One can't prove that God but science makes God unnecessary
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No logic basically also means there is no communication taking place?
sure got connection, we pro interconnection. i meant No logic mean cannot use common sense to explain it. like how a small seed can contain the entire universe. u think it's not possible, but it can be done in an advance state. for example like now a small thumb drive/chip can contain so many texts or data, last time we have papers and didn't think it's possible.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I certainly do not think that you are using Buddhist concepts to press me down. Like you , I am also expressing my stance in Christianity based on the Bible. Perhaps some do not like me to quote from the Bible? Anyway my point is that one should not take issue with me quoting Bible verses, just as I do not take issue with Buddhists quoting Buddhist teachings by various monks. (Though I would admit that having to read long passages of cut-&-paste Buddhist teachings can be quite a daunting task!) Surely It can't be the case that my quoting Bible verses got no point but your quoting of Buddhist teachings got point, right?
Great...! My impression of you changed..
A good-temper Christian
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It seems the concept of nirvana is one that cannot be explained. It seems in some sense to be a mental state. Yet in some sense it is not.http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm
‘Nirvana' is or should not be considered as a 'merging with an absolute existence' otherwise it becomes another form of Hinduism. It is not what the Mahayana teachings teach.
In any case, here's what Kannada wrote in 2008:
Nirvana is the word used for the cessation of all states and all conditions. Being a 'human' (human being) is a state or condition, so no human can be 'in' nirvana so
obviously nirvana is not a destination for humans to reach or to be in, these are just figures of speech that can be very misleading. As nirvana is not a destination we
cannot be either near or far from nirvana for nirvana is not a location in time or space, therefore no path can lead toward or away from nirvana. Nirvana cannot possibly be a goal to be attained for the person who so 'attains' would by necessity need to cease to be in order to so attain - conversley nirvana would need to be in itself a 'thing' (condition) to be so attained, hence nirvana would cease to be nirvana by its presence as a thing-in-itself. The cessation or neutralization of an attaining non-self is of course a contradiction in terms - a non-self cannot obviously cease to be.
In order to "see 'things' as they really are" there can be no asserted seer or self that sees, neither can there be asserted 'things' (other) that are seen, only an undifferentiated seeing. It is imperative to understand that conditions do not exist outside of the cognizing/conceptualizing mind that so asserts those conditions. In other words time, space, causality, subject, object, this, that, self and other are all asserted via the cognitive processes and result through the dream of conceptuality - these assertions are the subject matter of delusion - the opposite of nirvana.
Seeing "as is" is inherent capability of all cognizing minds hence it may be (loosely) said that "all beings are in nirvana from the beginning" it is only when the next step of conceptualization is taken that the unconditioned becomes the conditioned, the undifferentiated becomes differentiated. The non-conceptual mind does not make any such differentiations. Hence there need not be a striving to attain but rather a ceasing to bifurcate or subdivide that which by nature is indivisible - but
appears to be divided by the conceptualizing mind. Open eyes see but do not divide what is seen from an assumed seer. Open ears hear but do not divide the hearer from the heard etc etc. In cessation no concept can survive - not of 'nirvana' or 'seeker', of 'practitioner' nor 'attainer'...
k -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
at first the lower realms was not suppose to be there. but because of ignorance, afflictions, greed and all, the lower realms start to manifest. the heavenly devas came to earth as u read, "created" the human realms, then with folly karma, created the animal realms, with greed karma created the ghosts realm, and with hatred karma created the hell realms. all sort of sins/karma, killing, stealing, lust, lying arises. however, there's a sutra where things will "return" back to heavenly realms. as we have End of the whole Universe (which is 1000000000 universes in all). it will start when hell realm are saved, then the ghost realm, the animal realm and the human realm will also be saved and reborn into some higher heavenly realm of light and above. but way before that we also have a smaller chaos or "end days" where a group of good people will escape to some remote place to start life over, and then after that that's also the next coming of Buddha and by then the human on earth will live like devas/gods, very happy era indeed. sound familar isn't it?
we are not the only universe, there are countless of them like the sands on the beach said Buddha. we are in agreement with science. universes are born and die just like the 4 seasons. AEN's late master/teacher used to study bible, like how many cm thick? but after studing the massive Buddha sutras, he said that the bible is like kindergarden book. not detail enough, too general. the Buddhadharma a lot in depth.
fyi the devas that create weathers are all mental /spiritual powers, no need any equipment like human.
