Is a constantly changing object an object?
-
Why does emptiness imply unimportance?Originally posted by casino_king:If not to say that we must not attach to anything because everything is inherently empty (unimportant,) can you then again tell me what the point of saying something is inherently empty again?
Importance is a fact of priority. It is like common sense. If you get heart attack, it is common sense you need to go to hospital, you need to call 995. But if you comprehend emptiness you wont become anxious.
------
My daily activities are not unusual,
I'm just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, discarding nothing...
Supernatural power and marvelous activity -
Drawing water and carrying firewood.
Layman Pang-yun
---
Student: What is only practicing?
ZMSS: When you first start driving a car, you cannot give your attention to sights or sounds, or else you will crash. However, after some practice, you can talk, look at things and listen to the radio without any problem. Talking and sightseeing have become part of driving. Your seeing, hearing and speaking are non-attachment. It is the same with Zen. "Only Zen" contains walking, eating, sleeping, talking and watching television‹just do it! All of these have become non-attached thinking. This is only practicing.
(zen master seung sahn) -
Are you then saying then that "common sense" is more important than the concept of Emptiness?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Why does emptiness imply unimportance?
Importance is a fact of priority. It is like common sense. If you get heart attack, it is common sense you need to go to hospital, you need to call 995. But if you comprehend emptiness you wont become anxious.
How does emptiness make you not anxious other than to tell you that "Don't be anxious, it is not important, it is nothing?
BTW please do not cut and paste quotes; I understand what the quotes say but it is you that I do not understand. -
'Emptiness' actually mean we are all interdependence on each other, all in one, one in all. and that we are not dependence/permanant. we are like a cell of an entire body/entity/universe and the universe is us. the more we understand 'Emptiness' , the more we are compassionate to our fellow beings and surrounding. the lip don't go and accuse the teeth for bitten it, as they are All part of a whole body.
/\ -
If you look at science, there is actually a scientific basis for it. Science used to think that "mass" (form) is different from "energy" (emptiness).Originally posted by sinweiy:'Emptiness' actually mean we are all interdependence on each other, all in one, one in all. and that we are not dependence/permanant. we are like a cell of an entire body/entity/universe and the universe is us. the more we understand 'Emptiness' , the more we are compassionate to our fellow beings and surrounding. the lip don't go and accuse the teeth for bitten it, as they are All part of a whole body.
/\
Now science understands that "mass" (form) is made up of "energy" (emptiness).
We can then conclude that "energy" (emptiness) is "mass" (form.)
Budhhism is not about science. What is the point fo understanding this? That emptiness if form and form is emptiness? I am waiting for you to give me the "correct" answer. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
u haven't consider that 'emptiness if form and form is emptiness', actually mean interdependence.
If you look at science, there is actually a scientific basis for it. Science used to think that "mass" (form) is different from "energy" (emptiness).
Now science understands that "mass" (form) is made up of "energy" (emptiness).
We can then conclude that "energy" (emptiness) is "mass" (form.)
Budhhism is not about science. What is the point fo understanding this? That emptiness if form and form is emptiness? I am waiting for you to give me the "correct" answer.'Emptiness' actually mean we are all interdependence on each other, all in one, one in all. and that we are not dependence/permanant. we are like a cell of an entire body/entity/universe and the universe is us. the more we understand 'Emptiness' , the more we are compassionate to our fellow beings and surrounding. the lip don't go and accuse the teeth for bitten it, as they are All part of a whole body.
/\ -
Buddha did not say that everything is empty. Buddha acknowledges that there is form.
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
correct!
Buddha did not say that everything is empty. Buddha acknowledges that there is form. [/b]
Two Sides Of Emptiness
Here is a useful maxim to remember the core concept of Sunyata by:
Sunyata/emptiness Affirms the Existence of Existence;
Sunyata/emptiness Negates the Self-nature of Existence.
This means that Emptiness does not deny the existence of each and every thing, but it denies the existence of a fixed unchanging self behind each and every thing.
