Is God A Thing?
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
Obviously you couldnt really catch what I was saying?
I am not in existence is not the answer. Because obvously you are in existence while still alive. So we can say I am not in existence because we are only in existence while we are alive.
As I just said, enlightened people do not identify their body as 'self'. So whether the body lives or dies, does it even matter to him? No. As I have also mentioned previously, existence and non-existence can only 'exist' relatively/dualistically. Now an example is... the body existed, the next day, it passed away. Existence and non-existence. If I do not even identify with my body as self, how can I be affected by/or fear, whether it passes away or lives or anything? Refusing to believe in life and death does not mean he does not believe his body will pass away (on a relative level), he just does not believe that there is an "I" that is truly having inherent existence, and it is truly going to die or pass away. Therefore the Buddha calls it deathlessness.
What is known as 'self'? Pretty much like weather. Dark, cloudy, cool, moist, windy, rain, storm, thunder... We call it weather, but what is it? wind. rain. clouds parting and forming.. nothing called 'weather' is real and is merely a concept... all is merely Change, all is merely Presence. Just like ourselves... is there a 'self' to be spoken of? Just this change.. this presence, an ongoing, everchanging stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, the thought that calls I, me, you. Don't be caught up with dead image or concepts like 'Buddha'.
The True Buddha, is beyond forms, beyond his words.
“He who sees me (Buddha) in forms or seeks me in sounds is on a heterodox path and cannot see the Tathagata (Buddha).”
“All forms are but illusions, in seeing that all forms are illusory, one sees the Tathagata.” - Diamond SutraIf you say nobody is in existence after death which is what Betrand Rusell is saying, then you have to say that Buddha is not in existence after death.
Existence and non-existence is relative, when one is not identified with his body, etc, including all 5 skhandas as self, then there is nothing to be 'in existence or in non-existence' in the first place. This is what is known as 'the emptiness of existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence and neither existence nor non existence'.If you say, after death you are still in existence, then why say you are not in existence?
I am not in existence nor I am in existence are both not absolute reality but relative concepts derived through analysis, your own thinking and judgement. It is still within the realm of conceptuality. In Buddhism, we must let go of this very 'self' we are attached to.
So obviously I am not in existence is not the answer.
I think you better read my earlier posts with Thusness before you continue. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
my take is in the expression - "Beauty lies in the Eyes of the Beholder".
Correct, not enough. I am not in existence is also not enough. Who is Buddha? The Buddha who is passed away from earth? Also not in existence
because ppl are clouded by attachments, dualism, wandering thoughts, hence they do not 'see' the Buddha is still with us.
great ppl like late Grand Master Lian Chi, are able to reach Lotus samathi/concentration/one-pointedness that they can see Shakyamuni Buddha still preaching exactly like the same 2500+ years ago. to them time/space had been transcended.
but why Nirvana was showed by the Buddha?
Lotus Sutra CHAPTER 16 THE THUS COME ONE'S LIFE SPAN
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/resources/sutras/lotus/sources/lotus16.htm
In order to save living beings,
I expediently manifest Nirvana.
But in truth I do not pass into quiescence.
I remain here, always speaking the Dharma.
I always stay right here,
And using the power of spiritual penetrations,
I cause inverted living beings,
Although near me, not to see me.
/\ -
Greetin to all,
Obviously by now we all noe tat Mr.Casino couldnt really catch the profound meaning of EMPTINESS & other buddha'teachings .In other words he 'catch no ball'.Thus it is no surprise tat his recent remarks r 'weird' , 'funny' & 'DING DONG'
No wonder he is alway 'da fei suo wen'
Last but not least..Mr.Casino..our dear fren...plssssss don 'anyhow' 'anyhow'
-
And who is this person that life and death of the body does not matter to? and is "he who does not matter whether the body lives or dies" existing or non existing? Obviously you are very confused right?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Obviously you couldnt really catch what I was saying?
As I just said, enlightened people do not identify their body as 'self'. So whether the body lives or dies, does it even matter to him?
