dependent origination and middle way
-
Appearance and Mind Only denies any inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:uh uh uh... what is "no objective reality" ? It is not "denying inherent existence".
That is why you are confused....
You think you understand but you are confused... and only an "objective" person, me, in this case can see it... and if you want to see it, (you cannot because you are "subjective", not "objective") you will have to meditate/contemplate on it.
uh uh uh... what is "Mind-Only" ? It is not "denying inherent existence".
uh uh uh... what are "appearances only" ? It is not "denying inherent existence".
Conditions and Dependent Arising... ok that speaks of "denying inherent existence".
But you have confused yourself by jumbling up Conditions and Dependent Arising... which speaks of "denying inherent existence" and the others, which speak of non-existence.
That you lumped them together shows that you are confused in your mind.
That is why I keep telling you to express in your own words and not simply cut and paste.. for when you do that, when you express in your own words, you will be able to see where you are confused....
To impute inherent existence is to see entities having birth and death.
Longchenpa wrote very clearly -- appearances are primordially unborn. -
You are confused.... you have again jumbled up two things because of your confusion...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Appearance and Mind Only denies any inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'.
To impute inherent existence is to see entities having birth and death.
Longchenpa wrote very clearly -- appearances are primordially unborn.
"Appearance and Mind Only " does not speak of "denies any inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'."
It is talking about something else.
... and you have also jumbled up "inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'."
... to deny ""inherent existence" is not the same as to deny "objective reality of entities 'out there'." -
My definition of inherent existence is objective reality of entities out there.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are confused.... you have again jumbled up two things because of your confusion...
"Appearance and Mind Only " does not speak of "denies any inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'."
It is talking about something else.
... and you have also jumbled up "inherent existence/objective reality of entities 'out there'."
... to deny ""inherent existence" is not the same as to deny "objective reality of entities 'out there'."
Actually, existence, non existence, etc, are all related to the false view of subjective and objective reality. -
... and when you define "inherent existence is objective reality of entities out there" you are confused.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:My definition of inherent existence is objective reality of entities out there.
Actually, existence, non existence, etc, are all related to the false view of subjective and objective reality.
The denial of "inherent existence" is not the denial of "objective reality of entities out there" ... that is where you confusion lies...
... and because you are confused here, you become confused with the Mind-Only teaching.... -
Denial of inherent existence is denial of objective reality. To think that there are objects is to think of inherent existence. To think that the object never exist or no longer exist is still to think in terms of objective reality.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and when you define "inherent existence is objective reality of entities out there" you are confused.
The denial of "inherent existence" is not the denial of "objective reality of entities out there" ... that is where you confusion lies...
... and because you are confused here, you become confused with the Mind-Only teaching....
By the way, only the dualistic mind will think that to deny inherent existence means to impute non existence. When I said there is no objective reality, I am not imputing the non existence of objective reality. To think that "objective reality" is "non existing" is still to be stuck in the illusory worldview of subject-object duality... and to think in this way will certainly sound absurd.
What is the middle way? You should already know... the inseparability of appearance-emptiness. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I find this one interesting.. esp for the four extreme which i can't grasp the concept intellectually or come to conceive the truth of it yet. Middle way is either nihilism or absoluteness. It makes sense to use "middle way" to describe things/appearance as 'it' exist and does not exist forever; 'it' can also come and go in a snap of a finger, arise and go with conditions/dependent arisng.
[b]
All is merely dependent arising, they are mere APPEARANCE that is Mind-Only having NO objective reality or inherent existence, no fixed shapes, attributes, form, anythings that can be grasped.
BUT it does not mean that they do not exist -- emptiness is empty of the four extremes of 'existence, non existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existenece'. The middle way is that there is merely APPEARANCES -- Emptiness cannot be separated from appearances. Mountain is not an objective reality, it is dependent arising apperances, it is Conditions, and that is Mind-Only.
................................
"The middle way which is merely appearance". What the author meant is that everything is not substantial by nature as it is constantly changing due to interaction of changes of conditions that make up of it. Am i correct in my of understanding of it here ? Conceptually-speaking, cause and conditions are related and co-exist as one??
The cause and product is empty of inherent existence.
The condition that arise is empty of inherent existence right?
Yes the mountain exists but has no substantiality by nature.
I think.. i guess.. what AEN is talking about is there is no duality in term of "experiencing" it.
In order to experience some thing out "there", you need to have someone "here" to identify it. But when we examine the no-self theory, we realise that there isn't a self to perceive something out there. Furthermore, there is no here and there.. it is a fabricated concept.
