Running into walls again....ARGH!

[Lucky7Strikes]

You know that I do not agree with this, right?

 

There were trees before there were any humans to realize their existence.

 

Don't be thinking that we are more than what we really are. We have the ability to percieve physical reality but we also have the ability to percieve illusions and delusions. We should not confuse our abilities.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yes, there were trees before humans, as in this body. But that is only what the mind believes.

 

Where exactly does perception end and the the perciever begin? Can the world you see be separate from seeing? Can the sounds you hear be separate from hearing? Have you known the world without the mind?

 

Moreover, if the objective and the subjective cannot be distinguished, what would you call a reality and a illusion?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Yes, there were trees before humans, as in this body. But that is only what the mind believes.

 

Where exactly does perception end and the the perciever begin? Can the world you see be separate from seeing? Can the sounds you hear be separate from hearing? Have you known the world without the mind?

 

Moreover, if the objective and the subjective cannot be distinguished, what would you call a reality and a illusion?

 

Hi Lucky,

 

Okay, you have admitted that there were trees before there were humans. This is a good start. Hehehe.

 

Have you ever been to the Petrified Forest out West? Those were trees millions of years ago.

 

Okay. To the mind. Yes, we understand a tree as a tree. That is the word assigned to that manifestation. A person without a mind would not understand this. (Actually, they wouldn't even be alive if we equate mind with brain.) And there are some who have a damaged brain so they might not be able to understand that the word 'tree' refers to that particular manifestation.

 

But considering that a person has a fairly well-functioning brain (mind) and eye-sight and their mother language is English they would agree with another that a tree is a tree and not an octopus.

 

I am. Therefore my perception begins with me. Everything I consider a part of me is the perciever. Everything that is not a part of me is the percieved. Therefore I percieve the computer but the computer is not a part of me and I am not a part of the computer.

 

Yes, the world still exists when I close my eyes. The chair still supports me in a sitting position when I close my eyes. The chair is not dependant on me in order to exist. You are not dependant on me in order to exist.

 

Yes, sounds (the vibrations of the waves) still exist without me to hear them. If I turn up my amp enough I can feel the wave vibrations even if I were totally deaf.

 

I have never not had a mind so I can't answer your last question. I suggest that when my brain dies I will no longer be able to percieve the world. But then "I" wouldn't exist so this really have no bearing on the physical world beyond myself.

 

So what is an illusion and what is reality? I can speak only for myself. Reality is what exists regardless of whether or not I percieve it. I can close my eyes and not see the chair but while I am sitting in it it still exists. And even if I close my eyes, stand up, create a delusion in my mind that it does not exist, then sit back down and the chair is still there then it should be a given that it exists separate from my delusion.

 

A delusion or illusion, on the other hand, can be disproven very easily. I can stand up, move the chair into another room, return to the computer with the delusion that I did not move the chair and sit down. I promise you that my ass would hit the floor. And, I would probably fall backwards and my head would hit the floor as well.

 

To think that I can fly would be another delusion. I can't fly. I have already tried. My arms do not create enough lift no matter how rapidly I flap them.

 

Basically, if you can make something disappear then it really wasn't there in the first place. What disappeared was only your illusion or delusion, not something manifest.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

BTW Regarding making something disappear: If you can make suffering disappear then it too was only a delusion or illusion of your own making. (That was a special comment for all my Buddhist friends here.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Okay. To the mind. Yes, we understand a tree as a tree. That is the word assigned to that manifestation. A person without a mind would not understand this. (Actually, they wouldn't even be alive if we equate mind with brain.) And there are some who have a damaged brain so they might not be able to understand that the word 'tree' refers to that particular manifestation.

 

But considering that a person has a fairly well-functioning brain (mind) and eye-sight and their mother language is English they would agree with another that a tree is a tree and not an octopus.

 

Yes, they share the same state of perception.

 

I am. Therefore my perception begins with me. Everything I consider a part of me is the perciever. Everything that is not a part of me is the percieved. Therefore I percieve the computer but the computer is not a part of me and I am not a part of the computer.

 

Yes, the world still exists when I close my eyes. The chair still supports me in a sitting position when I close my eyes. The chair is not dependant on me in order to exist. You are not dependant on me in order to exist.