Who must let go of "self?" Nobody? Nobody must let go of self? There is no entity? This non entity is in existence but is not an entity? How then does this non existing entity give up anything when it is non existing?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No. As I have also mentioned previously, existence and non-existence can only 'exist' relatively/dualistically. Now an example is... the body existed, the next day, it passed away. Existence and non-existence. If I do not even identify with my body as self, how can I be affected by/or fear, whether it passes away or lives or anything? Refusing to believe in life and death does not mean he does not believe his body will pass away (on a relative level), he just does not believe that there is an "I" that is truly having inherent existence, and it is truly going to die or pass away. Therefore the Buddha calls it deathlessness.
What is known as 'self'? Pretty much like weather. Dark, cloudy, cool, moist, windy, rain, storm, thunder... We call it weather, but what is it? wind. rain. clouds parting and forming.. nothing called 'weather' is real and is merely a concept... all is merely Change, all is merely Presence. Just like ourselves... is there a 'self' to be spoken of? Just this change.. this presence, an ongoing, everchanging stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, the thought that calls I, me, you. Don't be caught up with dead image or concepts like 'Buddha'.
The True Buddha, is beyond forms, beyond his words.
“He who sees me (Buddha) in forms or seeks me in sounds is on a heterodox path and cannot see the Tathagata (Buddha).”
“All forms are but illusions, in seeing that all forms are illusory, one sees the Tathagata.” - Diamond Sutra
quote:If you say nobody is in existence after death which is what Betrand Rusell is saying, then you have to say that Buddha is not in existence after death.
Existence and non-existence is relative, when one is not identified with his body, etc, including all 5 skhandas as self, then there is nothing to be 'in existence or in non-existence' in the first place. This is what is known as 'the emptiness of existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence and neither existence nor non existence'.
quote:If you say, after death you are still in existence, then why say you are not in existence?
So obviously I am not in existence is not the answer.
I think you better read my earlier posts with Thusness before you continue.
I am not in existence nor I am in existence are both not absolute reality but relative concepts derived through analysis, your own thinking and judgement. It is still within the realm of conceptuality. In Buddhism, we must let go of this very 'self' we are attached to. -
Who remains here, always speaking Dharma? Nobody? An illusion? Nothing is using the power of spiritual penetrations and cause inverted beings not to see nothing?Originally posted by sinweiy:my take is in the expression - "Beauty lies in the Eyes of the Beholder".
because ppl are clouded by attachments, dualism, wandering thoughts, hence they do not 'see' the Buddha is still with us.
great ppl like late Grand Master Lian Chi, are able to reach Lotus samathi/concentration/one-pointedness that they can see Shakyamuni Buddha still preaching exactly like the same 2500+ years ago. to them time/space had been transcended.
but why Nirvana was showed by the Buddha?
Lotus Sutra CHAPTER 16 THE THUS COME ONE'S LIFE SPAN
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/resources/sutras/lotus/sources/lotus16.htm
In order to save living beings,
I expediently manifest Nirvana.
But in truth I do not pass into quiescence.
I remain here, always speaking the Dharma.
I always stay right here,
And using the power of spiritual penetrations,
I cause inverted living beings,
Although near me, not to see me.
/\
Obviously your undestanding is in error. -
This is typical of people who lacks understanding, instead of addressing the issues, it is so easy to try to change the subject. Use your brains and consider the issue for once and not try to change the subject if you want to progress.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Greetin to all,
Obviously by now we all noe tat Mr.Casino couldnt really catch the profound meaning of EMPTINESS & other buddha'teachings .In other words he 'catch no ball'.Thus it is no surprise tat his recent remarks r 'weird' , 'funny' & 'DING DONG'
No wonder he is alway 'da fei suo wen'
Last but not least..Mr.Casino..our dear fren...plssssss don 'anyhow' 'anyhow' -
hmm....u dun like Mr. Casino liao?Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Greetin to all,
Obviously by now we all noe tat Mr.Casino couldnt really catch the profound meaning of EMPTINESS & other buddha'teachings .In other words he 'catch no ball'.Thus it is no surprise tat his recent remarks r 'weird' , 'funny' & 'DING DONG'
No wonder he is alway 'da fei suo wen'
Last but not least..Mr.Casino..our dear fren...plssssss don 'anyhow' 'anyhow' -
relax bro just trying to mk u realise tat u r 'heading' the wrong direction due to ur insufficient understandingOriginally posted by casino_king:This is typical of people who lacks understanding, instead of addressing the issues, it is so easy to try to change the subject. Use your brains and consider the issue for once and not try to change the subject if you want to progress. -
not bad now yeah mr casino. look back and see how "funny" u have been. seems like the forumers have guided you to wake up well. i never have offered my help or guidance to you. but is there a "me" that spoke to you?Originally posted by casino_king:Who must let go of "self?" Nobody? Nobody must let go of self? There is no entity? This non entity is in existence but is not an entity? How then does this non existing entity give up anything when it is non existing?
