Is the universe made of the same substance?

[rob h]

It's neither made of the same substance, or not, or neither.

Nor is there a substance, or not, or neither.

You could never explain it in words.

[Jyoti]

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.

Conventional truth is determined by the recurrence of cause of effect relationship, such opinions as you stated are just opinions, not a persistent truth. Example of established conventional truth are the law of dependent origination, other law of science and medical field, etc. Some of these laws can be refuted by other law based on differences of conditions and objectives, but their existing cause and effect relationship cannot be refuted.

Then probably you will be the only unique person who has a mysterious substance of consciousness inside you.

It is not a mystery since whatever one experiences is not outside of it. Rather without the consciousness, your own existence will become a mystery.

[DarwidHalim]

Conventional truth is nothing more than just an opinion.

If this universe has substance, this universe cannot work.

Because it doesn't have substance, dependent origination can work.

Because it also doesn't have substance, by convention you cannot say this as such or such.

It is meaningless than to say that this universe is made of 5 elements + consciousness.

Why? Because it is nothing more than just a stricker.

A sticker.

[Malcolm]

Conventional truth is nothing more than just an opinion.

If this universe has substance, this universe cannot work.

Because it doesn't have substance, dependent origination can work.

Because it also doesn't have substance, by convention you cannot say this as such or such.

It is meaningless than to say that this universe is made of 5 elements + consciousness.

Why? Because it is nothing more than just a stricker.

A sticker.

You need detox from the crack of madhyamaka analysis because it makes a bore to converse with you.

[oushi]

Conventional truth is nothing more than just an opinion.

If this universe has substance, this universe cannot work.

Because it doesn't have substance, dependent origination can work.

Because it also doesn't have substance, by convention you cannot say this as such or such.

It is meaningless than to say that this universe is made of 5 elements + consciousness.

Why? Because it is nothing more than just a stricker.

A sticker.

You need detox from the crack of madhyamaka analysis because it makes a bore to converse with you.

By accepting DarwinHalim view, you would release his karma. By negating it, you create more of it.
This strong madhyamaka approach is not wrong, neither is it right. It is a ladder to no views. We should encourage people to climb it.

[Malcolm]

Conventional truth is nothing more than just an opinion.

If this universe has substance, this universe cannot work.

Because it doesn't have substance, dependent origination can work.

Because it also doesn't have substance, by convention you cannot say this as such or such.

It is meaningless than to say that this universe is made of 5 elements + consciousness.

Why? Because it is nothing more than just a stricker.

A sticker.

You need detox from the crack of madhyamaka analysis because it makes a bore to converse with you.

By accepting DarwinHalim view, you would release his karma. By negating it, you create more of it.
This strong madhyamaka approach is not wrong, neither is it right. It is a ladder to no views. We should encourage people to climb it.

You need to stick around a bit longer and observe...

[oushi]

You need to stick around a bit longer and observe...

You are probably right, I just wanted to say that the more you pressure madhyamaka proponent, deeper into elaborating he goes. Negation is a starting point of disagreement.
Every concept is a sticker, truth is beyond words, so it cannot be tainted by words. Although, words can point to truth, so throwing them away is not wise.

[bunny]

oushi: I read somewhere long time ago about words.

"Words are like fruit on a tree. You can choose to pick them carefully, let them fall onto the ground, rot and give nourishment to the Earth. You can shake the tree violently to remove the fruit. You can let the wind caress the tree and let apples fall, if the wind desires it to be. None of these are correct, equally none of them are not correct. They just are."

I can't remember who to credit that too, like I said it was a long time ago.

(apologies, if it is deemed that my reply is off topic)

[Malcolm]

You need to stick around a bit longer and observe...

You are probably right, I just wanted to say that the more you pressure madhyamaka proponent, deeper into elaborating he goes. Negation is a starting point of disagreement.
Every concept is a sticker, truth is beyond words, so it cannot be tainted by words. Although, words can point to truth, so throwing them away is not wise.

It is just a practical observation -- I have observed again and again how peple misuse madhyamaka anlaysis to engage in one-upsmanship on intenet forums. It is very boring and not the purpose of madhyamaka analysis.

[Andrew108]

Madhyamaka reasoning does get boring really quickly. It's a fools wisdom. But then again the 5 element hypothesis is extremely limited (childish even). Scientists seem to have much more interesting and accurate explanations concerning what the universe is made of. Plus they just landed a one tonne mobile science experiment on Mars. I think they win.

[oushi]

It is just a practical observation -- I have observed again and again how peple misuse madhyamaka anlaysis to engage in one-upsmanship on intenet forums. It is very boring and not the purpose of madhyamaka analysis.

Agree, levitation during a soccer match ain't funny and will make game boring.
Interesting thing happens when you approve such a person analysis, and even encourage him to elaborate more. There is a limit of blowing this balloon. View on madhyamaka is like song about silence, you need to wait till the end to hear it properly. Sometimes it is fine to listen, just for the sake of singer realizing it. But again, I have no idea about local singers

Madhyamaka reasoning does get boring really quickly. It's a fools wisdom. But then again the 5 element hypothesis is extremely limited (childish even). Scientists seem to have much more interesting and accurate explanations concerning what the universe is made of. Plus they just landed a one tonne mobile science experiment on Mars. I think they win.

And who wins if you stop thinking?

[Malcolm]

But then again the 5 element hypothesis is extremely limited (childish even). Scientists seem to have much more interesting and accurate explanations concerning what the universe is made of. Plus they just landed a one tonne mobile science experiment on Mars. I think they win.

The five elements permeate all matter. They are a phenomenological observation about matter, about how we experience matter viz. solids, liquids, gases, heat and dimensionaility. This is how they are defined even in Abhidharma, despite the naive atomism that is also found there.

M

[Malcolm]

Interesting thing happens when you approve such a person analysis, and even encourage him to elaborate more.

Madhyamika bloviation is a common problem on this forum. Stick around long enough and you will likely agree.

[Andrew108]

The five elements permeate all matter. They are a phenomenological observation about matter, about how we experience matter viz. solids, liquids, gases, heat and dimensionaility. This is how they are defined even in Abhidharma, despite the naive atomism that is also found there.

M

Why are they called 'elements'? The term doesn't seem accurate.

[Andrew108]

And who wins if you stop thinking?

Scientists

[Malcolm]

The five elements permeate all matter. They are a phenomenological observation about matter, about how we experience matter viz. solids, liquids, gases, heat and dimensionaility. This is how they are defined even in Abhidharma, despite the naive atomism that is also found there.

M

Why are they called 'elements'? The term doesn't seem accurate.

The actual term in Sanskrit is bhūta; in Tibetan, 'byung ba. The meaning is something like "producer". We say "elements" because we don't have a very good English word for translating this concept. We use the term element from Latin "elementum" which means either "principle" or "rudiment" or "first principle, element, basic constituent...".

[viniketa]

A Sanskrit word also translated as 'element' is dhātu. Mahādhātu is 'first' or primordial element; ābhādhātu is 'light' as an element, etc. Dhātu also gets translated as 'realm', as in the form realm (rūpadhātu), formless realm (arūpadhātu), and sense realm (kāmadhātu).

[bunny]

Apologies for going off-topic, but...

...the 'a' in dhātu, with the line above it, how is that pronounced?

I imagine it be like saying "a-h" with a hard a. Is this correct?

[viniketa]

Apologies for going off-topic, but...

...the 'a' in dhātu, with the line above it, how is that pronounced?

I imagine it be like saying "a-h" with a hard a. Is this correct?

It is pronounced with a long a: ah.

[bunny]

Thank you viniketa