Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:02 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Gwenn Dana wrote:
You cannot define a term by using itself or referencing to everything. Such definition is nonsense.

.
What? Well find me something that isn't true. You can't because "nothing" does not exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 633
garudha wrote:
You can't because "nothing" does not exist.


Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about. :soapbox:

_________________
http://www.twitter.com/aigurung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
odysseus wrote:
garudha wrote:
You can't because "nothing" does not exist.


Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about. :soapbox:


Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 633
garudha wrote:
odysseus wrote:

Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about. :soapbox:


Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?


Non-existence is lower than death itself, meaning in quick terms that one is completely forgotten by "all loved ones" and so on, like no traces of a life left (very rare I think). A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.

When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself". :namaste:

_________________
http://www.twitter.com/aigurung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
odysseus wrote:
garudha wrote:
odysseus wrote:

Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about. :soapbox:


Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?


Non-existence is lower than death itself, meaning in quick terms that one is completely forgotten by "all loved ones" and so on, like no traces of a life left (very rare I think). A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.

When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself". :namaste:


Thanks for explaining it but I don't really understand. Maybe I'm tired.

"Non-existence is lower than death itself" I don't know what either of those two things are, so, the combination is even harder to understand :-). What is death?
"A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.". Yeah but if there is space then there is something, isn't there? --or do you refer to some complicated physics?
"When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself""... Maybe only Nirvana exists but the "you" is gone? --so you don't exist (like you said) but only the real things exists?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
Garudha wrote:
Thanks for explaining it but I don't really understand. Maybe I'm tired.


Or maybe you really don't understand it. And that's OK - not understanding it is fine. The problems only start when you *think* you understand it, but you really don't.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 633
garudha wrote:
"Non-existence is lower than death itself" I don't know what either of those two things are, so, the combination is even harder to understand :-). What is death?


I should have said "lower than hell", sorry. I imagine hell is somewhat rare too, though death is a kind of hell on Earth like it´s said.

garudha wrote:
"A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.". Yeah but if there is space then there is something, isn't there? --or do you refer to some complicated physics?


Buddhists should be hobby scientists also, not complicated. There are invisible particles and waves in space (outside our atmosphere), but there exist areas in space without particles or waves = vacuum. Then we can say that nothing exists there (not even space).

garudha wrote:
"When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself""... Maybe only Nirvana exists but the "you" is gone? --so you don't exist (like you said) but only the real things exists?


Yes, the notion of SELF has gone. Depends how you want to define "you don´t exist", it can be confusing to people to think annihilation/disappearance. "Only the real things exist": Well it cannot get more "real deal" than with Nirvana, sir!

_________________
http://www.twitter.com/aigurung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Quote:
Depends how you want to define "you don´t exist", it can be confusing to people to think annihilation/
disappearance


That can be a reason for resistence to keep identity and its characteristics going on. Letting go is then going in the nowhere instead of very peace. I guess letting go needs surrendering identity and its goods and bads completely, by trust. Not trusting the apprehended artificial ideation.

Quote:
like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious


As long as consciousness/mind is locked into a thinking of being a self, an identity ( broken/separate awareness), it is triggered by its inner and outer images/movements/other. It seems, that is meant with being enslaved of the mind, which is suffering. I guess conscious can without suffering.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
I wish to read this thread carefully, it was mentioned in the support thread for Malcom/Namdrol and so am posting here. I have the view that consciousness though extinguished remains as fundamental mind and that fundamental mind can still be referred to as consciousness, which has no basis nor support whatsoever, neither in the body, nor in the structure of the brain. best wishes, Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:22 pm
Posts: 118
Didn't have the time to read all the posts, but perhaps I could contribute something. The following are the excerpts from
"Buddhist Psychology" by Geshe Tashi Tsering, pp.15-16

"...Mind is mere experience -- it is not matter; therefore its cause must be the same...Mind can affect matter and vice versa, but the two are mutually exclusive. For if something is devoid of color, shape, or material dimension, it cannot at the same time be material. That does not mean, however, that mind and body aren't closely interconnected. The deeper we explore the nature of mind in Buddhist psychology, the more we see the interconnection of mind and body and that certain levels of mind depend heavily on both the function and existence of the physical nervous system."

"Many gross consciousnesses, such as our five sense consciousnesses, cannot function without our nervous system or brain. That is very clear. In order for the eye consciousness to function as something that is clear and knowing, it depends on three conditions. One of those is the eye sense organ...."