conveying the words without truely understanding is not equal to truely experiencing and living in its essence.
you are progressing but don't get carried away with your ego when you start to realise you are progressing. a stumble is just a step away before you know it.
"there are many roads leading with signs telling you to get to the luminous light. when you see that they each have a way of direction, confusion sneaks in like in an instant like a thief thats steals your mindfulness away. when you figured your own way out to the light, before you know it, you have ccrossed the wrong path. the light is merely a torchlight, your mind's illusion of a luminous light but it was not the true pure luminous light." -
There is nobody that life and death of the body does not belong to. Body is just body. Body (part of Form skhanda) and the other 4 skhandas make up the 5 skhandas that sentient beings commonly perceive to be self, but in reality, 5 skhandas are empty in nature. Empty not as non-existence, but as I described earlier, what exactly in 'weather' is real?Originally posted by casino_king:And who is this person that life and death of the body does not matter to? and is "he who does not matter whether the body lives or dies" existing or non existing? Obviously you are very confused right?
When I say "he who does not matter whether the body lives or dies", the "he" mentioned here is only for convinient way of saying. When enlightened there is no perception of a 'self'.Who must let go of "self?" Nobody? Nobody must let go of self? There is no entity? This non entity is in existence but is not an entity? How then does this non existing entity give up anything when it is non existing?
There is no self, there is only the illusion of a self. And when the light of awareness/wisdom shines on that illusion, it is gone. It does not come from the effort of "I" but comes from our Buddha Nature.
Letting go comes from a flash of illumination, knowing that what "you" are holding is a hot charcoal, it is dukkha, the letting go is effortless and natural, meaning it does not come from the effort of a 'self'. This is probably what Lao Tzu meant by Non-action. In reality you don't need effort to let go, you only need effort to keep on holding the hot charcoal (i.e the illusion).
It can be likened to a dark room that has been dark for 5000 years, but once the door is opened, light pours into the room and illuminates everything. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
ask the question of Who remains here, always speaking Dharma? Nobody? An illusion? Nothing is using the power of spiritual penetrations and cause inverted beings not to see nothing?...Obviously show me that u didn't get the expression "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder".
Who remains here, always speaking Dharma? Nobody? An illusion? Nothing is using the power of spiritual penetrations and cause inverted beings not to see nothing?
Obviously your undestanding is in error.
it is U...that saw nobody or there's no power of spiritual penetrations been used, not me. i saw Buddha is here and everywhere. ur attachment/dualism and wandering thoughts are clouding u, hence u cannot see.
u keep seeing there's ugliness, ugliness, ugliness, from your eyes and thinking. hence to u there's ugliness.
i see beauty, beauty, beauty(and expedient means), hence to me, that's beautiful.
/\ -
"Obviously your understanding is in error"Originally posted by casino_king:Who remains here, always speaking Dharma? Nobody? An illusion? Nothing is using the power of spiritual penetrations and cause inverted beings not to see nothing?
Obviously your undestanding is in error.
Take Heed of this "Obviously".. How can you be sure that you are right in the first place? R u 100% sure that you understand what is "emptiness" ? You do not understand what they mean but that does not mean that they are wrong.
r u aware that you are strongly attached your self ? ( your own opinions ) and not trying to understand what the rest are really telling you....
