BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:58 pm

smcj wrote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.


Except in this case they are in perfect agreement, so it's not an issue.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby smcj » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:45 pm

futerko wrote:
smcj wrote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.

Except in this case they are in perfect agreement, so it's not an issue.

Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:49 pm

smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.


They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby smcj » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:51 pm

futerko wrote:
smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.


They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.

They agree on "endless/beginningless", but I think that Nagarjuna (and friends) would lump the "uncreated" part in with the "field of reality" part.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby oushi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:57 pm

smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality".

It depends on what you are denying. Uncreated entity cannot have beginning or the end, nor be beginningless or endless, so on that basis it can be denied. In other words, if it is uncreated you cannot tell anything about it, as it remains featureless. On the other hand, denying an endless beginningless (created) field of reality would be impossible.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby smcj » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:01 pm

oushi wrote:
smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality".

It depends on what you are denying. Uncreated entity cannot have beginning or the end, nor be beginningless or endless, so on that basis it can be denied. In other words, if it is uncreated you cannot tell anything about it, as it remains featureless. On the other hand, denying an endless beginningless (created) field of reality would be impossible.

Nobody posits an endless/beginningless 'created' field. If such a thing existed it would be observable. If it were observable it would be impermanent and self-empty, etc. Shengtongpas accept Prasangika Madhymaka analysis for the observable universe.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:04 pm

smcj wrote:
futerko wrote:
smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.


They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.

They agree on "endless/beginningless", but I think that Nagarjuna (and friends) would lump the "uncreated" part in with the "field of reality" part.


Yes, possibly, but in regard to this thread, there is really no regress there precisely because this concept of infinity is not an empirical "incalculably large number" or an "infinite temporal duration" but is timelessness, so the description as beginningless and uncreated would seem to me to indicate that.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby oushi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:08 pm

smcj wrote: If such a thing existed it would be observable

Not true. Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed. The same goes for time.
If it were observable it would be impermanent and self-empty

Begininglessness and endlessness implies that is is not impermanent.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:37 pm

oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.

I observe space all round me, because it is an object of awareness.
oushi wrote: The same goes for time.

Time is different. Time is conceptual and the experience of it is relative to the one experiencing it.
But that experience is also an object of awareness.
If it were observable it would be impermanent and self-empty

awareness is observable.
I am aware that I am aware.
awareness, and the objects of awareness (e.g., space)
are, generally speaking, the only two things that can be said to
absolutely occur.

The fact of awareness cannot be denied
and any object of awareness, because it arises as an object of awareness
can be said to occur (whether it has any substance to it or not),
because it arises as an object of awareness.

The fact of awareness cannot be denied
because any denial of it would require awareness of that denial.
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:45 pm, edited 5 times 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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby oushi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:42 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.

I observe space all round me.

So, how does it look like?
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:56 pm

futerko wrote:The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates


No, it means that no thing originates.
In other words, in dependent origination, there is no intrinsically, self-asising thing.
futerko wrote:which is effectively the same as saying that there is no empirically infinite linear temporal duration.

I don't know it it implies that, but yes, this is true. But the keyword here is "duration".
futerko wrote:Time and causality are "in mind" phenomena, which taken as concrete facts of existence, would render Buddhism an utterly pointless exercise in futility.

"taken as concrete facts of existence" is not the point.
they are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind.
Dharma, which cuts through illusion, is meaningful because illusion (of 'concreteness") does occur
even if the objects which comprise the illusion have no intrinsic reality to them.
.
.
.
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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:57 pm

oushi wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.

I observe space all round me.

So, how does it look like?

smells good. right now, like incense.
at the beach, it looks big.
inside a closet, it looks small.
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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby oushi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:03 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:smells good. right now, like incense.
at the beach, it looks big.
inside a closet, it looks small.