 

Yes, sounds (the vibrations of the waves) still exist without me to hear them. If I turn up my amp enough I can feel the wave vibrations even if I were totally deaf.

 

I have never not had a mind so I can't answer your last question. I suggest that when my brain dies I will no longer be able to percieve the world. But then "I" wouldn't exist so this really have no bearing on the physical world beyond myself.

 

You would not see the chair, but you will still feel the chair due to your perception of touch. When I close my eyes, the world exists without color. Sounds do not exist as sounds but wavelengths when you do not hear them but measure them accordingly. Yup, you've never not had a mind. You have always had it, because you ARE it. In fact, everything that is existent is of the mind, otherwise, how can you know that it exists?

 

A delusion or illusion, on the other hand, can be disproven very easily. I can stand up, move the chair into another room, return to the computer with the delusion that I did not move the chair and sit down. I promise you that my ass would hit the floor. And, I would probably fall backwards and my head would hit the floor as well.

No that is the belief created from your identification of the analytical mind. You are trying to create something with a dead paint brush. You CAN do so, and that is why you believe you have a free will as a body, but really, the potentials of creation here is infinite once illusionary identity and habits are let go of.

 

Imagine a person who thinks he is his hand. He believe he can only act as his hand and nothing else, and believes it to be the source of all his actions. Now he suffers very much because the hand has a very limited ability to create and choose what it would do. But on inquiring into the source of the hand's movement, he comes to know his brain. Whoa! Now he has so many tools to move, to live, to activate! . (A crude example I know). A whole new world opens up to him and the hand is no longer in conflict with the body.

 

To think that I can fly would be another delusion. I can't fly. I have already tried. My arms do not create enough lift no matter how rapidly I flap them.

 

Basically, if you can make something disappear then it really wasn't there in the first place. What disappeared was only your illusion or delusion, not something manifest.

 

You can fly, only if you learn how to dream right. But you wouldn't really be flying, because you are simply making that reality come true. There is no movement here, only a perceptual deception. You think you move, because you believe you are controlling the body in a set environment. There is no set environment. All is the creation of the mind.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[steve]

After much thought on the concept of D.O., the meaning of causes and conditions, I'm beginning to entertain these ideas. Please criticize.

 

1)

 

The notion of cause and conditions comes from the act of distinction. What exactly is the cause in any perceived event? Wouldn't it not purely be of the mind's own distinction? And don't our actions and choices arise from such illusions?

 

The boundary between cause and effect is non-existent except within the illusionary perception of the mind. Our perception creates our habits which in turn formulates our choices. All conditions, all phenomena is therefore said to be of the Mind.

 

2)

 

When one looks to the source of this Mind--of all actions, of all acts of human cognition and reflection, one will find the sense of identity. This is the "I" thought. The grasping of a self. Most people believe this to be within the body as the brain, glands, energies, etc. But in the investigation of the location of the "I" ness, one finds that it is no where, that all rising phenomena within consciousness/experience is itself the "I."

 

Fragmentation of experience is all of the mind's illusionary concepts of boundaries and distinctions. In reality, there is only the Mind. But due to the illusion of causes and conditions, people create their own Karmas and suffer through them. They create their own identities within the dream, as the body, and cycle through their own Perceptions. All phenomena is therefore said to be dreamlike.

 

3)

 

Free will. If all things arise due to causes and conditions, or parts and fragments, why is it that there is a sense of free will? When I say free will, I am pointing towards the Creative urge. To create, do, evolve, be happy, move, etc. all point to this same arising movement of energy. The basic nature to Create comes from what exactly? More importantly, why does one want to Create? What exactly does it mean to Create something?

 

After all, isn't everyone here because they feel that there is greater potential to their existence beyond the current body and mind? That they can make the apparent choice to transform themselves? To Create a newer reality? What exactly is this?

 

To Create implies a Creator. One's identity, the center point, wherever it may be, is the source of Creation. One can only Create from that identity (For most people, it is through the body and the mind). When there are no causes and conditions, no locality of self, what is the source of Creation?

