07-19-2010, 12:04 AM
nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:And in the Shrinking Man movie, the guy realized he cannot come to an end, that's really the point of that quote. If he cannot come to an end, he could not have begun, so really this cancels out the idea of god as creator of him.,Tiffany, what do you mean by he? and or something here did begin and end, would you not agree?
Well, even in texts on dependent arising they go back to using the "I" when its understood the I is empty or the mere I. Just like I said before, a car has no essence to be found but still we call it car for functional reasons.
From post #125
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.
I do not agree he began or ended. In fact that really has been the central theme of dependent arising, never in dependent arising will you see the idea of beginning or end supported in any way.
Well, even in texts on dependent arising they go back to using the "I" when its understood the I is empty or the mere I. Just like I said before, a car has no essence to be found but still we call it car for functional reasons.
From post #125
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.
I do not agree he began or ended. In fact that really has been the central theme of dependent arising, never in dependent arising will you see the idea of beginning or end supported in any way.