NargarjunaÂ’s Sixty Verses of Arguments (spinoff)
-
I've already answered you.Originally posted by casino_king:What is by nature not one not 2? What? -
Why dont you tell me.Originally posted by casino_king:Emptiness describes what and you do not know? Please read the 60 verses again and tell me emptiness describes what. -
Originally posted by casino_king:Awaken to WHAT? What is REALITY? Is it Samsara? Is it Nirvana?
Emptiness talks about the emptiness of abiding self or thingness, nor unself, unthingness, or both or neither as said in the quote above.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Page 135, Buddhism Plain and Simple:
We've seen that the abiding self or soul we commonly assume we are is an illusion, a figment of the imagination. Perhaps we've also begun to understand that we conceive all the innumerable aspects of the world in the same manner. Rather than see the wind, or waves - or a stream or a cup or a book - as the constant flux that each is, we imagine them to be solid, persisting, separate, unchanging things.
We attribute this "thingness" to them in the same way we attribute selfhood to human beings. Instead of seeing the thoroughgoing motion, flux, and flow of experience, we imagine a vast proliferation of innumerable, separated things. In short, we grant selfhood to whatever we find "out there."
Then we make another error. Just as we conceive of a self and counter this notion with a non-self, so also are we taken in by another set of opposing concepts - existence and non-existence. We get repeatedly caught in this duality, unwilling to see that, like self and not-self, both are phantoms created by consciousness. These concepts (like any concept) simply don't capture Reality.
The Buddha expressed this situation eloquently:
The world...is generally inclined towards two [views]: existence and non-existence. To them who perceives with right wisdom the uprising of the world as it has come to be, the notion of non-existence in the world does not occur... To them who perceive with right wisdom the ceasing of the world as it has come to be, the notion of existence in the world does not occur.
Dependant origination talks about Wholeness, unfragmented reality.
These two are inseperable. -
You said "all"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I've already answered you.
Please read the 60 verse again and what are the verses describing? -
The term empitiness is applied to something, what is that? What is emptiness applied to? What does emptiness describe? What "THING" does emptiness describe?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Emptiness talks about absence of abiding self or thingness.
Dependant origination talks abuot Wholeness, unfragmented reality. -
Dependent origination alone is not enough. Emptiness alone is not enough. We need to perfect them both by realizing their inseparability, their non-duality: not two, not one.Originally posted by casino_king:You said "all"
Please read the 60 verse again and what are the verses describing?
And as I have just explained,
Emptiness talks about the emptiness of abiding self or thingness, nor unself, unthingness, or both or neither as said in the quote above.
Dependant origination talks about Wholeness, unfragmented reality.
These two are inseperable. -
Emptiness is not describing anything, because thingness is an illusion.Originally posted by casino_king:The term empitiness is applied to something, what is that? What is emptiness applied to? What does emptiness describe? What "THING" does emptiness describe? -
Got to go for now.
-
What is this "thingness" that is an illusion that the 60 verses is talking about?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Emptiness is not describing anything, because thingness is an illusion. -
Rather than see the wind, or waves - or a stream or a cup or a book - as the constant flux that each is, we imagine them to be solid, persisting, separate, unchanging things.Originally posted by casino_king:What is this "thingness" that is an illusion that the 60 verses is talking about? -
So what "the stream" "the cup" "the waves" "the book" that the 60 verses told you are empty?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Rather than see the wind, or waves - or a stream or a cup or a book - as the constant flux that each is, we imagine them to be solid, persisting, separate, unchanging things. -
form is emptiness; emptiness is form.form is non other than emptiness as emptiness is non other than form.Originally posted by casino_king:So what "the stream" "the cup" "the waves" "the book" that the 60 verses told you are empty?
-
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
in the 60 verses, what is "FORM?"
[b]form is emptiness; emptiness is form.form is non other than emptiness as emptiness is non other than form.
[/b]
We know that it is empty; but what is "Form?" -
it is not empty.Emptiness is NOT empty.Originally posted by casino_king:in the 60 verses, what is "FORM?"
We know that it is empty; but what is "Form?"
what is emptiness ?
what is form ?
Is an empty cup throughly empty?
If so how could it be empty if it full of emptiness?
a cup can only be fully emptied when it emptied of it own emptiness -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
If the cup does not exists; if you cannot see a cup; if you have never seen a cup; if you cannot feel a cup; if the word cup does not exists and if nobody had ever told you "cup." How can you now tell me that the cup is "empty?"
it is not empty.Emptiness is [b]NOT empty.
what is emptiness ?
what is form ?
Is an empty cup throughly empty?
If so how could it be empty if it full of emptiness?
a cup can only be fully emptied when it emptied of it own emptiness [/b]
So what was the 60 verses saying is not 2, not 1; of dependent origination and inherently empty? -
Dear pal,Originally posted by casino_king:If the cup does not exists; if you cannot see a cup; if you have never seen a cup; if you cannot feel a cup; if the word cup does not exists and if nobody had ever told you "cup." How can you now tell me that the cup is "empty?"