 

It arises from one's very own Mind, Free Will, and Intent. All phenomena is experienced through the way one grasps onto an identity within one's own Creation. It is the dreamer clinging onto a dream identity, and suffering from the imagined "causes and conditions". He/she lives and dies in his own Mind and it's own rules. Our path is then to rid of the illusionary identity and to return to the state of an absolute Creator (Now, I don't want to say God, since that word carries so many connotations). It is the very essence of the Mind to Create, to Dream, and to revel in its own Creation. To be virtuous, playful, cling, liberate, or whatever action you imagine arise from no where except one's own Mind. There is no other, but "I." Heaven and Earth are "I," the Tao is the "I," "I" am both God and the Devil. This "I" ness, this Creative consciousness is "I." It is ever dynamic and it's abilities are infinite.

 

Everything is created from My energy and creativity. In fact, Everything IS my energy and creativity. There is nothing within Creation that is not "I." (Please note this is very different from Advaitia's Brahma)

 

4)

Then, obviously, who are "You"?

 

I am not you and you are not me. You are a different "I," a whole different universal creation itself. I am only a part of your world as a reflective essence and that reflective essence is simply your own perception.

 

For example, "you" cannot kill "me." It is impossible. The killing would only take place within your own delusion of a self conceived body killing another self-conceived body. The "I" you see is nothing but your own self, something in your own dream.

 

But can you Create from nothing? Do you remember ever Creating "me" consciously? Most likely not.

 

Here we run into the question on the meaning of Creation. Can anything truly be created originally out of nothing? No, it cannot. The artist cannot paint without a subject, the brush, and colors. He draws inspiration from his perception, and likewise, I can only Create through "other." And in this way, we are all "connected."

 

I am in everyone and everyone is in me. The key word in the phrase is "in." The stress must be put on "one" in the word "everyone," because if we say "I am everything" the phrase can suppose an objective universe. This is not so, since everything is subjective. "I" am the Creator, and "you" are the paint, the paint brush, the paper, the mountains (Technically, the true Self is the process of creation. Again, you are your experience and your experience is determined by intent). The tools are as infinite as there are infinite number of beings and universes. Compassion is a means to attain the tools, and Wisdom is the road to Perfection.

 

So when we cultivate, we are cultivating our Creation, not simply our bodies within an outside thing called the world. And this way, your light will be reflected in everyone. .

I would say that over the course of 15 weeks or so, your work has paid off handsomely.

Your own questions are infinitely more important than our answers.

The only thing I would add to your excellent observations above is that the final illusion to drop is the distinction between "I" and "you". True, there are different perspectives during life, like water molecules in the sea or a better analogy may be the whirlpool in a river, but the sea is not divided and the whirlpool is not separate from the river. Therein lies the true happiness and compassion that the mystics tell us are 'always already there'. The paradox of good vs evil and Boddhisatva vs murderer only exists when the illusion of separation exists.

[Marblehead]

Yes, they share the same state of perception.

 

Well, we agree on one point. That's a start. Hehehe.

 

You would not see the chair, but you will still feel the chair due to your perception of touch. When I close my eyes, the world exists without color. Sounds do not exist as sounds but wavelengths when you do not hear them but measure them accordingly. Yup, you've never not had a mind. You have always had it, because you ARE it. In fact, everything that is existent is of the mind, otherwise, how can you know that it exists?

 

Only partial agreement here. But we can agree that the chair exists, right?

 

True, you need your eyes to be able to see, whether in color or black and white. Without eye we cannot see. However, everyone else is still able to see the world in color so it still exists for everyone else - in living color!

 

I, of course, disagree with your last two statements. First, my mind is only a part of what I am. I have arms, legs, a penis, etc. All my parts make up what I am.

 

And finally, I don't have to exist in order for the tree to exist. Others will percieve the tree. I have nothing to do with the tree. We are separate manifestations.

 

No that is the belief created from your identification of the analytical mind. You are trying to create something with a dead paint brush. You CAN do so, and that is why you believe you have a free will as a body, but really, the potentials of creation here is infinite once illusionary identity and habits are let go of.

