Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:30 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 194
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.

_________________
"A 'position', Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." - MN 72


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
DarwidHalim wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
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.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
DarwidHalim wrote:
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.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:
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.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:
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...

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
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.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:33 am
Posts: 85
Location: Northern Ireland
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)

_________________
Blessed Be,

Bunny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
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.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
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.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Malcolm wrote:
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 :tongue:

Andrew108 wrote:
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?

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Last edited by oushi on Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Andrew108 wrote:
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

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
oushi wrote:
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.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Malcolm wrote:

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 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
oushi wrote:
And who wins if you stop thinking?

Scientists

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Andrew108 wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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...".

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
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).

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:33 am
Posts: 85
Location: Northern Ireland
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?

_________________
Blessed Be,

Bunny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
bunny wrote:
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.

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:33 am
Posts: 85
Location: Northern Ireland
Thank you viniketa :)

_________________
Blessed Be,

Bunny.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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