07-01-2010, 12:02 AM
Gonzo wrote:Love? Really? and what is love? really? besides an indulgence?Love, hate, war peace, up down, solid, empty, indulgence, discipline and on infinitely... all part of dependent arising. None of these has inherent essence, none of them stands alone. All are interdependent. This is not dualism as we discussed a while ago. Because dualism is perceiver and percieved, two factors. Here we see its much more than that...
the 5 aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
So perception is just one of the aggregates. And the form perceived is not just form as its is perceived.
Such as a car. We see a car coming toward us. But how do we know its a car? We may say "oh there is a BMW". now lets examine exactly what is occurring here. What is car?
An engine, wheels, steering, brakes, transmission etc. So we see various parts compose a car. Which part IS the car? Well, we can say some parts are more important than others, such as, we can omit the windshield wiper and still have a car. But when we observe its a BMW then the definition is more specific of course, the design of the body of the car, the emblem and such factor in.
We would not look at a car engine and call that a car. So its clear it takes a conglomeration of parts to define car and even more specific parts to define BMW. But where is the BMW inherently? Does it exist outside of the individual parts? No. Do the individual parts make the car? No, its only the thought that labels car a car, and a more specific thought that labels it a BMW. The thought still does not make a car anymore real then the parts, rather the thought organizes phenomena for the purpose of functionality. So mental formations, form, sensing, and finally...consciousness of what is perceived.
We are the same. There is no I. We are a conglomeration of aggregates. But mental formations label the I and it is functional. But the I does not exist anywhere independently. In Buddhism, this labeling of the functional or conventional I is called the mere I, and does not exist outside of this dependency.
the 5 aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
So perception is just one of the aggregates. And the form perceived is not just form as its is perceived.
Such as a car. We see a car coming toward us. But how do we know its a car? We may say "oh there is a BMW". now lets examine exactly what is occurring here. What is car?
An engine, wheels, steering, brakes, transmission etc. So we see various parts compose a car. Which part IS the car? Well, we can say some parts are more important than others, such as, we can omit the windshield wiper and still have a car. But when we observe its a BMW then the definition is more specific of course, the design of the body of the car, the emblem and such factor in.
We would not look at a car engine and call that a car. So its clear it takes a conglomeration of parts to define car and even more specific parts to define BMW. But where is the BMW inherently? Does it exist outside of the individual parts? No. Do the individual parts make the car? No, its only the thought that labels car a car, and a more specific thought that labels it a BMW. The thought still does not make a car anymore real then the parts, rather the thought organizes phenomena for the purpose of functionality. So mental formations, form, sensing, and finally...consciousness of what is perceived.
We are the same. There is no I. We are a conglomeration of aggregates. But mental formations label the I and it is functional. But the I does not exist anywhere independently. In Buddhism, this labeling of the functional or conventional I is called the mere I, and does not exist outside of this dependency.