/\
So before there was ignorance, what was there?
A return back to the "heavenly realms"?
Yes it does sound familiar to the Bible, which speaks of a perfect creation (no sin, no suffering, no death), then man's rebellion against God (which brought in sin, suffering and death), then God's redemptive-salvaton plan, and finally the restoration of all things (no more sin, suffering and death). In fact, I think this general idea is rather universal and present in most religions. I believe this is because of the Tower of Babel incident, the point in human history when the languages of man were confused, each language group separated from the others but each retained the memory of the former times, but got embellished over time. I believe the Bible retained the true account of what human history.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
sure got connection, we pro interconnection. i meant No logic mean cannot use common sense to explain it. like how a small seed can contain the entire universe. u think it's not possible, but it can be done in an advance state. for example like now a small thumb drive/chip can contain so many texts or data, last time we have papers and didn't think it's possible.
/\
Sorry, I did not mean connection or common sense, but communication. Logic undergirds meaningful communication.
I think it is fallacious to conclude that because a small thumb drive can contain vast amount of data, therefore a small seed can contain the entire universe. One is talking about packing wallops of standardised same kind of stuff i.e. information bits on a chip due to technology advancement (but there will be a limit), the other is talking about time, space, matter. We are talking about completely different things. The question is, before the univese can exist what seed are we talking about?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
‘Nirvana' is or should not be considered as a 'merging with an absolute existence' otherwise it becomes another form of Hinduism. It is not what the Mahayana teachings teach.
In any case, here's what Kannada wrote in 2008:
Nirvana is the word used for the cessation of all states and all conditions. Being a 'human' (human being) is a state or condition, so no human can be 'in' nirvana so
obviously nirvana is not a destination for humans to reach or to be in, these are just figures of speech that can be very misleading. As nirvana is not a destination we
cannot be either near or far from nirvana for nirvana is not a location in time or space, therefore no path can lead toward or away from nirvana. Nirvana cannot possibly be a goal to be attained for the person who so 'attains' would by necessity need to cease to be in order to so attain - conversley nirvana would need to be in itself a 'thing' (condition) to be so attained, hence nirvana would cease to be nirvana by its presence as a thing-in-itself. The cessation or neutralization of an attaining non-self is of course a contradiction in terms - a non-self cannot obviously cease to be.
In order to "see 'things' as they really are" there can be no asserted seer or self that sees, neither can there be asserted 'things' (other) that are seen, only an undifferentiated seeing. It is imperative to understand that conditions do not exist outside of the cognizing/conceptualizing mind that so asserts those conditions. In other words time, space, causality, subject, object, this, that, self and other are all asserted via the cognitive processes and result through the dream of conceptuality - these assertions are the subject matter of delusion - the opposite of nirvana.
Seeing "as is" is inherent capability of all cognizing minds hence it may be (loosely) said that "all beings are in nirvana from the beginning" it is only when the next step of conceptualization is taken that the unconditioned becomes the conditioned, the undifferentiated becomes differentiated. The non-conceptual mind does not make any such differentiations. Hence there need not be a striving to attain but rather a ceasing to bifurcate or subdivide that which by nature is indivisible - but
appears to be divided by the conceptualizing mind. Open eyes see but do not divide what is seen from an assumed seer. Open ears hear but do not divide the hearer from the heard etc etc. In cessation no concept can survive - not of 'nirvana' or 'seeker', of 'practitioner' nor 'attainer'...
kCan you clarify what Buddha rejected concerning Hinduism? Did he completely reject it? Or did he "reform" it?
Wouldn't then the idea of nirvana as cessation be really nihilism since it means it means cessation of all states and being? Perhaps what remained is a non-conceptual mind? But what exactly is this non-conceptual mind? Does it have inherent existence?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So before there was ignorance, what was there?
A return back to the "heavenly realms"?
Yes it does sound familiar to the Bible, which speaks of a perfect creation (no sin, no suffering, no death), then man's rebellion against God (which brought in sin, suffering and death), then God's redemptive-salvaton plan, and finally the restoration of all things (no more sin, suffering and death). In fact, I think this general idea is rather universal and present in most religions. I believe this is because of the Tower of Babel incident, the point in human history when the languages of man were confused, each language group separated from the others but each retained the memory of the former times, but got embellished over time. I believe the Bible retained the true account of what human history.
well, i say Buddhism was earlier and the texts were more reasonable and saying how it will happen in realistic detail. although, i read of Babel and go into Bible before i became a Buddhist. but now then i am reading that u all use the "frictional" Tower of Babel as excuss to say u all are earlier. really.. i rather believe in something realistic than some grandma-like story. we no more kids. a large amount of detail vs a general info. general info should be the one that came from the large amount of detail, instead of the other way around.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Can you clarify what Buddha rejected concerning Hinduism? Did he completely reject it? Or did he "reform" it?