 

No, it is a fact. I have on a couple occasions thought that is was going to sit in a chair that wasn't there and my ass hit the floor every time. Without fail. No matter how hard I tried to keep from hitting my ass on the floor the momentum had already started and I could not pretend that I was not falling.

 

I promise you, every time you try to sit in a chair that isn't physically there your ass will hit the floor. Every time - regardless of your illusions or delusions.

 

Imagine a person who thinks he is his hand. He believe he can only act as his hand and nothing else, and believes it to be the source of all his actions. Now he suffers very much because the hand has a very limited ability to create and choose what it would do. But on inquiring into the source of the hand's movement, he comes to know his brain. Whoa! Now he has so many tools to move, to live, to activate! . (A crude example I know). A whole new world opens up to him and the hand is no longer in conflict with the body.

 

I cannot imagine that. Sorry. But I get the point you are driving toward. That is why I have already stated in different threads that it is important for us to know our capabilities and capacities so that we can live our life to the fullest. Yes, I can imagine and dream that I am having sex with Halle Berry when I am asleep but really all I am doing is masturbating. Reality is reality. I can't make Miss Halle materialize in my bed - I have already tried.

 

You can fly, only if you learn how to dream right. But you wouldn't really be flying, because you are simply making that reality come true. There is no movement here, only a perceptual deception. You think you move, because you believe you are controlling the body in a set environment. There is no set environment. All is the creation of the mind.

 

You are playing with the word 'fly'. That's not fair.

 

Yes, I have visited my favorite place in Italy a view times in the past. It is a very special place. I was physically there a number of times. But in my imagination my visits are only the memories of when I physically there. I really din't go there - I only remembered the past experiences and replay them in my mind. I was still physically in Florida.

 

But remember, that was an illusion - it wasn't reality. I recognize it for what it is. That is the difference between imagination and illusions and delusions.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

True, you need your eyes to be able to see, whether in color or black and white. Without eye we cannot see. However, everyone else is still able to see the world in color so it still exists for everyone else - in living color!

 

I, of course, disagree with your last two statements. First, my mind is only a part of what I am. I have arms, legs, a penis, etc. All my parts make up what I am.

 

Do you know a person who you have not met (not only physically). Wheres does this thing called "arm" begin and end?

 

And finally, I don't have to exist in order for the tree to exist. Others will percieve the tree. I have nothing to do with the tree. We are separate manifestations.

 

No, it is a fact. I have on a couple occasions thought that is was going to sit in a chair that wasn't there and my ass hit the floor every time. Without fail. No matter how hard I tried to keep from hitting my ass on the floor the momentum had already started and I could not pretend that I was not falling.

 

You have everything to do with how the tree is perceived. What you believe to be "tree" only exists as concepts attributed to a phenomena within the mind.

 

I promise you, every time you try to sit in a chair that isn't physically there your ass will hit the floor. Every time - regardless of your illusions or delusions.

 

I cannot imagine that. Sorry. But I get the point you are driving toward. That is why I have already stated in different threads that it is important for us to know our capabilities and capacities so that we can live our life to the fullest. Yes, I can imagine and dream that I am having sex with Halle Berry when I am asleep but really all I am doing is masturbating. Reality is reality. I can't make Miss Halle materialize in my bed - I have already tried.

 

That is like your hand trying to write a thesis paper. It can't. Not as long as it limits itself as a hand. And because you believe yourself to be of the body and the brain, material creations within the dream limited to the environment, you cannot do these things. Thus delusions and false clingings/knots must be let go of.

 

I would say that over the course of 15 weeks or so, your work has paid off handsomely.

Your own questions are infinitely more important than our answers.

The only thing I would add to your excellent observations above is that the final illusion to drop is the distinction between "I" and "you". True, there are different perspectives during life, like water molecules in the sea or a better analogy may be the whirlpool in a river, but the sea is not divided and the whirlpool is not separate from the river. Therein lies the true happiness and compassion that the mystics tell us are 'always already there'. The paradox of good vs evil and Boddhisatva vs murderer only exists when the illusion of separation exists.

