07-22-2010, 12:05 AM
Lex, that's just a fancy way of saying you didn't like it . Try this and see if you can see the energy furrow in time that your personal energy can create. The next time you are walking amongst a crowd turn and stand facing the oncoming people/persons/personal furrows or however you view others, and start yelling we are all one. Nemo
Nemo, what happened when YOU tried this? .......(I must say that at times in this thread I feel like I am doing just that lol.)
I am not sure I can be more explicit though. I will let this percolate in me for a while and see if I can come up with anything. Nemo
If you are blind to this as you say then I must ask, what is it in you that is blind? Nemo
The same thing that allows you to see this.
I am not so interested in if you can prove something when challenged. I am inquiring as to what led you to the certain position you hold. In this case a multiverse that creates separate entities.
I do not see this, perhaps I am not blind and what you speak of is a figment of your imagination. So I wanted to explore this with you to ascertain the veracity of your statement and upon what you base your apprehension.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" I believe has direct bearing for this thread. By this statement you have claimed that there are entities, that these entities are separate and that they have been created. In order for you to do this you have to employ certain building blocks of perceived existence.
Now let’s look at this Multiverse you mentioned. You are presenting this idea as a cause, in this case, the cause of what is created ie; separate entities. So the Multiverse according to you existed before what it created. In order for something to be created there had to be a moment when it was not. Then by act of its creation it came into being, in this case created by the Multiverse (creator). So now there “is” a separate entity. Hmm. Separate. By this do you mean entities separate from each other or entities separate from the Multiverse or both? Did multiverse create entities one at a time or many all at once etc? Separation of creator and created. What distinguishes the separate “quality”? Are these things inherently different and distinct or are they distinguished by something else as being that way? Without getting into what created the multiverse and what created that ad infinitum can we just look at this.
Buddhism and DJ are saying that when we look at entities closely we cannot find any essence of that entity. I assume by now that when referring to entities in this manner it is understood that we are not referring to inorganic beings. A table is an entity, an idea an atom an abstract etc. So when we examine entities we find them devoid of any inherent essence. Many are not comfortable with this and due to ignorance of this start to invent and imagine in vain attempts to to substantiate what cannot be substantiated and grasp at reality where there is none. Now if someone can show an inherent existence of an entity, then let’s by all means have a look at it. If we cannot find the inherent existence of entities then we need to take a good look at the conclusions, the working conditions of all our previous assumptions regarding material and immaterial existence.
Now if something does not have any inherent existence, not even slightly, then in an absolute sense it does not exist as an individual, separate entity.
It makes no sense to say that essence arises from causes and conditions. If essence were caused or conditioned, it would not be essence. Nagarjuna
Essence cannot be created or otherwise come to be. Essence is not artificial, nor does it depend on another. Nagarjuna
If this is true the what we are seeing is a mere appearance, like a reflection in a mirror. If that is true then we need inquire into the appearance making. How are appearances made, what makes appearances appear? Why do appearances appear etc? We have no problem grasping (after we awake) that when we dream that which appears in a dream has been fabricated by our minds in some way. Yet for some reason in our waking everyday life our environment seems separate and independent, creating the illusion that it came from elsewhere other than mind that it is real in some way other than just an appearance and of course once this has been accepted imagination can just run wild with its inventions.
8. If only entities with essences [really] exist, then there is no non-existence, nor can anything change.
What is NJ saying here? Remember he is well capable of presenting assertions from all sides even if he does not hold them to be true. Look at the duality of what NJ is delving into here, the duality of existence and non-existence. You cannot have existence without non-existence! But if entities have essences then they “really” exist and are not just appearances. That which really exists would be essential. That which is essential is immutable and unchanging. There is no non-existence! So how can those who adhere to the notion of (real) entities with essences also entertain the non-existence or even the dissolution of entities?
Some will say, "If there are no essences, what is there to change?" We reply, "If there are essences, what is there to change?" Nargajuna.
