Is a constantly changing object an object?
-
If I see a chair and i say, hmmm a bicycle and if I ride the chair, well I can imagine that I am going somewhere but in reality, I am going nowhere.
-
the object is trueOriginally posted by casino_king:A metal structuree that we call the bicycle! The chinese call it something else. The malays call it something else.
Why is the bicycle not "true?" When the parts combine, it is truely a bicycle. If you dismantle the parts, it is no longer a bicycle.
How do I know? I ride it and it goes!
NOT the LABEL 
we give to it.U see we unenlightened human see thing thru our own perception and tend to give them label rather than see thing as they truly are.
in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts
ok gtg u can do some observation on ur own environment.When u have better understanding we will discuss some interesting questions
bye... -
Great king108 , keep it upOriginally posted by king108:CasinoKing..cannot keep dicking the dead corner.
3 laughters does not mean I am no serious.
Just that how to bring you to the shore on the east when you refused to go aboard the ship.
"Ben Shi Wu Yi Wou, He Chu Ri Chen Ai" really depended how you look at the object.
Ben lai wu yi wu ,He chu re chen ai
(It is untainted and without foreign object ,so whence does it gather dust)
Sixth Patriach Hui Neng -
The Virlmakirti SutraOriginally posted by neutral_onliner:ok pal i try to help have a slight idea wat is emptiness abt
Emptyness really means 'empty of inherent existence'.
ok do u noe wat it mean by 'empty of inherent existence'.
Bodhisattva Manjusri arrived at the Licchavi Virlmakirti .He comment
"why is the room empty"
"the Buddhalands of All Buddhas are empty"answered Licchavi Virlmakirti."
"Why is the Buddhalands of All Buddhas empty"asked Manjusri.
... interested to know ,please read the online version of Virlmakirti Sutra
This is my sharing of "Empty of Inherent existence ."
-
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
If you think that you have not given it a "correct" "true" label; then change the label. Or define the label so that it accurately defines the object.
the object is true NOT the LABEL we give to it.U see we unenlightened human see thing thru our own perception and tend to give them label rather than see thing [b]as they truly are.
in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts
ok gtg u can do some observation on ur own environment.When u have better understanding we will discuss some interesting questions
bye...
[/b]
If I tell you that the definition of bicyle is that it has four legs of equal lenghts and on top of it is a flat piece fasten on the four legs. You can sit on the flat top and everybody label that as a bicycle.
The label is not true. The label should be "chair."
Or if I tell you that a bicycle is made up of one solid piece of of metal, then my definition of bicycle is false. Change the definition or get the correct definition.
Label is you think is not true, change the label or change the definition of the label that you had given to the object.
You are probably confused or you are using a wrong example. You should think carefully my answer to you at: 19 May 2006 · 02:11 PM in this thread. -
Emptyness really means 'empty of inherent existence'. In other words no phenomenon contains the reason for its existence within itself. All phenomena arise from ever-changing relationships with other phenomena, including the minds of the observers.Originally posted by casino_king:If you think that you have not given it a "correct" "true" label; then change the label. Or define the label so that it accurately defines the object.
If I tell you that the definition of bicyle is that it has four legs of equal lenghts and on top of it is a flat piece fasten on the four legs. You can sit on the flat top and everybody label that as a bicycle.
The label is not true. The label should be "chair."
Or if I tell you that a bicycle is made up of one solid piece of of metal, then my definition of bicycle is false. Change the definition or get the correct definition.
Label is you think is not true, change the label or change the definition of the label that you had given to the object.
You are probably confused or you are using a wrong example. You should think carefully my answer to you at: 19 May 2006 · 02:11 PM in this thread.
When Buddhists speak of a thing or person being `empty' we really mean empty of inherent existence'.
To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.
What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena.There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive. -
This stating the obvious, isn't it? If it is broken then it is not a cup. If we take the pieces and glue them together again, it becomes a cup again.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Emptyness really means 'empty of inherent existence'. In other words no phenomenon contains the reason for its existence within itself. All phenomena arise from ever-changing relationships with other phenomena, including the minds of the observers.