I think...
Relative reality depends on inter-relationships of conditions.
While Ultimate reality is just emptiness. Full-stop.
not sure am i right anot?
Pls read this with your own wisdom..
Pls don't flame me yeh. -
i like this one. This one makes the most sense to me out of the rest. Does not mean it will make sense to some of us cos different people perceive things differently due to their experiences and habits.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nope. 'Mountain has no objective reality' is not imputing non-existence, but denying inherent existence, or denying the view of there being an objective reality of a mountain -- and that precisely is what inherent existence about.
In fact, you can say that the illusion of objective and subjective realities is the source of the four extremes -- you need to have a concept of an 'entity out there' to think in terms of existence, non existence, etc.
There is a whole difference. By saying there is no objective reality, it is not saying that the mountain is Non-Existing, but mountain is Not Inherently Existing, being merely Mind-Only-Dependent-Arising-Appearances like reflections in water, appearances that is primordially unborn, having no self essence.
Appearances continue to arise in diversity, but precisely it is called 'appearances' it means it has no substantial/graspable reality out there -- being merely like reflections of the moon on water. Furthermore, appearance is intrinsically luminous, it is the depth of crystal clarity of appearances that arise and subside instantaneously yet without movement that must be experienced, not just a conceptual understanding of 'appearance'.
Concepts of existence and non existence can only see mountain as an entity, it cannot sense Conditions and Dependent Arising.
I think AndrewYap is talking about relative reality while AEN is focusing on what is ultimate reality..
How do both of you catch up with one another in this line of argument ?
-
If there is no objective reality, then how can you decide whether to climb the mountain or not climb the mountain?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Denial of inherent existence is denial of objective reality. To think that there are objects is to think of inherent existence. To think that the object never exist or no longer exist is still to think in terms of objective reality.
By the way, only the dualistic mind will think that to deny inherent existence means to impute non existence. When I said there is no objective reality, I am not imputing the non existence of objective reality. To think that "objective reality" is "non existing" is still to be stuck in the illusory worldview of subject-object duality... and to think in this way will certainly sound absurd.
What is the middle way? You should already know... the inseparability of appearance-emptiness.
Can you decide to climb the mountain that exists in your mind only?
Picture a mountain that is in your mind... now, climb it... you can't because it is subjective reality and the mountain in your mind does not have objective reality to enable you or someone else to physically climb it.
What is this "objective reality" that allows people to climb it?
That is where your confusion lies. The lack of inherent existence is a description of the "objective reality" and not the denial of the "objective reality" because to deny the existence of the "objective reality" is to deny the existence of it thereof.
You agree that Buddhism is not about non-existence but you keep using words and phrases that says "non-existence", without knowing it and simply deny that the words does not imply or impute "non-existence".
It is not easy... the ability to see objective reality as non-inherently existing without being dualistic and without seeing it as non-existing and if you say that you can do that, then you should be able to describe it without using words and phrases that says: "non-existing". -
... and simply deny that it does not say "non-existing"
-
mm Andrew..
Aen got said.. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable.
He didn't deny its reality. -
There is no "relative reality" and "ultimate reality"Originally posted by Isis:I think AndrewYap is talking about relative reality while AEN is focusing on what is ultimate reality..
How do both of you catch up with one another in this line of argument ?
There is only reality and how you perceive it.
Otherwise you fall into the trap of religions and think of "heaven" and in your case... not heaven but... "ultimate reality"
Realize that this is all that you get and find enlightenment in this reality instead of trying to escape to "ultimate reality" -
Relative reality is when u see things at a more gross levelOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:There is no "relative reality" and "ultimate reality"
There is only reality and how you perceive it.
Otherwise you fall into the trap of religions and think of "heaven" and in your case... not heaven but... "ultimate reality"
Realize that this is all that you get and find enlightenment in this reality instead of trying to escape to "ultimate reality"
While ultimatel reality is something that u see it at a more subtle level.
Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is. -
he must work in the "objective reality" into the equation... once you say that there is no "objective reality", then you are denying that people can decide to go up Genting highlands...Originally posted by Isis:mm Andrew..
Aen got said.. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable.
He didn't deny its reality.
You cannot deny that people can go up Genting Highlands but if you say that Genting Highlands is not objective reality, then you are saying that people cannot drive up Genting Highlands.
You know that you can drive up... so you know that it is not true that Genting Highlands is not "objective reality".
So how, how do you incorporate the fact that Genting Highlands is objective reality, empty and also Mind-Only?