Wouldn't then the idea of nirvana as cessation be really nihilism since it means it means cessation of all states and being? Perhaps what remained is a non-conceptual mind? But what exactly is this non-conceptual mind? Does it have inherent existence?
1) Buddha rejected the tenets of Hinduism, but at the time of Buddha there was no such thing as Hinduism. But the teachings that later form the basis of Hinduism, i.e. Vedas, are rejected by Buddha, and the teachings of eternalism underpinning Hinduism (the notion of Atman/Self and Brahman - God or the Ultimate Reality) is also rejected by Buddha.
There is a very long and accurate article discussing this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html
"A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different."
2. Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. It is the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving things, in terms of inherently existing Self and Objects. Absent of a subject-object dichotomy, there is in seeing just sight but neither is sight objectified, and there is no seer, in hearing just sound without hearer, and sound too is empty, like an echo, etc.
There is no inherent existence whatsoever.
Nirvana is not nihilism becuase it is not the cessation of an existent being because no such being could be pinned down to begin with, and for that same reason Nirvana is also not eternalism, but merely the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving, projecting, proliferating, that is the basis of craving. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Sorry, I did not mean connection or common sense, but communication. Logic undergirds meaningful communication.
I think it is fallacious to conclude that because a small thumb drive can contain vast amount of data, therefore a small seed can contain the entire universe. One is talking about packing wallops of standardised same kind of stuff i.e. information bits on a chip due to technology advancement (but there will be a limit), the other is talking about time, space, matter. We are talking about completely different things. The question is, before the univese can exist what seed are we talking about?
i meant since the mind are inter-linked, there's connection hence "communication"? i do can use the word decernment of the mind. though this need more thinking. u might be refering to the communication with god?
there's a VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA where Bodhisattvas/Buddhas "playing" with galaxies, throwing them around, changing them in size etc, if i recall properly. no time to re-read. they are so to speak "advance" beings with advance powers.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm
and in Avatamsaka Sutra, it said how a mustard seed can contain the universes and within that universes are yet seeds and within that seeds are universes, on and on without ending.... and how great bodhisattvas can enter them easily. later see science can discover this or not...haha
ps: i don't wish u think i say that mind is the absolute "being", as to us mind is just a unit in all mental beings, like atom in all matter. like money, it has no feelings, emotion etc of it's own.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
well, i say Buddhism was earlier and the texts were more reasonable and saying how it will happen in realistic detail. although, i read of Babel and go into Bible before i became a Buddhist. but now then i am reading that u all use the "frictional" Tower of Babel as excuss to say u all are earlier. really.. i rather believe in something realistic than some grandma-like story. we no more kids. a large amount of detail vs a general info. general info should be the one that came from the large amount of detail, instead of the other way around.
/\
1. Yes, Buddha lived about 500 years before Christ, so in that sense he preceded Christianity. But since Christ was God-incarnate, in that sense Christ preceded Buddha. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christ is the Creator of the universe i.e. God Himself. When was the teachings of Buddha first put into writing? If I am not wrong it was about 500 years after he died. The NT, on the other hand, was written well before the first century ended, less than 60 years after Jesus' resurrection.
2. On what basis you say the Tower of Babel incident is fiction? How is it not realistic compared to narrate exploits of Buddha? The issue is not about the amount of detail, since one can babble a lot and still be nonsense. The issue is whether the contents supplied is correct and true.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1) Buddha rejected the tenets of Hinduism, but at the time of Buddha there was no such thing as Hinduism. But the teachings that later form the basis of Hinduism, i.e. Vedas, are rejected by Buddha, and the teachings of eternalism underpinning Hinduism (the notion of Atman/Self and Brahman - God or the Ultimate Reality) is also rejected by Buddha.
There is a very long and accurate article discussing this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html
"A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different."
2. Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. It is the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving things, in terms of inherently existing Self and Objects. Absent of a subject-object dichotomy, there is in seeing just sight but neither is sight objectified, and there is no seer, in hearing just sound without hearer, and sound too is empty, like an echo, etc.
