Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
Let me come back to this...

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
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.


You seem to be suggesting that something originates which is somehow not a thing.

As Oushi wrote, "To talk about time, you need change." So where do you locate any event or any arising outside of any reference to the present?

Without needing to be enlightened, we still know that time appears as a succession of moments in which change appears to occur in those subsequent moments, so if we locate temporal infinity anywhere other than right here and now then we find ourselves in a dead end - positing an uncaused cause.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.


I just remembered something.
Go into a big, open field,
stick your arms out to your sides like airplane wings,
close your eyes, and run around all over the place with your eyes closed.
you will experience space. Not the wind, not the temperature, the space.
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
No, it means that no thing originates.
In other words, in dependent origination, there is no intrinsically, self-asising thing.


futerko wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that something originates which is somehow not a thing.

No, I clarified that:
no intrinsically, self-arising thing

futerko wrote:
As Oushi wrote, "To talk about time, you need change." So where do you locate any event or any arising outside of any reference to the present?

I didn't say one does that.

futerko wrote:
Without needing to be enlightened, we still know that time appears as a succession of moments in which change appears to occur in those subsequent moments, so if we locate temporal infinity anywhere other than right here and now then we find ourselves in a dead end - positing an uncaused cause.


What is the temporal duration of "right here and now" ?
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
futerko wrote:
Let me come back to this...

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
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.


You seem to be suggesting that something originates which is somehow not a thing.

As Oushi wrote, "To talk about time, you need change." So where do you locate any event or any arising outside of any reference to the present?

Without needing to be enlightened, we still know that time appears as a succession of moments in which change appears to occur in those subsequent moments, so if we locate temporal infinity anywhere other than right here and now then we find ourselves in a dead end - positing an uncaused cause.


Time depends on objects, when objects cannot be ascertained, neither can time.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
oushi wrote:
Can you observe space? You can conclude that there is space, but it cannot be observed.


I just remembered something.
Go into a big, open field,
stick your arms out to your sides like airplane wings,
close your eyes, and run around all over the place with your eyes closed.
you will experience space. Not the wind, not the temperature, the space.
.
.
.

Of course not. You will experience the ground under your feet, wind, meadow flowers, buzzing bees... but not space. Not running into something is not and experience. You can only perceive change, and space does not change. We cannot perceive space, we can only conclude that it is, and make use of this knowledge.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
Malcolm wrote:
Time depends on objects, when objects cannot be ascertained, neither can time.


Precisely.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
No, it means that no thing originates.
In other words, in dependent origination, there is no intrinsically, self-asising thing.


futerko wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that something originates which is somehow not a thing.

No, I clarified that:
no intrinsically, self-arising thing


So no intrinsically self-arising thing originates, but then the question remains, what does originate (if anything at all)?

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
What is the temporal duration of "right here and now" ?


That is how one arrives at infinity, by dividing by zero.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:26 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 1061
Malcolm wrote:

Time depends on objects, when objects cannot be ascertained, neither can time.


Yep. Similar to Mach's principle(s).

_________________
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
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.

That is excellent, and alludes to a very deep truth.
Namaste, my friend.
.
.
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
futerko wrote:
So no intrinsically self-arising thing originates, but then the question remains, what does originate (if anything at all)?


No, that is not the question that remains.
The question that remains is, "what arises?".
What arises is the interaction of awareness and objects of awareness.
if you want to know what comes before everything,
what is the context in which everything else arises,
an original cause, if you want to call it that,
it's awareness.
Actually, this is a clumsy term.
it is not 'sensory awareness' dependent on physical components.
cognition is a result of awareness + objects of awareness.
It's alaya, as in but not alaya-vijnana.
alaya, meaning "ground' or "base".
when this ground of awareness arises with objects of awareness,
that is whatpeople refer to as mind or cognition.
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
oushi wrote:
We cannot perceive space, we can only conclude that it is, and make use of this knowledge.

If you cannot perceive space, you cannot measure the distance between two objects.
in that regard, we can say that without reference points, space cannot be perceived.
That is conditional. perhaps that is what you are saying?
But with points of reference, it can be.

At least, to most people.

I am sorry that you can't perceive it, because it's very cool.
it's like "3-D"
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
futerko wrote:
So no intrinsically self-arising thing originates, but then the question remains, what does originate (if anything at all)?


No, that is not the question that remains.
The question that remains is, "what arises?".
What arises is the interaction of awareness and objects of awareness.
if you want to know what comes before everything,
what is the context in which everything else arises,
an original cause, if you want to call it that,
it's awareness.
Actually, this is a clumsy term.
it is not 'sensory awareness' dependent on physical components.
cognition is a result of awareness + objects of awareness.
It's alaya, as in but not alaya-vijnana.
alaya, meaning "ground' or "base".
when this ground of awareness arises with objects of awareness,
that is whatpeople refer to as mind or cognition.
.
.
.


Yes, that was pretty much my starting point, but is as good a point to end as any, given the nature of temporality.

edit - the question this does raise though is, if it is not "'sensory awareness' dependent on physical components", then in what sense does it include, "the interaction of awareness and objects of awareness"?

In other words, where are these objects of awareness once one has subtracted 'sensory awareness'?

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
futerko wrote:
where are these objects of awareness once one has subtracted 'sensory awareness'?

For the sake of not mixing up the meanings of
the ground of awareness, which is a precondition,
and 'sensory awareness' which is the result of causes,
let's refer to 'sensory awareness' as cognition
which is what is experienced only when
the necessary (component) conditions arise with
the ground of awareness.

