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.
If everything is changing ...
betaboy
Veteran
... then why don't we feel it? Why does everything feel the same? Shouldn't every minute feel different if it's true that things are changing?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
0
Comments
Yes it is quite true that everything in this world is changing perhaps change happens between seconds or even faster.
One possible reason why we could not feel the change is because of our mind. Our mind is diffused and it's concentration scattered in a million directions, making it weak and a liability to the owner.
Only to the adept mediator, the one whose mind is still, integrated, concentrated then will the ever-changing nature of the world be known to him.
The mind of this adept is flexible and powerful. He could use it like a microscope and view the world in a perspective invisible to the naked eyes in ways a normal person could not imagine This is one by-product of meditation, being able to realize impermanence in the world in their original state.
However if we use an electron microscope it is possible to observe and feel the change. The sub atomic particles are always moving, always in motion, never at rest.
If we felt all this change we wouldn't be able to make any sense out of conventional reality and we would therefore not be able to survive.
Things are actually constantly in change, even at a level shorter than seconds or minutes.
In your post, you already demonstrate how things change. Your thoughts are fluttering about - that's a form of change. Your mood constantly changes. You lose and regenerate cells constantly. You may have an itch that comes and goes. The list goes on...
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that on the level of conventional phenomena, things are in constant change, but the Buddha-nature or Primordial Wisdom does not change. So it could be said that things are both always changing and always not-changing. Right?
can you think of something that is 'unchanging'..?
if yes, post it here and lets see what the replies are...
Bryan
Kind of. It's very difficult to express in words. Ultimately nothing changes, because of that ultimate truth. And yet things do change. I'm reminded of the two truth doctrine, which I haven't researched much but seems to be speaking of the same thing. Things are always changing at a more conventional level, whereas at an ultimate level there is no such thing as change.
I can!
The hair of a tortoise. The horn of a rabbit.
Also, voidness.
That sounds more like Parmenides than the Buddha.
Ok. You're free to your opinion
Oh, good observation re: Parmenides' two truths. (Parmenides lived so much earlier than Nagarjuna!) The notion of two truths is fundamental to Buddhism too, though.
I like to think of the two truths as explained by Nagarjuna this way:
1) It is true that things exist conventionally. That is, things do have an appearance of existing substantially, "from their own side".
For deluded people, this means the appearance is mistaken for the thing itself, or rather, the deluded think it is apparent that the thing possesses a self-existent nature. For the enlightened, the appearance of objects is recognized as merely the appearance of objects. And this is convenient: if the enlightened did not recognize the conventional existence of objects, they'd have bumps all over their bodies from walking into doors!
2) It is true that things are ultimately void of intrinsic, inherent, essential, self-existence.
For deluded people this is not understood, and many would probably call this view nihilistic. And, frankly, if this were the one truth (if there was not the conventional truth) it would be nihilistic. The enlightened being, through understanding dependent origination and anatman, realizes that all things are void of self-existence.
It is these two truths that enable Buddha to call all things "bubbles". That is, things have an apparently solid surface that is masking an essential emptiness within.
Is this true? :P
If the ultimate truth is that all things are alike in that they are void of inherent self-existence, and if it is true that voidness alone is permanent and unchanging, how is this not known?
You say it has not been experienced, and this may very well be true for most of us; but, experiential knowledge is not the only valid mode of cognition.
In Buddhism there are two kinds of valid cognition:
1) Direct perception
2) Inference
I believe it is quite easy to realize the ultimate truth of the voidness of self-existence via the method of inference.
Great explanation! I notice you do not digress into speculation about ultimate truth.
Sorry, I don't follow.
I explained that the ultimate truth is the (inferential and/or direct) cognition that all things lack inherent self-existence. It's not even speculation; it follows directly from grasping the full meaning of dependent origination: that things are not brought into existence self-created, or even created by a single cause. All things share the "essenceless essence".
If you want to capitalize the 'u' in ultimate and realize an Ultimate truth, it is that all things exist in the modes delineated in the two truths.
Are you merely pointing out that I do not assert something to take the place of the ultimate voidness (of self-existence) of all things? If so, then it is common complaint raised against Prasangika.
I think he was implying that I speculated too much in my posts and you did not as much. I could be wrong though. I'm not really speculating though, insomuch as any other buddhist doctrine is speculation. If it doesn't ring true to anyone they are more than free to believe whatever they want, and I won't criticize and call it "unbuddhist," all I ask is the same respect. Then again, I don't particularly care whether I even get that, cuz ultimately I am on my path and I will help who I can and whoever can help me will but I can't be affected by others negatively.
His fractal is circular. Yours is all swirly.
Exactly. This is why buddhists in theory are so open minded. No words can be used to accurately describe the truth. By putting it to words or conceptualizing it, it is wrong. Even my attempts to describe it don't do it justice. Therefore, since all attempts to describe it come up short, to be closed minded wouldn't make sense.