07-25-2010, 12:06 AM
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?I don't know, and I don't know if I DID know if it would make any substantial difference anywhere.
Perhaps it's simplistic but I prefer the notion presented by Richard Bach in "Illusions", when he says, "We are the otters of the universe." To me, that has great implications. Here's the full quote:
We are game-playing, fun-having creatures; we are the otters of the universe. We cannot die, we cannot hurt ourselves any more than illusions on the screen can be hurt."The Play's the thing", as Willie said.
Okay, so you say you don't know and its interesting to note that Nagarjuna does not explain or prove essence, he negates it. He shows how it
cannot "be" what its believed by many to be. Those that believe it have
not fully examined their own beliefs to see that such beliefs cannot be accounted for.
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.
If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.
Perhaps it's simplistic but I prefer the notion presented by Richard Bach in "Illusions", when he says, "We are the otters of the universe." To me, that has great implications. Here's the full quote:
We are game-playing, fun-having creatures; we are the otters of the universe. We cannot die, we cannot hurt ourselves any more than illusions on the screen can be hurt."The Play's the thing", as Willie said.
Okay, so you say you don't know and its interesting to note that Nagarjuna does not explain or prove essence, he negates it. He shows how it
cannot "be" what its believed by many to be. Those that believe it have
not fully examined their own beliefs to see that such beliefs cannot be accounted for.
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.
If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.