Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Love? Really? and what is love? really? besides an indulgence?Love, hate, war peace, up down, solid, empty, indulgence, discipline and on infinitely... all part of dependent arising. None of these has inherent essence, none of them stands alone. All are interdependent. This is not dualism as we discussed a while ago. Because dualism is perceiver and percieved, two factors. Here we see its much more than that...
the 5 aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
So perception is just one of the aggregates. And the form perceived is not just form as its is perceived.
Such as a car. We see a car coming toward us. But how do we know its a car? We may say "oh there is a BMW". now lets examine exactly what is occurring here. What is car?
An engine, wheels, steering, brakes, transmission etc. So we see various parts compose a car. Which part IS the car? Well, we can say some parts are more important than others, such as, we can omit the windshield wiper and still have a car. But when we observe its a BMW then the definition is more specific of course, the design of the body of the car, the emblem and such factor in.
We would not look at a car engine and call that a car. So its clear it takes a conglomeration of parts to define car and even more specific parts to define BMW. But where is the BMW inherently? Does it exist outside of the individual parts? No. Do the individual parts make the car? No, its only the thought that labels car a car, and a more specific thought that labels it a BMW. The thought still does not make a car anymore real then the parts, rather the thought organizes phenomena for the purpose of functionality. So mental formations, form, sensing, and finally...consciousness of what is perceived.
We are the same. There is no I. We are a conglomeration of aggregates. But mental formations label the I and it is functional. But the I does not exist anywhere independently. In Buddhism, this labeling of the functional or conventional I is called the mere I, and does not exist outside of this dependency.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
If you look at a car and then take away the windows, it still is recognizable as a car. If you keep taking away a screw here a bolt there, piece by piece dismantling at what point did it cease to be a car?
And the reverse. If you take a bolt here and a screw there, piece of glass and rubber etc at which point did the assembly actually "become" a car?
Thanks for getting us back on track Tiffany.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Asiris wrote:Emptiness is going back to your original true nature. Love.
I do feel compassion is one of the highest realizations in terms of
wisdom realizing emptiness. Fully developed, a compassionate viewpoint
sees all things as equal.
In Mahayana Buddhism, which is Nagarjunas sect, compassion is cultivated by the goal of helping all sentient beings end suffering. The Bodhisattva that plays an important role among Mahayana practitioners is Avalokitesvara. Fully realized compassion, joined by Tara, fully enlightened. In China she became known as Kuan Yin, in Japan Kannon. Tibet Chenrezig, three worlds protector.
Some may mistake this for worship of a deity. But in the strict Mahayana understanding, all things dependently arise, a true nature or essence is unlocatable, thus does not occur. Yet the value of compassion is still prized for its attribute of wisdom realizing emptiness.
I invite you Asiris to examine your view of Love being the true nature, based on all we have put forth here in this thread. Dependent arising does not undermine the value of compassion, rather it clears away distorted mental formations about Love and emptiness, and it is a compassionate gesture to end suffering born from ignorance about an inherentness which does not exist. True liberation. The Bodhisattva of this is Avalokitesvara, Bodhisattva of Compassion. So no one is saying give up compassion, yet its not our true nature, we have no true nature. Regardless, compassion is certainly the way towards experiencing the Bliss realizing emptiness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:If you look at a car and then take away the windows, it still is recognizable as a car. If you keep taking away a screw here a bolt there, piece by piece dismantling at what point did it cease to be a car?
And the reverse. If you take a bolt here and a screw there, piece of glass and rubber etc at which point did the assembly actually "become" a car?
Thanks for getting us back on track Tiffany.
Yes, the mere car. Its a mental formation, an aggregate of phenomenal existence. A functional label that has no inherency, but does have function nonetheless.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
If you look at a person , then taking away the eyes , they still are recognizable as a person. If you keep taking an arm here, and a leg there, piece by piece dismantling the body, at what point did it cease to be a person?
And the reverse. If you take a leg here and and an arm there, piece of skin and hair, heart, brain, etc.at which point did the assembly actually "become" a person?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Ninth, we know what a human bidy looks like....but what does a person look like?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Picking up from last post...
So this is what is meant when its said "things are not as they appear".
I was thinking of a good example yesterday. Cartoons. We watched them as kids (and sometimes as adults ) And we sensed a "being" inside the cartoon. The characters became real. The same with movies and actors who portray characters, unless we consciously focus on the thought of actor acting, we sense the character has an exisitence, even though its fictional.
Its the same with the mere I really. Besides all the dependent aggregates, where does "a person" truly exist outside of this dependency? If there is no independent standing person, we must say there is no person at all, only the mental formation that labels aggregates "a person" "a car" "a table".