Using a river again as an example, we can say that a river (made up of many small streams) exists dependently or conditionally on the streams - this illustrates the first aspect of the above maxim. Because the river flows on and on (keeps changing), or unconditionally (as it has no unchanging identity or self) - this illustrates the second aspect of the maxim.
see also Emptiness And The Middle Way:
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/be_a_lamp_upon_yourself.htm
/\ -
You see, your previous answer while correct was not satisfying...Originally posted by sinweiy:see also Emptiness And The Middle Way:
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/be_a_lamp_upon_yourself.htm
/\ -
Which actually brings us back to the title of this thread: Is a constantly changing object an object?
Is there "form in emptiness?" If yes what is the correct interpretation of Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form? The satisfying answer? -
Which actually brings us back to the title of this thread: Is a constantly changing object an object?
constantly changing can be matter or mind.
Is there "form in emptiness?" If yes what is the correct interpretation of Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form? The satisfying answer?
Sunyata/emptiness Affirms the Existence of Existence;
Sunyata/emptiness Negates the Self-nature of Existence.
/\ -
i suddenly think oop programmers are the easiest to understand buddhism.Originally posted by casino_king:OOP?
(not to be taken seriously) -
yah object oriented programmingOriginally posted by Ito_^:i suddenly think oop programmers are the easiest to understand buddhism.
(not to be taken seriously) -
Is a constantly changing mind nevertheless a "mind?"Originally posted by sinweiy:constantly changing can be matter or mind.
Sunyata/emptiness Affirms the Existence of Existence;
Sunyata/emptiness Negates the Self-nature of Existence.
/\
Even though the object is constantly changing (empty) it is still an object (form.)
If you take into account that form is not only emptiness but in emptiness there is form, how does that help a person make decisions regarding his own life? If the gamblers ask me that what should my answer be? -
Originally posted by casino_king:
yes, if existence is made of mind and matter, without matter, thereÂ’s no existence; without mind thereÂ’s no existence too.
]Is a constantly changing mind nevertheless a "mind?"
Even though the object is constantly changing (empty) it is still an object (form.)
If you take into account that form is not only emptiness but in emptiness there is form, how does that help a person make decisions regarding his own life? If the gamblers ask me that what should my answer be?[/b]
wah, ur gamblers can understand profundity of form=emptiness. then they should know, to win is to lose, to lose is to win? if not use something less profound like cause and effect. to gain money is to give money. more charity more rich.
but i think the problem with gamblers are habit. habit is difficult to sever even for Buddhist. like Buddhist attached to lust. let them meditates on uglyness, decaying bodies etc. then maybe we can let the gamblers meditates on examples of ppl who had lose all their money and cause the entire family to suffer deeply. show them many many examples.
/\ -
If you turn on the fan, the wind keeps blowing to you but the wind is ever changing, it varies slightly in strength and even direction. It is not truely existent as having inherent existence, but we hold onto the appearance of wind and label it as 'wind'. But wind itself is ungraspable. If you dont believe turn on the fan right now and stand in front of it. This is just like Energy/Mind. Can you call the continuous flow 'a wind'? Yes of course, but to think of wind as an entity, a thing, is not able to grasp its essence. It only remains a conceptual thought and conceptual thoughts is only conceptuality, it cannot point to the nature of what is.Originally posted by casino_king:Is a constantly changing mind nevertheless a "mind?"
Even though the object is constantly changing (empty) it is still an object (form.)
If you take into account that form is not only emptiness but in emptiness there is form, how does that help a person make decisions regarding his own life? If the gamblers ask me that what should my answer be?Originally posted by _wanderer_:
There [b]appears to be a 'self' undergoing rebirth, but the ultimate reality is that there is no real 'self' going through rebirth.
There is only rebirth, with no 'self' undergoing rebirth.
It is not easy to comprehend in the beginning, but the difficulty is due to the limitation of the conceptual mind.
