Is God A Thing?
-
So there is something beyond your "mind?" "brain?"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Awareness comes before perception of name and form. (it is pre-symbol and pre-labelling). Name and form is a latter commentary by the mind.
'You exist', 'I exist', both are mental assertions by the mind.
Think carefully before you answer because it is a trap. -
Word of advise: go read NargarjunaÂ’s
Sixty Verses of Arguments -
What I mean by 'mind' in this context, is thoughts. Awareness is pre symbolic and pre labelling, and 'I exist/You exist' are mental labelling and thoughts.Originally posted by casino_king:So there is something beyond your "mind?" "brain?"
Think carefully before you answer because it is a trap. -
If something has not even begun (into existence), then there will not be the destruction of that something (into non-existence).
It is called non-arising.
All is merely conditioned arising, all is change. -
Hi Casino_King,
There could not be change unless something changes. There must be someone there to think before thinking takes place. Most of us have molded ourselves to perceive Reality in accordance to the grammatical structure and tenses of languages. This takes place unknowingly and seems natural. So much so that when there is this illumination of Consciousness as a ceaseless stream, effort to describe consciousness correctly becomes a problem. Descriptions are presented in a manner that nouns become verbs; it becomes confusing and complex at times. This I believe, is not a problem peculiar to you alone but in fact to any serious seekers when they first came into contact with the profound teaching of the doctrine of No-Self and Emptiness.
Why all the fuss? Is No-Self and Emptiness that important? What that is most problematic is how consciousness works and what happened when we identify and get attached. The immense power of identification, I cannot help but to emphasize and re-emphasized. A mere “identification” has such amazing power. Fusing into all aspect of our experiences, mental, spiritual and physical…The weight, the burden and the suffering, like holding on to a charcoal and unwilling to drop. How true is that? Again it is not in words, we have to experience the magical effect of identification and attachment ourselves.
Confusions can be quite frustrating and the degree of frustration differs according to one’s causes and conditions. For you, I think the frustration is understandable but I believe it is nothing compared to some that have undergone certain transcendental experiences like “I AMness” or disassociation of consciousness from body, this doctrine can be really difficult for them to swallow. Rare are those that have such experiences and still take patience to understand the profound teaching of the Blessed One. The karmic affinity is strong. I seriously do not want to make it a topic of argument; I do not have the capacity to do so.
I hope that you can put sincere effort into understanding the meaning it and make discussion fruitful. May patience be with us always. -
"Consciousness as a ceaseless stream, effort to describe consciousness correctly becomes a problem"
I have to think about this a little. -
after the arising, something comes into existence. You cannot say that just because something is inherently empty then it is non existing. That is a logical error and if you persist in that error, then all your conclusions follwing that error is wrong.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:If something has not even begun (into existence), then there will not be the destruction of that something (into non-existence).
It is called non-arising.
All is merely conditioned arising, all is change. -
Firstly I must repeat myself that emptiness is beyond the extremes of non-existence and existence. What we commonly understand as "existence" is empty because of the law of dependant co-arising/conditioned arising.Originally posted by casino_king:after the arising, something comes into existence. You cannot say that just because something is inherently empty then it is non existing. That is a logical error and if you persist in that error, then all your conclusions follwing that error is wrong.
What is conditioned arising? Conditioned arising is the same thing as 'dependant origination' or 'dependant co-arising' in different words only.
Refering to Nagarjuna's 60 Verses of Arguments:
The inseparability of the Two Truths: one implies the other
Perfecting our understanding of dependent origination leads to the realization of emptiness Obeisance to the Buddha, the Munïndra, who has proclaimed
"Dependent co-arising,
the principle by which
origination and destruction
are eliminated!"
(Prostration to the Buddha: Realizing the dependent origination of everything is the key to the realization of the emptiness of everything – that there is no real origination or cessation--, and to total Liberation. Realizing emptiness is the key to liberation because all suffering are caused by ignorance of the real nature of everything, and getting attached to things and beings that are not inherently existing. Once ignorance is removed, then all grasping is automatically dropped.)
Perfecting our understanding of emptiness leads to the realization of dependent origination.
---
Verse One
Those whose intelligence has transcended being and non-being and is unsupported have discovered the profound and non-objective meaning of 'condition'.
---
Verse Eighteen
Those who imagine that something compounded possesses origination or destruction do not understand the movement of the wheel of dependent origination.
(No real origination and cessation in dependent origination / the Wheel of Life: Everything is dependently arisen; because of that nothing can be inherently existing. There is no real origination, cessation, cause, effect, causality. The Wheel of Life, the law of dependent origination, should be understood without anything inherently existing in it.)
Verse Nineteen
Whatever arises depending on this and that has not arisen substantially. That which has not arisen substantially: How can it literally be called 'arisen'?
(No real causality, or dependent origination: Everything is empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. If it is empty, how can we talk about anything being caused?)