There is no person without mind, there is no person without body, so there is no person without mind and body and they a interdependent equally so there is no single independent factor that would be an "essence". Some imagine a soul, well, that soul must have thought, otherwise it would just be unconscious, so again we need some kind of container and then the awareness within it, so already that's two dependent factors. Where is the one single essence that stands alone?
But what is perceived is an essence, even if its not inherently there, just like when we watch a cartoon, we perceive something independent. We do this with everything. Its functional, but it has become more than functional, its become misconstrued, mistaken. Then we feel jealousy for "another person" because we feel independent from them and they seem permanent and the happiness we attribute to their "life" also seems permanent, or we feel pride because we feel separate and competitive and that what we achieved was our own doing. Again, these are just born of erroneous mental formations of mere I taken to be more than it is.
We have heard the phrase "everything is one" and many people will accept that statement. But tell the same people there is no person and they feel that cannot be so. But if they could accept everything was one, they should know that no one thing can stand apart from everything else, it only appears to. I personally don't like the term oneness because it implies perimeters. A contained beingness. There could be no containment really, and definitions are limited sometimes. Also the term oneness doesn't get people to think. Its just accepted. And the mental formation of oneness is like a round luminous sphere or similar. So its appears as an independent thing. But let say its limitless, then it cannot be a sphere at all. And then lets add that its realizes itself only by interdependent components (form, thought, sensing, perception, consciousness) no one greater or more truly it then the others. So then we see there is no one independent thing to this oneness. So its not really oneness either, but at least oneness acknowledges interdependence of all parts rather then the other extreme of everything being independent from everything else. So, its a step in the right direction. But warrants more examination, otherwise we'd be back at absolutism.
And people who lose hold of their mental faculties, and their mental formations get out of hand. They start to "mislabel" in ways that catch our attention. Such as they may look at the toaster and claim their dead uncle Harry is in that toaster. And we think, "wow, they are crazy". And we don't see what they are doing is not different really then what we have been doing: imputing essence via mental formations when in fact reality is dependently arising
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Because the "I" is empty of inherent existence, having genuine self-esteem is possible. If we meditate properly on emptiness, as our understanding of it deepens, our self-esteem will increase. It's the grasping at inherent existence that produces low self-esteem because our self-hatred, guilt and fears are founded upon grasping at a truly existent "I". Through analytical meditation, we discover that there is no fixed, inherently unlovable, disgusting person. Such a person cannot be found. He or she does not exist. Seeing this, we will no longer be weighted down by hating someone who doesn't exist. A tremendous feeling of freedom comes from realizing that there is no solid person here who is shameful and unworthy. Seeing this, our hearts will be light a joyful. The more we see the "I" as empty, the more we understand that we can become Buddhas and the more we progress on the path to Buddhahood. ~Tara the Liberator
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I am talking about the soul's worth or placement after it is dis-membered from the body or no-self? No one comes back from the afterlife to tell you of where their souls worth is located or what realm if it took on or even incarnate into a new word called "bidy"?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Have you observed soul to know if its even real?
We have observed car but in truth it was not a car at all. Only the mental label. What can be experienced: form, mental formations, perception, sensing, consciousness. And emptiness.
Soul falls under mental formations. Just like car. How do we know?
Well, if we were a soul, we could not experience body because soul would be independent of body so could never use body in anyway, it would be complete in its soulness, and not need anything if it was complete.
The idea of a soul is an idea of an independent thing. In which case if it were true, no soul could have anything in common with any other soul. So there would be no phenomenal existence. Since there is phenomenal exisitence and everything is interacting, no thing has essence, which allows for the interactions to occur.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?In thought-realm...infinite because you could make the head of the pin infinite
In form realm....0
Which brings up an important observation...thought is not less real then form. Nor is it more real either.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The soul is like an indivisible immortality inside each individual and also becomes like a unifying connector to all other life forms. It is not a mental formation and is complete with or without a body.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth, you have faith. When people have faith, their minds cannot be changed by any logic.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Asiris wrote:Faith is a higher experience, it is trust in the goodness of the Divine Power, God. It is altogether reasonable and logical yet it transcends that of the mere mental realm. The soul is not a mental formation, it is an actual universal reality, on the level of spirit. Buddhism mostly is a godless philosophy, it has immense value and has done a lot of good but being a godless philosophy it can only take you so far, it is severely limited imo.
In Buddhism there is the faith in The Three Jewels: The Buddha, Dharma,
and the Sangra. Within these faiths is the logic supporting the value of
such faith.
Faith in Buddha because we don't see him walking around, so there is
faith in his having lived in some way. Faith in Dharma because if we
doubt its effectiveness, we won't even try to follow the teachings.
