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.
Ok for sake of the thought experiment we start with nothing,(ofcourse this "nothing" is a positive image of a negative in my imagination, but I'll play along:D) Then there is two. That makes sense, because it aint 0 -1 its 0 -2, 0 being "1". The 2 have differentiated from 0 (1).
Yes! It doesn't matter what these "things" are we know once we have two off them we have difference.
These 2 are a temporary fluctuation of existence from the non-existence of 0 (1), so yes, definitely temporary.
OK, I am not sure about this. In fact can we label the things A and B as we may want to use number later so its wise to differentiate early:)
Agree, we have two things, A and B?
So far the entire universe is just AB and we don't know if A and B are in time or space or number or musical note or anything, they are utterly abstract things.
But considering they have differentiated they would appear distinct and therefore connected.
Agree. We knwo that we have two things, AB and we know that A and B cannot be the same thing. if they were the same thing we would have one thing not two things. So we know they are distinct and we know they must be connected because if they were not connected then there would be some thing in between them which would mean we would have more than two things:)
So to recap:
We had nothing and could say nothing about it other than that it was not something.
We had one things and could say only that it existed. We don't really know what exists means in this sense other than that it is different to nothing.
When we add one more thing, to have two things, we have difference and connectivity.
Are we on the same page so far?:)
I don't think we are in a hurry hear so we might as well be sure and on the same page every stage!
Then please and kindly on this one singular thread in cyberspace that i started for a Buddhist Philosophy thought experiment can you stay on topic and at stage!:)
I implore you!
Peace and meta
mat
It's ok Mat--
I get the message. I won't post on the thread anymore. Don't worry. Be happy.
Sitting here, mindful of breathing in and breathing out. I read words and imagine their meanings.
Something/nothing - something/nothing hum?
With dualistic discursive thinking, I think hum Nothing? What is Nothing? A word? yes, a word. What is a word? A label ascribed to an imagined thing arising from an impression arising from contact with and perception of some phenomenon. Hum? Impression?
That requires some force! What has force? A functional phenomenon? yes. Hum? word = an imagined impressive functional phenomenon and nothing is a word - a label ascribed to an imagined impressive functional phenomenon - therefore, nothing is merely an imagined impressive functional phenomenon ascribed to another imagined impressive functional phenomenon.
With dualistic discursive thinking I think, Okay, but aren't words necessary to communicate imagined things to others? yup! This is how we function in the common relative realm and, lacking true wisdom, continually argue about what the meaning of words are. Thus, war, etc.
Talk about monkeys jumping!!! :screwy:
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
Sitting here mindful of breathing in and breathing out, I see colored shapes on what is labelled the screen of a laptop computer.
I imagine these colored shapes as words and with dualistic discursive thinking imagine their meanings. From this an impression is formed in mind, a picture, an imagining that I label this or that.
And so Samsara continues. Nice contribution.
Like a great modern philosopher once wrote (and sang), 'Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see ... Let me take you down cuz I'm going to strawberry fields nothing is real there's nothing to get hung about. Strawberry fields forever...!'
non-self means that the experiencer (conceptual notions about them) and the designations of experience are impermanent, made of parts (composite), and merely labeled.
Oh and Hi Bob My monkey mind was telling me to say hi to you hehe
non-self means that the experiencer (conceptual notions about them) and the designations of experience are impermanent, made of parts (composite), and merely labeled.
We are not at self yet:) We are at discussing a universe that consists of just two things and it doesn't matter what those things are.
au contrair. If we do not have an experiencer then we have neither something or nothing.
If we have two things that implies an experiencer which is experiencing those two things. Have you ever experienced a thing without yourself existing? Has anyone? Sounds even more heresy than rebirth.
Sitting here, mindfully breathing in and out, I (the label ascribed to this imaginary 'self') sees colored shapes on, what is labelled a lap top computer screen. I (this phenomenon labelled 'self') imagines some meaning to the colored shapes imagined and labelled as words.