Cognition, or to be more precise, what is experienced as cognition,
occurs when the ground of awareness arises with the interaction of various events,
such as the interaction of:
Water 77 to 78 %
fats 10 to 12 %
Protein 8%
Carbohydrate 1%
Soluble organic substances 2%
Inorganic salts 1%
...which is what makes up a human brain.
In this case, it the interaction of these components is the object of awareness,
which is experienced as cognition.
When they interact in the context of the ground of awareness,
that interaction is experienced as thoughts, emotions, concepts, and so on.
For example, "anger" itself isn't happening in the brain.
Only the chemical interactions,
(which arise, with the ground of awareness, as the experience of anger)
only those chemical interactions occur in the brain.
Scientists can even show where certain interactions occur in the brain
which are experienced as different types of thought or emotion.

Of course, many of those same objects interact all the time, such as salt and water.
There is nothing in the human body, in a molecular sense,
that hasn't always been here. Carbon, etc.
But up until that point, nothing we would recognize as cognition is taking place,
because they do not arise in the context of awareness.
The moment those chemical and molecular events occur within the context of awareness,
we experience cognition.
and we even experience a "me" experiencing it,
which, of course, the Buddha explained, was inaccurate.

So, to answer your question exactly,
sometimes salt and water is in the ocean and nobody is noticing.
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
oushi wrote:
We cannot perceive space, we can only conclude that it is, and make use of this knowledge.

If you cannot perceive space, you cannot measure the distance between two objects.
in that regard, we can say that without reference points, space cannot be perceived.
That is conditional. perhaps that is what you are saying?
But with points of reference, it can be.

Only objects can be perceived.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
I am sorry that you can't perceive it, because it's very cool.
it's like "3-D"

That effect is made up by your mind. If you are dreaming about standing on the open field, is there any real space? Nobody ever saw 3D, because eyes see flat pictures. It was made up by the brain, later in the process, by adding the idea of space.
Image
You see space where there is none... Miracle? No, an optical illusion.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
mindyourmind wrote:
I doubt whether I have the theistic knowledge and background to meaningfully ask this question, but here goes. I need to answer this in one of those email debates that some of us get into from time to time, and I am too busy (aka lazy) to go and do hours of research.

From a theistic point of view, God created everything, is the uncreated creator and all questions can be ascribed to him. Why are flowers, rainbows, puppy dogs - God is the ultimate answer.

Along come the Buddhists, "believing" in karma and rebirth, but not in a creator god. To put it in its simplest form, where does karma / rebirth "come from"? Who created such an exquisitely complex system, if there is no god?

Please be as technical and detailed as you can, I have been bet a case of beer that the Buddhist cannot meaningfully answer this, and that the best we can do is to ask questions like "Who's asking" and "ask your teacher". :reading: :sage:


Pay up on the case of beer. The question is unworthy of an answer, can't be answered... and thank god/buddha it can't.... waste of time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2191
Quote:
The question is unworthy of an answer, can't be answered... and thank god/buddha it can't.... waste of time

No, it can't be 'answered' per se. However it can be pointed out that the question itself is a paradox. Therefore the understanding that inter-dependent origination, as well as the cycle of lifetime to lifetime, are also paradoxes, can then be seen as being apropos to the universe. And, taking it further, that is demonstrating both the nature of the problem and hinting at the solution.

But I'm not going to claim I have quotes to support that.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
ah well, paradoxs and pointing to aside, you lose... pay up the case of beer. It's just not possible to convince people who don't want to know.

but for yourself, go beyond this silly debate and find your own lamp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
oushi wrote:
You see space where there is none... Miracle? No, an optical illusion.


So, now what you are saying is that there is in fact no such thing as space.
And that if you can't perceive any defining characteristics about it using the senses,
it's an illusion?
If that's the case, then
You are basically saying that space has no intrinsic reality,
that it is not a given context, but that it only arises due to conditions.
If space has no defining characteristics, and cannot be perceived,
then how can it possibly be imagined?
What is there to imagine?

What is that sidewalk artist filling up, if not space?

I think perhaps you and I are using different definitions of the word "perceive".
Otherwise, I think you have things backwards.
Everything is happening in the context of space.
it is the objects we perceive with the senses that arise conditionally,
and are therefore illusions.

Not only can space be perceived...
it's what all the great chefs make their donut holes out of.
: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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
So, now what you are saying is that there is in fact no such thing as space.
And that if you can't perceive any defining characteristics about it using the senses,
it's an illusion?
If that's the case, then
You are basically saying that space has no intrinsic reality,
that it is not a given context, but that it only arises due to conditions.
If space has no defining characteristics, and cannot be perceived,
then how can it possibly be imagined?
What is there to imagine?

It can only be imagined. If your are asking me, how can brain project dimensions from electrical impulses then I will honestly say, I don't know. But it should be obvious that this is how it is.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
What is that sidewalk artist filling up, if not space?

He is covering a flat surface and we see one additional dimension. What is this additional dimension if not a result of imagination?
I am not saying that there is no space, but that it cannot be directly perceived, thus it must be imagined. There are many examples of optical illusion where mind is totally miscalculating the space. It is because the mind learns how to predict space leaning on past experiences. If you mess up with objects, mind will be totally lost.
Image

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
oushi wrote:
There are many examples of optical illusion where mind is totally miscalculating the space.


Citing optical illusionsas evidence is not helpful to your argument.
The illusion of depth (space) where none is occurring is not the same thing as perceiving actual space.
I used the example of a donut.
What makes a donut a donut and not some other kind of pastry is the hole
and the hole is made of space,
and it can be perceived.
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group