"The reason Buddhism so firmly asserts that mind is not body is because the fundamental tenets of Buddhism revolve around the law of karma, or cause and effect. At death the body disappears. If mind and body were the same, what we think of as mind would also disappear. Without a continuum of mind, result could never follow cause, the chain would be broken."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
odysseus wrote:
garudha wrote:
"A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.". Yeah but if there is space then there is something, isn't there? --or do you refer to some complicated physics?

Buddhists should be hobby scientists also, not complicated. There are invisible particles and waves in space (outside our atmosphere), but there exist areas in space without particles or waves = vacuum.

Then we can say that nothing exists there (not even space).


No, sorry, we can't simple say that "nothing exists".

If you say "nothing exists" then you still have some measurable dimensionality left.

If you say "not even space" exists then you're implying lack of measurable dimensionality and thus existence itself.

Are you, perhaps, saying that non-existence is Buddha-Mind ?

Edited as per member's request


Last edited by Dan74 on Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As per Member's request


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
It appears to me that nonexistent could be called those playful options which do not express in any consciousness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Gwenn Dana wrote:
It appears to me that nonexistent could be called those playful options which do not express in any consciousness.


non-existence is as existent as much as existence is non-existent. / existence is as non-existent as much as non-existence is existent.

As such; "non-existence" is as vitally important as "existence" and I dispute non-existence being a "playful option" ...as far as existence expresses in any consciousness.


Last edited by garudha on Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
Is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
yes, "0 = 1 == 1 = 0" / "1 = 0 == 0 = 1".

If there was "something or nothing", which was neither "existent" nor "non-existent", what would you suppose we name "that which is without juxtaposition against this" ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
garudha wrote:
If there was "something or nothing", which was neither "existent" nor "non-existent", what would you suppose we name "that which is without juxtaposition against this" ?


Not. Naming it leads into an endless loop. No matter whether the operation is affirmation, negation, superposition, or whatever. It cannot escape thingyfying its reference, since that is an inherent feature of language as soon as sense is applied to the mere vocal chord gibberish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Gwenn Dana wrote:
garudha wrote:
If there was "something or nothing", which was neither "existent" nor "non-existent", what would you suppose we name "that which is without juxtaposition against this" ?


Not. Naming it leads into an endless loop. No matter whether the operation is affirmation, negation, superposition, or whatever. It cannot escape thingyfying its reference, since that is an inherent feature of language as soon as sense is applied to the mere vocal chord gibberish.


"thingyfying" :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
Because you asked: Statements in the English language are for the most part of the form: subject verb object.

The verb, indicating an action, thus denotes a relationship between a doer and something done, e.g. an observer and something observed, etc. In some cases one of the two can be missing to make a generalized statement. Thus language is not much more than a mental mirror of the concept of observation. Since that's the basic structure of lanuage, anything that it said with it, is confined to that principle. Thus language cannot escape this "dualism", unless you start to make statements that simply make no sense, thus invalidating it altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Please explain what you mean by "the concept of observation", Gwenn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
garudha wrote:
Please explain what you mean by "the concept of observation", Gwenn.


The process of observing, when an observer is observing something which is observed, and is aware of the observation (i.e. a subject/object-duality is emerging from the prior emerging "observation", where consciousness reflects back on itself (that produces that observer), and doing so is also perceived). It becomes a concept by abstraction (therefore the observing needs to be observed). There is no longer only sensual input, but you can call it "observation", no matter what it is that is being observed or who is observing it.

To bring it in order:

1. Consciuosness reflects back on itself, bringing forth a sense of being, you may call that "raw seeing", oure consciousness, the play of the world, whatever as long as you do not attach any quality to it. Everything is "ku". EDIT: In the Sutras you find this as "karma-formations that condition consciousness"
2. That sense of being reflects back on itself, bringing forth an observation of that seeing. Creating a sense of subject/object duality along with it (a notion of "I am" comes into existence). (EDIT: In the sutras you find this as "consciousness conditions name-and-form")
3. Observing subject/object dualities concepts can be created. ("I am <something>") comes into existence. Denothing <things> needs these concepts. (EDIT: You can then spawn the rest of the chain of dependent origionation upon that.)

Language operates on such concepts, attaching labels to them, i.e. linking sounds or symbols that we can produce to them. Therefore you need to draw "borders" into the world, which create "objects". The chair, in its raw state, doesn't know where its boundaries are. It doesn't know it's a chair. There are just vibes all around. Only by conceptualizing objects come into existence. Upon that you can get many more levels of it.

That's the way consciousness expresses itself in human beings, or at least, as it appears to express itself. And this here is what results, when such a being tries to explain such :)


Last edited by Gwenn Dana on Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:51 am, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: coyote 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