This is far more fundamental than debating the philosophical meaning of words. Without correctly understanding the true nature of the imaginary labelled self and the imaginary labelled shapes and forms conventionally called words we cannot hope to reach any correct understanding of their meaning.
if there was a sequence of 10101 that repeated a million times then we would say it was impermanent. Sequence seems more primitive than time?
Do you think this means that if there is sequence in any sense there is impermanence? Because the sequence is itself change?
mat
impermenant is not 'just changing everything' but 'we can not have anything at least for two consecutive moments'
experience of one moment ago is not the experience of this moment
we can not say we had not 'have the experience one moment before' and at the same way we can not say 'we have the same experience now as the moment before'
we had an experience a moment before, so we can not say No
but
we do not have that experience now, so we can not say Yes
it is neither NO nor Yes, then where is the Something? there is Nothing
impermenant is not 'just changing everything' but 'we can not have anything at least for two consecutive moments'
experience of one moment ago is not the experience of this moment
we can not say we had not 'have the experience one moment before' and at the same way we can not say 'we have the same experience as the moment before'
we had an experience a moment before, so we can not say No
but
we do not have that experience now, so we can not say Yes
it is neither NO nor Yes, then where is the Something? there is Nothing
no I don't feel you are sensible. I won't go along with nonsense.
Specifically I disagree that that is not this. I believe my view is this. In order to designate something as something or nothing you must also have an experiencer. Implicit in what we mean by 'is'.
OK, I am not sure about this. In fact can we label the things A and B as we may want to use number later so its wise to differentiate early:)
Agree, we have two things, A and B?
So far the entire universe is just AB and we don't know if A and B are in time or space or number or musical note or anything, they are utterly abstract things.Mat
Agree. We knwo that we have two things, AB and we know that A and B cannot be the same thing. if they were the same thing we would have one thing not two things. So we know they are distinct and we know they must be connected because if they were not connected then there would be some thing in between them which would mean we would have more than two things:)Mat
They are one “non-existent” differentiated into two “existents”. They “stand forth", and or connected in origin and essence. But ok, I’ll go along
Somewhat. The arbitrariness of the initial set-up cast doubt on any conclusion, but I do get the picture. So lead on.
Well don't assume that:) Lets see where we end up. In a sense when we are at this highly abstract level we are asking about the primitive building blocks of contingent realities. I guess what we are looking to see is if the principles that are "down here" are also true of our human lives.
Back to the experiment itself....
We have two things, A and B and we know they are connected. What else can we say about AB?
I don't think much! We ant say A is to the left of B. We cant say B is beneath A and so on.
can you think of anything else we can say about just AB?
We can add a third thing, C. What new properties can we get in this three thing universe? ABC
I imagine reading this ABC construct of Mat's before. If it's true, this is NOT an experiment. But another discursive thinking trap set by Mat to bolster, once again, his own delusions.
I don't understand what you people are saying. My simpleton mind thinks like this: this is a ball, that is a fish. That's all. Labeling things has nothing to do with the problem (suffering). I think what is important is the "bull***** effect".
Let's say you are worried about how you don't fit in in high school because all the other football players have barbie mermaid and you got a goth barbie. You will suffer, but a few years later you would go like "oh, that was just BS". The problem is with the charge. When you labeled the goth barbie in high school, part of the label was 'outcast', and marmaid barbie was labeled 'popular'. Nowadays mermaid is mermaid, goth is goth. No biggie. The cool thing about emptiness is the relief of saying "oh, this is bullshit", which means it is not right or wrong, it is just so very unimportant it's not even worth the time
If you take it to an intellectual level it's like you were laying down on your bed listening to that music "ohhh life, it's bigger, bigger than you nanananan and I'm loosing my religion, trying to keep up with you nanananan" while eating chocolate ice-cream, dressed with flannel shirt and crying while repeating "goth barbie doesn't make me an outcast, it doesn't, its BS, BS, BS!!!".
I do not feel in the least bit diminished by indulging in word play. When I go to the meditation hall, it all goes poof. But I do like to play street hockey, and I do like to shoot the breeze. Mat in my estimation is in a state of, not just identification with his conceptual construct, but full blown unconscious fusion. This is an extreme phenomena that is impervious to penetration. facinating.....
