Learning Buddhism thru FAQ
-
1. What is Buddhism?
Q . What is Buddhism?
A . Buddhism is the way of transforming suffering into happiness.
Q . How can I enter the way of happiness?
A . First of all, you have to know yourself.
Q . Then, how can I transform suffering into happiness?
A . You can start with changing your mind because to be happy or unhappy depend on the way you think. Happiness does not come from outside. It comes from within you.
Q . How can I practice to be happy in daily life?
A . First, observe the way your eyes see, ears hear, nose smells, tongue talks, body behaves, and mind thinks. Then, notice whether they follow afflictive emotions and delusional thinks or wisdom and compassion. The other way is to ask yourself if these physical (verbal or mental) behaviors help my own happiness and otherÂ’s happiness as well. You have to understand what makes you truly happy will also make others happy; what makes others truly unhappy will make you unhappy in the end.
Q . What is the fundamental and core teaching of Buddhism?
A . It is the teaching of knowing who you really are.
Q . Do you mean I donÂ’t know who I am?
A . I mean you misunderstand who you are.
Q . How do I misunderstand about myself?
A . You act like you are independent, absolute, and permanent existence.
Q . WhatÂ’s wrong with that?
A . Once you have a self-image constructed by such a wrong view of yourself, you believe it as being real and become attach to it. It can also lead you to become the egoist or self-centered. Then, you may think you are better than others or vice versa. As a result, such a wrong view of you creates suffering.
Q . When you say I misunderstand about myself, could you tell me who I really am?
A . Yes. You are the dependent, relative, and impermanent existence.
Q . What do you mean by the dependent?
A . It means you are interconnected with others surrounding you in the universe and influence each other.
Q . Could you tell me about the relative and impermanent?
A . Anything you have, such as beliefs, values, concepts, and emotions, are not absolute or unchanging. They change depending conditions like time, place, and objects. It means you cannot be attached to them. If you do, you will suffer. The key to healthy body depends on the flexibility of body. In the same way, the key to mental health is mental flexibility, diversity, and dynamics. Whatever you hold onto creates suffering and unhappiness.
Q . How is Buddhism different from other religion?
A . Buddhism emphasizes the subject of belief not the object of belief. In other word, Buddhism puts more importance on teaching who we are rather than who Buddha is.
Q . What exactly is the object of belief in Buddhism?
A . It is the teachings of Buddha. That is, what Buddhists believe is the teachings of Buddha not Buddha Himself.
Q . Do you mean Buddhists donÂ’t believe in Buddha?
A . I mean Buddha is a historical and existential figure no matter you believe in Buddha or not. In other word, Buddhism does not need to emphasize the existence of Buddha as Christianity does of God.
Q . Do you believe in God?
A . No.
Q . Why not?
A . I think God is the image of mind. That is, God is the epistemological that human mind creates, not the existential that exists outside of human mind. Therefore, God can only exist within the believerÂ’s mind. If you do not believe in God, God cannot exist anymore. -
Do you believe in change? Do you believe that the essence of Buddhism can and will change?
-
Buddhism = change isnt it.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Do you believe in change? Do you believe that the essence of Buddhism can and will change? -
Buddhism's ultimate essence is emptiness. It is not even a 'thing'. So the essence of Buddhism cannot change, because in Buddhism impermanence is not about changing things, but change itself.. and there is really no such existing thing called 'the essence of Buddhism' -- but neither is it non-existence, for it is empty of inherent existence, non-existence, both and neither. Emptiness IS the essence.. so your presumption that there is 'something' that can 'change' is wrong in the first place. There is just change.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Do you believe in change? Do you believe that the essence of Buddhism can and will change?
'Things' are empty -- empty of 4 extremes -- inherent existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, and neither existence nor non existence.. And yes, ultimate reality is the ever changingness. But ultimate reality cannot change, because ultimate reality is not a 'thing', it is the changingness of everything itself, it is empty. -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
Buddhism basic is good ,but an overtone of Strength in Buddhism and remain in Basics should be avoided
[b]1. What is Buddhism?
Q . What is Buddhism?
A . Buddhism is the way of transforming suffering into happiness.
Q . How can I enter the way of happiness?
A . First of all, you have to know yourself.
Q . Then, how can I transform suffering into happiness?
A . You can start with changing your mind because to be happy or unhappy depend on the way you think. Happiness does not come from outside. It comes from within you.
Q . How can I practice to be happy in daily life?