Ask yourself this, be awared, investigate whether am i right to say that you are strongly attached to your own opinions....if it is not, then perhaps im wrong..if im right, i hope you will realise that there is really nothing to attached to...
May all be well and Happy .. -
10th June:Originally posted by longchen:You have a very long way to go... And when you think you already know it , you have sealed and delayed your own progress...
All the best.
Sayonara Casino King -
Who is doing the percieving then? The one who has no perception of "self?"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:quote:Originally posted by casino_king:
And who is this person that life and death of the body does not matter to? and is "he who does not matter whether the body lives or dies" existing or non existing? Obviously you are very confused right?
==========
There is nobody that life and death of the body does not belong to. Body is just body. Body (part of Form skhanda) and the other 4 skhandas make up the 5 skhandas that sentient beings commonly perceive to be self, but in reality, 5 skhandas are empty in nature. Empty not as non-existence, but as I described earlier, what exactly in 'weather' is real?
When I say "he who does not matter whether the body lives or dies", the "he" mentioned here is only for convinient way of saying. When enlightened there is no perception of a 'self'.
Who is having this self illusion? Nobody is having this self illusion? If nobody is haveing the self-illusion then there is no self illusion. The is only self and no illusion.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:quote:Who must let go of "self?" Nobody? Nobody must let go of self? There is no entity? This non entity is in existence but is not an entity? How then does this non existing entity give up anything when it is non existing?
==============
There is no self, there is only the illusion of a self. And when the light of awareness/wisdom shines on that illusion, it is gone. It does not come from the effort of "I" but comes from our Buddha Nature.
Letting go comes from a flash of illumination, knowing that what "you" are holding is a hot charcoal, it is dukkha, the letting go is effortless and natural, meaning it does not come from the effort of a 'self'. This is probably what Lao Tzu meant by Non-action. In reality you don't need effort to let go, you only need effort to keep on holding the hot charcoal (i.e the illusion).
It can be likened to a dark room that has been dark for 5000 years, but once the door is opened, light pours into the room and illuminates everything. -
Self-illusion is just self-illusion. It is conditioned arising and ever changing (i.e the perception of myself changes with "my status", "my money" etc etc). Self-illusion does not belong to 'self' and is empty. Recognising this (not just understanding) one is awakened.Who is do the percieving then? The one who has no perception of "self?"[/quote]
Perceiving of what? Pls be more precise.
[quote]Originally posted by casino_king:Who is having this self illusion? Nobody is having this self illusion? If nobody is haveing the self-illusion then there is no self illusion. The is only self and no illusion.
Just like I said body is just body, not necessarily 'mine' or 'his'. -
You are talking about different things now. You see beauty, I see ugliness... according to you. The question is not what I see or what you see. The question is whether or not you exist or I exists. Whether or not someone remains here, always speaking Dharma and is using the power of spiritual penetrations and causing inverted beings to...Originally posted by sinweiy:ask the question of Who remains here, always speaking Dharma? Nobody? An illusion? Nothing is using the power of spiritual penetrations and cause inverted beings not to see nothing?...Obviously show me that u didn't get the expression "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder".
it is U...that saw nobody or there's no power of spiritual penetrations been used, not me. i saw Buddha is here and everywhere. ur attachment/dualism and wandering thoughts are clouding u, hence u cannot see.
u keep seeing there's ugliness, ugliness, ugliness, from your eyes and thinking. hence to u there's ugliness.
i see beauty, beauty, beauty(and expedient means), hence to me, that's beautiful.
/\ -
When you see that that somebody is in error or blinded then you tell them. There is no attachment to self or opinions. This is not about opinions, whether or not something is beautiful.Originally posted by Isis:"Obviously your understanding is in error"
Take Heed of this "Obviously".. How can you be sure that you are right in the first place? R u 100% sure that you understand what is "emptiness" ? You do not understand what they mean but that does not mean that they are wrong.
r u aware that you are strongly attached your self ? ( your own opinions ) and not trying to understand what the rest are really telling you....