Oh sorry mat,,,, :eek: I didnt realize you were standing there.
Now back to the thought experiment.
Ok I'm following. First there is God..er I mean ...nothing. or absolute singularity, looks like nothing. . Then emerging from "nothing" is two. This two is without spacetime and so forth. So we introduce three. Now we have a plane. But the inpulse from the initial emergence is still strong...and I'm feeling the urge to create Four on an axis at right angles from this plane.
Ok I'm getting ahead. What are the properties of three? A plane, and relative location on that plane.
'Classifying deceptive seeing on the part of the subject into two,
6:24 Again, for deceptive seeing one considers two:
That of clear faculties and that of impaired faculties.
Perception by impaired faculties is considered mistaken,
Compared with that of healthy faculties.
In sloka 24, Chandrakirti will distinguish two aspects of the relative truth. You should pay some attention to these, because he will use them as an example later when he talks about ultimate truth. Here relative truth has been translated as ‘deceptive seeing’. I do not really like the word ‘relative’ truth, because it does not have that connotation of obscuring or concealing. But as long as you have an idea about it, that is fine. We will use the word relative truth, as it is easier.
There are two kinds of relative truth, which are introduced on the second line of sloka 24. The first kind arises when things are seen by the six senses, i.e. the five senses and the mind, when they are clear, unpolluted and not interfered with by any outer or inner obstacles. The findings of senses that are functioning properly are what we call valid relative truth. For example, hopefully all of us see this pencil as a pencil, because our eyes and our eye sense consciousness is functioning properly. Similarly, if you think that you are a human being, your mind is functioning properly, but if you begin to think that you are an animal, then perhaps your mind is not really functioning properly. And then, the findings of six senses that are faulty or defective are called invalid relative truth.
For example, if you have jaundice. In the commentary, this is explained quite thoroughly, so I am just going through it briefly. I also need to mention an example that comes up repeatedly in the text, which is rab rib (rab rib) and trashe (skra shad). This is supposedly a type of eye disease where you see hair falling all the time, perhaps something like a type of cataract. Other examples include the effects of eating datura, taking any kinds of drugs, or drinking too much alcohol. When your perception is interfered with in one of these ways, like jaundice, datura or alcohol, then the experience that you have, the object that you see, is something different from what you would see with clear senses. For example, you do not see this pencil as a pencil, but as something else. This is what we call invalid relative truth. These examples are mostly caused internally, for example because you have eaten something. And then there are things like a mirage, an echo or the reflection of your face in a mirror. These are also considered invalid relative truth, because they are also defective. They are examples of defects of the five senses, because, for example, there is no mirage there if you cannot see. But they are also defects of the sixth sense: mind, because your mind is deluded by seeing water when there is only a mirage. Or, to take another example, if you mistake an echo for the actual sound, your ear senses are working correctly, because you still hear the sound as a sound. But your mind is deluded, because it thinks the echo is real.
Now we come to the main point. For the Madhyamika, the findings of a defective mind, the sixth sense, not only include things like seeing a mirage as water, an echo as real sound, and a reflection as a real face. In addition, all the findings of theologians and philosophers are also considered findings of a defective mind, and so they are all invalid relative truth!'
Mat, writes 'I'm here to chat and philosophize' Therefore, I imagine, he's really here to argue in order to convince us all that his 'invalid relative truth' is somehow valid. Nice!
What's even sadder is that when those of us who don't buy into his game attempt to offer valid relative truth, Mat resorts to passive-aggressive behavior.
'Classifying deceptive seeing on the part of the subject into two,
6:24 Again, for deceptive seeing one considers two:
That of clear faculties and that of impaired faculties.
Perception by impaired faculties is considered mistaken,
Compared with that of healthy faculties.
In sloka 24, Chandrakirti will distinguish two aspects of the relative truth. You should pay some attention to these, because he will use them as an example later when he talks about ultimate truth. Here relative truth has been translated as ‘deceptive seeing’. I do not really like the word ‘relative’ truth, because it does not have that connotation of obscuring or concealing. But as long as you have an idea about it, that is fine. We will use the word relative truth, as it is easier.