A . First, observe the way your eyes see, ears hear, nose smells, tongue talks, body behaves, and mind thinks. Then, notice whether they follow afflictive emotions and delusional thinks or wisdom and compassion. The other way is to ask yourself if these physical (verbal or mental) behaviors help my own happiness and otherÂ’s happiness as well. You have to understand what makes you truly happy will also make others happy; what makes others truly unhappy will make you unhappy in the end.
Q . What is the fundamental and core teaching of Buddhism?
A . It is the teaching of knowing who you really are.
Q . Do you mean I donÂ’t know who I am?
A . I mean you misunderstand who you are.
Q . How do I misunderstand about myself?
A . You act like you are independent, absolute, and permanent existence.
Q . WhatÂ’s wrong with that?
A . Once you have a self-image constructed by such a wrong view of yourself, you believe it as being real and become attach to it. It can also lead you to become the egoist or self-centered. Then, you may think you are better than others or vice versa. As a result, such a wrong view of you creates suffering.
Q . When you say I misunderstand about myself, could you tell me who I really am?
A . Yes. You are the dependent, relative, and impermanent existence.
Q . What do you mean by the dependent?
A . It means you are interconnected with others surrounding you in the universe and influence each other.
Q . Could you tell me about the relative and impermanent?
A . Anything you have, such as beliefs, values, concepts, and emotions, are not absolute or unchanging. They change depending conditions like time, place, and objects. It means you cannot be attached to them. If you do, you will suffer. The key to healthy body depends on the flexibility of body. In the same way, the key to mental health is mental flexibility, diversity, and dynamics. Whatever you hold onto creates suffering and unhappiness.
Q . How is Buddhism different from other religion?
A . Buddhism emphasizes the subject of belief not the object of belief. In other word, Buddhism puts more importance on teaching who we are rather than who Buddha is.
Q . What exactly is the object of belief in Buddhism?
A . It is the teachings of Buddha. That is, what Buddhists believe is the teachings of Buddha not Buddha Himself.
Q . Do you mean Buddhists donÂ’t believe in Buddha?
A . I mean Buddha is a historical and existential figure no matter you believe in Buddha or not. In other word, Buddhism does not need to emphasize the existence of Buddha as Christianity does of God.
Q . Do you believe in God?
A . No.
Q . Why not?
A . I think God is the image of mind. That is, God is the epistemological that human mind creates, not the existential that exists outside of human mind. Therefore, God can only exist within the believerÂ’s mind. If you do not believe in God, God cannot exist anymore. [/b]
reason ?
Overtone of Strength in Buddhism
The world is a supermarket , we dun need to downplay other religion
but we show the strength in our religion in a harmonious ,peace-loving way
People have eyes to see
Just like comparing brands of detergent in a supermarket
Remain in Basics
Beginner can learn 4 Noble Truth ,Noble Eightfold Path.But not for a period of still 3 years learning the same old thing and not able to go towards the goal
towards liberation from samsara -
This is an internet forum & there will always be new members joining in.No point of talking a whole chuck of teaching when is not readily grasped by a relative new comer to Buddhist way of thoughts.Anyway i think one should look for other sources(eg...dharma centers) for anything beyond basic instead in a forum.And yes we show the strength in our religion in a harmonious ,peace-loving way & for ur info nobody is downplaying other religion here.Originally posted by bohiruci:Buddhism basic is good ,but an overtone of Strength in Buddhism and remain in Basics should be avoided
reason ?
Overtone of Strength in Buddhism
The world is a supermarket , we dun need to downplay other religion
but we show the strength in our religion in a harmonious ,peace-loving way
People have eyes to see
Just like comparing brands of detergent in a supermarket
Remain in Basics
Beginner can learn 4 Noble Truth ,Noble Eightfold Path.But not for a period of still 3 years learning the same old thing and not able to go towards the goal
towards liberation from samsara
may all be happy
-
I believe u know better than me ,that i providing constructive comment not destructive ones.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:This is an internet forum & there will always be new members joining in.No point of talking a whole chuck of teaching when is not readily grasped by a relative new comer to Buddhist way of thoughts.Anyway i think one should look for other sources(eg...dharma centers) for anything beyond basic instead in a forum.And yes we show the strength in our religion in a harmonious ,peace-loving way & for ur info nobody is downplaying other religion here.
may all be happy
Metta and Amitabha,
Bohiruci -
yes & tks for the commentsOriginally posted by bohiruci:I believe u know better than me ,that i providing constructive comment not destructive ones.
