Except in this case they are in perfect agreement, so it's not an issue.smcj wrote:Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.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.
BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.futerko wrote:Except in this case they are in perfect agreement, so it's not an issue.smcj wrote:Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.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.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
They agree on "endless/beginningless", but I think that Nagarjuna (and friends) would lump the "uncreated" part in with the "field of reality" part.futerko wrote:They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality".
Say what you think about me here.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.oushi wrote: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.smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality".
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.smcj wrote:They agree on "endless/beginningless", but I think that Nagarjuna (and friends) would lump the "uncreated" part in with the "field of reality" part.futerko wrote:They deny the "field of reality" part, not the "endless beginningless uncreated" part.smcj wrote:Nagarjuna and all his followers deny that there is "an endless beginningless uncreated field of reality". Shengtopas, like me, accept is though.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Not true. Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed. The same goes for time.smcj wrote: If such a thing existed it would be observable
Begininglessness and endlessness implies that is is not impermanent.If it were observable it would be impermanent and self-empty
Say what you think about me here.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
I observe space all round me, because it is an object of awareness.oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.
Time is different. Time is conceptual and the experience of it is relative to the one experiencing it.oushi wrote: The same goes for time.
But that experience is also an object of awareness.
awareness is observable.If it were observable it would be impermanent and self-empty
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.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
So, how does it look like?PadmaVonSamba wrote:I observe space all round me.oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.
Say what you think about me here.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
No, it means that no thing originates.futerko wrote:The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates
In other words, in dependent origination, there is no intrinsically, self-asising thing.
I don't know it it implies that, but yes, this is true. But the keyword here is "duration".futerko wrote: which is effectively the same as saying that there is no empirically infinite linear temporal duration.
"taken as concrete facts of existence" is not the point.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.
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.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
smells good. right now, like incense.oushi wrote:So, how does it look like?PadmaVonSamba wrote:I observe space all round me.oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.
at the beach, it looks big.
inside a closet, it looks small.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.PadmaVonSamba wrote:smells good. right now, like incense.
at the beach, it looks big.
inside a closet, it looks small.
Say what you think about me here.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.PadmaVonSamba wrote:"taken as concrete facts of existence" is not the point.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.
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.
.
.
.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Suggesting that space is not perceived,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.
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.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Do you know whether you are enlightened or not?futerko wrote: such things that, "are experienced as such by the unenlightened mind" cannot possibly form the basis for a cogent explanation of temporality.
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.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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?PadmaVonSamba wrote:Do you know whether you are enlightened or not?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.
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.
.
.
.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9445
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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.
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Indeed, and how do they know that they are in the woods? By your reasoning they might be on a beach.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.
.
.
.
Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
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:Suggesting that space is not perceived,
simply because a point of reference is needed in order to do so
is a bit ridiculous.
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?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.
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.