There is no inherent existence whatsoever.
Nirvana is not nihilism becuase it is not the cessation of an existent being because no such being could be pinned down to begin with, and for that same reason Nirvana is also not eternalism, but merely the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving, projecting, proliferating, that is the basis of craving.1. In other words, Buddha completely rejected Hinduism, right?
2. If there is no seer, then it is meaningless to talk about seeing anything. If there is no object, then there is no subject to talk about. BTW, an echo is simply sound waves reflecting back. It is real. You cannot have an echo if there was no original sound made.
3. To say that there is no inherent existence whatsoever is to make a categorical statement about reality. But on what basis should anyone accept this statement as true?
4. If there is no beings to speak of, then who is having the delusion?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
i meant since the mind are inter-linked, there's connection hence "communication"? i do can use the word decernment of the mind. though this need more thinking. u might be refering to the communication with god?
there's a VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA where Bodhisattvas/Buddhas "playing" with galaxies, throwing them around, changing them in size etc, if i recall properly. no time to re-read. they are so to speak "advance" beings with advance powers.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm
and in Avatamsaka Sutra, it said how a mustard seed can contain the universes and within that universes are yet seeds and within that seeds are universes, on and on without ending.... and how great bodhisattvas can enter them easily. later see science can discover this or not...haha
ps: i don't wish u think i say that mind is the absolute "being", as to us mind is just a unit in all mental beings, like atom in all matter. like money, it has no feelings, emotion etc of it's own.
/\
1. If there's communication then logic is required.
2. The only thing a mustard seed can contain is what is in its DNA. It can only grow into a mustard tree. Things are made to reproduce after their kind.
3. Since mind is in all mental beings, therefore mental beings must exist, right?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. In other words, Buddha completely rejected Hinduism, right?
2. If there is no seer, then it is meaningless to talk about seeing anything. If there is no object, then there is no subject to talk about. BTW, an echo is simply sound waves reflecting back. It is real. You cannot have an echo if there was no original sound made.
3. To say that there is no inherent existence whatsoever is to make a categorical statement about reality. But on what basis should anyone accept this statement as true?
4. If there is no beings to speak of, then who is having the delusion?
1. Yes. He rejected them and taught in no unexplicit terms that no other systems of teachings lead to liberation. This does not mean he reject the merits of other tenets in a similar tone like Christianity (e.g. all non-Christians will go to hell, or are teachings of demons, etc etc), as he was careful in elucidating the merits of other systems as well, with a big "BUT" - and that "BUT" is that none of those systems actually free oneself from the view and conceit of a 'Self', it is unable to free us from all delusions and grasping. (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html)
Basically, we see that the most that non-Buddhists can attain is a rebirth in the non-eternal heavens, be it sensual, or form-jhana or formless-jhana planes. All these are not liberation. That is the Buddhist perspective.
2. Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions).
Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence.
Nagarjuna:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a nonempty thing
Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)
3. It can be accepted by inferrential analysis (e.g. sevenfold reasoning of candrakirti), but this does not liberate but forms the basis of right view for the path of practise. Beyond that, one must attain a direct, non-inferrential realization through vipassana/vipasyana or insight meditation.
4. 'Who' is the wrong question to ask, since that would imply a someone to begin with. Instead you should ask 'with what condition does this conclusion arise?' This is what the Buddha answered to 'Who' questions. Not "who hears" but with what conditions does hearing arise? Not "who suffers" but with what conditions does suffering arise? Etc etc. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. In other words, Buddha completely rejected Hinduism, right?
to me, it's more like enhancing and redefining the (some) meaning, as people were already used to the terminology, like karma, rebirth, 6 realms (were already known to yogis, no need Buddha to prove). just like Jesus "redefining" the meaning of Judaism(?)./\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. If there's communication then logic is required.
3. Since mind is in all mental beings, therefore mental beings must exist, right?
don't get ur logic, haha. why required? example?i think when things are no longer bound by karma or physics, then the mind can work wonders. what ever the mind can think of, anything is possible, mind over matter. it's omnipotent in the making without karma. karma in Buddhism is a very and most powerful law, not even supernatural power,(or deva/gods power or superman power) can overcome it.
#3 yes, but don't know what u want to refer?