When Buddhists speak of a thing or person being `empty' we really mean empty of inherent existence'.
To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.
What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena.There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive.
Everything in the world is like that, for example water. You break it apart you have oxygen and hydrogen. But don't forget that at the very basic level you have wave energy see 2nd page 19 May 2006 · 02:11 PM
As far as science is concern you cannot say that wave energy is inherently empty. You cannot break apart wave energy. Wave enerygy can neither be created or destroyed.
If wave energy is inherently empty, all you are saying is that there are constituents in wave energy. It has to end somewhere. Something has to be non inherently empty for this universe to exists. -
Honestly. this is a very chim topic. IMHO. No point discussing unless we have some level of realisation.
Something that we only truely know it only if we really tasted it. -
You are almost saying that it is not "logical." That it is an experience, only after you have "tasted it." The mods will faint.Originally posted by concerned_man:Honestly. this is a very chim topic. IMHO. No point discussing unless we have some level of realisation.
Something that we only truely know it only if we really tasted it. -
Strange about your statement. I did not say that it is not "logical". All Buddhism teachings can be investigated and tested.
YES we can ONLY used logic and intellectual to test the Dharma. Although, the Dharma can still be ascertain, but the this knowledge is not part of us. It still belongs to the Enlightened. Only if this wisdom surface naturally right from our internally core, we can then be sure.
AMiTaBha.Originally posted by casino_king:You are almost saying that it is not "logical." That it is an experience, only after you have "tasted it." The mods will faint. -
I meant that what you said suggests that it is not logical. I did not say you said that it is not logical. Because you put is as "Something that we only truely know it only if we really tasted it."Originally posted by concerned_man:Strange about your statement. I did not say that it is not "logical". All Buddhism teachings can be investigated and tested.
YES we can ONLY used logic and intellectual to test the Dharma. Although, the Dharma can still be ascertain, but the this knowledge is not part of us. It still belongs to the Enlightened. Only if this wisdom surface naturally right from our internally core, we can then be sure.
AMiTaBha.
If it is logical, then there is no need to taste it first. I hope you get the point. -
Using of logic and intellectual are what is being interpreted - by common sense and judgment. This is something from the external into our mind.
Realisation is a wisdom surface from within and then a clear understanding about our surroundings.
There are many ways/path to Buddhist teachings, claimed by the Buddha. If using of intellectual is best for you. I am happy.
I see that you are very keen to explore much about the Dharma. Good on you. AmiTuoFo.Originally posted by casino_king:I meant that what you said suggests that it is not logical. I did not say you said that it is not logical. Because you put is as "Something that we only truely know it only if we really tasted it."
If it is logical, then there is no need to taste it first. I hope you get the point. -
After you realised "from within and understanding about our environment" you can then logically explained to others, right?Originally posted by concerned_man:Using of logic and intellectual are what is being interpreted - by common sense and judgment. This is something from the external into our mind.
Realising is a wisdom surface from within and understanding about our environment.
There are many ways/path to Buddhist teachings, claimed by the Buddha. If using of intellectual is best for you. I am happy.
I see that you are very keen to explore much about the Dharma. Good on you. AmiTuoFo.
You are right when you say I am very keen to explore much about the Dharma. -
If we can truely understand ourselves, our deep internal essential core. We can also understand about the universe. Because they are ONE.
Nevertheless, in Buddhism, there is NO one way to it's destination. Look for one path which serve you best. AMiTuoFo.Originally posted by casino_king:After you realised "from within and understanding about our environment" you can then logically explained to others, right?
You are right when you say I am very keen to explore much about the Dharma. -
OK thanks for the tip.Originally posted by concerned_man:If we can truely understand ourselves, our deep internal essential core. We can also understand about the universe. Because they are ONE.
Nevertheless, in Buddhism, there is NO one way to it's destination. Look for one path which serve you best. AMiTuoFo. -
Even the name, label of the cup is empty because it is dependant on various conditions for arising.
It is also impermanent, because once the conditions are gone you no longer call it a cup.
