit’s horn
Both Existence and Nonexistence Example: the reflection of your face in a mirror
Neither Existence nor Nonexistence Example: the sharpness of the rabbit's horn
These are the four extremes. If you fall into one or more of these, you are an extremist, and you do not have the right view of the middle way. Then you do not have ‘the view that is free from the extremes’.
In the first zone, ‘existence’, we can find Christianity. I feel that when buddhists meditate on emptiness, many of them just delete the first one, ‘existence’, and dwell on the second, ‘non-existence’. The third one is New Age, where everything is all right, existence or non-existence. The fourth is Taoism. It is very close to buddhism, and many people think that ‘neither existence nor non-existence’ must be the Middle Way. But this is not so, according to Chandrakirti.
Roughly, one can say that if you just wish to destroy the root of samsara, you can destroy the first of the four extremes, existence. However, the view that a bodhisattva tries to meditate on is beyond all four of these zones. That is what we call ‘great emptiness’. So, emptiness is not the same as non-existence.
Many people say that emptiness is something like a void, blank space or non-existence of this and that – but that is not true. Many people’s emptiness falls into the second extreme, the second trap.
Shravakas and pratyekabuddhas care more about the first extreme, existence. They emphasise the understanding of the non-existence of existence. However, a bodhisattva has to understand the non-existence of existence and the non-existence of non-existence. When you think, “I am”, that is clinging to existence. Then with some meditation, you can realise the emptiness of self, but sometimes a person can also have clinging or attachment to this non-existence. From the Mahayana point of view, that is also a type of defilement.
When the Mahayana says a flower does not exist, it actually means that the flower is free from the four extremes: it is not existent, nor is it non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, and not neither existent nor non-existent. If you understand this, you will not ask questions like “how can the Mahayana say this tent does not exist? I can see it”. Chandrakirti will say it is not existent but also not non-existent. To our normal mind, ‘not non-existent’ means that it is sort of existent, but then Chandrakirti tells us that’s not it either. Whichever side you go to, Chandrakirti is there, saying, “No, this isn’t it!” That is why it is called the Middle Way. And after all this, Nagarjuna says that a learned one should not even remain in the Middle Way!
edited from:
'Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara
With commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche'; Given at the Centre d’Etudes de Chanteloube Dordogne, France, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000
Arranged according to Gorampa’s commentary; Edited by Alex Trisoglio
© 2003 by Khyentse Foundation
There are different ways getting out of the tangle of mental constructs. There is the analytical way mentioned by Brother Bob. There is simply tiime spent on the cushion seeing thoughts arise and pass ad nauseum.... or there is having a teacher give you a whack. But in the end no more answers.
Damn! Beat me to the chase! I'v read the second and am reading the first, have you watched the movie?
Love & peace
Joe
I've seen the movie but I prefer the old mini series. It was closer to the book.
I think that what we have to understand is that, no matter how free and pure you may think that your reasoning mind is being, what ever you come up with, or think that you not, will still simply be a mind object. This particular emptiness will still be an object in your mind.
So we are back once again thinking in the barest terms. What exactly is a mind object?
We investigate this closely in the raw-est form possible, if we can, before we start cooking things up in our heads. Weaving with these concepts only confuses the issue, and makes a fabric out of non-existent threads. (Tower of Babel was an effort to storm heaven with language.)
Look directly.
We can’t get away from this trap of the mind by simply writing it like its a math problem. Or 1 mirage take away 1 mirage isn’t no mirage at all, because to whole thing is just a mental imagination, or a mirage, so what are we talking about here? Like you can build anything out of an original mistaken impression. We are already wandering down an imaginary road towards an imaginary goal, aren’t we?
S9
R: Starting with thinking about "emptiness" I struggled with the tenacious urge to grasp and crystallize "it."
S9: I think we all did this. The mind always begins by building a cage of words, in which to capture freedom, and soon learns that he is inside that same cage of words, a prisoner.
