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.
well one question from myside, may be a stupid question, but somehow i am not able to figure it out - theoretically there is no independent entity existing, so everything dependently co-arises - this theoretically is fine - which i think is what sunyata or emptiness teachings in heart sutra say - then the question is when someone finds there is no 'I' in himself, then how does kindnesss and compassion arise for others, because for compassion to arise, there should be an idea that there is some other being different from me, who is currently suffering which i am seeing and so i should act compassionately towards him.
so what exactly is realized in emptiness? - that there is no 'I', then after its realization how come the thought arises that there is some 'other' being outside of me, who is suffering and would get some relief from an act of kindness or compassion through me?
i hope you are getting the question. any ideas please. thanks in advance.
@misecmisc1 great question, I can't answer from personal experience but from what I've learnt is that compassion and love is our true nature.
Compassion is not a choice but our substratum.
It's from this place you see that all beings suffer from their delusions.
If you knew everyone suffered because of a belief, wouldn't compassion arise?
But it's not selective compassion, it's equal for everyone. This is true compassion.
this is interesting in relation to anatta. even though they are empty we still view them as a person that we should help. it is meaningful rather than meaningless.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@genie seriously, I don't know where you're picking up your Buddhist 'teachings' from, but some of the information you have is seriously skewed.
And just for the record, when we make claims or seek clarification on anything, or wish to expound on a point, we are obliged to supply links, references and sources of our information.
Just as I have done for you.
So discussing -
Didn't Buddha deny the idea of substratum, that there's anything fundamental?
Or -
Didn't he deny the self?
both require sources or links to where you got those notions from.
My theoretical understanding of Buddha's teachings says: Buddha taught that 5 aggregates are not-self or not-mine. But then what are we - this he did not told.
the question - who am i? is not answered in other religions too - may be this is because this question cannot be answered, as language cannot describe it - something like taste of an apple can only be known on tasting the apple and words cannot describe the actual taste of an apple.
The notion that everything is an illusion and so does not exist will lead to nihilism when taken to its logical conclusion.
If everything is an illusion, how come logic still counts?
(Just to annoy you).
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sure, I know.
What I was saying is that the view that existence is an illusion only leads to nihilism if you still accept logic as an absolute. If everything is false, including logic, you reach perfect abstraction, not nihilism.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited June 2015
If everything is false then abstraction is just another fabrication with no meaning. That's nihilism.
Regardless, it just doesn't make any sense to say that existence is an illusion because you simply can't trick something that doesn't exist into thinking it exists.
@ourself said:
However limited knowledge is still knowledge.
Isn't it?
Yes. For example many dharma books are written by the unenlightened or perhaps a toe dipper (stream entrant) - No matter, still of value. They are pointing at the right moon, paddling the raft in the right direction.
In traditional Buddhist formulation there are four stages of enlightenment. The first stage that I just talked about is called “stream-entry”, or “sotapanna”. Then there’s “once-returner” (sakadagami), “non-returner” (anagami), and “worthy” (arahant). The process that starts at stream-entry broadens, deepens and affects more and more of your being. http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/on-enlightenment-an-interview-with-shinzen-young/
Just wait till you get to the stage of 'unworthy heretic' ... just when everyone though there were no more mountains ...
Comments
hi all,
well one question from myside, may be a stupid question, but somehow i am not able to figure it out - theoretically there is no independent entity existing, so everything dependently co-arises - this theoretically is fine - which i think is what sunyata or emptiness teachings in heart sutra say - then the question is when someone finds there is no 'I' in himself, then how does kindnesss and compassion arise for others, because for compassion to arise, there should be an idea that there is some other being different from me, who is currently suffering which i am seeing and so i should act compassionately towards him.
so what exactly is realized in emptiness? - that there is no 'I', then after its realization how come the thought arises that there is some 'other' being outside of me, who is suffering and would get some relief from an act of kindness or compassion through me?
i hope you are getting the question. any ideas please. thanks in advance.
Compassion is not a choice but our substratum.
It's from this place you see that all beings suffer from their delusions.
If you knew everyone suffered because of a belief, wouldn't compassion arise?
But it's not selective compassion, it's equal for everyone. This is true compassion.
My two cents anyway.
this is interesting in relation to anatta. even though they are empty we still view them as a person that we should help. it is meaningful rather than meaningless.
Didn't Buddha deny the idea of substratum, that there's anything fundamental?
@genie any scripture where Buddha said that? Do you mean an 'unconditioned'? Usually Nirvana is not thought of as conditioned, right?
Didn't he deny the self?
I'm not sure he said that. I think he said that the skhandas were impermanent and clinging to them was suffering.
I think he did teach that there isn't a self/other dichotomy but not neccessarily that there is no self whatsoever.
No. But he didn't deny the not-self either.
here, more reading for you.
@genie seriously, I don't know where you're picking up your Buddhist 'teachings' from, but some of the information you have is seriously skewed.
And just for the record, when we make claims or seek clarification on anything, or wish to expound on a point, we are obliged to supply links, references and sources of our information.
Just as I have done for you.
So discussing -
Didn't Buddha deny the idea of substratum, that there's anything fundamental?
Or -
Didn't he deny the self?
both require sources or links to where you got those notions from.
Thanks.
My theoretical understanding of Buddha's teachings says: Buddha taught that 5 aggregates are not-self or not-mine. But then what are we - this he did not told.
the question - who am i? is not answered in other religions too - may be this is because this question cannot be answered, as language cannot describe it - something like taste of an apple can only be known on tasting the apple and words cannot describe the actual taste of an apple.
If everything is an illusion, how come logic still counts?
(Just to annoy you).
@0student0;
Lol... I was saying the opposite.
Separation and ownership is the illusion, not existence.
@ourself;
Sure, I know.
What I was saying is that the view that existence is an illusion only leads to nihilism if you still accept logic as an absolute. If everything is false, including logic, you reach perfect abstraction, not nihilism.
If everything is false then abstraction is just another fabrication with no meaning. That's nihilism.
Regardless, it just doesn't make any sense to say that existence is an illusion because you simply can't trick something that doesn't exist into thinking it exists.
Yes. For example many dharma books are written by the unenlightened or perhaps a toe dipper (stream entrant) - No matter, still of value. They are pointing at the right moon, paddling the raft in the right direction.
In traditional Buddhist formulation there are four stages of enlightenment. The first stage that I just talked about is called “stream-entry”, or “sotapanna”. Then there’s “once-returner” (sakadagami), “non-returner” (anagami), and “worthy” (arahant). The process that starts at stream-entry broadens, deepens and affects more and more of your being.
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/on-enlightenment-an-interview-with-shinzen-young/
Just wait till you get to the stage of 'unworthy heretic' ... just when everyone though there were no more mountains ...
http://www.buddhanet.net/oxherd1.htm
@ourself
Good point.