Metta and Amitabha,
Bohiruci
metta -
Are thoughts things? Can thoughts be changed? Or thoughts really empty?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhism's ultimate essence is emptiness. It is not even a 'thing'. So the essence of Buddhism cannot change, because in Buddhism impermanence is not about changing things, but change itself.. and there is really no such existing thing called 'the essence of Buddhism' -- but neither is it non-existence, for it is empty of inherent existence, non-existence, both and neither. Emptiness IS the essence.. so your presumption that there is 'something' that can 'change' is wrong in the first place. There is just change.
'Things' are empty -- empty of 4 extremes -- inherent existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, and neither existence nor non existence.. And yes, ultimate reality is the ever changingness. But ultimate reality cannot change, because ultimate reality is not a 'thing', it is the changingness of everything itself, it is empty. -
All dharmas (phenomena) are empty of inherent existence and impermanent. All phenomena are empty. But that is not to say that they are non-existent, for emptiness means empty of inherent existence, non-existence, both and neither.. because 'non existent' requires a 'non existing SOMETHING', which is concept but not reality. There is no real 'entity' there to begin with that can be called non-existent. Precisely because thoughts can change, they are void of inherent existence.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Are thoughts things? Can thoughts be changed? Or thoughts really empty?
Just like weather is empty of inherent existence - the word 'weather' is just a name, but what is it? Weather is certainly not 'something', 'somewhere' to be found, an entity with inherent existence. Similarly reality is TIMELESS and EMPTY, though sentient beings grasp at appearances and think they are real and truly existing.http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1677
So thoughts are not things, and we only presume them as 'things' or 'entities' with inherent existence whereas in reality they have none.
"What is this me?"
...We call it weather, but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding and wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amid darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So—what is weather other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever-changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No real entity weather exists anywhere except in thinking and talking about it....
The other expect of emptiness is that all phenomena arises as a co-dependent arising and therefore there is nothing with real, inherent existence on its own.. and therefore is empty. (See Net of Indra IS Dependent Origination?) -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Try claiming the air you breathe in as empty or even the wind does not exist. Then I would say you should try breathing in a vaccum. Weather has a name because it exist as a fundamental part of nature, nothing more and nothing less. And that's a fact.
So thoughts are not things, and we [b]only presume them as 'things' or 'entities' with inherent existence whereas in reality they have none.
The other expect of emptiness is that all phenomena arises as a co-dependent arising and therefore there is nothing with real, inherent existence on its own.. and therefore is empty. (See Net of Indra IS Dependent Origination?)[/b] -
You have to read my entire post first before you comment.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Try claiming the air you breathe in as empty or even the wind does not exist. Then I would say you should try breathing in a vaccum. Weather has a name because it exist as a fundamental part of nature, nothing more and nothing less. And that's a fact.
I did state that not only is it empty of inherent existence, it is empty of non existence. So you cannot say that the air you are breathing in is non existent, but yes, it is empty. It is empty without inherent existence and ungraspable. It just is.. and that is the reality. It is not an 'entity' somewhere someplace because of its nature - emptiness. -
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=240316
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
[b]The Third Seal:
All Phenomena are Empty; They Are Without Inherent Existence
When we say “all,” that means everything, including the Buddha, enlightenment, and the path. Buddhists define a phenomenon as something with characteristics, and as an object that is conceived by a subject. To hold that an object is something external is ignorance, and it is this that prevents us from seeing the truth of that object.
The truth of a phenomenon is called shunyata, emptiness, which implies that the phenomenon does not possess a truly existent essence or nature. When a deluded person or subject sees something, the object seen is interpreted as something really existent. However, as you can see, the existence imputed by the subject is a mistaken assumption. Such an assumption is based on the different conditions that make an object appear to be true; this, however, is not how the object really is. ItÂ’s like when we see a mirage: there is no truly existing object there, even though it appears that way. With emptiness, the Buddha meant that things do not truly exist as we mistakenly believe they do, and that they are really empty of that falsely imputed existence.
It is because they believe in what are really just confused projections that sentient beings suffer. It was as a remedy for this that the Buddha taught the Dharma. Put very simply, when we talk about emptiness, we mean that the way things appear is not the way they actually are. As I said before when speaking about emotions, you may see a mirage and think it is something real, but when you get close, the mirage disappears, however real it may have seemed to begin with.
