Is the universe made of the same substance?

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: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:02 pm

Malcolm wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:There is no substance in this universe, not even fire, water, earth, space, wind, and consciousness.




Conventionally speaking, even in Madhyamaka, the universe is made of five elements plus consciousness, the so called sadadhātu.


Conventionally, we can assume there is substance. But, that is just agreement based on unfound bases.

Conventionally as well, we can assert there is no substance, because by convention you cannot find anything when you separate the things into the smallest size.

When from conventional level, you can assert there is no substance, it is also at conventional level, you can reject the existence of 5 elements.

Madhyamaka Prasangika assert 5 elements, but they assert that in negative sense.

All conventional agreement can only be valid when it is viewed in the negative sense.

However, when that conventional agreement is view from positive sense, these 5 elements are alien concept, specific only for human world.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby oushi » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:33 pm

Music wrote:Whatever that substance is.

Presence.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:26 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:
Conventionally, we can assume there is substance. But, that is just agreement based on unfound bases.

Conventionally as well, we can assert there is no substance, because by convention you cannot find anything when you separate the things into the smallest size.


You don't really understand the meaning of "conventional" -- "conventional" means "prior to analysis" for Madhyamaka, whether Candrakirti or anyone else.
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
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12736
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:27 am

Prior to analysis, self is already unseen from conventional perspective. How can you then proceed to assert existence in conventional level, when Buddha himself said that everything has no criterion?

Conventional doesn't mean before analysis.

That step has been over long time ago.

All conventional is mistaken. It is said nicely by Shantideva that:
(2)
.....
For such minds are conventional, and thus mistaken awareness.

Madyamika Prasangika never ever assert any conventional in true sense. All of their spoken conventional term they use is in false sense.

It is the main different with Madyamika Svatrantika, who is the one that assert conventional truth in true sense.

The consequence for someone who assert things exist conventionally in the true sense make them fail to see the true nature of reality, which is conventionally already unfounded.

For them, ultimate truth is nothing more than a lip service.
Last edited by DarwidHalim on Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:33 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Jyoti wrote:The storehouse consciousness itself is the body of consciousness, so its existence cannot negated, also it is the basis from which the process of dependent-origination can persist. ...... . Since the seeds are innate, they cannot be render as conditional, false or non-existent.


Where is that storehouse?


It is within our consciousnesses, being subtle and passive, so it doesn't manifest in state of ordinary consciousness, where the 7 consciousnesses are active. Only the formless meditations manifest its characteristics.
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am

Jyoti wrote:It is within our consciousnesses, being subtle and passive, so it doesn't manifest in state ...


Where is that our consciousness?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:52 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Jyoti wrote:It is within our consciousnesses, being subtle and passive, so it doesn't manifest in state ...


Where is that our consciousness?


It is within our five sensory perceptions, and the thinking faculty, the 7th is that which identify subject and object, it ( the 8th/storehouse) cannot be identify by any of these formal characteristics as it is more subtle than such characteristic, viz. it can exists beyond the characteristics (limitation) of the 7 consciousnesses. Therefore, to see this storehouse consciousness as it is, the isolation of the 7 consciousnesses is required, this can be done through the formless meditations.
Last edited by Jyoti on Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:07 am

When you see your hand, do you see hand?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:14 am

DarwidHalim wrote:When you see your hand, do you see hand?


Mere appearance is seen, the seen is the meaning, not the naming (words).
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:17 am

Do you see mere appearance or do you see mere hand?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:18 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Do you see mere appearance or do you see mere hand?


Mere appearance.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:25 am

Since you just see appearance, can that appearance be said as hand or that appearance cannot be said as this or that?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:07 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Since you just see appearance, can that appearance be said as hand or that appearance cannot be said as this or that?


Saying 'mere appearance' is the position of ultimate truth, saying 'hand' is the position of conventional truth. If the ultimate truth is already realized by both party, then saying 'hand' will not be confused by the other as clinging to form and names as real. For the sake of communication and to distinguish objects, the use of conventional words and meaning is needed. The same apply to the usage of 'emptiness', it is meaningless to apply it outside of the context of which it was intended.
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Wesley1982 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:32 am

dark matter
User avatar
Wesley1982
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:45 pm
Location: Magga ~ Path to Liberation.

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:52 am

Jyoti wrote:Saying 'mere appearance' is the position of ultimate truth, saying 'hand' is the position of conventional truth. If the ultimate truth is already realized by both party, then saying 'hand' will not be confused by the other as clinging to form and names as real.


No.

Saying 'mere appearance' is not the position of ultimate truth.

It is just conventional truth.

Why?
Because anything that can be written down and anything that can be uttered is conventional truth.

Ultimate truth is the truth that make you mute.
Ultimate truth cannot be written down.
Ultimate truth cannot be uttered.
Ultimate truth cannot be typed.

So, when you say:
This hand exists. This is only conventional truth.
This hand doesn't exist. This is also just conventional truth.

Ultimate truth is unspoken as such and such.

Now, going back to the issue:

If you see your hand and you see that as appearance only.

At that instance, you should just see that as just appearance. If at that instance, you start to see that as appearance of hand, you should start to know your naked appearances have been distorted by this layer of concept called hand.