At this point NJ’s detractors think they have him cornered. Asking him how he can possible account for change if there are no essences imagining him to be a nihilist, many today think of Buddhism as nihilistic, it is not. But if you look closer at Nagarjuna he has not been promoting the idea of no essences. He has been examining the illogical claims of those who think entities have essences. He has been exhausting the logic of entities with essences. Basically saying well if you say that what about this? It cannot be both ways. Ie; If things have essences how can they change, being immutable? There must be another explanation! But in order to see where NJ is coming from we need to be able to re-examine the framework of existence and non-existence.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" Nemo
Now if you wish to examine this further using NJ logic, we will eventually get into topics of “Agent and Action” in this case the Multiverse acting as Agent, creating, being the action,
It cannot be that a real agent performs an unreal action. It cannot be that an unreal agent performs a real action. (From believing these things, all sorts of errors follow.)NJ
If we are assuming that Multiverse (or even God) is a real agent, in this case essential and existing before the action, (real) then how can such an agent create something unreal ie; entities without essences, which would be an unreal action? NJ has already shown the faulty logic of entities with essences. So if we can let go our idea of entities existing inherently then the notion of an agent creating such an unreal entity would no longer be plausible. If something does not really exist inherently, it was never created, because it does not exist! I am not referring to the appearance here.
So in order to maintain the notion of a Creator Multiverse (or God) it is encumbent upon the believer to maintain the notion of the reality of inherent entities created by creator through an act of creation. NJ makes it difficult to keep this up with any credibility because the logic of the essence of entities is unsustainable.
To go further we would get into events, acts as happenings and again NJ is exhaustive regarding this.
What has already happened is not now happening. What has not yet happened is not now happening. What is now happening has not already happened, nor has it not yet happened. Doesn't this mean that nothing can happen? NJ
9. If things do not begin to exist, then they cannot cease to exist. If things do not begin to exist, how can they have precipitating conditions? If something has ceased to exist, how can it be a condition or cause of anything else?
10. If things have no substantial essences, then they have no real existence; and, in that case, the statement, "This is the cause or condition of that," is meaningless. NJ
Nemo, what happened when YOU tried this? .......(I must say that at times in this thread I feel like I am doing just that lol.)
I am not sure I can be more explicit though. I will let this percolate in me for a while and see if I can come up with anything. Nemo
If you are blind to this as you say then I must ask, what is it in you that is blind? Nemo
The same thing that allows you to see this.
I am not so interested in if you can prove something when challenged. I am inquiring as to what led you to the certain position you hold. In this case a multiverse that creates separate entities.
I do not see this, perhaps I am not blind and what you speak of is a figment of your imagination. So I wanted to explore this with you to ascertain the veracity of your statement and upon what you base your apprehension.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" I believe has direct bearing for this thread. By this statement you have claimed that there are entities, that these entities are separate and that they have been created. In order for you to do this you have to employ certain building blocks of perceived existence.
Now let’s look at this Multiverse you mentioned. You are presenting this idea as a cause, in this case, the cause of what is created ie; separate entities. So the Multiverse according to you existed before what it created. In order for something to be created there had to be a moment when it was not. Then by act of its creation it came into being, in this case created by the Multiverse (creator). So now there “is” a separate entity. Hmm. Separate. By this do you mean entities separate from each other or entities separate from the Multiverse or both? Did multiverse create entities one at a time or many all at once etc? Separation of creator and created. What distinguishes the separate “quality”? Are these things inherently different and distinct or are they distinguished by something else as being that way? Without getting into what created the multiverse and what created that ad infinitum can we just look at this.