/\
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. Yes. He rejected them and taught in no unexplicit terms that no other systems of teachings lead to liberation. This does not mean he reject the merits of other tenets in a similar tone like Christianity (e.g. all non-Christians will go to hell, or are teachings of demons, etc etc), as he was careful in elucidating the merits of other systems as well, with a big "BUT" - and that "BUT" is that none of those systems actually free oneself from the view and conceit of a 'Self', it is unable to free us from all delusions and grasping. (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html)
Basically, we see that the most that non-Buddhists can attain is a rebirth in the non-eternal heavens, be it sensual, or form-jhana or formless-jhana planes. All these are not liberation. That is the Buddhist perspective.
2. Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions).
Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence.
Nagarjuna:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a nonempty thing
Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)
3. It can be accepted by inferrential analysis (e.g. sevenfold reasoning of candrakirti), but this does not liberate but forms the basis of right view for the path of practise. Beyond that, one must attain a direct, non-inferrential realization through vipassana/vipasyana or insight meditation.
4. 'Who' is the wrong question to ask, since that would imply a someone to begin with. Instead you should ask 'with what condition does this conclusion arise?' This is what the Buddha answered to 'Who' questions. Not "who hears" but with what conditions does hearing arise? Not "who suffers" but with what conditions does suffering arise? Etc etc.1. Since Buddha rejected all other paths to liberation, it is no less exclusive than Christianity when Jesus declared that He is the Way. Christianity does not reject truths where it is found. All truth is God's truth.
2. As mentioned, a better term to use would be that the universe and all that is in it is contingent i.e. such things do not exist in and of themselves but have a beginning and thus requires a cause. In short, all contingent beings are dependent upon something else for their existence. However, the difference is that Christianity does not teach that everything is contingent, while Buddhism does. Christianity teaches that you cannot have infinite contingent beings, that there is one necessary being as the logical first uncaused cause, God.
3. The issue is not whether one accepts the claim that there is no inherent existence, but whether there is good reasons to believe the claim is true. The mere acceptance of a claim does not make it true.
4. What conditions can only be experienced by the Who, isn't it? If there is no Who then there is no What to experience.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
to me, it's more like enhancing and redefining the (some) meaning, as people were already used to the terminology, like karma, rebirth, 6 realms (were already known to yogis, no need Buddha to prove). just like Jesus "redefining" the meaning of Judaism(?)./\
Correction. Jesus did not come to redefine the meaning of Judaism. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
don't get ur logic, haha. why required? example?i think when things are no longer bound by karma or physics, then the mind can work wonders. what ever the mind can think of, anything is possible, mind over matter. it's omnipotent in the making without karma. karma in Buddhism is a very and most powerful law, not even supernatural power,(or deva/gods power or superman power) can overcome it.
#3 yes, but don't know what u want to refer?
/\
If you can communicate without logic, please demonstrate.
Can a mind conceive of a squared circle?
The Bible teaches that in the beginning was the Logos, from which we get the word logic. Logic is simply the way God thinks.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you can communicate without logic, please demonstrate.
Can a mind conceive of a squared circle?
The Bible teaches that in the beginning was the Logos, from which we get the word logic. Logic is simply the way God thinks.
now i see what u mean.
maybe technically cannot, but with a bit of imagination...
we do have quite simliar concept of the "image of god". the essence of seeing, listening, feeling and knowing�闻觉知 are the standard functions of the Original mind.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Correction. Jesus did not come to redefine the meaning of Judaism. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT.
fulfillment as in bring into actuality?
so u all don't reject Judaism? it's the same teaching? why don't say u all are Judish instead?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Since Buddha rejected all other paths to liberation, it is no less exclusive than Christianity when Jesus declared that He is the Way. Christianity does not reject truths where it is found. All truth is God's truth.
2. As mentioned, a better term to use would be that the universe and all that is in it is contingent i.e. such things do not exist in and of themselves but have a beginning and thus requires a cause. In short, all contingent beings are dependent upon something else for their existence. However, the difference is that Christianity does not teach that everything is contingent, while Buddhism does. Christianity teaches that you cannot have infinite contingent beings, that there is one necessary being as the logical first uncaused cause, God.
3. The issue is not whether one accepts the claim that there is no inherent existence, but whether there is good reasons to believe the claim is true. The mere acceptance of a claim does not make it true.
4. What conditions can only be experienced by the Who, isn't it? If there is no Who then there is no What to experience.
1. and 2. understood.
3. There are many indepth teachings that elucidate emptiness through reasonings. Nagarjuna and many other great masters wrote many books specifically dealing with emptiness. I shall not go too deeply into this.