Nagarjuna used the eg of a waterfall. You see a 'waterfall', but when you examine further, you cannot find a truly existing 'waterfall' that never changes. 'It' changes every moment, yet 'it' is there. Actually there is no one truly existing unchanging 'waterfall' that exists there; there is only continous flowing, forming the illusion of a 'truly existing entity called ' waterfall'.
Because there is continuity, we mistakenly think that there is a thing called "waterfall" truly existing there.
Similarly, because there is continuity in our lives from moment to moment and from live to live, we mistakenly think that there is such a thing called a "real me" truly existing and undergoing rebirth.
In the Milinda Panha, Ven Nagasena gave excellent replies to questions by King Milinda.
(http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nagasena.htm#ID)
The king asked: "When someone is reborn, Venerable Nagasena, is he the same as the one who just died, or is he another?"
The elder replied: "He is neither the same nor another."
"Give me an illustration!'
"What do you think, Great King? When you were a tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, were you then the same as the one who is now grown up?"
"No, that infant was one, I, now grown up, am another."
"If that is so, then, Great King, you have had no mother, no father, no reaching, no schooling! Do we then take it that there is one mother for the embryo in the first stage, another for the second stage, another for the third, another for the fourth, another for the baby, another for the grown-up man? Is the school-boy one person, and the one who has finished school another? Does one commit a crime, but the hands and feet of another are cut off?"
"Certainly not! But what would you say, Reverend Sir, to all that?"
The elder replied: "I was neither the tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, nor am I now the grown-up man; but all these are comprised in one unit depending on this very body."
"Give me a simile!"
"If a man were to light a lamp, could it give light throughout the whole night?"
"Yes, it could."
"Is now the flame which burns in the first watch of the night the same as the one which burns in the second?"
"It is not the same."
"Or is the flame which burns in the second watch the same as the one which burns in the last one?"
"It is not the same."
"Do we then take it that there is one lamp in the first watch of the night, another in the second, and another again in the third?"
"No, it is just because of the light of the lamp shines throughout the night."
"Even so must we understand the collocation of a series of successive dharmas. At rebirth one dharma arises, while another stops; but the two processes take place almost simultaneously (i.e. they are continous). Therefore, the first act of consciousness in the new existence is neither the same as the last act of consciousness in the previous existence, nor it is the another."
"Give me another simile!"
"Milk, once the milking is done, turns after sometimes into curds; from curds it turns into fresh butter; and from fresh butter into ghee. Would it now be correct to say that the milk is the same thing as the curds, or the fresh butter, or the ghee?"
"No, it would not. But they have been produced because of it."
"Just so must be understood the collocation of a series of successive dharmas."
---
Just as the flame of a candle. At moment 1, the 'flame1' is a production of the candle, the oil, the wick, the oxygen etc at moment 1.
At moment 2, the 'flame2' is the production of the candle oil wick etc at moment 2.
At moment 3, the 'flame3' is the production of those conditions at moment 3.
Each of these conditions are changing at every instant. Eg. the wick is shortening, the oil is depleting, the candle's mixture of elements have changed. So since these conditions have changed, the 'flames' have also changed.
Therefore, there is no one 'flame' existing throughout the night. There is only a succession of dependently arisen 'flames', which instantaneously arise and simultaneously cease, in a continuous fashion.
... flame 1 - flame 2 - flame 3 - flame 4 - ...
This is analogous to our experience of 'self'.
There appears to be a 'wanderer' that existed since age 1 till age 20.
However, 'age 1 wanderer' liked toys and 'age 20 wanderer' liked books.
'age 1 wanderer' had small hands while 'age 20 wanderer' has big hands.
'age 5 wanderer' wanted to be a teacher while 'age 20 wanderer' hated teaching.
now which is the real 'wanderer'?
while 'wanderer' recalls a continuity of growth from 'wanderer 1' to 'wanderer 20' and so on... there is no one truly existing 'wanderer' that grew up.
from wanderer 1 to wanderer 20, all the instantaneous moments of the 'wanderers' are merely dependently arisen, based on the coming together and falling apart of temporary causes and conditions. These causes and conditions, sometimes also known as karma, provide the force that continually brings about birth-death... This forms the illusion of a 'self' undergoing rebirth.