 

Right. There can only BE I. The capital Self. It is not Brahma, God, Buddha or any of these things. It is right now in the ever non-dual experience. And this is only created according to your own intentions and thought processes rising from the illusionary act of distinction. The contents of the mind are only imprints of "treeness", "Marbleheadness" "Buddhaness," etc. The manifestations of the mind are actually, and truly, of infinite variety.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Lucky... your comprehension is pretty Yogacara (consciousness only school) and maybe some Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamaka. Had to cut and paste that big word.

 

It's still considered an approximate because the conclusion is still that moments of consciousness arise along with perceptions, even elongated focused perceptions on formless, timeless conditions that arise in opposition to time and formed conditions. It's still considered a relativity and not an ultimate from it's own side.

 

All the best in this discussion guys!!

 

 

 

p.s. The non-dual is still that all these minds and perceivables are inherently empty, not that they are one mysterious substance named mind. Which is why it's a non-substantiative non-duality free from proliferation. As in, nothing is established in the final analysis.

 

double edit... not even "nothing" is established.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

p.s. The non-dual is still that all these minds and perceivables are inherently empty, not that they are one mysterious substance named mind. Which is why it's a non-substantiative non-duality free from proliferation. As in, nothing is established in the final analysis.

 

double edit... not even "nothing" is established.

 

What is the mind dependent on in terms of its very existence?

 

Annnndd, you still have not answered as to how one can become a Buddha when all becomings are due to causes and conditions.

[Marblehead]

Do you know a person who you have not met (not only physically).

 

No. I do not know someone I do not know or have not met. I know a few people. There are supposedly nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I don't know that many people but I do accept the estimate for the number currently alive.

 

Wheres does this thing called "arm" begin and end?

 

Tha arm starts at the shoulder and ends at the wrist. There are two sections of the arm separated by an elbow.

 

You have everything to do with how the tree is perceived. What you believe to be "tree" only exists as concepts attributed to a phenomena within the mind.

 

Yes! As to how I percieve it. But I have nothing to do with how you percieve it nor do I ahve anything to do with its reality. The tree exists with the help of the human mind. If there were no humans on this planet a dog would still walk up to it and piss on it.

 

That is like your hand trying to write a thesis paper. It can't. Not as long as it limits itself as a hand. And because you believe yourself to be of the body and the brain, material creations within the dream limited to the environment, you cannot do these things. Thus delusions and false clingings/knots must be let go of.

 

You lost me on that one. I have written papers before. It required a butt for me to sit on, a hand attached to a wrist, attached to an arm, attached to a shoulder, etc., eyes to see the paper etc, a brain to convert the concepts into words, etc. It didn't require any illusions or delusions in order to write the paper. Every aspect of the creation can be explained with the physical without any metaphysical considerations.

 

There must be a you before you can attach yourself to any metaphysical or spiritual aspect. There must be a you before you can create a delusion or illusion. If you do not exist, there is no you to do anything. But the tree is still there!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Hi V.,

 

I'm glad you still exist. (Well, let's face it, I would never have imagined someone like you. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[JustARandomPanda]

Right. There can only BE I. The capital Self. It is not Brahma, God, Buddha or any of these things. It is right now in the ever non-dual experience. And this is only created according to your own intentions and thought processes rising from the illusionary act of distinction. The contents of the mind are only imprints of "treeness", "Marbleheadness" "Buddhaness," etc. The manifestations of the mind are actually, and truly, of infinite variety.

 

Dependent Origination is the acid that eats away even this explanation.

[Vajrahridaya]

What is the mind dependent on in terms of its very existence?

 

Annnndd, you still have not answered as to how one can become a Buddha when all becomings are due to causes and conditions.

 

You need to study the 12 links more and consider them in a vipassana style meditation. Mind is merely it's perceptions. If your still grasping at mind as a substance that truly IS... then your basically just falling into the error of the formless jhanas.

 

Becoming a Buddha is as much an illusion as not being one. You don't actually become a Buddha, you just recognize the insubstantial nature of the flow, which is a condition, that is caused. But, it's the opposite of a compounded condition. Yet, the display of Buddha is still a compounded condition.

 

 

Hi V.,

 

I'm glad you still exist. (Well, let's face it, I would never have imagined someone like you. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

LOL! Is it... "V" for...

 

Or...

 

 

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Dependent Origination is the acid that eats away even this explanation.