So what was the 60 verses saying is not 2, not 1; of dependent origination and inherently empty?
wat talk u
The problem wf u is tat u keep linking it wf non existence. Btw i did NOT tell u the cup is 'empty'. inherently empty is NOT nothingness. I have read thr AEN's replys to ur questions. All the answers r there. I think anyone who do not understand should have a clearer views by now after reading his explanations. Yet u r still asking somthings which AEN had already given the answers. Unless u could break away from such inclination to the perception of emptiness = nothingness, i think it is veri hard 4 U to get the point.
thnks 4 reading -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
I asked you a very simple question:
Dear pal,
wat talk u The problem wf u is tat u keep linking it wf non existence. Btw i did NOT tell u the cup is 'empty'. inherently empty is NOT nothingness. I have read thr AEN's replys to ur questions. All the answers r there. I think anyone who do not understand should have a clearer views by now after reading his explanations. Yet u r still asking somthings which AEN had already given the answers. [b]Unless u could break away from such inclination to the perception of emptiness = nothingness, i think it is veri hard 4 U to get the point.
thnks 4 reading [/b]
"If the cup does not exists; if you cannot see a cup; if you have never seen a cup; if you cannot feel a cup; if the word cup does not exists and if nobody had ever told you "cup." How can you now tell me that the cup is "empty?"
So what was the 60 verses saying is not 2, not 1; of dependent origination and inherently empty?"
Please do not try to sidestep the question if you want to progress...
edited to add:
How can you now tell me that the cup is "whatever you think you are trying to tell me?" -
the problem is i did not tell u the cup is 'empty'Originally posted by casino_king:I asked you a very simple question:
"If the cup does not exists; if you cannot see a cup; if you have never seen a cup; if you cannot feel a cup; if the word cup does not exists and if nobody had ever told you "cup." How can you now tell me that the cup is "empty?"
So what was the 60 verses saying is not 2, not 1; of dependent origination and inherently empty?"
Please do not try to sidestep the question if you want to progress... -
Originally posted by casino_king:I asked you a very simple question:
"If the cup does not exists; if you cannot see a cup; if you have never seen a cup; if you cannot feel a cup; if the word cup does not exists and if nobody had ever told you "cup." How can you now tell me that the cup is "empty?"
So what was the 60 verses saying is not 2, not 1; of dependent origination and inherently empty?"
Please do not try to sidestep the question if you want to progress...
edited to add:
How can you now tell me that the cup is "whatever you think you are trying to tell me?" -
ok let put this way...Originally posted by casino_king:
let say there's a cup on ur desk rite now.Now let me ask u wat is the true nature of this form u so called cup?What is it b4 it is being made into a cup u r looking at now? -
you said, "let's say there's a cup on ur desk..." I assume that you are now going to tell me the true anture of the cup... inherent emptiness; dependent origination... the cup is not one, not 2.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:ok let put this way...
let say there's a cup on ur desk rite now.Now let me ask u wat is the true nature of this form u so called cup?What is it b4 it is being made into a cup u r looking at now?
do you see that? You are pointing to cup, to desk... to tell me something about the cup... what are the 60 verses pointing? -
this nonsense must stop lah...
Caisino king obviously is bullshiting all the way. pretending to know yet smoking out all the time.
can we just ignore him and get back to QUALITY discussions. He is as good as SPAMming. -
YOU answer the question then. You think it is nothing more than blulsiht, then answer the question! Blulsiht must be so easy to refute right?Originally posted by dreamer24:this nonsense must stop lah...
Caisino king obviously is bullshiting all the way. pretending to know yet smoking out all the time.
can we just ignore him and get back to QUALITY discussions. He is as good as SPAMming. -
no rather im going to give u an example.ok let say maybe it was a plate b4 it being recycle into this cup. But wat abt b4 it was the plate and so on and so onOriginally posted by casino_king:you said, "let's say there's a cup on ur desk..." I assume that you are now going to tell me the true anture of the cup... inherent emptiness; dependent origination... the cup is not one, not 2.
do you see that? You are pointing to cup, to desk... to tell me something about the cup... what are the 60 verses pointing?
Again i should ask wat abt after being this cup u r looking at rite now.Wat will it recycle into next? maybe a windscreen, vase or PC cover ?
U see... there's no beginning no end. The problem wf us human is tat we give 'label' to form tat we see as if it is real , permanent and as if it is the truth nature. How can u say tat the true nature of the form on ur desk is a cup when b4 tat it is not and after now it will not be. So wat really or should i ask what is the TRUTH NATURE of the form u are looking at rite now on ur desk -
Originally posted by casino_king:
You so smart... you explain what is the verse all about lah. and what is reality and emptyness.
[b]YOU answer the question then. You think it is nothing more than blulsiht, then answer the question! Blulsiht must be so easy to refute right?[/b]
instead of asking 'what is this', 'what is that'...
Dunno just say dunno lah...
walao buay tahan..