To deny that it is "objective reality" is the easy way out. That is escaping from reality and denying existence, that is embracing non-existence... taht is the easy way out but unfortunately, that is not REALITY.
If you don't believe me, read his posts again and see how many times he said that the mountain is not "objective reality". -
He didn't deny its reality of existence.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:he must work in the "objective reality" into the equation... once you say that there is no "objective reality", then you are denying that people can decide to go up Genting highlands...
You cannot deny that people can go up Genting Highlands but is you say that Genting Highlands is not objective reality, then you are saying that people cannot drive up Genting Highlands.
You know that you can drive up... so you know that it is not true that Genting Highlands is not "objective reality".
So how, how do you incorporate the fact that Genting Highlands is objective reality, empty and also Mind-Only?
To deny that it is "objective reality" is the easy way out. That is escaping from reality and denying existence, that is embracing non-existence... taht is the easy way out but unfortunately, that is not REALITY.
If you don't believe me, read his posts again and see how many times he said that the mountain is not "objective reality".
Interesting you say of mind only:
You had said how you perceive the reality, it becomes your reality now right ?
So what is the mind doing now ? -
i think both of u have different definitation of what is "objective reality" ?
Actaully im quite loss with some of the terms used here leh.
too chim for me.
-
Whether you see it at a more subtle or gross level it is still REALITY. You cannot deny gross reality but you have to incorporate into your "subtle" level, the reality that is Relative reality.Originally posted by Isis:Relative reality is when u see things at a more gross level
While ultimatel reality is something that u see it at a more subtle level.
Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is.
When your "Ultimate reality", the realization (false) of this "Ultimate reality" denies the existence of the "Relative reality" then you are dualistic.
It is pointless to keep on saying that that "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is."
I ask you to explain what that means, and you start denying the existence of "Relative reality", then it shows that there is a flaw in your understanding. It shows that "you don't get it".
It shows that you don't "realize it". You can say it, "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." as many times as you want but it is pointless de... unless you also realize it.
How to know if you realized it or not?
When you try to explain it to someone else. That someone else will be able to show you why you fail to realize it.
~AEN~ does not realize that when he says "there is no objective reality, the mountain" he is saying that the mountain does not exists.
He then goes on to say "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." and he fail to see the "conflict", the "contradiction" between
"Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." and "there is no objective reality."
That would suggest that while he can say the words, "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is.", he had not realized it.
Otherwise, there will not be the "conflict", the "contradiction". -
...and I cannot tell him what the correct phrase is... otherwise he will learn a new phrase.. a phrase like "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." without realizing it...
... everything is there in front of everyone... you only need to realize it, not come up with something new... -
Hi, i might have not realised emptiness but does it means that there is no ultimate reality? Firstly, i have never said i have.. Our naked eyes can't see the bacteria in the air and so does that means there is no microscopic organisms here? Of course, i'm not asking you to eat my words and rather contemplate and see it for yourself.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Whether you see it at a more subtle or gross level it is still REALITY. You cannot deny gross reality but you have to incorporate into your "subtle" level, the reality that is Relative reality.
When your "Ultimate reality", the realization (false) of this "Ultimate reality" denies the existence of the "Relative reality" then you are dualistic.
It is pointless to keep on saying that that "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is."
I ask you to explain what that means, and you start denying the existence of "Relative reality", then it shows that there is a flaw in your understanding. It shows that "you don't get it".
It shows that you don't "realize it". You can say it, "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." as many times as you want but it is pointless de... unless you also realize it.
How to know if you realized it or not?
When you try to explain it to someone else. That someone else will be able to show you why you fail to realize it.
~AEN~ does not realize that when he says "there is no objective reality, the mountain" he is saying that the mountain does not exists.
He then goes on to say "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." and he fail to see the "conflict", the "contradiction" between
"Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is." and "there is no objective reality."
That would suggest that while he can say the words, "Ultimate reality has no negation. It is as it is.", he had not realized it.
Otherwise, there will not be the "conflict", the "contradiction".
Relative reality 'exists' but has no inherent existence- there is you have to understand the meaning of buddhism' s term emptiness. Firstly, i think you have misunderstand what i mean: Buddhist ( refer if you are practising correctly) are never in self-denial of things and i can tell you we do not deny relative truth either!
"Ultimate reality has no negation" is partially quoted from a Gesha, a teacher, a scholar who has studies essays, sutra, research papers on emptiness. I do not dare to say i have realised emptiness. Why the term Ultimate is used to cos it describing this ultimate truth is ultimate cos it has no negation. It has no BUT. It is simply so.. i'm just explaining what i mean by "ultimate"
i'm pointing out the differences between the two: Relative and Ultimate reality. Does there mean it is denying one another. If you deny ultimate reality, aren't you also denying relative reality ? As i have said, we aren't denying relative reality here.