 

 

That's my girl!!! You hang in there. Okay?

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

LOL! Is it... "V" for...

 

 

I opt for this one. I could have much more fun with her.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

You need to study the 12 links more and consider them in a vipassana style meditation. Mind is merely it's perceptions. If your still grasping at mind as a substance that truly IS... then your basically just falling into the error of the formless jhanas.

 

Becoming a Buddha is as much an illusion as not being one. You don't actually become a Buddha, you just recognize the insubstantial nature of the flow, which is a condition, that is caused. But, it's the opposite of a compounded condition. Yet, the display of Buddha is still a compounded condition.

 

You need to look into the meaning of "cause." . What does it mean for one thing to cause another?

 

What I'm saying is beyond form and formless. Everything is already of the mind.

 

Your View:

 

So no one recognizes anything. There is no liberation to take place. There is no difference between Nirvana and Samsara. No enlightenment and no ignorance.

 

No one to blame or praise. The rapist and the Bodhisattva are of equal status.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

The rapist and the Bodhisattva are of equal status.

 

Post note. The rapist will die if I get my hands on him. The Bodhisattva will live. Sorry, they do not have equal status.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

You need to look into the meaning of "cause." . What does it mean for one thing to cause another?

 

But in life, causation is not simple equation. It's... each caused thing is a unique effect of infinite causes which are themselves unique effects of infinite causes. Nothing is actually created, they arise out of potential latent in the endless flow of variables since beginningless time. So, cause is different than created in a sense of out of thin air.

 

What I'm saying is beyond form and formless. Everything is already of the mind.

 

Your View:

 

So no one recognizes anything. There is no liberation to take place. There is no difference between Nirvana and Samsara. No enlightenment and no ignorance.

 

No one to blame or praise. The rapist and the Bodhisattva are of equal status.

 

Only ultimately, not relatively and we only have the relative. So, you can always go back to the two truths model to get some sobriety.

 

There is no ultimate view and that's the ultimate view is what the Heart Sutra is saying.

 

Post note. The rapist will die if I get my hands on him. The Bodhisattva will live. Sorry, they do not have equal status.

 

Peace & Love!

 

From the sense of relative relations, they do not... one is more likely bound to a lower incarnation. They do have equal status in the sense of they both seem to exist, thus philosophically... one can see that they are equal in this sense. The dynamic of their particular existence, as in the way in which causes and conditions that are existence enact them cause a relative inequality.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Post note. The rapist will die if I get my hands on him. The Bodhisattva will live. Sorry, they do not have equal status.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Well, the rapist probably shouldn't die, he may someday have realization and redemption and become a human being again, you can't deprive him of that. Plus there's your own karma to consider. But you can always call Zed from Pulp Fiction to pay homes a visit and get Medieval on his ass with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch. And finish with a broomstick.

 

La la, have a great day!

Edited October 17, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Lucky7Strikes]

But in life, causation is not simple equation. It's... each caused thing is a unique effect of infinite causes which are themselves unique effects of infinite causes. Nothing is actually created, they arise out of potential latent in the endless flow of variables since beginningless time. So, cause is different than created in a sense of out of thin air.

 

Only ultimately, not relatively and we only have the relative. So, you can always go back to the two truths model to get some sobriety.

 

A beginingless cause to everything posts fatalism.

 

 

From the sense of relative relations, they do not... one is more likely bound to a lower incarnation. They do have equal status in the sense of they both seem to exist, thus philosophically... one can see that they are equal in this sense. The dynamic of their particular existence, as in the way in which causes and conditions that are existence enact them cause a relative inequality.

 

Your View:

 

The infinite causes and conditions have manifested in the form of a Bodhisattva and in the form of a criminal. In your view, no one is there to blame, because all our actions and manifestations have been caused by the conditions that have arisen beforehand. Relative inequality would mean that both the Bodhisattva and the criminal are only judged to be good and bad when you distinguish it to be so. And that distinction too is relatively originated.

 

Simply causes and conditions, fragmentation of phenomena, working itself out.

 

Don't you see that in order for salvation to be true, that there needs to be a source to a will?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

 

La la, have a great day!