Buddhism and DJ are saying that when we look at entities closely we cannot find any essence of that entity. I assume by now that when referring to entities in this manner it is understood that we are not referring to inorganic beings. A table is an entity, an idea an atom an abstract etc. So when we examine entities we find them devoid of any inherent essence. Many are not comfortable with this and due to ignorance of this start to invent and imagine in vain attempts to to substantiate what cannot be substantiated and grasp at reality where there is none. Now if someone can show an inherent existence of an entity, then let’s by all means have a look at it. If we cannot find the inherent existence of entities then we need to take a good look at the conclusions, the working conditions of all our previous assumptions regarding material and immaterial existence.
Now if something does not have any inherent existence, not even slightly, then in an absolute sense it does not exist as an individual, separate entity.
It makes no sense to say that essence arises from causes and conditions. If essence were caused or conditioned, it would not be essence. Nagarjuna
Essence cannot be created or otherwise come to be. Essence is not artificial, nor does it depend on another. Nagarjuna
If this is true the what we are seeing is a mere appearance, like a reflection in a mirror. If that is true then we need inquire into the appearance making. How are appearances made, what makes appearances appear? Why do appearances appear etc? We have no problem grasping (after we awake) that when we dream that which appears in a dream has been fabricated by our minds in some way. Yet for some reason in our waking everyday life our environment seems separate and independent, creating the illusion that it came from elsewhere other than mind that it is real in some way other than just an appearance and of course once this has been accepted imagination can just run wild with its inventions.
8. If only entities with essences [really] exist, then there is no non-existence, nor can anything change.
What is NJ saying here? Remember he is well capable of presenting assertions from all sides even if he does not hold them to be true. Look at the duality of what NJ is delving into here, the duality of existence and non-existence. You cannot have existence without non-existence! But if entities have essences then they “really” exist and are not just appearances. That which really exists would be essential. That which is essential is immutable and unchanging. There is no non-existence! So how can those who adhere to the notion of (real) entities with essences also entertain the non-existence or even the dissolution of entities?
Some will say, "If there are no essences, what is there to change?" We reply, "If there are essences, what is there to change?" Nargajuna.
At this point NJ’s detractors think they have him cornered. Asking him how he can possible account for change if there are no essences imagining him to be a nihilist, many today think of Buddhism as nihilistic, it is not. But if you look closer at Nagarjuna he has not been promoting the idea of no essences. He has been examining the illogical claims of those who think entities have essences. He has been exhausting the logic of entities with essences. Basically saying well if you say that what about this? It cannot be both ways. Ie; If things have essences how can they change, being immutable? There must be another explanation! But in order to see where NJ is coming from we need to be able to re-examine the framework of existence and non-existence.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" Nemo
Now if you wish to examine this further using NJ logic, we will eventually get into topics of “Agent and Action” in this case the Multiverse acting as Agent, creating, being the action,
It cannot be that a real agent performs an unreal action. It cannot be that an unreal agent performs a real action. (From believing these things, all sorts of errors follow.)NJ
If we are assuming that Multiverse (or even God) is a real agent, in this case essential and existing before the action, (real) then how can such an agent create something unreal ie; entities without essences, which would be an unreal action? NJ has already shown the faulty logic of entities with essences. So if we can let go our idea of entities existing inherently then the notion of an agent creating such an unreal entity would no longer be plausible. If something does not really exist inherently, it was never created, because it does not exist! I am not referring to the appearance here.
So in order to maintain the notion of a Creator Multiverse (or God) it is encumbent upon the believer to maintain the notion of the reality of inherent entities created by creator through an act of creation. NJ makes it difficult to keep this up with any credibility because the logic of the essence of entities is unsustainable.
To go further we would get into events, acts as happenings and again NJ is exhaustive regarding this.
What has already happened is not now happening. What has not yet happened is not now happening. What is now happening has not already happened, nor has it not yet happened. Doesn't this mean that nothing can happen? NJ
9. If things do not begin to exist, then they cannot cease to exist. If things do not begin to exist, how can they have precipitating conditions? If something has ceased to exist, how can it be a condition or cause of anything else?
10. If things have no substantial essences, then they have no real existence; and, in that case, the statement, "This is the cause or condition of that," is meaningless. NJ