Emptiness can sometimes be referred to as dharmakaya, and in a different context we could say that the dharmakaya is permanent, never changing, all pervasive, and use all sorts of beautiful, poetic words. These are the mystical expressions that belong to the path, but for the moment, we are still at the ground stage, trying to get an intellectual understanding. On the path, we might portray Buddha Vajradhara as a symbol of dharmakaya, or emptiness, but from an academic point of view, even to think of painting the dharmakaya is a mistake.
The Buddha taught three different approaches on three separate occasions. These are known as The Three Turnings of the Wheel, but they can be summed up in a single phrase: “Mind; there is no mind; mind is luminosity.”
The first, “Mind,” refers to the first set of teachings and shows that the Buddha taught that there is a “mind.” This was to dispel the nihilistic view that there is no heaven, no hell, no cause and effect. Then, when the Buddha said, “There is no mind,” he meant that mind is just a concept and that there is no such thing as a truly existing mind. Finally, when he said, “Mind is luminous,” he was referring to buddhanature, the undeluded or primordially existing wisdom.
The great commentator Nagarjuna said that the purpose of the first turning was to get rid of non-virtue. Where does the non-virtue come from? It comes from being either eternalist or nihilist. So in order to put an end to non-virtuous deeds and thoughts, the Buddha gave his first teaching. The second turning of the Dharma-wheel, when the Buddha spoke about emptiness, was presented in order to dispel clinging to a “truly existent self” and to “truly existent phenomena.” Finally, the teachings of the third turning were given to dispel all views, even the view of no-self. The Buddha’s three sets of teaching do not seek to introduce something new; their purpose is simply to clear away confusion.
As Buddhists we practice compassion, but if we lack an understanding of this third seal—that all phenomena are empty—our compassion can backfire. If you are attached to the goal of compassion when trying to solve a problem, you might not notice that your idea of the solution is entirely based on your own personal interpretation. And you might end up as a victim of hope and fear, and consequently of disappointment. You start by becoming a “good mahayana practitioner,” and, once or twice, you try to help sentient beings. But if you have no understanding of this third seal, you’ll get tired and give up helping sentient beings.
There is another kind of a problem that arises from not understanding emptiness. It occurs with rather superficial and even jaded Buddhists. Somehow, within Buddhist circles, if you don’t accept emptiness, you are not cool. So we pretend that we appreciate emptiness and pretend to meditate on it. But if we don’t understand it properly, a bad side effect can occur. We might say, “Oh, everything’s emptiness. I can do whatever I like.” So we ignore and violate the details of karma, the responsibility for our action. We become “inelegant,” and we discourage others in the bargain. His Holiness the Dalai Lama often speaks of this downfall of not understanding emptiness. A correct understanding of emptiness leads us to see how things are related, and how we are responsible for our world.
You can read millions of pages on this subject. Nagarjuna alone wrote five different commentaries mostly dedicated to this, and then there are the commentaries by his followers. There are endless teachings on establishing this view. In Mahayana temples or monasteries people chant the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra—this is also a teaching on the third seal.
Philosophies or religions might say, “Things are illusion, the world is maya, illusion,” but there are always one or two items left behind that are regarded as truly existent: God, cosmic energy, whatever. In Buddhism, this is not the case. Everything in samsara and nirvana—from the Buddha’s head to a piece of bread—everything is emptiness. There is nothing that is not included in ultimate truth.
Question: If we ourselves are dualistic, can we ever understand emptiness, which is something beyond description?
Buddhists are very slippery. You’re right. You can never talk about absolute emptiness, but you can talk about an “image” of emptiness—something that you can evaluate and contemplate so that, in the end, you can get to the real emptiness. You may say, “Ah, that’s just too easy; that’s such crap.” But to that the Buddhists say, “Too bad, that’s how things work.” If you need to meet someone whom you have never met, I can describe him to you or show you a photograph of him. And with the help of that photo image, you can go and find the real person.
Ultimately speaking, the path is irrational, but relatively speaking, it’s very rational because it uses the relative conventions of our world. When I’m talking about emptiness, everything that I’m saying has to do with this “image” emptiness. I can’t show you real emptiness but I can tell you why things don’t exist inherently.
In Buddhism thereÂ’s so much iconography that you might think it was the object of meditation or an object of worship. But, from your teaching, am I to understand that this is all non-existent?