4. No... anyway experience arises due to conditions from Budhist POV. Experience is manifestation, and manifestation has its causes and conditions like a fruit has its causes (seed) and conditions (water, sunlight, fertilizers, etc). Every experience pertaining to all six senses (five senses + mind) arises due to causes and conditions. But we do not require a 'Who' to experience, i.e. there is just experience arising (according to conditions) without an experiencer. -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
now i see what u mean.
maybe technically cannot, but with a bit of imagination...
we do have quite simliar concept of the "image of god". the essence of seeing, listening, feeling and knowing�闻觉知 are the standard functions of the Original mind.
/\
What you have is squares in circle, still there is distinct square and circle. It still proved my point that it is impossible to have a squared circle. Even your imagination is limited by what is a square and a circle. You cannot conceive of a squared circle. It is a logical impossibility. Just like you cannot be a married bachelor.
The image of God is "imprinted" in every human being. Which is why it is wrong to take another's person life without authority and right.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
fulfillment as in bring into actuality?
so u all don't reject Judaism? it's the same teaching? why don't say u all are Judish instead?
Jesus was a pious Jew, yet there were many things taught by the religious leaders which Jesus rejected or criticised. These leaders went beyond the OT and enacted many laws and rules that burdened the people, turning God's law into legalism. The Jews failed to recognise Jesus as the promised Messiah, and many today are still looking for the One to come. They knew the Bible taught a suffering servant and a coming King, but failed to see that Jesus was both. Kind of a fallacy of reasoning that it is either/or but not both/and.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. and 2. understood.
3. There are many indepth teachings that elucidate emptiness through reasonings. Nagarjuna and many other great masters wrote many books specifically dealing with emptiness. I shall not go too deeply into this.
4. No... anyway experience arises due to conditions from Budhist POV. Experience is manifestation, and manifestation has its causes and conditions like a fruit has its causes (seed) and conditions (water, sunlight, fertilizers, etc). Every experience pertaining to all six senses (five senses + mind) arises due to causes and conditions. But we do not require a 'Who' to experience, i.e. there is just experience arising (according to conditions) without an experiencer.A seed grows into a plant/tree when fed with water and sunlight because this is what it is designed to do. A rock does not grow the same way because it is not a living thing that is designed to grow. In the same way, only living things can have experience provided that such things have consciousness and awareness. A plant have neither. Again the point about nephesh chayah comes into the picture.
Bottom line is this: You cannot have a painting without a painter, so you cannot have an experience without an experiencer. It's plain logic. Of course you can have something happening (like a storm in a remote island) which no one is experiencing, but then such a case is moot since no one would speak of experiencing a storm he was not in.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
A seed grows into a plant/tree when fed with water and sunlight because this is what it is designed to do. A rock does not grow the same way because it is not a living thing that is designed to grow. In the same way, only living things can have experience provided that such things have consciousness and awareness. A plant have neither. Again the point about nephesh chayah comes into the picture.
Bottom line is this: You cannot have a painting without a painter, so you cannot have an experience without an experiencer. It's plain logic. Of course you can have something happening (like a storm in a remote island) which no one is experiencing, but then such a case is moot since no one would speak of experiencing a storm he was not in.
1) Yes, sentient beings cannot have birth without a previous instance of consciousness.
Therefore there are three conditions for birth: father, mother, consciousness in Buddhism. Consciousness is not an entity, but a stream or arising and re-arising, a mindstream... each of us have or rather is a distinct mindstream, but that is just speaking conventionally.
But we do not see 'design' involved.
2) You don't get it... because you still think there must be an experiencer apart from experience. My point is, experience is always occurring without experiencer. Thinking happens without thinker. Hearing is occurring without hearer. Even right now, there is only reading without a reader. Seeing without a seer. There is only ever experience without an experiencer. Later on I can recall seeing a flower and I can even say "I saw a flower" but knowing fully well that is merely conventional parlance for communication, there is actually no seer apart from the sight 'flower', no actual self persisting from one moment to another.
The notion of a self being distinct from experience can be seen through with some investigation just like the notion of a car-ness distinct from its parts, e.g. engine, window, wheels etc can be seen through.
The direct experience of this is gapless, direct, and self-releasing - i.e. no distance between a seer and a seen, no vantage point, boundless freedom, intense aliveness and intimacy and clarity in every single experience because there is no 'I' at a center to be separate from any experience, nor any sense of a boundary or circumference, mere experience appearing that is self-knowing, self-felt and releasing moment to moment.