The nature of being

TheJourney

Ok, well had a little thought on being I thought I would share.

Ok, let's start off with something simple. Something cannot come from nothing. Ok. Well there is existence. What does that mean? Either being has always been, or it came into existence from something other than being. But what is other than being? Non-being. And non-being, by its very nature, does not exist. Therefore it cannot be the cause of being. Therefore, there must have always been.

Now, all things that come into existence based on certain conditions are impermanent. That means almost everything. Being is not one of those things, as it can have no cause. But basically all things that you can see are based on conditions and therefore impermanent. What is a cause of all things? Being. Being is the cause. If being is the cause, then it must be impermanent, for it has a cause and is therefore based on conditions. So all things are impermanent, minus being and the nature of it. But yet all things are, and therefore are "being," for nothing can be and yet not be. But yet being is permanent and things are impermanent. So how can being be permanent, but yet all things that are as a result of being are impermanent? You see the two natures of existence. First is permanence. Existence is permanent. Yet all things that existence makes up are impermanent. Therefore, being is permanent, yet the nature of that permanence is the impermanence of the things that makes it up. comprende?

karmadorje

Being, non-being, both being and non-being, neither being nor non-being, these four are merely conceptual elaborations. The underlying buddhajnana is free from all such concepts. It is known directly. Nagarjuna wrote at length on how these four ( known as the Catuṣkoṭi or Caturanta ) lead to absurd conclusions.

You should read the Mulamadhyamakakarikas. You would probably enjoy the reasoning.

SattvaPaul

Sounds good to me, can't find a flaw in your argument. Wait till I do my philosophy degree

Roger

Interesting use of language; has a nice poetic content for sure.

Other than that, though, I'm 99.99% sure it will tell us nothing about what lies beyond our human experience. No big deal. It's fun trying to work it out.

robot

TheJourney, it seems to me as though you may be trying to re-invent the wheel here. "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form". "Form is being, being is form". Being is not other than form. Being cannot be separated from form. The same logic that refutes the inherent existence of self, form, time and so on must include the concept of being. If that logic is accepted there should be no more to be said about it. Right or wrong?

DhammaDhatu

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

DhammaDhatu

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

DhammaDhatu

"And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

"How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: 'In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!' Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-049

[DeletedUser]

Your body also is form or being as well. It existed because of past karmic and based on conditions and were stored in your alaya consciousness. Once you realize bodhi and attained bodhi, this alaya consciousness will become supreme enlightenment.

DhammaDhatu

non-being is a state of mind

so is being

both exist due to ignorance

TheJourney

TheJourney, it seems to me as though you may be trying to re-invent the wheel here. "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form". "Form is being, being is form". Being is not other than form. Being cannot be separated from form. The same logic that refutes the inherent existence of self, form, time and so on must include the concept of being. If that logic is accepted there should be no more to be said about it. Right or wrong?

Why should I just listen to what people in the past said? I'm living in the now. I'm not concerned with the past. I'm not just gonna be satisfied with old eastern texts. The whole point is to bring it into the here and now. People get too caught up in the past and the people that lived there. It's like carrying around their corpse and living in the past. Do your own thing.

Dazzle

Being, non-being, both being and non-being, neither being nor non-being, these four are merely conceptual elaborations. The underlying buddhajnana is free from all such concepts. It is known directly. Nagarjuna wrote at length on how these four ( known as the Catuṣkoṭi or Caturanta ) lead to absurd conclusions.

You should read the Mulamadhyamakakarikas. You would probably enjoy the reasoning.

Why direct those who are new to Buddhism to lengthy Nagarjuna texts when they can read the Buddha's words in the suttas in the Pali Canon?

The 'Discourse to Katyayana' mentioned in Ch 15 -'Examination of Essence' in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, is sutta SN 12.5 Kaccayanagotta Sutta which DD previously mentioned, by the way.