12-30-2010, 12:00 AM
Ninth,
It does not help our line of inquiry if you try to back track out of a position as if you never said it, when you did.
“I don't care about the hat's inherent existence. I can't grasp at the inherent essence of a hat.” Ninth
But you are grasping at the “inherent existence” of the hat.
You were specifically using the analogy of a hat, pointing out that it was similar to the physical body. You pointed out that the aggregates of the hat were not the hat itself, just as what is actually human is something more than the physical components of the body.
I thought this was a perfect example of the grasping due to craving that I had been alluding to.
The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. Ninth
You suggest that the hat itself is something other than the shape,color, size softness etc. that it is “distinct from them”. Is this something you can qualify? If so please do. Try not to react just stay with the inquiry.
----------------------
Now you were also talking about human bodies, chemicals and persons. When speaking of a hat it lacks some of the aggregates of what we consider human, ie; mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness and a hats form is different. So I in this respect what you say is obvious, what we consider human is far more than a hat and is far more than the chemical components of human physicality.
“It is the human being who seems more than just a concoction of aggregates that make this notion of a self.” Ninth
Again you don’t seem too sure. You say the human being “seems” to be more than just a concoction of aggregates, in this case, form, mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness.
I am saying that as these aggregates interact with each other the notion of self is nothing more than an implication, ie; it is implied. We are conscious of what may be implied but are usually not conscious that it is only an implication. The notion of this self is inferred and this inference then conceptually proliferates creating all kinds of fixed concepts that are held firm by attachment.
We do the same when we consider objects as something other than what they are. those who believe in creation infer a creator. Those who believe in a creator god infer creation and the act of being created.
I had mentioned earlier that “we crave inherent substantiality (essence) but are looking for it in all the wrong places.” I had hoped someone would pick up on this.
When we do not see the objects around us for what they really are it is because we are craving. But what is it we are craving? We are craving inherent substantiality but are looking for it in all the wrong places. Take any object literally any object, we automatically impute an inherent substantiality to it. It "happens" so fast most are not aware of this impulse. It requires acute investigation as to why and how we do this. Lex
So until we are able to talk about the intrinsic essence and primordial awareness I will continue loosely along the lines of Madhyamika in the hopes that we can more clearly see the empty nature of everything. Once we “get this under our belt” so to speak then we can leave all this talk of emptiness alone and get to the essence. But to do so prematurely would invite all kinds of confusion regarding the intrinsic essence, this primordial awareness and we would start investing this awareness with all kinds of spiritual notions and metaphysics making it even harder to recognize.
So look out your window look at it all! If all those objects of sight “out there” are not “out there” and have no intrinsic, inherent essence of their own, then.......
WHAT IS IT WE A LOOKING AT?
It does not help our line of inquiry if you try to back track out of a position as if you never said it, when you did.
“I don't care about the hat's inherent existence. I can't grasp at the inherent essence of a hat.” Ninth
But you are grasping at the “inherent existence” of the hat.
You were specifically using the analogy of a hat, pointing out that it was similar to the physical body. You pointed out that the aggregates of the hat were not the hat itself, just as what is actually human is something more than the physical components of the body.
I thought this was a perfect example of the grasping due to craving that I had been alluding to.
The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. Ninth
You suggest that the hat itself is something other than the shape,color, size softness etc. that it is “distinct from them”. Is this something you can qualify? If so please do. Try not to react just stay with the inquiry.
----------------------
Now you were also talking about human bodies, chemicals and persons. When speaking of a hat it lacks some of the aggregates of what we consider human, ie; mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness and a hats form is different. So I in this respect what you say is obvious, what we consider human is far more than a hat and is far more than the chemical components of human physicality.
“It is the human being who seems more than just a concoction of aggregates that make this notion of a self.” Ninth
Again you don’t seem too sure. You say the human being “seems” to be more than just a concoction of aggregates, in this case, form, mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness.
I am saying that as these aggregates interact with each other the notion of self is nothing more than an implication, ie; it is implied. We are conscious of what may be implied but are usually not conscious that it is only an implication. The notion of this self is inferred and this inference then conceptually proliferates creating all kinds of fixed concepts that are held firm by attachment.
We do the same when we consider objects as something other than what they are. those who believe in creation infer a creator. Those who believe in a creator god infer creation and the act of being created.
I had mentioned earlier that “we crave inherent substantiality (essence) but are looking for it in all the wrong places.” I had hoped someone would pick up on this.
When we do not see the objects around us for what they really are it is because we are craving. But what is it we are craving? We are craving inherent substantiality but are looking for it in all the wrong places. Take any object literally any object, we automatically impute an inherent substantiality to it. It "happens" so fast most are not aware of this impulse. It requires acute investigation as to why and how we do this. Lex
So until we are able to talk about the intrinsic essence and primordial awareness I will continue loosely along the lines of Madhyamika in the hopes that we can more clearly see the empty nature of everything. Once we “get this under our belt” so to speak then we can leave all this talk of emptiness alone and get to the essence. But to do so prematurely would invite all kinds of confusion regarding the intrinsic essence, this primordial awareness and we would start investing this awareness with all kinds of spiritual notions and metaphysics making it even harder to recognize.
So look out your window look at it all! If all those objects of sight “out there” are not “out there” and have no intrinsic, inherent essence of their own, then.......
WHAT IS IT WE A LOOKING AT?