Faith in Sangra, a person who directly realizes emptiness, if we do not
have faith a person can attain this, we won't see ourselves as having
the same potential.
But religious faith to me is another thing, dependent arising has made
it so evident there is no creator, how can there be? But you still speak
of this faith, so I would call it a faith removed of logic so much so
that a logic placed before the faithful does not move them in any way.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"it is severely limited imo."
Yes, in your opinion, because you believe in god, so you would have this perspective.
You said everything that is created must have a creator. MUST. This is how you support your belief there is a creator. You say that the fact things are created means there is a god. But in such a statement, and creator then needs a creator, since if anything exists, it must have had a creator. So then its a creator of god, and who then created the creator of god, and the creator of the creator of god. Infinite regress, like dominoes through eternity.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
godless philosophy
Its seen as an un-wantable perspective to any who believe in god, almost like a god philosphy is loving and a godless philosophy is not. Such people are failing to see the absolute beauty and compassion of interdependence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Asiris, pardon my directness...but right now you are just being stubborn and uncooperative, lol
So lets backtrack. When some other members here posted, you responded that everything created needed a creator. Like snowblind talked about chemistry and you asked who created it, insinuating god must have. Your stance was that everything was created by something you call god.
My recent post here to you was engaging this logic YOU proposed. "Who created god then?" And now you do not address it at all. Where as before you used it to challenge others with. So its a have your cake and eat it too situation is it?
"Most people are so stuck in their beliefs that no matter what you say, what proofs you offer, no matter how true or right you are most people will not change beliefs, even if those beliefs are erroneous and false." ~Asiris
Ok, but you haven't even begun to answer my post or even offer anything to the logic (your logic) that I challenged you to explain. So why so quick to dismiss? Its a bit too early for that. I asked you who created god?, it warrants an answer. Since you believe strongly in everything having been created by a creator.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
self create. by what means can this occur? if there is nothing in the most absent sense, what would possibly arise?
To me, this is where your faith departs logic. This stance you have that a self could be nothing (before it becomes a self) and then actually create "itself" from nothing, an empty god. I know you believe it it just makes no sense, in which case you would tell me I just refuse to belief your logic, but as I see it it is not logic whatsoever.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"God is self-created, ie. eternal." Asiris
eternal
no beginning, no end. No beginning means no creation. No self-creating either.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
So far no logic coming from this perspective you present though.
Dependent arising is mystery. Emptiness is impossible to explain, but can be experienced directly. This too is a mystery. Phenomena is a mystery, thought is a mystery, we are surrounded by mystery. Mystery does not prove a creator though, a god. A first cause.
If we speak of eternal, and we both are, does this not prove no beginning? Yes, it does. Why search any further? Unless you are saying eternal is not true. No beginning, think of it...it never began...eternal. A creator cannot fit into this understanding, interdependence can. All things exisit together. No inherent essence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
no, no stigma Asiris. I am sure now you have not read much on dependent arising. No inherent essence means no essence or inherentness of anything. It doesn't matter what words you use, its all within the apprehension of emptiness of essence of which I am speaking of.
All I can say at this point is...don't be so sure you have grasped everything. I was where you are now. I know no one wants to hear that. I certainly wouldn't. But,... just don't be so sure and give up your curiosity. You say many things and stand by them but its just what you say. See beyond this, I advise.
Though I know my advice to you means nothing, lol. It ok
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
re PP. Lujan and I had a disagreement over a friend of mine who also attended dragon's tears with him. Long story.
re: When I posted at PP I was very much a student of Lujan at that time. My syntax and whole outlook is much different today, but I do appreciate the experience and time there.
Don't worry , you cannot offend me on Buddhism, its not my religion. I am reading Howto Free Your Mind, Tara the Liberator. This author who is a Tibetan nun (american born) also wrote, Open Heart, Open Mind, I may get that one next. Whatever your discovereries with Buddhism, mine are not like you describe. I have experienced very compassionate perspectives from it. I'm studying Mahayana Buddhism which has the belief that all being can reach enlightenment, and seeks to make it available to everyone. Nagarjuna can be heady, but there a reason and its to exhaust the mind that grasps at unsound logic. Anyway, I didn't get the impression from you that you really wanted to understand anything about Buddhism here, more like you wanted to put your views down. But do appreciate your last post in that I do imagine you were curious about me a bit, especially if you have read PP posts I made. I bet if I went back and read them, I would hardly recognize myself.
Take Care
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hey wait a minute...
I remember you here back in April when Turin and I posted about our PP experiences, so I believe you do know the reasons for my parting at PP. This is true is it not? Yes, I remember you.
|
