07-29-2010, 12:07 AM
ninth octave wrote:
Somethings don't need explaining to get one to understand. Cause and effect is demonstrated to us in the mundane and can be avoided to its extremes with creative visualization.
Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol . I well understand this by experiencing life in a a relatively different way and besides the fact I am older than you.. I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being in their field of awareness.. The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that doesn't believe in first cause. First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.Hey I didn't see this post from you yesterday...
"Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who
understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol ."
No way! lol, I just said we are the only ones supporting dependent arising, human nature is relative reality (and very subjective topic), the true nature of things...well, that's what we are discussing be we all, including you, have our sense of having the correct answer, even if that answer is to not decide. I think that's why people enter into debate, they see the value of disgreements and potential insights that can arise from.
"I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one
can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being
in their field of awareness.. "
NJ shows first cause is not possible (since its a logical preposition in the first place, he shows its logically unsound), so yes I don't think you fully support what he says, maybe you only find value in somethings he says, which is what I said in previous post.
As for Buddhism, I'll clarify what I said earlier, its vast and some practitioners don't have to follow NJ and they are still following Buddhism, so the answer to the second part of your question is no, people can pursue Buddhism however they see fit according to the school of Buddhism they prescribe to. There are choices. And within those choices, people can discuss those aspects agreed upon to come to a fuller understanding of the teachings. So to interact with those who support the teachings is beneficial, just as interacting with those who do not can be of benefit. But to just constantly disagree, is not eventually going to amount to much, so its good to have conversations with supporters, and this is by choice and I'm not negating those who practice Buddhism differently than I would approach it.
"The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own
faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can
not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first
cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that
doesn't believe in first cause."
Ninth, ninth, ninth, I'm not saying I think you are less empty!!! lol How can anything be more or less empty than empty?! I'm saying this...In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly Tibetan, dependent arising is a teaching, a very central and basic understanding from which all other various aspects of their teachings support. This topic we are in, this thread 'emptiness and objects' is about that very approach to Buddhism. We are discussing it to bring it to focus and clarity. I said before, Lex and I can go back to just emailing each other about it if no one is interested. There has been some interest but not necessarily anyone was convinced, which is fine with me truly. Also the forum on Zen, lots of things yet to explore of which I would like to explore as well.
So, you are empty regardless of what you believe, and I am not questioning your emptiness, to do so is to not understand what emptiness is. So there is an important consideration...understanding emptiness. Has nothing to do with "being empty or not" there is no state of emptiness to be or not be in. But to understand it, realize it directly. And in this topic this refers to "to realize phenomena is empty". No essence. No essence means no central hub of anything, no god. How you can say you realize emptiness of essence and god at the same time, I have never seen you give a good answer on this.
First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the
obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what
can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man
can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its
cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.
God (perceived as apart from you) is a hindrance to arriving at non-duality as taught in Buddhism. If non-duality is understood, why support the concept of God? If you know you are the supreme, the ultimate realization of yourself, why support the idea of "God"? Or better yet, what hindrance could I possibly have by not believing in God?
I say goodbye to romance, yeah
Goodbye to friends, I tell you
Goodbye to all the past
I guess that we'll meet
We'll meet in the end
Somethings don't need explaining to get one to understand. Cause and effect is demonstrated to us in the mundane and can be avoided to its extremes with creative visualization.
Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol . I well understand this by experiencing life in a a relatively different way and besides the fact I am older than you.. I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being in their field of awareness.. The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that doesn't believe in first cause. First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.Hey I didn't see this post from you yesterday...
"Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who
understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol ."
No way! lol, I just said we are the only ones supporting dependent arising, human nature is relative reality (and very subjective topic), the true nature of things...well, that's what we are discussing be we all, including you, have our sense of having the correct answer, even if that answer is to not decide. I think that's why people enter into debate, they see the value of disgreements and potential insights that can arise from.
"I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one
can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being
in their field of awareness.. "
NJ shows first cause is not possible (since its a logical preposition in the first place, he shows its logically unsound), so yes I don't think you fully support what he says, maybe you only find value in somethings he says, which is what I said in previous post.
As for Buddhism, I'll clarify what I said earlier, its vast and some practitioners don't have to follow NJ and they are still following Buddhism, so the answer to the second part of your question is no, people can pursue Buddhism however they see fit according to the school of Buddhism they prescribe to. There are choices. And within those choices, people can discuss those aspects agreed upon to come to a fuller understanding of the teachings. So to interact with those who support the teachings is beneficial, just as interacting with those who do not can be of benefit. But to just constantly disagree, is not eventually going to amount to much, so its good to have conversations with supporters, and this is by choice and I'm not negating those who practice Buddhism differently than I would approach it.
"The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own
faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can
not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first
cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that
doesn't believe in first cause."
Ninth, ninth, ninth, I'm not saying I think you are less empty!!! lol How can anything be more or less empty than empty?! I'm saying this...In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly Tibetan, dependent arising is a teaching, a very central and basic understanding from which all other various aspects of their teachings support. This topic we are in, this thread 'emptiness and objects' is about that very approach to Buddhism. We are discussing it to bring it to focus and clarity. I said before, Lex and I can go back to just emailing each other about it if no one is interested. There has been some interest but not necessarily anyone was convinced, which is fine with me truly. Also the forum on Zen, lots of things yet to explore of which I would like to explore as well.
So, you are empty regardless of what you believe, and I am not questioning your emptiness, to do so is to not understand what emptiness is. So there is an important consideration...understanding emptiness. Has nothing to do with "being empty or not" there is no state of emptiness to be or not be in. But to understand it, realize it directly. And in this topic this refers to "to realize phenomena is empty". No essence. No essence means no central hub of anything, no god. How you can say you realize emptiness of essence and god at the same time, I have never seen you give a good answer on this.
First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the
obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what
can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man
can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its
cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.
God (perceived as apart from you) is a hindrance to arriving at non-duality as taught in Buddhism. If non-duality is understood, why support the concept of God? If you know you are the supreme, the ultimate realization of yourself, why support the idea of "God"? Or better yet, what hindrance could I possibly have by not believing in God?
I say goodbye to romance, yeah
Goodbye to friends, I tell you
Goodbye to all the past
I guess that we'll meet
We'll meet in the end