If you just see appearances, you will not see hand as hand.
At that instant, you should then realized that for someone who is not disturbed with any concept, he does not separate this appearance as such and such, EVEN AT CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.

It is at that state, you can see for yourself that hand, head, consciousness, 5 elements, are already the second layer of conventional term, which is already wrong and distorted. They are already as wrong as the rabbit horn.

If you can see that, you will see that 5 elements and consciousness is just a rabbit horn.

Appearances cannot be divided into 5 elements and consciousness, because appearances has no self.

It is then foolish to even believe that 5 elements and consciousness exist at conventional level. Because at conventional level, you already can see that appearances, which has no self, cannot be divided into this or that.

Yes, you divide. But, when you divide this appearances as this or that, you should at that instant fully aware of this mistaken conventional term. That is why for all conventional term can only be accepted in the false mode.

When you really want the true mode, you should know such thing doesn't exist even at conventional mode, because appearances has no definition by nature, it cannot be divided into this or that following our fantasy or our idea.

When you move to ultimate truth, you will mute. Why? Because even at conventional truth you see all conventional truth as just the rabbit horn. It makes you fully certain about this reality, that push you to be just mute, without any possible projections.

Consciousness is just a rabbit horn.
5 elements are also just a rabbit horn.

Foolish concept and a fantasy.

When you see your appearance of hand, if you can say this is hand in the true sense, you have been deluded.

Appearances are just appearances, and it is just seen as such.

When appearances are just perfectly seen as appearances without any projections:
There is no birth
There is no death
There is no ceasing
There is no arising
There is no 5 elements
There is no consciousness
There is no increment
There is no decrement
There is no ignorant
There is no emptiness
There is no appearances.
Whatever you can utter or can think is just no, because there are just rabbit horn.

ANd that is just conventional truth, because it can be uttered and typed down.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:22 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Jyoti wrote:Saying 'mere appearance' is the position of ultimate truth, saying 'hand' is the position of conventional truth. If the ultimate truth is already realized by both party, then saying 'hand' will not be confused by the other as clinging to form and names as real.


No.

Saying 'mere appearance' is not the position of ultimate truth.

It is just conventional truth.

Why?
Because anything that can be written down and anything that can be uttered is conventional truth.

Ultimate truth is the truth that make you mute.

So, when you say:
This hand exists. This is only conventional truth.
This hand doesn't exist. This is also just conventional truth.

Ultimate truth is unspoken as such and such.


You are confusing the body with the means. Only the reason of the body (thusness) is beyond words, and so this reason was not composed of any words but of meaning, but it is grasped only by the thinking, and when it does, it is termed the intellect (jnana). The intellect is the means, and it is able to communicate the meaning through words, such words that directly describe the meaning is termed the definitive meaning.

Now, going back to the issue:

If you see your hand and you see that as appearance only.

At that instance, you should just see that as just appearance. If at that instance, you start to see that as appearance of hand, you should start to know your naked appearances have been distorted by this layer of concept called hand.

If you just see appearances, you will not see hand as hand.
At that instant, you should then realized that for someone who is not disturbed with any concept, he does not separate this appearance as such and such, EVEN AT CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.

It is at that state, you can see for yourself that hand, head, consciousness, 5 elements, are already the second layer of conventional term, which is already wrong and distorted. They are already as wrong as the rabbit horn.



It does not matter whether it is first or second layer, knowing the hand is mere appearance is not without the conventional knowledge of the hand, but rather the knowledge of the two truths exist simultaneously. But your thesis would imply the absence of the conventional knowledge of the hand, viz. you are afraid of this layer of conventional knowledge, the existence of fear is reflection of that ignorance.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:36 am

The issue here is you assert conventional truth as true instead as false.

For someone who can see the baseless of conventional truth they are using daily,

They can assert consciousness as true as rabbit horn.

Why?
Because consciousness cannot be found inside your head, inside your body, inside your toes, etc.

There is no mysterious creature of consciousness inside you now.

There is no mysterious substance called consciousness inside you now.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Jyoti » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:47 am

DarwidHalim wrote:The issue here is you assert conventional truth as true instead as false.


Conventional truth cannot be refuted, because dependent origination persist in the presence of conditions, viz. the consequence of cause and effect is persistent.

Because consciousness cannot be found inside your head, inside your body, inside your toes, etc.

There is no mysterious creature of consciousness inside you now.

There is no mysterious substance called consciousness inside you now.


Then you don't know consciousness. The 12 entrances are nothing but consciousness, and no one can be separate from it.
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:38 am

Jyoti wrote:Conventional truth cannot be refuted, because dependent origination persist in the presence of conditions, viz. the consequence of cause and effect is persistent.


Conventional truth Is not rigid, and can be turn upside down depending on so many reasons, culture, geographic, time and so on.

Conventional truth is also open for various interpretations.

You say chiili is hot, I say chilli is not hot.

In the past I say that person is ugly, now I say that person is handsome or pretty.


Then you don't know consciousness. The 12 entrances are nothing but consciousness, and no one can be separate from it.


Then probably you will be the only unique person who has a mysterious substance of consciousness inside you.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?

Postby Andrew108 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:02 am

There isn't a single non-reducible substance that the universe is made of. But there is the way the universe expresses itself. So that can be known.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>