Ask yourself this, be awared, investigate whether am i right to say that you are strongly attached to your own opinions....if it is not, then perhaps im wrong..if im right, i hope you will realise that there is really nothing to attached to...
May all be well and Happy ..
This is a about whether or not you exist and if Budhha said that you do not, that you are empty, what was Buddha driving at?
According to the posts here, they say that Buddha meant you are not in existence. I am just pointing out to them that they are in error when they say that. Simple because, once you say give up your illusions of self; you are asking an entity to do the giving up. If there is no entity there is nothing to do the giving up. -
You said: When enlightened there is no perception of a 'self'. and I asked: Who is doing the percieving then? The one who has no perception of "self?"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:quote:Who is do the percieving then? The one who has no perception of "self?"
[b]Perceiving of what? Pls be more precise.
quote:Originally posted by casino_king:
Who is having this self illusion? Nobody is having this self illusion? If nobody is haveing the self-illusion then there is no self illusion. The is only self and no illusion.
Self-illusion is just self-illusion. It is conditioned arising and ever changing (i.e the perception of myself changes with "my status", "my money" etc etc). Self-illusion does not belong to 'self' and is empty. Recognising this (not just understanding) one is awakened.
Just like I said body is just body, not necessarily 'mine' or 'his'.[/quote]Who is the one recoginising that self is ever changing? That there is no inherent "self?" That self is inherently empty? Who? -
haa myfriendOriginally posted by casino_king:Where did the intelligence to stop gambling come from? If you say that it is from God, then you cannot say that God resides in you but the intellience that comes from God resides in you.
Where did your compassion come from? If you say that it is from God, then you cannot say that God resides in you but the compassion that comes from God resides in you.
ok one step at a time...
its not abt how well is ur theory..
its abt how well u read others wats he tryin to say instead.
seems like u r those ppl are not 'spiritual-connected' to beings.
u r definately not 'sensitive' to others.
u r not gd wif ppl.
seldom or never have ppl have heart-to-heart tok wif u..am i rite?
u dunno wat is spiritual path?
u dun even noe the meanin of this line - 'spiritual path differ in everyone'
am i rite?
u mention abt intelligence.
intelligence doesnt stop one from gamblin.
its wisdom tat lies between intelligence and stupidity
wisdom stop u before ur intelligience turn into stupidity.
one step at a time?..of course..u r rite.
but the problem is ..
u r takin a step in a circle.
in other words..u r goin round in circle.
if u r goin round in circle ..
then y bother to walk tat step?
u understand ? i bet u r not.
u r not to blame
its my fault,
my lack of wisdom
tat i cant get to let u see d meanin behind my words.
the intention behind my action.
i wish to start the affinity wif u
but im afraid it ended the very moment i have it started.
thank you. -
Originally posted by simplified:
I will simply ignore all the unhelpful personal attacks.
haa myfriend
its not abt how well is ur theory..
its abt how well u read others wats he tryin to say instead.
seems like u r those ppl are not 'spiritual-connected' to beings.
u r definately not 'sensitive' to others.
u r not gd wif ppl.
seldom or never have ppl have heart-to-heart tok wif u..am i rite?
u dunno wat is spiritual path?
u dun even noe the meanin of this line - 'spiritual path differ in everyone'
am i rite?
u mention abt intelligence.
intelligence doesnt stop one from gamblin.
its wisdom tat lies between intelligence and stupidity
wisdom stop u before ur intelligience turn into stupidity.
one step at a time?..of course..u r rite.
but the problem is ..
u r takin a step in a circle.
in other words..u r goin round in circle.
if u r goin round in circle ..
then y bother to walk tat step?
u understand ? i bet u r not.
u r not to blame
its my fault,
my lack of wisdom
tat i cant get to let u see d meanin behind my words.
the intention behind my action.
i wish to start the affinity wif u
but im afraid it ended the very moment i have it started.
thank you.
[/b]
Your original question was "did God reside in the teacher or the student?"