There are two kinds of relative truth, which are introduced on the second line of sloka 24. The first kind arises when things are seen by the six senses, i.e. the five senses and the mind, when they are clear, unpolluted and not interfered with by any outer or inner obstacles. The findings of senses that are functioning properly are what we call valid relative truth. For example, hopefully all of us see this pencil as a pencil, because our eyes and our eye sense consciousness is functioning properly. Similarly, if you think that you are a human being, your mind is functioning properly, but if you begin to think that you are an animal, then perhaps your mind is not really functioning properly. And then, the findings of six senses that are faulty or defective are called invalid relative truth.
For example, if you have jaundice. In the commentary, this is explained quite thoroughly, so I am just going through it briefly. I also need to mention an example that comes up repeatedly in the text, which is rab rib (rab rib) and trashe (skra shad). This is supposedly a type of eye disease where you see hair falling all the time, perhaps something like a type of cataract. Other examples include the effects of eating datura, taking any kinds of drugs, or drinking too much alcohol. When your perception is interfered with in one of these ways, like jaundice, datura or alcohol, then the experience that you have, the object that you see, is something different from what you would see with clear senses. For example, you do not see this pencil as a pencil, but as something else. This is what we call invalid relative truth. These examples are mostly caused internally, for example because you have eaten something. And then there are things like a mirage, an echo or the reflection of your face in a mirror. These are also considered invalid relative truth, because they are also defective. They are examples of defects of the five senses, because, for example, there is no mirage there if you cannot see. But they are also defects of the sixth sense: mind, because your mind is deluded by seeing water when there is only a mirage. Or, to take another example, if you mistake an echo for the actual sound, your ear senses are working correctly, because you still hear the sound as a sound. But your mind is deluded, because it thinks the echo is real.
Now we come to the main point. For the Madhyamika, the findings of a defective mind, the sixth sense, not only include things like seeing a mirage as water, an echo as real sound, and a reflection as a real face. In addition, all the findings of theologians and philosophers are also considered findings of a defective mind, and so they are all invalid relative truth!'
Shhhhhhh. we are trying to figure out the really really real here Brother Bob. Dont bring amateurs like the Madyamika into it..
Seriously, to any practicing Buddhist Mats presentaion of Dharma is patently in error. He knows I regard it that way. But I am willing to go along with this thought experiment, and am not threatened or insulted by it.
Neither am I. I appreciate your Bodhisattva like behavior. I vowed not to abandon Mat, I also vowed to steadfastly point out the error of his communication with others. I value Mat, as I do all human beings. I intend to give all the joyous effort I can to neutralizing the harm I imagine here so goodness may arise.
We are here, in these circumstances because causes and conditions brought us into contact. There must be a good reason for this. I always imagine that it is for us to practice with these circumstances. To allow anyone in these circumstances to leave my company without attempting to relieve the causes and conditions of their obvious suffering is unthinkable to me.
Also, as you know by now, I'm not a sweet talking kind of guy!
Seriously, to any practicing Buddhist Mats presentaion of Dharma is patently in error. He knows I regard it that way. But I am willing to go along with this thought experiment, and am not threatened or insulted by it.
Ya, lets forget Dharma for this for now:) I am not reading the off topic posts here so have no idea why anyone would be threatened or insulted:/
Now back to the thought experiment.
First there is...nothing. or absolute singularity, looks like nothing. . Then emerging from "nothing" is two. This two is without spacetime and so forth. So we introduce three. Now we have a plane. But the inpulse from the initial emergence is still strong...and I'm feeling the urge to create Four on an axis at right angles from this plane.
Fight the urge!:) That urge is to smuggle in concepts that dont yet belong.
What are the properties of three? A plane, and relative location on that plane.
Back tracking slighltly to two things, with AB, we can see that there is no possibility of structure. AB is the same as BA. When we say same here we mean there is no differnce we can state between AB and BA.
From our perspective AB and BA may seem differnt, but thats not a property of the two thing universe.