No real cessation of the Wheel of Life
Verse Twenty
A compound thing quieted due to a spent cause is understood to be spent. But how can what is not spent by nature be spoken of as spent?
(No real cessation by the reversal of the Wheel: There is no cause with or without an effect; and vice versa. If there is no real causality or dependent origination, then there is no real reversal of the Wheel, no real cessation of effects due to the cessation of the causes.)
But the Wheel is not completely non-existent or useless either
Verse Twenty One
So to conclude:
There is no origination;
there is no destruction.
The path of origination and destruction has however been expounded by the Buddhas for a practical purpose:
(No absolute dependent origination, but still it is not completely non-existent, or useless: There is no absolute origination and cessation; but those are used as adapted skillful means depending on the situation. The teachings of dependent origination, of karma, Â… are necessary for beginners.)
We need a gradual path based on the Wheel of Dependent Origination
Verse Twenty Two
By knowing origination, destruction is known;
by knowing destruction, impermanence is known;
by knowing impermanence the Holy Dharma is understood. [4]
(The path is composed of gradual adapted skillful means. The teachings of the Wheel of Life, of dependent origination, lead to the realization of impermanence, which will lead to the realization of the emptiness of everything, and to non-duality.)
But the perfection of the understanding of dependent origination leads to its inseparability with emptiness
------
From which 3 level of impermanence do u understand?Originally posted by Thusness:Yes, there is no 'something' coming into being and undergoing disintegration. When the mind attempts to understand the phenomenon existence through our current mode of knowing that works through comparison and measurement, the conclusion we derived seems paradoxical. When we choose to see the 'arising', the thinking mind cannot see the cessation. Neither 'arising' nor 'cessation' 'is before nor after the other. The sequence is caused by the mind. By choosing one, it has to give up the other. The thinking mind needs a base and the base becomes an 'entity', a ''something'. That 'something', that 'entity' is required due to the poverty of our thinking mechanism, it is not the true face of reality. A lighting flash of moment exhibits the entirety of the Dharma seals and it is only in Buddhism that is pointed out. Not only that, Buddha also taught us the systematic way of developing the intuitive insight into reality. -
Did something arise or not? Although it was "dependant;" did it originate or not?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Firstly I must repeat myself that emptiness is beyond the extremes of non-existence and existence. What we commonly understand as "existence" is empty because of the law of dependant co-arising/conditioned arising.
What is conditioned arising? Conditioned arising is the same thing as 'dependant origination' or 'dependant co-arising' in different words only.
Get that very clear in your own head first or proceeding from here, it is all in error. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
Verse Twelve
Did something arise or not?
One who imagines that even the most subtle thing arises: Such an ignorant man does not see what it means to be dependently born!
(Nothing is being reborn or Liberated: One has to see the real nature of being dependently born, of rebirths. There is no continuity, nor discontinuity between lives, or from samsara to Nirvana. To think that things are really arising or ceasing with dependent origination is to miss the point of this teaching.) No real beginning or ending of samsaraAlthough it was "dependant;" did it originate or not?
If there something originated from somewhere, then it cannot be called 'dependant' or 'co arising' anymore.
Verse Nineteen
Whatever arises depending on this and that has not arisen substantially. That which has not arisen substantially: How can it literally be called 'arisen'?
(No real causality, or dependent origination: Everything is empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. If it is empty, how can we talk about anything being caused?)
No real cessation of the Wheel of Life -
How can it literally be called 'arisen?' It cannot be "literally called arisen," does not mean that it did not arisen. It only cannot be literally called arisen. If it cannot be literally called arisen then what is the conclusion?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:quote:Originally posted by casino_king:
Did something arise or not?
Verse Twelve
One who imagines that even the most subtle thing arises: Such an ignorant man does not see what it means to be dependently born!
(Nothing is being reborn or Liberated: One has to see the real nature of being dependently born, of rebirths. There is no continuity, nor discontinuity between lives, or from samsara to Nirvana. To think that things are really arising or ceasing with dependent origination is to miss the point of this teaching.) No real beginning or ending of samsara
quote:Although it was "dependant;" did it originate or not?
If there something originated from somewhere, then it cannot be called 'dependant' or 'co arising' anymore.[/quote]
"see what it means to be dependently born" the "ignorant man does not see what it means"
You do not see what it means to be dependently born. Think again. What does it mean to be "dependently born." It certainly does not mean that you were never born. Buddha said that to be dependently born is to be unborn. What does it mean to be unborn?
[quote]Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
[b]Verse Nineteen
Whatever arises depending on this and that has not arisen substantially. That which has not arisen substantially: How can it literally be called 'arisen'?
(No real causality, or dependent origination: Everything is empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. If it is empty, how can we talk about anything being caused?)
