07-26-2010, 12:06 AM
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote: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.
Whoa. I did not negate essence, nor deny its existence...I said I didn't know its origin.
Gonzo, yes I know... I never said you negated it.
You asked
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh?
He proves there can be no essence (no first cause and no beginning of "being"). He does not say there is not phenomena, rather that all phenomena arises interdependently (thought depends on form, form on thought, senses on thought and form and form and thought on senses, perception on all mentioned and all on perception, etc). There is no essence. All is empty of essence. Phenomena arises dreamlike, like an illusion. No creator or inherent essence.
Tiff wrote: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.I agree.
Tiff wrote: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.What about the third alternative? It has always been?
Yes but this really means...it never came into "being", how could it have? It didn't begin, therefore is not enduring nor will conclude. This supports the realization of emptiness. When it comes to this understanding, it's important to take it all the way to the end, because if not, essence may be resurrected in thought as "essence that has always been". But Nagarjuna shows it never arose as essence, aka individual essence. Because there was no origin to create it as such. If you agree with me there was no first cause, you can only conclude all phenomena arises together, interdependently. Also if you agree no first cause, you cannot assign thought as the cause of everything else.
You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts", but here in this post you are agreeing that there is no first cause (no independent creator), which I am glad you are agree and we have got to this juncture. So I have to point it out then, that you should not go back and make thought a first cause if you do not support the idea of first cause.
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.
Whoa. I did not negate essence, nor deny its existence...I said I didn't know its origin.
Gonzo, yes I know... I never said you negated it.
You asked
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh?
He proves there can be no essence (no first cause and no beginning of "being"). He does not say there is not phenomena, rather that all phenomena arises interdependently (thought depends on form, form on thought, senses on thought and form and form and thought on senses, perception on all mentioned and all on perception, etc). There is no essence. All is empty of essence. Phenomena arises dreamlike, like an illusion. No creator or inherent essence.
Tiff wrote: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.I agree.
Tiff wrote: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.What about the third alternative? It has always been?
Yes but this really means...it never came into "being", how could it have? It didn't begin, therefore is not enduring nor will conclude. This supports the realization of emptiness. When it comes to this understanding, it's important to take it all the way to the end, because if not, essence may be resurrected in thought as "essence that has always been". But Nagarjuna shows it never arose as essence, aka individual essence. Because there was no origin to create it as such. If you agree with me there was no first cause, you can only conclude all phenomena arises together, interdependently. Also if you agree no first cause, you cannot assign thought as the cause of everything else.
You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts", but here in this post you are agreeing that there is no first cause (no independent creator), which I am glad you are agree and we have got to this juncture. So I have to point it out then, that you should not go back and make thought a first cause if you do not support the idea of first cause.