But when we add that third point, C, something like structure appears.
ABC is the same as BCA but ABC is not the same as CAB. We can distinguish between the structure. Does that make sense? Do you agree?
New Properties?
We don't have any new kinds of things as when we just had one thing. Yet by adding more of the same we get new properties, like the possibility of structure.
We also have new properties that don't exist in the AB universe, these are "betweenness" and "interconnectivity".
For example, in ACB we can say:
C is between A and B.
A is interconnected with B
A is connected with B.
These properties don't come from the things in themselves but from the arrangement of the things. They in a sense emmerge out of nowhere.
"Betweeness" isnt possible in AB yet it is in ABC, where does Betweenenss come from?
Next we can add a 4th, 5th and trillionth thing and see what happens, but so far, with three points, we are at least getting somehwere:)
Are you ready to add more things to the experiment?:)
Mat
Seriously, to any practicing Buddhist Mats presentaion of Dharma is patently in error. He knows I regard it that way. But I am willing to go along with this thought experiment, and am not threatened or insulted by it.
___
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 March 2010
This thread has become so obscure as to be ridiculous.
Could I remind members that it originated in the Buddhism for beginners forum, and that this thread began as a discussion intended to be free of Doctrine....
As most people curious about Buddhism are also curious about the Dhamma, together with the concept of the Sangha and the enigma that is the Enlightened Buddha, it seems an inappropriate thread to find in the beginner's forum. or at least, entirely confusing...
I should have moved it before.
I'm moving it now.
Please consider carefully, in future, what your topics will be, and more importantly, where to put them.
Thanks.
I think this thread is Brilliant!
It is a perfect example of what happens when many different people try to explain a blindingly simple concept to each other.
It is why Buddhism has developed into a 'Religion' to some, with rules & orders & fancy hats.
I've said it before & I'll repeat it here, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you read, watch or hear is someone else's point of view, no matter how they try to stick to the 'truth'. It cannot be otherwise because the author is simply translating what he/she sees, and we all see different things.
Take four different witnesses to a road traffic accident and ask them for their witness statements, you will always get four slightly different stories of the same event!!
The important thing is to try to strip away your own personal 'filters' and your concept of the world, just get and SEE! It's a wonderful place!:p
I think this thread is Brilliant!
It is a perfect example of what happens when many different people try to explain a blindingly simple concept to each other.
It is why Buddhism has developed into a 'Religion' to some, with rules & orders & fancy hats.
I've said it before & I'll repeat it here, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you read, watch or hear is someone else's point of view, no matter how they try to stick to the 'truth'. It cannot be otherwise because the author is simply translating what he/she sees, and we all see different things.
Take four different witnesses to a road traffic accident and ask them for their witness statements, you will always get four slightly different stories of the same event!!
The important thing is to try to strip away your own personal 'filters' and your concept of the world, just get and SEE! It's a wonderful place!:p
I agree! We all need to lower the dogma, raise the doubts and increase the peace! Aiiii:)
Do you have any thoughts on the experiments stages so far?
Comments
Yes! It doesn't matter what these "things" are we know once we have two off them we have difference.
OK, I am not sure about this. In fact can we label the things A and B as we may want to use number later so its wise to differentiate early:)
Agree, we have two things, A and B?
So far the entire universe is just AB and we don't know if A and B are in time or space or number or musical note or anything, they are utterly abstract things.
Agree. We knwo that we have two things, AB and we know that A and B cannot be the same thing. if they were the same thing we would have one thing not two things. So we know they are distinct and we know they must be connected because if they were not connected then there would be some thing in between them which would mean we would have more than two things:)
So to recap:
Are we on the same page so far?:)
I don't think we are in a hurry hear so we might as well be sure and on the same page every stage!
Salome!
Mat
I get the message. I won't post on the thread anymore. Don't worry. Be happy.
You could try and join in this way:) Might be interesting!:)
Peace out, either way:)
Mat
Something/nothing - something/nothing hum?