When you go to a temple, you will see many beautiful statues, colors and symbols. These are important for the path. These all belong to what we call “image-wisdom,” “image-emptiness.” However, while we follow the path and apply its methods, it is important to know that the path itself is ultimately an illusion. Actually, it is only then that we can properly appreciate it.[/b] -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
What nonsense, if it is empty of non-existence, then it must also have some inherent existence. Please go ponder over the use of your language. Air may not be an entity but it exists because of the enviroment.
You have to read my entire post first before you comment.
I did state that [b]not only is it empty of inherent existence, it is empty of non existence. So you cannot say that the air you are breathing in is non existent, but yes, it is empty. It is empty without inherent existence and ungraspable. It just is.. and that is the reality. It is not an 'entity' somewhere someplace because of its nature - emptiness.[/b] -
You completely misunderstood what is emptiness all about.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What nonsense, if it is empty of non-existence, then it must also have some inherent existence. Please go ponder over the use of your language. Air may not be an entity but it exists because of the enviroment.
Air is not an entity -- that is why air cannot have existence, or non existence, nor neither nor both.
Because there is no-thing there called 'air' in the beginning, there is no-thing there to have 'existence' nor 'non-existence'. Non-existence can only refer to non-existence of something. Even if you imagine a void, that is still a non existence of existence. But all these views are erroneous under the light of Emptiness.Sunyata signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of absolute identity, permanence, or 'self'. This is because everything is inter-related and mutually dependent - never wholly self-sufficient or independent. All things are in a state of constant flux where energy and information are forever flowing throughout the natural world giving rise to and themselves undergoing major transformations with the passage of time.
Just like there is no 'entity' called weather, there is no 'entity' called air other than the entire flow of it, and every bit of air is mutually dependent on the entire whole like the Chaos theory. The principle of conditionality: this is, that is. This arises, that arises. This, that ceases. Nothing has inherent existence on its own, all is other-dependent. And when that ceases, this ceases as well. Get it? -
Air can be said to be a seperate entity from other gases, although dependant on the enviroment, it is a seperate and complete unit of its own existence.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Just like there is no 'entity' called weather, there is no 'entity' called air other than the entire flow of it, and every bit of air is mutually dependent on the entire whole like the Chaos theory. The principle of conditionality: this is, that is. This arises, that arises. This, that ceases. Nothing has inherent existence on its own, all is other-dependent. And when that ceases, this ceases as well. Get it? -
Oxygen is radically different from nitrogen, but doesn't mean each of them has inherent existence. They are radically different due to causes and conditions and yet not-two. All things are not-two, not-one, not different and not same in Buddhism. Why? Because in reality they are EMPTY. They are empty of inherent existence, non existence, blah blah. Since they are empty, they are not-two, not-one. They arise due to causes and conditions. Air is also dependent on many various conditions like the sun, temperature, factories and volcanoes. Now when you say they are dependent on environment, it just doesn't make sense to say they have their own separate and complete unit of its own existence. Air and the components of air are constantly changing, such that the level of carbon dioxide and many harmful gases has increased several times over the decades. In the future, it is going to be worsening even more rapidly. And where does our Oxygen come from? From all the trees in the world! If all the species of trees and plants are annihilated, oxygen may become extinct in 1 year's time. And if I annihilated all carbon dioxide producing organisms and plants, Carbon Dioxide will also become extinct. If I introduce some kind of new poisonous gas into the atmosphere, it will also become part of "air". "Air" is only a concept and a useful concept in science. It has no inherent existence by itself! And because Air itself is already empty of inherent existence, it cannot possibly be a 'separate' 'entity' from [name your gas].Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Air can be said to be a seperate entity from other gases, although dependant on the enviroment, it is a seperate and complete unit of its own existence.
Anyway let's go deeper and talk about molecules of gases or air. By the way, molecular structures of air can be changed as well, and therefore do not have inherent existence and are other-dependent on all the various conditions just like Chaos theory and furthermore are impermanent -- the electrons are moving constantly, the whole thing is constantly vibrating. Then when you break it up into the elements, the atoms, then the quarks, etc, you'll still find that it is empty.