Next he thinks, I will do this outside of words, and he promptly builds a cage of subtle images, as even ‘blank space’ is a subtle image within the mind.
R: Only sheer fatigue put an end to the exercise.
S9: And probably immediately started another one, I imagine. We all did. : ^ )
R: This is probably a common experience, conditioned, as we are to try and hold with knowing.
S9: Yes, indeed. I think that we arm ourselves with 'effort,' and without this effort what do we have. Back to square one.
(Sort of like trying to avoid the fire by taking up residence in the frying pan.)
But they both burn, don’t they. Fire is the rapid death of self (ego), whereas the frying pan is a slow agony. So you choose. Or as they say, “Choose your poison.” ; ^ )
What is on the other side of this death to the self, or ego mind?
Lin Chi, "Look, Look."
Respectfully,
S9
___________
I love the movie and the books. They're odd books, I like quirky stuff like the books 'The dog in the night-time' and a book I can't remember, I loved the TV series' Pushing Daisies, I hope they make a third series but it says to be unlikely, if not very, but it's better than nothing. Primevil ended too, I've just got my Wild at Heart left LOL (although W at H isn't quirky).
Love & Peace
Jellybean
Theres no ANSWER, because there is no single true question.
Therefore, the answer is not in a single concept, but in understanding that enlightenment lies in being truly content with no answer at all.
N: The simple reasoning behind my enlightenment is that, in the end, there is no reason.
Theres no ANSWER, because there is no single true question.
S9: You can know that all day long (as a thought) with your mind, (not that it isn’t true), and still you will end of spinning in circles, first one idea and then another, looking for relief from life as a circumstance. This is because the physical mind is not going to just stop thinking, any day soon.
This calls, rather, for deep investigation on your part, not so much to find answers or even questions, but rather to eliminate all of the possibilities in your present life, which are sheer illusion. This is because illusions kick us around unmercifully.
N: Therefore, the answer is not in a single concept, but in understanding that enlightenment lies in being truly content with no answer at all.
S9: I think that this concept, “The no answer concept” sounds really good on paper. But I can’t see anyone being content to live this, not within the mind. Life as we commonly live it, is simply not satisfactory by anyone’s standards, IMO.
And:
Dissatisfaction is suffering.
Respectfully,
S9
You called this, didn't you?
In the Nikayan teaching , it used the above quad plane to teach about the attribute of nirvana .
Mahayana master Nagarjuna used the doctrine of Sunyata ( emptiness , non-duality ) for this aboslute plane
Life and Buddha themselve is also exhibit in this 4 planes of existence ( living ) , non-existence ( death ) , either existence nor non-existence ( life state , compassion , wisdom, resolved , vows ) , both existence and non-existence ( dreams , thoughts , karma )
hence Buddha = life
How many Buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Four; one to change it, one not to change, one to both change it and not change it, and one to neither change it nor not change it
I think the thread was called Reverse Enlightenment....or something like that...
how about the following:
1. moment before the follwing line appear in the screen (non existence of the following line)
' a spoon'
2. a moment after the above line appear in the screen (existence of ' a spoon')
at (1.) one of our six sense bases contacted one of relevent external sense bases (eye and form etc.) and one of the relevent consciousness was occured but 'a spoon' wasn't there (non exist)
at (2.) mind+ previously seen 'a spoon' + mind consciousness occured ( 'a spoon' exists)
when the 'a spoon' appear in the screen there was just the 'seeing'
but for us 'the seeing' brings a long story about a spoon that we knew already
this is what happens to us all the time
Nick - You describe the universe as a unity and this seems to be the message of all religions, buried under the clutter. As someone said earlier it would not be right to call this THE answer to life the universe and everything, but Nagarjuna proves that it is the solution for the problems of philosophy. If you're are a thinker as well as doer you might like to check out George Spencer Brown, who formalises your view into a mathematical calculus in his 'Laws of Form.'