With dualistic discursive thinking, I think hum Nothing? What is Nothing? A word? yes, a word. What is a word? A label ascribed to an imagined thing arising from an impression arising from contact with and perception of some phenomenon. Hum? Impression?
That requires some force! What has force? A functional phenomenon? yes. Hum? word = an imagined impressive functional phenomenon and nothing is a word - a label ascribed to an imagined impressive functional phenomenon - therefore, nothing is merely an imagined impressive functional phenomenon ascribed to another imagined impressive functional phenomenon.
With dualistic discursive thinking I think, Okay, but aren't words necessary to communicate imagined things to others? yup! This is how we function in the common relative realm and, lacking true wisdom, continually argue about what the meaning of words are. Thus, war, etc.
Talk about monkeys jumping!!! :screwy:
I imagine these colored shapes as words and with dualistic discursive thinking imagine their meanings. From this an impression is formed in mind, a picture, an imagining that I label this or that.
And so Samsara continues. Nice contribution.
Like a great modern philosopher once wrote (and sang), 'Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see ... Let me take you down cuz I'm going to strawberry fields nothing is real there's nothing to get hung about. Strawberry fields forever...!'
Imagine this ole monkey - jumping, scratching, grooming, chattering!!!!!
I heard that somewhere before! Hum? Maybe before this monkey rebirth. Ooops! there I went and did it!! used that 'WORD'
Doesn't that have something to do with Hum? RIGHT VIEW and Hum? like RIGHT UNDERSTANDING.
chatter, chatter, chatter, jump, jump ,jump
Oh and Hi Bob
So, may we share the EXPERIENCE of things from our hearts and the fabric of our own lives as a way to breathe life into what we discuss?
You are smuggling in concepts we dont have yet:)
We are talking about as abstract and simple as one can go:)
Hang in there!
Mat
We are not at self yet:) We are at discussing a universe that consists of just two things and it doesn't matter what those things are.
Does that makes sense?
Mat
If we have two things that implies an experiencer which is experiencing those two things. Have you ever experienced a thing without yourself existing? Has anyone? Sounds even more heresy than rebirth.
You are outside the initial stipulation of the experiment. That's fine but its not this experiment. Do you wish to partake in this experiment:)?
Mat
This is far more fundamental than debating the philosophical meaning of words. Without correctly understanding the true nature of the imaginary labelled self and the imaginary labelled shapes and forms conventionally called words we cannot hope to reach any correct understanding of their meaning.
Chatter, chatter, chatter, scratch, scratch, scratch, jump, jump ,jump
impermanence, no-self, dissatisfaction/non-dissatisfaction - the fundamental marks of all phenomena!
So, Mat, how is no-self not fundamental?
experience of one moment ago is not the experience of this moment
we can not say we had not 'have the experience one moment before' and at the same way we can not say 'we have the same experience now as the moment before'
we had an experience a moment before, so we can not say No
but
we do not have that experience now, so we can not say Yes
it is neither NO nor Yes, then where is the Something? there is Nothing
Its a thought experiment, we can have whatever we want. Again, will you go along with it?:)
That is not this.
Specifically I disagree that that is not this. I believe my view is this. In order to designate something as something or nothing you must also have an experiencer. Implicit in what we mean by 'is'.
That is not This
Sure
We have difference and identity. If you took one of these things away, the other would go poof. But ok.
Arbitrary as hell but sure I’ll go along.
They are one “non-existent” differentiated into two “existents”. They “stand forth", and or connected in origin and essence. But ok, I’ll go along
So to recap:
Somewhat. The arbitrariness of the initial set-up cast doubt on any conclusion, but I do get the picture. So lead on.
I don't think we are in a hurry hear so we might as well be sure and on the same page every stage!
Salome!
Mat[/quote]
Well don't assume that:) Lets see where we end up. In a sense when we are at this highly abstract level we are asking about the primitive building blocks of contingent realities. I guess what we are looking to see is if the principles that are "down here" are also true of our human lives.
Back to the experiment itself....
We have two things, A and B and we know they are connected. What else can we say about AB?
I don't think much! We ant say A is to the left of B. We cant say B is beneath A and so on.
can you think of anything else we can say about just AB?