Here's something for you to read:Excerpt 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. -
By the way there are a LOT of accounted cases of supernatural powers, some of which you can see here: http://www.amazingabilities.com/ (Readers, please understand that interest in supernatural powers is discouraged in Buddhism with the exception of penetrating the deeper understanding of the nature of reality, i.e Emptiness). One must be open minded to such phenomena when there is overwhelming evidence -- a mind that is not open, what is it? Dogmatic. How can so called "supernatural" powers happen? How can I hear without bounded by distance, see without bounded by distance? Very simple -- The nature of reality is Empty and Buddha never taught that there is ultimately such thing as "Where", "When", "Who", any form of Centricity, "Self", or any kind point of reference, etc.. When cause and condition is there, manifestation arises, whether it is 1 cm away or 10 billion miles away. Everything is just a display of Luminous-Emptiness, and this Luminous-Emptiness is not separated from the inter-dependent conditioned arising moment to moment. It is not restricted to time and space. To illustrate this, I'm going to bring another example.
The Universe as a Hologram - Holographic Reality
Again, why is this possible? Emptiness is the nature of reality.
......In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.....
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
-- the principle of conditionality
Buddha never taught that anything is restricted by time-space, he merely taught Conditioned Arising -- only this is, that is. Holographic universe also means one point contains the whole universe, the whole universe is in that one point. In the entire philosophy of Buddhism, never was the reality of time and space ever taught.. and therefore even when we talk about Supernatural Powers, it is consistent! This is the nature of reality. Therefore entire teaching of Buddhism is consistent -- the philosophy (we taught Dependent Origination and Emptiness, never about 'who', 'when', 'where', never about a First Cause or Logos or a duslitic Witness.. Condition arise, it is there), the meditation practice (only is it in Buddhism, not any other religions, that it is taught that Insight or Vipashyana meditation leads to Insight, not Shamatha/Concentration!), the truth that is being preached (we never taught that there is a Self or a Soul!), and even in terms of spiritual powers.
Regarding the 'one in all, all in one', see: Net of Indra IS Dependent Origination?
Please understand things like "Where", "When", "Who" are only our accustomed system of inquiry that is based on the poverty of our analytical mind... the basic mode of seeking or inquiry is wrong and cannot go beyond concepts. These form of inquiry/mode of seeking cannot penetrate the true nature of reality and therefore we must put aside them when we try to penetrate into spiritual truths, to discover and experience them ourselves. -
Too bad AEN isn't thinking rationally.
-
I honestly think I am completely rational here, unless you can explain otherwise.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Too bad AEN isn't thinking rationally. -
If oxygen and nitrogen are empty of inherent existence, then life shouldn't exist on earth as proved by many chemists and archaelogists.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Too bad AEN isn't thinking rationally. -
Obviously you haven't read a single word in my reply?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If oxygen and nitrogen are empty of inherent existence, then life shouldn't exist on earth as proved by many chemists and archaelogists.
How many times (3, 4 times?) have I said that emptiness IS NOT NON-EXISTENCE??
Please re-read everything I wrote. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I meant that they must all have a relationship with each other, thus there cannot be any emptiness possible.
Obviously you haven't read a single word in my reply?
How many times (3, 4 times?) have I said that emptiness [b]IS NOT NON-EXISTENCE??
Please re-read everything I wrote.[/b] -
It is not just a relationship. Relationship means there is this, and there is that, and somehow this is linked to that. Interdependent origination means THIS IS, THAT IS, they are not separated in the first place, they do not have inherent existence but arises as interdependent origination like the Net of Indra. If THIS IS NOT, THAT IS NOT. THIS ARISES, THAT ARISES. THIS CEASES, THAT CEASES. They are not two things linked to together, it is that due to interdependent origination there cannot be 'separate things' with inherent existence in the first place. You need to look into the Net of Indra to have a better idea.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I meant that they must all have a relationship with each other, thus there cannot be any emptiness possible.
Emptiness does not mean a void or nothingness, it just means nothing has inherent existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, and neither existence and non existence. It also means that all things are not-one (not same), not-two (not separate/different). Emptiness is its nature. -
Do tell that to microbes which survive on the above gases.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is not just a relationship. Relationship means there is this, and there is that, and somehow this is linked to that. Interdependent origination means THIS IS, THAT IS, they are not separated in the first place, they do not have inherent existence but arises as interdependent origination like the Net of Indra. If THIS IS NOT, THAT IS NOT. THIS ARISES, THAT ARISES. THIS CEASES, THAT CEASES. They are not two things linked to together, it is that due to interdependent origination there cannot be 'separate things' with inherent existence in the first place. You need to look into the Net of Indra to have a better idea.
Emptiness does not mean a void or nothingness, it just means nothing has inherent existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, and neither existence and non existence. It also means that all things are not-one (not same), not-two (not separate/different). Emptiness is its nature.