07-19-2010, 12:04 AM
lex icon wrote:
How can a thing be empty of essence? Logically, that makes no sense. Either a thing is, or it is not. If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word. Gonzo
How can a thing be empty of essence?
Nagarjuna, has been asking how can a thing have an essence?
Thank you Gonzo! This is the crux of it all isn’t it?
So no one is denying the appearance of things. How could we? It just that things are not how they appear. Things appear to be independent, separate, distinct and different. But are they? Can that be established? Gonzo said, If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
is |iz|
third person singular present of be .
be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)
Either a thing is, or it is not. Gonzo
Ok, how about a mirage? The mirage appears but what it represents, does that have existence? Is it really there? If we were to chase after that oasis appearing in the desert would we ever find it? Could we ever grasp it and slate our thirst?
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you? Do you understand being in a different form? Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings? Gonzo
When we do not examine the objects that appear they have an effect. We are impelled to impute inherent existence to the objects. We are impelled to account for them, instantly. These objects accumulate and we become bewildered amidst their perceived presence.
inherent |inˈhi(ə)rənt; -ˈher-|
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin inhaerent- ‘sticking to,’ from the verb inhaerere, from in- ‘in, toward’ + haerere ‘to stick.’
So when we encounter “objects”, if we refer to the origin of the word inherent, and we admit them, (accept their appearance as something more substantial than it actually is) we are granting them access and they adhere within, as if they really existed. Our minds become cluttered with the perceived presence of all these objects, billions upon billions manifesting, appearing and disappearing in a dizzying array until the vast spaciousness of all encompassing all accommodating mind cannot be found. It is as if the mind has been enclosed, surrounded by myriads of objects sticking to it (crude example) when in fact Mind is much more than this and accommodates and encompasses all manifestations. The further result of this is an implied “I” subject, that is surrounded by an objective universe full of individual separate objects. The actor, the agent, the one doing the doing, whatever it is.
When we can, even tentatively, admit or entertain Nagarjuna’s words then we find the stickiness of objects releasing, like the flight inhibiting oil on those contaminated birds in the gulf when subjected to degreasing agents. The independence of objects loosens.
Like this; I go back to the mirror example. We know the objects appearing in the mirror do not really exist other than as a reflection. But look closer. Are there really many different objects even? There is only one reflectiveness of the mirror! The appearance of objects reflected cannot be separated from the reflectiveness of the mirror itself. One all accommodating reflectiveness appearing myriad. We project a holographic universe in like manner. Now do you see all the myriad objects at the expense of the one reflectiveness? Do you see many individual, independent objects or do you know the sameness.
The deeper question would be: Why do we keep on mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with? Is it simply because we do not look close enough? If it is why do we not look close enough? Or is it as Buddhism states we are ignorant about our true face?
Is this what you mean by mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with?
Desert of the Real: Jesus, The Matrix, and Hyper-Reality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbFceASpvbY
How can a thing be empty of essence? Logically, that makes no sense. Either a thing is, or it is not. If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word. Gonzo
How can a thing be empty of essence?
Nagarjuna, has been asking how can a thing have an essence?
Thank you Gonzo! This is the crux of it all isn’t it?
So no one is denying the appearance of things. How could we? It just that things are not how they appear. Things appear to be independent, separate, distinct and different. But are they? Can that be established? Gonzo said, If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
is |iz|
third person singular present of be .
be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)
Either a thing is, or it is not. Gonzo
Ok, how about a mirage? The mirage appears but what it represents, does that have existence? Is it really there? If we were to chase after that oasis appearing in the desert would we ever find it? Could we ever grasp it and slate our thirst?
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you? Do you understand being in a different form? Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings? Gonzo
When we do not examine the objects that appear they have an effect. We are impelled to impute inherent existence to the objects. We are impelled to account for them, instantly. These objects accumulate and we become bewildered amidst their perceived presence.
inherent |inˈhi(ə)rənt; -ˈher-|
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin inhaerent- ‘sticking to,’ from the verb inhaerere, from in- ‘in, toward’ + haerere ‘to stick.’
So when we encounter “objects”, if we refer to the origin of the word inherent, and we admit them, (accept their appearance as something more substantial than it actually is) we are granting them access and they adhere within, as if they really existed. Our minds become cluttered with the perceived presence of all these objects, billions upon billions manifesting, appearing and disappearing in a dizzying array until the vast spaciousness of all encompassing all accommodating mind cannot be found. It is as if the mind has been enclosed, surrounded by myriads of objects sticking to it (crude example) when in fact Mind is much more than this and accommodates and encompasses all manifestations. The further result of this is an implied “I” subject, that is surrounded by an objective universe full of individual separate objects. The actor, the agent, the one doing the doing, whatever it is.
When we can, even tentatively, admit or entertain Nagarjuna’s words then we find the stickiness of objects releasing, like the flight inhibiting oil on those contaminated birds in the gulf when subjected to degreasing agents. The independence of objects loosens.
Like this; I go back to the mirror example. We know the objects appearing in the mirror do not really exist other than as a reflection. But look closer. Are there really many different objects even? There is only one reflectiveness of the mirror! The appearance of objects reflected cannot be separated from the reflectiveness of the mirror itself. One all accommodating reflectiveness appearing myriad. We project a holographic universe in like manner. Now do you see all the myriad objects at the expense of the one reflectiveness? Do you see many individual, independent objects or do you know the sameness.
The deeper question would be: Why do we keep on mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with? Is it simply because we do not look close enough? If it is why do we not look close enough? Or is it as Buddhism states we are ignorant about our true face?
Is this what you mean by mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with?
Desert of the Real: Jesus, The Matrix, and Hyper-Reality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbFceASpvbY