"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:06 pm

Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.


I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:11 pm

heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.


I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus

So who wrote that post and signed it Magnus ?
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:44 pm

Malcolm wrote: The lifespan of human beings is considered to be about 80 years.

Thank. I'll keep that in mind when I buy milk.
:rolling:
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:47 pm

heart wrote: I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self.

Don't get hung up on the word "is".
The experience of a self arises.
That's what conventionally means.
Its who you register as, when you go to a convention.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dharmagoat » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:09 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:That's what conventionally means.
Its who you register as, when you go to a convention.

A gem.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:28 pm

Simon E. wrote:
heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.


I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus

So who wrote that post and signed it Magnus ?


I did, still no proof of a self in that statement.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:30 pm

heart wrote:I did, still no proof of a self in that statement.

Are you aware that you posted it?
That is all the proof you need.
Anyway, why do you assert that therefore you have the right to steal from people?
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:37 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote: I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self.

Don't get hung up on the word "is".
The experience of a self arises.
That's what conventionally means.
Its who you register as, when you go to a convention.
.
.
.


So you actually think that when the Buddha attained enlightenment he still had an experience of a self because he could say "I did this, then I did that"? Having a body, being in time and using a language are things that can't be expressed other than in a dual way, but it certainly don't mean you have to grasp for a self. Liberation doesn't mean you lack the capacity to communicate with others.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:39 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote:I did, still no proof of a self in that statement.

Are you aware that you posted it?
That is all the proof you need.
Anyway, why do you assert that therefore you have the right to steal from people?
.
.
.


It is language, language is always dual. Don't say anything about my, or anyone else's, realisation.

/magnus
Last edited by heart on Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:40 pm

heart wrote: So you actually think that when the Buddha attained enlightenment he still had an experience of a self because he could say "I did this, then I did that"? Having a body, being in time and using a language are things that can't be expressed other than in a dual way, but it certainly don't mean you have to grasp for a self. Liberation doesn't mean you lack the capacity to communicate with others.


I am not exactly sure what it is you are saying.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:41 pm

heart wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote:I did, still no proof of a self in that statement.

Are you aware that you posted it?
That is all the proof you need.
Anyway, why do you assert that therefore you have the right to steal from people?

It is language, language is always dual. Don't say anything about my realisation.


what are you talking about?
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:46 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote: So you actually think that when the Buddha attained enlightenment he still had an experience of a self because he could say "I did this, then I did that"? Having a body, being in time and using a language are things that can't be expressed other than in a dual way, but it certainly don't mean you have to grasp for a self. Liberation doesn't mean you lack the capacity to communicate with others.


I am not exactly sure what it is you are saying.
.
.
.


I am saying that the Buddha, who was fully realised, travelled around India teaching for 50 years using words such as "I" and "you" to express his teaching to beings. That he used those words is no proof of him having the experience of a self. So language can't be used as a proof for a self. In fact according to my understanding the lack of a self is not an absolute truth. The fact is that it can't be found only imputed by such things as language.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:58 pm

heart wrote: I am saying that the Buddha, who was fully realised, travelled around India teaching for 50 years using words such as "I" and "you" to express his teaching to beings. That he used those words is no proof of him having the experience of a self. So language can't be used as a proof for a self. In fact according to my understanding the lack of a self is not an absolute truth. The fact is that it can't be found only imputed by such things as language.
/magnus


Language cannot be used as evidence of an intrinsically real self (atman).
The very fact that "I" and "you" are used defines the experience of a conventional self.

.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:07 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote: I am saying that the Buddha, who was fully realised, travelled around India teaching for 50 years using words such as "I" and "you" to express his teaching to beings. That he used those words is no proof of him having the experience of a self. So language can't be used as a proof for a self. In fact according to my understanding the lack of a self is not an absolute truth. The fact is that it can't be found only imputed by such things as language.
/magnus


Language cannot be used as evidence of an intrinsically real self (atman).
The very fact that "I" and "you" are used defines the experience of a conventional self.


Language is based on this misunderstanding but it is hardly a proof of the selfs conventional existence nor does it define it.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Sherab » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:10 am

Malcolm wrote:Cause and condition [hetu and pratyaya] is a separate topic; necessary for understanding karma, but more general.

For this reason, Vasubandhu first writes about causes and conditions; then he writes about dependent origination; then he writes about karma: moving from the very general to the very specific.


I would have thought that the sequence would be DO, then causality (cause -> effect), then karma (intentional cause -> effect).
Causes and conditions would explain causality and karma, but would be quite hard to use to explain DO.
So I am not sure if I would entirely agree with Vasubandhu here.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:07 am

heart wrote: Language is based on this misunderstanding but it is hardly a proof of the selfs conventional existence nor does it define it.


In that case, what exactly do you mean by 'existence''?
All i said was that
The experience of a self arises.
That is how a buddha can talk to people,and use words such as "you" and "I".
Now you are saying a Buddha is unable experience that?
even though you brought up the fact that he did so.

heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.

I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck. /magnus


but the point is, you did find it,
you did find the conventional self,
and you proved that you found it
the moment you signed
/magnus to that post.

If you disagree
then you must also say that dreams do not occur either.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:38 am

heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.


I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus


You mean people do not use the convention "I" and "me" to refer to themselves?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11747
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Anders » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:09 pm

heart wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote: I am saying that the Buddha, who was fully realised, travelled around India teaching for 50 years using words such as "I" and "you" to express his teaching to beings. That he used those words is no proof of him having the experience of a self. So language can't be used as a proof for a self. In fact according to my understanding the lack of a self is not an absolute truth. The fact is that it can't be found only imputed by such things as language.
/magnus


Language cannot be used as evidence of an intrinsically real self (atman).
The very fact that "I" and "you" are used defines the experience of a conventional self.


Language is based on this misunderstanding but it is hardly a proof of the selfs conventional existence nor does it define it.

/magnus


I think you misunderstand the meaning of 'conventional'.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:35 pm

Malcolm wrote:
heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.


I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus


You mean people do not use the convention "I" and "me" to refer to themselves?


Sure they do, still no proof of an actual conventional self.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby heart » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:38 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
heart wrote: Language is based on this misunderstanding but it is hardly a proof of the selfs conventional existence nor does it define it.


In that case, what exactly do you mean by 'existence''?
All i said was that
The experience of a self arises.
That is how a buddha can talk to people,and use words such as "you" and "I".
Now you are saying a Buddha is unable experience that?
even though you brought up the fact that he did so.

heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.

I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck. /magnus


but the point is, you did find it,
you did find the conventional self,
and you proved that you found it
the moment you signed
/magnus to that post.

If you disagree
then you must also say that dreams do not occur either.
.
.
.



Magnus exist in an conventional way, however that is no proof that Magnus have an conventionally existing self.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], heart, namoh, Norwegian, pemachophel, seraphim, zenman and 20 guests

>