It is impermanent also because 500 years down the road another race may arise that calls it by another name. -
Everything in the world is like that, for example water. You break it apart you have oxygen and hydrogen. But don't forget that at the very basic level you have wave energy see 2nd page 19 May 2006 · 02:11 PM
Exerpt from http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
The emptiness of matter.
The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesised as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.
The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.
An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. -
Like I said water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen; so you can say that water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen or water is empty. If when you say water is empty to mean that it is made up by oxygen and hydrogen, what is the point of saying water is empty? We all know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. We all know that hydrogen molecules are made you of atoms. So hydrogen molecules are empty.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Even the name, label of the cup is empty because it is dependant on various conditions for arising.
It is also impermanent, because once the conditions are gone you no longer call it a cup.
It is impermanent also because 500 years down the road another race may arise that calls it by another name.
So if that is all you are saying by saying that something is empty; you did not tell us anything new.
As for impermanence, even the sun is estimated to run out of fuel in a couple of billion years. Everybodies dies eventually. So if by telling us that the sun is empty you mean that the sun will run out of fuel in a couple of billion years, then you have not told us anything new. We already know that the sun is running out of fuel in a couple of billions years. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes I already said that if you reduce something down to its very basic level, then you have the most basic of the basic and as far as science understand it now mass and ebergy are correlated. So what we percieve as mass is actually energy no different from light or radiation.
Exerpt from http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
[b]The emptiness of matter.
[/b]
So now we come down all the way to "energy" as the most basic of the building blocks. You cannot say that "energy" is inherently empty because as far as we know, energy is not made up of other components. All the school children knows that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changes from one form to another.
Which is why I asked nuetral_onliner a few times if this is what he was trying to say. -
Even when the conditions meet, you label it as 'sun'. But the label is also a conditioned arising, not because it is already inherently called a 'sun' or the 'sun' will be called a 'sun' for eternity. You call it 'sun' because the conditions are met. Therefore everything is conditioned and empty of inherent existence. It is not independantly arisen, it is not an independant entity but based upon various conditions.Originally posted by casino_king:Like I said water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen; so you can say that water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen or water is empty. If when you say water is empty to mean that it is made up by oxygen and hydrogen, what is the point of saying water is empty? We all know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. We all know that hydrogen molecules are made you of atoms. So hydrogen molecules are empty.
So if that is all you are saying by saying that something is empty; you did not tell us anything new.
As for impermanence, even the sun is estimated to run out of fuel in a couple of billion years. Everybodies dies eventually. So if by telling us that the sun is empty you mean that the sun will run out of fuel in a couple of billion years, then you have not told us anything new. We already know that the sun is running out of fuel in a couple of billions years.
Since the sun is empty of inherent existence,
O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They do not appear nor disappear, are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decrease. - Heart Sutra
We also cannot understand emptiness without seeing the illusory-nature of our imputed labels. When I first understood something about the heart sutra when I was 12 by reading a verse, 'form is emptiness and emptiness is form', it just came to me that it just is - reality just is without our imputed labels and concepts of things. It may seem not so difficult to understand but it was quite a shock to me, maybe because I have never understood dharma and heart sutra before and it just came to me so suddenly when I heard it.
Back to your first question.Why is an object that is constantly changing not an object? It is a constantly changing object, that is all.
All are conditioned arising, and even our imputed labels which are based on our mental perceptions are also conditioned arising. The perception, for example, is dependant on our 5 sense consciousness which is dependant on the presence of the sense-object and the sense organs. But neither can the inherent existence/essence be found within the object upon analysis. Therefore the essence/inherent existence of the object are neither found in mental perceptions nor physicality.
Does mere seeing come first, or perceiving the conditions to be an object comes first? Although when it comes upon analysis, it seems clear that 'mere seeing' comes first before we say 'there - the chair is there', in real life we often perceive in a mode that we think that there really is an object existing itself there, and we grasp on the mental appearance of this object to be true, thereby missing the reality of what is. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:"If you look deeply into the palm of your hand, you will see your parents and all generations of your ancestors. All of them are alive in this moment. Each is present in your body. You are the continuation of each of these people. To be born means that something which did not exist comes into existence. But the day we are "born" is not our beginning. It is a day of continuation. But that hould not make us less happy when we celebrate our "Happy Continuation Day."