Your question of why some people can remember their past lives - it's because even though there is no 'self' truly existing, there is continuity due to the continuous occurrence of karma. Under particular circumstances, with the right conditions, people are able to have a glimpse of what happened in 'their' past lives.
It is just like when you sleep last night and you woke up this morning, you remember what happened to you last night. However, if you analyse the 'you' yesterday and the 'you' today, you realize that there is no real 'you' that slept through the night and woke up in the day, but there is a continuity of a dependently arisen temporary 'you before sleep' to the dependently arisen temporary 'you while sleeping' to the dependently arisen temporary 'you awake'.
*Phew* very lengthy.
Hope it helps to clarify and doesn't create even more confusion.
This is a very impt qn in Buddhism. Thanks for raising it. [/b] -
Some gamblers say that they are Christians and some say that they are Buddhists.Originally posted by sinweiy:yes, if existence is made of mind and matter, without matter, thereÂ’s no existence; without mind thereÂ’s no existence too.
wah, ur gamblers can understand profundity of form=emptiness. then they should know, to win is to lose, to lose is to win? if not use something less profound like cause and effect. to gain money is to give money. more charity more rich.
but i think the problem with gamblers are habit. habit is difficult to sever even for Buddhist. like Buddhist attached to lust. let them meditates on uglyness, decaying bodies etc. then maybe we can let the gamblers meditates on examples of ppl who had lose all their money and cause the entire family to suffer deeply. show them many many examples.
/\
So I tell them that Buddha said that life is only an illusion, winning and losing is only an illusion." They will come back and tell me that people still have to eat (emptiness is form.)
So you see, they have a point, while form is emptiness, emptiness is form. People still need to go on with their lives and not simply say, "kong kong, sen3 me4 dou shi4 kong."
How does one apply this saying in real life? -
Yes, very true. 'Zhen kung miao you'Originally posted by sinweiy:constantly changing can be matter or mind.
Sunyata/emptiness Affirms the Existence of Existence;
Sunyata/emptiness Negates the Self-nature of Existence.
/\Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Do not sit with a mind fixed on emptiness.
If you do, you will fall into a neutral kind of emptiness.
Emptiness includes the sun, moon, stars and planets,
The great earth, mountains and rivers,
All trees and grasses,
Bad people and good people,
Bad things and good things,
Heaven and hell;
They are all in the midst of emptiness.
- Hui-neng (638-713) -
Is anybody reminded of a good story?
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
'life is only an illusion' is mis-representing miao4 you3 (brillant existence).
Some gamblers say that they are Christians and some say that they are Buddhists.
So I tell them that Buddha said that life is only an illusion, winning and losing is only an illusion." They will come back and tell me that people still have to eat (emptiness is form.)
So you see, they have a point, while form is emptiness, emptiness is form. People still need to go on with their lives and not simply say, "kong kong, sen3 me4 dou shi4 kong."
How does one apply this saying in real life?[/b]
"kong kong, sen3 me4 dou shi4 kong." is nothingness is mis-representing zhen kong (real sunyata) .
form rely on emptiness, emptiness rely on form ...mean we are all inter-related/interdependence. Ban shi tong gen sheng (born from the same root). mean we are brothers, family. Christian's God said, God loves All beings. it doesn't said God loves His believers only. It mean we should love each other without conditions ie Great Compassion which Buddha taught.
consider middle way. and redirect them/gamblers to meditate on ppl who had suffer due to losing, is a better solution, regardless if they are Christian.
/\ -
So if they are suicidal because they have lost a lot of money I tell them that they do not have to take life so seriously until they have to kill themselves because Buddha said life is empty? Ask them to give me examples why life is empty?Originally posted by sinweiy:'life is only an illusion' is mis-representing miao4 you3 (brillant existence).
"kong kong, sen3 me4 dou shi4 kong." is nothingness is mis-representing zhen kong (real sunyata) .
consider middle way. and redirect them/gamblers to meditate on ppl who had suffer due to losing, is a better solution.
