07-27-2010, 12:06 AM
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote: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.
I didn't agree...I said I didn't know its origin, and further, if I did know its origin, it would have no relevance to me.
Gonzo, post #372:
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.
You wrote "I agree".
Tiff wrote:You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts"
To clarify, once again, I didn't say it...Gautama said it, or is reported to have said it, second line of the Dhammapada. I do, however, agree with it still.
Yes, I know you stated it was Gautama, but I mean simply, you believe this.
Tiff wrote:..., 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.(see above re agreement.)
In my opinion, there is no conclusive way to prove a first cause, despite Nargarjuna's logic (which I still fail to understand), nor to prove essence is empty, or perhaps that phenomena are empty of essence. Further, as I have said, even if those concepts could be proven, to me, they would have no relevance. On the other hand, I do have my own proof of the power of imagination, which I can equate with Gautama's statement.
You have implied earlier that understanding what Nagarjuna is talking about has practical applications in your life, and I presume in some way that equates with your own understanding of enlightenment. I've opined here and elsewhere that enlightenment is a personal notion, and further, that my own interpretation is that it is "genuine contentment". I continue to focus my own attention on the matters at hand, the juicy business of moment to moment existence, and therefore, my own notion of enlightenment functions within those confines.
Yes, there is no need to prove first cause. The best is to let it go and not support it in any way.
Emptiness is arrived at by negation, after all attempts at establishing essence fails, all that is left is emptiness.
There is something we can explore on your presentation of the quote "with our thoughts we create the world". First, you contend that Gautama said that, but we don't know that's true. Nothing was written down until 400 years after his death. So already the source is in question.
Ok, but there's more. Our thoughts cannot be this powerful. While writing this post I use thought. But when I fall asleep at night I forget my breathing, and even during the day I forget to notice breathing and heartbeat etc. So my personal thoughts are not always focused on phenomena, something that is not "personal" sustains continuity.
There is something that accounts for continuity, and its not our thinking mind, that is, not "our thoughts". Also, "thoughts" and "mind" are not the same thing. I said before thoughts are what reflect upon objects. Mind in Buddhist terms refers to "all-encompassing" phenomena and emptiness.
What part of you Gonzo is personal? Your body is not, it was created by your mother and father's DNA. Your thoughts were shaped by those who you had contact with you, so what part of you is untouched by surrounding phenomena? You cannot say your thoughts, because some people can read very clearly others thoughts and repeat them back, and also the imagination (imagery) of one can be seen by another. So where is this isolated "you" that makes you individual?
I didn't agree...I said I didn't know its origin, and further, if I did know its origin, it would have no relevance to me.
Gonzo, post #372:
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.
You wrote "I agree".
Tiff wrote:You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts"
To clarify, once again, I didn't say it...Gautama said it, or is reported to have said it, second line of the Dhammapada. I do, however, agree with it still.
Yes, I know you stated it was Gautama, but I mean simply, you believe this.
Tiff wrote:..., 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.(see above re agreement.)
In my opinion, there is no conclusive way to prove a first cause, despite Nargarjuna's logic (which I still fail to understand), nor to prove essence is empty, or perhaps that phenomena are empty of essence. Further, as I have said, even if those concepts could be proven, to me, they would have no relevance. On the other hand, I do have my own proof of the power of imagination, which I can equate with Gautama's statement.
You have implied earlier that understanding what Nagarjuna is talking about has practical applications in your life, and I presume in some way that equates with your own understanding of enlightenment. I've opined here and elsewhere that enlightenment is a personal notion, and further, that my own interpretation is that it is "genuine contentment". I continue to focus my own attention on the matters at hand, the juicy business of moment to moment existence, and therefore, my own notion of enlightenment functions within those confines.
Yes, there is no need to prove first cause. The best is to let it go and not support it in any way.
Emptiness is arrived at by negation, after all attempts at establishing essence fails, all that is left is emptiness.
There is something we can explore on your presentation of the quote "with our thoughts we create the world". First, you contend that Gautama said that, but we don't know that's true. Nothing was written down until 400 years after his death. So already the source is in question.
Ok, but there's more. Our thoughts cannot be this powerful. While writing this post I use thought. But when I fall asleep at night I forget my breathing, and even during the day I forget to notice breathing and heartbeat etc. So my personal thoughts are not always focused on phenomena, something that is not "personal" sustains continuity.
There is something that accounts for continuity, and its not our thinking mind, that is, not "our thoughts". Also, "thoughts" and "mind" are not the same thing. I said before thoughts are what reflect upon objects. Mind in Buddhist terms refers to "all-encompassing" phenomena and emptiness.
What part of you Gonzo is personal? Your body is not, it was created by your mother and father's DNA. Your thoughts were shaped by those who you had contact with you, so what part of you is untouched by surrounding phenomena? You cannot say your thoughts, because some people can read very clearly others thoughts and repeat them back, and also the imagination (imagery) of one can be seen by another. So where is this isolated "you" that makes you individual?