No real cessation of the Wheel of Life
By knowing origination, destruction is known;
by knowing destruction, impermanence is known;
by knowing impermanence the Holy Dharma is understood.
How is the Holy Dharma understood?
The difference between the wise and the fool: realizing the emptiness of the elements of samsara, including the elements of the Wheel of Dependent Origination
What "elements of the Wheel of Dependent Origination" is empty? At which point does "emptiness doctrine" ends? -
confusing....
what are you guys actually debating about?
Whether do we exist or on Emptiness? -
To understand Wheel of Dependent Origination , one must first understand cause and effect. if one does not understand cause and effect well, it is extremely difficult to realize that these phenomena are empty of inherent existence due to being dependently arise.
-
When the cause itself is inherently empty; how can the effect have substance?Originally posted by Isis:To understand Wheel of Dependent Origination , one must first understand cause and effect. if one does not understand cause and effect well, it is extremely difficult to realize that these phenomena are empty of inherent existence due to being dependently arise. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
unborn does not negate born, just that born is so continuum that the gap between 2 born are so minute that it's close to unborn.
What does it mean to be unborn?
just like the table, we tink it's still. but in fact it's molecule is not still. as it is so tiny, we cannot us our normal eyes to see. unborn have the same idea.
/\ -
How can we say that something is born when that which is born is inherently empty and that which the birth is dependent on is inherently empty? Is not that which is born then unborn at birth?Originally posted by sinweiy:unborn does not negate born, just that born is so continuum that the gap between 2 born are so minute that it's close to unborn.
just like the table, we tink it's still. but in fact it's molecule is not still. as it so small, we cannot us our normal eyes to see. unborn have the same idea.
/\ -
Originally posted by casino_king:
i change a bit of the meaning of the question.
How can we say that something is born when that which is born is inherently empty and that which the birth is dependent on is inherently empty? Is not that which is born then unborn at birth?[/b]
see if u can understand?
how can we say that the table(for eg) is born/made when that which exist is inherently void of a self nature and that which exist is dependent on it's conditions coming together? Is not that which exist then not exist at begining?
/\ -
Is the wood that the table is born/made of; existing or non existing?Originally posted by sinweiy:i change a bit of the meaning of the question.
see if u can understand?
how can we say that the table(for eg) is born/made when that which exist is inherently void of a self nature and that which exist is dependent on it's conditions coming together? Is not that which exist then not exist at begining?
/\ -
Originally posted by casino_king:
can say exist as its visible and can say non-exist, since it's also conditionally form from: - the tree; the ppl who cut it down, the seed that the tree came, to the person who grow the seed...on and on.
Is the wood that the table is born/made of; existing or non existing?[/b]
u will read buddhists often using the word "neither exist nor non exist"..meaning the middle way...meaning to say exist while reject non existing is incorrect. and to say non exist, while reject existing is oso sa la (wrong).
to one who cling to exist, u say non-exist.
to one who cling to non-exist, u say exist. ..
To those grasping at both Emptiness and Existence, He taught "neither Emptiness nor Existence" to break that grasp. Lastly, to those grasping at "neither Emptiness nor Existence," He taught both Emptiness and Existence to break that attachment.
/\ -
deleted to settle the issue in the next post first...
-
You have not grasp the Wheel of Dependent origination because you cling to "tree" "ppl who cut it down" "the seed" "the people who grow the seed"Originally posted by sinweiy:can say exist as its visible and can say non-exist, since it's also conditionally form from: - the tree; the ppl who cut it down, the seed that the tree came, to the person who grow the seed...on and on.[/i]
/\
Are all these conditions existing? -
Sinweiy is just trying to illustrate the conditions that lead to the making of a wooden table. Without these conditions, wooden table will not be made. He isn't clingingOriginally posted by casino_king:You have not grasp the Wheel of Dependent origination because you cling to "tree" "ppl who cut it down" "the seed" "the people who grow the seed"
Are all these conditions existing?
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
neither yes non no.
You have not grasp the Wheel of Dependent origination because you cling to "tree" "ppl who cut it down" "the seed" "the people who grow the seed"
Are all these conditions existing?
actually to not-to-cling is also clinging.
/\ -
in other words, it is clinging to 'no-to-cling '... it is still an act of clinging...Originally posted by sinweiy:neither yes non no.
actually to not-to-cling is also clinging.
/\
am i right? -
before you can understand not-to-cling is also clinging you have to first cling; then not cling then understand that not-to-cling is also clinging.Originally posted by sinweiy:neither yes non no.
actually to not-to-cling is also clinging.
/\
First you understand existence; then non attachment to objects; then non existence of objects; "then..."
Yes there is a "then..." after non existence or emptiness. But before you can come to "then..." you have to understand emptiness thoroughly.
To understand non existence thoroughly you have to understand the non existence of the conditions that causes the arising.
So neither yes non no is meaningless unless you realise the non existence of the conditions that causes the arising.