Incense, beach, closet... but not space. Tell me how does pure space look like. You cannot, because it is impossible. You need objects to speak about space, as it is conceivable only through their relationship. To talk about time, you need change. Neither can be perceived directly.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:12 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
futerko wrote:Time and causality are "in mind" phenomena, which taken as concrete facts of existence, would render Buddhism an utterly pointless exercise in futility.

"taken as concrete facts of existence" is not the point.
they are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind.
Dharma, which cuts through illusion, is meaningful because illusion (of 'concreteness") does occur
even if the objects which comprise the illusion have no intrinsic reality to them.
.
.
.


Right, and therefore such things that, "are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind" cannot possibly form the basis for a cogent explanation of temporality.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:48 pm

oushi wrote:Incense, beach, closet... but not space. Tell me how does pure space look like. You cannot, because it is impossible. You need objects to speak about space, as it is conceivable only through their relationship. To talk about time, you need change. Neither can be perceived directly.

Suggesting that space is not perceived,
simply because a point of reference is needed in order to do so
is a bit ridiculous.

Likewise, awareness is perceivable.
you know that you are aware.
How do you know?
by the sense organs, even though they arise in the ground of awareness.

Someone who is not a Buddha, likewise,
can know that he or she is unenlightened,
and this is knowable using the unenlightened mind.

Maybe you cannot perceive that there is space between you and objects,
and thus, you cannot perceive space,
but I can.

.
.
.
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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:03 pm

futerko wrote: such things that, "are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind" cannot possibly form the basis for a cogent explanation of temporality.


Do you know whether you are enlightened or not?
By your reasoning,
if you are not enlightened, how can you possibly know?
You would have to assume that because you are functioning with a confused (unenlightened mind)
that the assumption you are not enlightened is likely to be false,
and that you are in fact, an enlightened Buddha,
but that you simply don't know this because you are actually not an enlightened Buddha.

Since that makes no sense,
I suggest that your premise,
"cannot possibly form the basis for a cogent explanation"
is mistaken.
.
.
.
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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:10 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
futerko wrote:
Right, and therefore such things that, "are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind" cannot possibly form the basis for a cogent explanation of temporality.


Do you know whether you are enlightened or not?
By your reasoning,
if you are not enlightened, how can you possibly know?
You would have to assume that because you are functioning with a confused (unenlightened mind)
that the assumption you are not enlightened is likely to be false.
Since that makes no sense,
I suggest that your premise is mistaken.
.
.
.


You were the one who brought enlightenment into this, I was simply talking about the nature of time, but to in response to your question - Why would you ask someone who doesn't know about the thing they don't know?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:13 pm

Don't confuse "not knowing how to get out of the woods"
with "not knowing that one is lost".
The outcome is different for two people lost in the woods,
one who knows they have been walking in the wrong direction, and the other who doesn't.
.
.
.
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: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:14 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Don't confuse "not knowing how to get out of the woods"
with "not knowing that one is lost".
The outcome is different for two people lost in the woods,
one who knows they have been walking in the wrong direction, and the other who doesn't.
.
.
.


Indeed, and how do they know that they are in the woods? By your reasoning they might be on a beach.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH

Postby oushi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:19 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Suggesting that space is not perceived,
simply because a point of reference is needed in order to do so
is a bit ridiculous.

Ridiculous is claiming something that cannot be prove. Of course you need a reference, otherwise how would you perceive? Moreover, an input from your senses is flat. Your eyes do not see three dimensions, it is an construct of your mind. Imagined feature that happens to be confirmed by other sense organs, on the same basis. We can almost be sure it exists, although we never saw it.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Likewise, awareness is perceivable.
you know that you are aware.
How do you know?
by the sense organs, even though they arise in the ground of awareness.

Nonsense. You may say that you perceive an object through awareness, but even that will be a wishful thinking. Who perceives? What does it mean "to perceive"? What is this awareness? How can you tell that it has a ground?
You cannot. You can develop fancy statements made our of empty words, but you will prove nothing. Whom does it serve?
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

>