We can add a third thing, C. What new properties can we get in this three thing universe? ABC
Mat
Let's say you are worried about how you don't fit in in high school because all the other football players have barbie mermaid and you got a goth barbie. You will suffer, but a few years later you would go like "oh, that was just BS". The problem is with the charge. When you labeled the goth barbie in high school, part of the label was 'outcast', and marmaid barbie was labeled 'popular'. Nowadays mermaid is mermaid, goth is goth. No biggie. The cool thing about emptiness is the relief of saying "oh, this is bullshit", which means it is not right or wrong, it is just so very unimportant it's not even worth the time
If you take it to an intellectual level it's like you were laying down on your bed listening to that music "ohhh life, it's bigger, bigger than you nanananan and I'm loosing my religion, trying to keep up with you nanananan" while eating chocolate ice-cream, dressed with flannel shirt and crying while repeating "goth barbie doesn't make me an outcast, it doesn't, its BS, BS, BS!!!".
Oh sorry mat,,,, :eek: I didnt realize you were standing there.
Now back to the thought experiment.
Ok I'm following. First there is God..er I mean ...nothing. or absolute singularity, looks like nothing. . Then emerging from "nothing" is two. This two is without spacetime and so forth. So we introduce three. Now we have a plane. But the inpulse from the initial emergence is still strong...and I'm feeling the urge to create Four on an axis at right angles from this plane.
Ok I'm getting ahead. What are the properties of three? A plane, and relative location on that plane.
6:24 Again, for deceptive seeing one considers two:
That of clear faculties and that of impaired faculties.
Perception by impaired faculties is considered mistaken,
Compared with that of healthy faculties.
In sloka 24, Chandrakirti will distinguish two aspects of the relative truth. You should pay some attention to these, because he will use them as an example later when he talks about ultimate truth. Here relative truth has been translated as ‘deceptive seeing’. I do not really like the word ‘relative’ truth, because it does not have that connotation of obscuring or concealing. But as long as you have an idea about it, that is fine. We will use the word relative truth, as it is easier.
There are two kinds of relative truth, which are introduced on the second line of sloka 24. The first kind arises when things are seen by the six senses, i.e. the five senses and the mind, when they are clear, unpolluted and not interfered with by any outer or inner obstacles. The findings of senses that are functioning properly are what we call valid relative truth. For example, hopefully all of us see this pencil as a pencil, because our eyes and our eye sense consciousness is functioning properly. Similarly, if you think that you are a human being, your mind is functioning properly, but if you begin to think that you are an animal, then perhaps your mind is not really functioning properly. And then, the findings of six senses that are faulty or defective are called invalid relative truth.
For example, if you have jaundice. In the commentary, this is explained quite thoroughly, so I am just going through it briefly. I also need to mention an example that comes up repeatedly in the text, which is rab rib (rab rib) and trashe (skra shad). This is supposedly a type of eye disease where you see hair falling all the time, perhaps something like a type of cataract. Other examples include the effects of eating datura, taking any kinds of drugs, or drinking too much alcohol. When your perception is interfered with in one of these ways, like jaundice, datura or alcohol, then the experience that you have, the object that you see, is something different from what you would see with clear senses. For example, you do not see this pencil as a pencil, but as something else. This is what we call invalid relative truth. These examples are mostly caused internally, for example because you have eaten something. And then there are things like a mirage, an echo or the reflection of your face in a mirror. These are also considered invalid relative truth, because they are also defective. They are examples of defects of the five senses, because, for example, there is no mirage there if you cannot see. But they are also defects of the sixth sense: mind, because your mind is deluded by seeing water when there is only a mirage. Or, to take another example, if you mistake an echo for the actual sound, your ear senses are working correctly, because you still hear the sound as a sound. But your mind is deluded, because it thinks the echo is real.
Now we come to the main point. For the Madhyamika, the findings of a defective mind, the sixth sense, not only include things like seeing a mirage as water, an echo as real sound, and a reflection as a real face. In addition, all the findings of theologians and philosophers are also considered findings of a defective mind, and so they are all invalid relative truth!'