Since we are never born, how can we cease to be? This is what the Heart Sutra reveals to us. When we have a tangible experience of non-birth and non-death, we know ourselves beyond duality. The meditation on "no separate self" is one way to pass through the gate of birth and death.
Your hand proves that you have never been born and you will never die. The thread of life has never been interrupted from time without beginning until now. Previous generations, all the way back to single-celled beings, are present in your hand at this moment. You can observe and experience this. Your hand is always available as a subject for meditation. "
Present Moment, Wonderful Moment by Thich Nhat Hanh -
First you talk about the word "sun" then you conclude, "Since the sun is empty of inherent existence," you have jumped from the word sun is empty of inherent existence to sun is empty of inherent existence.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Even when the conditions meet, you label it as 'sun'. But the label is also a conditioned arising, not because it is already inherently called a 'sun' or the 'sun' will be called a 'sun' for eternity. You call it 'sun' because the conditions are met. Therefore everything is conditioned and empty of inherent existence. It is not independantly arisen, it is not an independant entity but based upon various conditions.
Since the sun is empty of inherent existence,
O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They do not appear nor disappear, are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decrease. - Heart Sutra
We also cannot understand emptiness without seeing the illusory-nature of our imputed labels. When I first understood something about the heart sutra when I was 12 by reading a verse, 'form is emptiness and emptiness is form', it just came to me that it just is - reality just is without our imputed labels and concepts of things. It may seem not so difficult to understand but it was quite a shock to me, maybe because I have never understood dharma and heart sutra before and it just came to me so suddenly when I heard it.
You have to show why the object we call "sun" is empty of inherent existence.
Which will bring us back to your previous posts before this one. Which will tell us that sun is made up of components just like the bicycle is made up of components, just like water is made up of components, and the most basic of components is energy waves.
Curiously I also note that the verse you quoted says: "O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness."
Nothing about inherent emptiness of the universe but the inherent emptiness of Dharmas. That is to say, when conditions change, Dharmas must adept to the new conditions, which reminds me of the story of the raft. -
When you look at the palm of your hand, all your ancestor are alive as genetic codes; not living entities. Yes the day you were born is a day of continuation but it is the day of beginning of you. Your hand proves that you inherited your genetic code and you will not die only in the sense that you gentic code get pass on and only if you have children. Otherwise you are dead. But 99.99999999999999% of your genetice code is in other people and in that sense you will never die untill all life on earth becomes extint.
If you look interms of genetic codes; then you can say that the ant and the worm because they share the same ancestry as man form the first days of evolution has as much right to be alive as man. -
Since nothing is of inherent existence, there is nothing that is changing, there is only Changes.Originally posted by casino_king:First you talk about the word "sun" then you conclude, "Since the sun is empty of inherent existence," you have jumped from the word sun is empty of inherent existence to sun is empty of inherent existence.
You have to show why the object we call "sun" is empty of inherent existence.
Which will bring us back to your previous posts before this one. Which will tell us that sun is made up of components just like the bicycle is made up of components, just like water is made up of components, and the most basic of components is energy waves.
Curiously I also note that the verse you quoted says: "O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness."
Nothing about inherent emptiness of the universe but the inherent emptiness of Dharmas. That is to say, when conditions change, Dharmas must adept to the new conditions, which reminds me of the story of the raft.
The ultimate nature of dharma is emptiness, and there is no dharma that has inherent existence. -
ahh... not completely true. Changes, but knowledge and technology becomes better and better. If we don't use judgemental words like better or worse, we can say "more" or "faster" or "easier" or "more powerful" or "more efficient" or "healthier" or "more productive" ......Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Since nothing is of inherent existence, there is nothing that is changing, there is only Changes.
The ultimate nature of dharma is emptiness, and there is no dharma that has inherent existence.