At a gross level, u see mechanism of relative reality but if you examine the relative reality deeper and more subtly, you will see ultimate reality where relative reality spurts from.
ps: pls read this with wisdom. -
Hey i hope anyone can chip in and correct any of my misunderstanding or add on to it. I could be most happy to hear your views on it too.Originally posted by Isis:I find this one interesting.. esp for the four extreme which i can't grasp the concept intellectually or come to conceive the truth of it yet. Middle way is either nihilism or absoluteness. It makes sense to use "middle way" to describe things/appearance as 'it' exist and does not exist forever; 'it' can also come and go in a snap of a finger, arise and go with conditions/dependent arisng.
"The middle way which is merely appearance". What the author meant is that everything is not substantial by nature as it is constantly changing due to interaction of changes of conditions that make up of it. Am i correct in my of understanding of it here ? Conceptually-speaking, cause and conditions are related and co-exist as one??
The cause and product is empty of inherent existence.
The condition that arise is empty of inherent existence right?
Yes the mountain exists but has no substantiality by nature.
I think.. i guess.. what AEN is talking about is there is no duality in term of "experiencing" it.
In order to experience some thing out "there", you need to have someone "here" to identify it. But when we examine the no-self theory, we realise that there isn't a self to perceive something out there. Furthermore, there is no here and there.. it is a fabricated concept.
I think...
Relative reality depends on inter-relationships of conditions.
While Ultimate reality is just emptiness. Full-stop.
not sure am i right anot?
Pls read this with your own wisdom..
Pls don't flame me yeh.
Thanks. -
yes you are doing that and that is why you are in error...Originally posted by Isis:i'm pointing out the differences between the two:: Relative and Ultimate reality. Does there mean it is denying one another. If you deny ultimate reality, aren't you also denying relative reality ? As i have said, we aren't denying relative reality here. -
actually could appreciate if you can further elaborate on why i'm wrong.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:yes you are doing that and that is why you are in error...
thanks -
i think when i'm saying i'm talking there is a differences.. i'm talking conceptually,
At a gross level, u see mechanism of relative reality but if you examine the relative reality deeper and more subtly, you will see ultimate reality where relative reality spurts from.
ok i need to go study liao. Really shouldn't even be in sgf... i'll come back later to read... -
you are dualistic... you tell yourself that there is "no ultimate reality" and "relative reality" but every time you say something, you fall into dualism, and in ~AEN~ 's case... he makes contradictory and conflicting statements...Originally posted by Isis:actually could appreciate if you can further elaborate on why i'm wrong.
thanks
Why? You have not realized it! You need to contemplate more... realization is something that you need to see for yourself... my job is not to see for you or tell you what I see... there is enough "knowledge" out there...
My job is to tell you when you are in error so that you will contemplate more and realize for yourself the truth... -
yes i have not realized it. I'm not in denial of it.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:you are dualistic... you tell yourself that there is "no ultimate reality" and "relative reality" but every time you say something, you fall into dualism, and in ~AEN~ 's case... he makes contradictory and conflicting statements...
Why? You have not realized it! You need to contemplate more... realization is something that you need to see for yourself... my job is not to see for you or tell you what I see... there is enough "knowledge" out there...
My job is to tell you when you are in error so that you will contemplate more and realize for yourself the truth...
However, i do not agreed with some of the points that you have said here.
It is also our job to tell you that you are in error and that you should contemplate more and realize the truth for yourself too i mean here : generallyspeaking
Even enlightened lama and monks continually study the Dharma, the basic to fine-tune and refine their understanding.
I need some time to digest what is going on here and to see it for myself.
By helping one another and exchanging viewpoint so can we learn and grow. This is what a healthy discussion is about
cheers~~ -
I am exchanging views with you am I not?Originally posted by Isis:yes i have not realized it. I'm not in denial of it.
However, i do not agreed with some of the points that you have said here.
It is also our job to tell you that you are in error and that you should contemplate more and realize the truth for yourself too i mean here : generallyspeaking
Even enlightened lama and monks continually study the Dharma, the basic to fine-tune and refine their understanding.
I need some time to digest what is going on here and to see it for myself.
By helping one another and exchanging viewpoint so can we learn and grow. This is what a healthy discussion is about
cheers~~
The reason I can see your errors show that I have traveled a little further than you have...
Not I have arrived... where got arrived one?