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
Get It!!!
Mat, writes 'I'm here to chat and philosophize' Therefore, I imagine, he's really here to argue in order to convince us all that his 'invalid relative truth' is somehow valid. Nice!
What's even sadder is that when those of us who don't buy into his game attempt to offer valid relative truth, Mat resorts to passive-aggressive behavior.
Seriously, to any practicing Buddhist Mats presentaion of Dharma is patently in error. He knows I regard it that way. But I am willing to go along with this thought experiment, and am not threatened or insulted by it.
Neither am I. I appreciate your Bodhisattva like behavior. I vowed not to abandon Mat, I also vowed to steadfastly point out the error of his communication with others. I value Mat, as I do all human beings. I intend to give all the joyous effort I can to neutralizing the harm I imagine here so goodness may arise.
We are here, in these circumstances because causes and conditions brought us into contact. There must be a good reason for this. I always imagine that it is for us to practice with these circumstances. To allow anyone in these circumstances to leave my company without attempting to relieve the causes and conditions of their obvious suffering is unthinkable to me.
Also, as you know by now, I'm not a sweet talking kind of guy!
One of my heroes is Matzu Taoyi! another Linchi
Ya, lets forget Dharma for this for now:) I am not reading the off topic posts here so have no idea why anyone would be threatened or insulted:/
Peculiar...
Fight the urge!:) That urge is to smuggle in concepts that dont yet belong.
Back tracking slighltly to two things, with AB, we can see that there is no possibility of structure. AB is the same as BA. When we say same here we mean there is no differnce we can state between AB and BA.
From our perspective AB and BA may seem differnt, but thats not a property of the two thing universe.
But when we add that third point, C, something like structure appears.
ABC is the same as BCA but ABC is not the same as CAB. We can distinguish between the structure. Does that make sense? Do you agree?
New Properties?
We don't have any new kinds of things as when we just had one thing. Yet by adding more of the same we get new properties, like the possibility of structure.
We also have new properties that don't exist in the AB universe, these are "betweenness" and "interconnectivity".
For example, in ACB we can say:
C is between A and B.
A is interconnected with B
A is connected with B.
These properties don't come from the things in themselves but from the arrangement of the things. They in a sense emmerge out of nowhere.
"Betweeness" isnt possible in AB yet it is in ABC, where does Betweenenss come from?
Next we can add a 4th, 5th and trillionth thing and see what happens, but so far, with three points, we are at least getting somehwere:)
Are you ready to add more things to the experiment?:)
Mat
Seriously, to any practicing Buddhist Mats presentaion of Dharma is patently in error. He knows I regard it that way. But I am willing to go along with this thought experiment, and am not threatened or insulted by it.
___
Could I remind members that it originated in the Buddhism for beginners forum, and that this thread began as a discussion intended to be free of Doctrine....
As most people curious about Buddhism are also curious about the Dhamma, together with the concept of the Sangha and the enigma that is the Enlightened Buddha, it seems an inappropriate thread to find in the beginner's forum. or at least, entirely confusing...
I should have moved it before.
I'm moving it now.
Please consider carefully, in future, what your topics will be, and more importantly, where to put them.
Thanks.
It is a perfect example of what happens when many different people try to explain a blindingly simple concept to each other.
It is why Buddhism has developed into a 'Religion' to some, with rules & orders & fancy hats.
I've said it before & I'll repeat it here, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you read, watch or hear is someone else's point of view, no matter how they try to stick to the 'truth'. It cannot be otherwise because the author is simply translating what he/she sees, and we all see different things.
Take four different witnesses to a road traffic accident and ask them for their witness statements, you will always get four slightly different stories of the same event!!
The important thing is to try to strip away your own personal 'filters' and your concept of the world, just get and SEE! It's a wonderful place!:p
I agree! We all need to lower the dogma, raise the doubts and increase the peace! Aiiii:)
Do you have any thoughts on the experiments stages so far?
Mat
I like to contemplate simpler stuff.
Thread killed as expected.
You may all go about your business.
Sad:(