/\
They also must not think of killing themselves because Buddha also said that life is precious (in emptiness there is form?) Ask them to give me examples why life is precious?
This sort of logic can touch a Buddhist? They will be able to understand and respond to this kind of teaching? Can I assume that everyone who calls themselves Buddhist will understand that life is empty but in the emptiness life is nevertheless precious (Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form?) -
An ego mind can only grasp on illusory appearance and ignorantly treats it as precious, only wisdom can comprehend 'Wonderful Existence'.
-
I find it very strange with your statements.
What do you mean by "do not have to take life so seriously until they have to kill themselves because Buddha said life is empty?"
Why do you want to use the word kill?Originally posted by casino_king:So if they are suicidal because they have lost a lot of money I tell them that they do not have to take life so seriously until they have to kill themselves because Buddha said life is empty? Ask them to give me examples why life is empty? -
u treat illness accordingly.Originally posted by casino_king:So if they are suicidal because they have lost a lot of money I tell them that they do not have to take life so seriously until they have to kill themselves because Buddha said life is empty? Ask them to give me examples why life is empty?
They also must not think of killing themselves because Buddha also said that life is precious (in emptiness there is form?) Ask them to give me examples why life is precious?
This sort of logic can touch a Buddhist? They will be able to understand and respond to this kind of teaching? Can I assume that everyone who calls themselves Buddhist will understand that life is empty but in the emptiness life is nevertheless precious (Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form?)
if itÂ’s suicidal, u should on the other hand said life is precious, and that human life can lead one to attain Buddhahood. u do not use life is empty. u be adding oil into fire.
form rely on emptiness, emptiness rely on form ...mean we are all inter-related/interdependence. Ban shi tong gen sheng (born from the same root). mean we are brothers, family. Christian's God said, God loves All beings. it doesn't said God loves His believers only. It mean we should love each other without conditions ie Great Compassion which Buddha taught.
concept of emptiness is to treat ‘coast’ attachment, attachment that lead ppl to suffer and vexation. then when they are less attach and less vexation. u use concept of true form to adjust them to true happiness.
ps: again it's best to differ buddhist of folk belief with real buddhist.
/\ -
Folk Buddhists learn Buddhism or not? What if I end up learning more about Buddha's teaching then the folk Buddhists? This is too much.Originally posted by sinweiy:u treat illness accordingly.
if itÂ’s suicidal, u should on the other hand said life is precious, and that human life can lead one to attain Buddhahood. u do not use life is empty? u be adding oil into fire.
form rely on emptiness, emptiness rely on form ...mean we are all inter-related/interdependence. Ban shi tong gen sheng (born from the same root). mean we are brothers, family. Christian's God said, God loves All beings. it doesn't said God loves His believers only. It mean we should love each other without conditions ie Great Compassion which Buddha taught.
concept of emptiness is to treat ‘coast’ attachment, attachment that lead ppl to suffer and vexation. then when they are less attach and less vexation. u use concept of true form to adjust them to true happiness.
ps: again it's best to differ buddhist of folk belief with real buddhist.
/\
To me Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness can be applied in many ways.
What I want to know is what Buddhists are taught so that I can remind them; not really teach them. Now you tell me that there are folk Buddhists and orthodox Buddhists and if I remind them of what they were taught as Buddhists, they might not have learnt it in the first place! -
yeah lor, folk buddhists don’t have learning of Buddha’s teachings, let alone the real meaning of it. they just go temple to pray pray for luck or for wealth. never meditates. only have a outside label of so called “buddhist or taoist”.Originally posted by casino_king:Folk Buddhists learn Buddhism or not? What if I end up learning more about Buddha's teaching then the folk Buddhists? This is too much.
To me Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness can be applied in many ways.
What I want to know is what Buddhists are taught so that I can remind them; not really teach them. Now you tell me that there are folk Buddhists and orthodox Buddhists and if I remind them of what they were taught as Buddhists, they might not have learnt it in the first place!
/\