 

Hehehe. You too have a great day.

 

I don't worry about my karma. He's a big boy and can very well take care of himself.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Please! Please! No more salvation. Y'all are going to save me to death.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

A beginingless cause to everything posts fatalism.

 

Your not seeing the variableness. So, your interpretation is fatalistic, not mine.

 

Your View:

 

The infinite causes and conditions have manifested in the form of a Bodhisattva and in the form of a criminal. In your view, no one is there to blame, because all our actions and manifestations have been caused by the conditions that have arisen beforehand. Relative inequality would mean that both the Bodhisattva and the criminal are only judged to be good and bad when you distinguish it to be so. And that distinction too is relatively originated.

 

Simply causes and conditions, fragmentation of phenomena, working itself out.

 

Your simplifying in your mind too much and not seeing beyond the mere letter of the words. It's so much subtler than that. You're looking at the words as if separate from the conjuring, even the process of conjuring is more complex than it's discussion. Take it in... it's complexity is what makes it organic.

Don't you see that in order for salvation to be true, that there needs to be a source to a will?

 

No. I used to feel this way, but not anymore.

 

Because things are empty, movement happens.

 

The pure and simple space of awareness is able to apprehend limitless complexities without having to have a thought about them.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your not seeing the variableness. So, your interpretation is fatalistic, not mine.

 

I don't see how it is an interpretation. It is a logical inference. What am I not seeing here?

 

Your simplifying in your mind too much and not seeing beyond the mere letter of the words. It's so much subtler than that. You're looking at the words as if separate from the conjuring, even the process of conjuring is more complex than it's discussion. Take it in... it's complexity is what makes it organic.

 

"Oh it's just too subtle and complex"...hrm..I need a better explanation. Perhaps you are making it complex when simply, it doesn't make sense.

 

No. I used to feel this way, but not anymore.

 

Because things are empty, movement happens.

 

Yes, according to you, things just happen without a doer, creator, will, or any driving force.

 

I see no difference with this view and fatalistic nihilism and physicalist science. And please don't say something in the lines of "oh that is just extremism, so therefore it's not true." Whether it is extreme or not is totally subjective.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

[Marblehead]

too much intellectualizing....

 

So that is what that is called. I have been calling it something else.

 

nihilism and science do not have non-dual presence (luminosity)

 

I can't speak regarding nihilism but for sure that is true regarding science.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Dependent Origination is the acid that eats away even this explanation.

 

Is there a condition under which dependent origination is inoperative?

 

If yes, then dependent origination is itself dependent, but then it also means that dependent origination is not always what it seems to be, as it implies a transcendent and independent quality.

 

If no, then dependent origination is itself independent, thus showing that dependent origination is not the whole story, again.

 

You can use dependent origination against itself. And you should. That doesn't mean dependent origination is false or useless, but let's say, it is a lot more mysterious and less obvious than some people imagine it to be.

 

There are other way to attach DO. So all the DO lovers should not be too smug, imo. DO is a great tool though. Also I like interdependent arising as a better translation. DO is a bad translation in my view.

 

Interdependent arising highlights the bi-directionality of conditionality. Bi-directionality is important to understand. So for example, things that affect mind are, in that exact same relation, also affect by mind. In other words, it's not the case that a produces b produces c and so on. It's more correct to think this way:

 

a <---> b <---> c

<----------------->

 

There is no predefined vector within dependence. It is our mind that creates the directionality. There is no inherent directionality within phenomena.

Edited October 17, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

too much intellectualizing....

 

there can't be fatalism if there are no subjects

 

So there are only objects?

 

How is that not fatalism?

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...pontaneous.html[/url]

nihilism and science do not have non-dual presence (luminosity)

 

Yes emptiness is to deepen the insight into the nature of the mind that grasps onto a form as real and separate. By seeing dependence of every distinguished aspect of phenomena, it's singularity is seen to be false. Nothing is beyond the mind.

 

Luminosity is the very nature of the mind. Tell me how this is dependently originated? From what exactly?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

 

I don't worry about my karma. He's a big boy and can very well take care of himself.

 

 

Might that be the 'Little Richard' who you have to quiet down periodically?