If you say that it is not intelligence but wisdom that lies between intelligence and stupidity... then this "wisdom that lies between intelligence and stupidity" if it comes from God; you cannot say, God resides in you. You can only say: "the wisdom that lies between intelligence and stupidity" is from God. -
Think a lot deeper my friends; realise a lot more.
-
and I asked: Who is doing the percieving then? The one who has no perception of "self?"
And I was asking, who is doing the perceiving of WHAT? lol...Who is the one recoginising that self is ever changing? That there is no inherent "self?" That self is inherently empty? Who?
Who is recognising that self is ever changing... awareness itself is recognising it. Recognition itself recognises it, but this recognition is not some sort of conceptual recognition, it is pure knowing before symbols and labels. Light itself shines on darkness and dissipates it. Awareness is not 'I', but the inverse function of 'I' - clarity=1/Self, as Thusness has put it. -
Firstly, Buddha didn't MEAN there " u didnt exist ".Originally posted by casino_king:This is a about whether or not you exist and if Budhha said that you do not, that you are empty, what was Buddha driving at?
i don't get you. Honestly, i sometime don't get the other forumers.Originally posted by casino_king:According to the posts here, they say that Buddha meant you are not in existence. I am just pointing out to them that they are in error when they say that.
MOST importantly, Buddha didnt MEAN that you are not in existance.
I might be a little bit dumb here but i don't get your anology in connection with non-self and emptiness. Infact i find your anology and other forumers rather confusing..Originally posted by casino_king:Simple because, once you say give up your illusions of self; you are asking an entity to do the giving up. If there is no entity there is nothing to do the giving up.
Let me get you: R u implying that if there is a non-self in the first place, why do we ask there non-self to give up? We are asking there ILLUSION SELF to give up.
What NON-SELF to give up??... can explain?
Though we ask your ILLUSION SELF to give up, does not mean you are EMPTY.
EMPTY in Buddhism sense does not carry the SAME meaning in Conventional way.
My honest Opinion and no hard feelings.Originally posted by casino_king:When you see that that somebody is in error or blinded then you tell them. There is no attachment to self or opinions. This is not about opinions, whether or not something is beautiful.
I feel that you are assuming that you are know buddhism. When i compare what you wrote here with other venerable's teachings, i can see the differences in insufficient understanding and realization.
How long did you spend on understanding Buddhism everyday? Who and where did you learn it from?
Cast aside comparision, i investigate what you wrote and not based on discriminating. However, i still don't get your logic. Sometime i feel that you anyhow deduce. Maybe im dumb ok.. but please explain properly too.
I am sure that when you feel that they are wrong and you are right, u will frankly tell them that they are wrong. BUT what make you think they are wrong?? what make you think so? Based on YOUR OWN percpetion or on buddha's teachings??
You have to make sure that you know what you are talking about cos i don't get your concept in EMPTINESS. infact i think it is rather inaccurate, if i based on Buddha's teachings and venerable's writings.
where did you deduce there emptiness from and how? -
To add on:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Who is recognising that self is ever changing... awareness itself is recognising it. Recognition itself recognises it, but this recognition is not some sort of conceptual recognition, it is pure knowing before symbols and labels. Light itself shines on darkness and dissipates it. Awareness is not 'I', but the inverse function of 'I' - clarity=1/Self, as Thusness has put it.
The recognition is recognizing, no 'recognizer'.
We are moulded to think in terms of subject and object division;
we partition, divide what that cannot be divided and behave and react as if reality is really made up of such division. Mindfulness enables us to return to this pre-symbolic mode and 'see' reality as it is. This is the whole purpose. -
Hi Eternal Now, I feel unless that one has done meditation on it, will one be really understanding the process so if there one hasn't done meditation, it is rather hard for there one to understand and sometime can mislead there someone.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Who is recognising that self is ever changing... awareness itself is recognising it. Recognition itself recognises it, but this recognition is not some sort of conceptual recognition, it is pure knowing before symbols and labels. Light itself shines on darkness and dissipates it. Awareness is not 'I', but the inverse function of 'I' - clarity=1/Self, as Thusness has put it.