Is the universe made of the same substance?

[dharmagoat]

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.

Has anyone here experienced the unusual sensation of these elements being physically present in their own body? My understanding is that the idea of the five elements originated this way.

[bunny]

I've felt fire and water, working on the others.

Or has a newbie missed the point?

[dharmagoat]

I've felt fire and water, working on the others.

Or has a newbie missed the point?

I am referring to the spontaneous experience of the five elements, free of any preconceptions or expectations. Something distinct from exercising one's imagination.

[bunny]

dharmagoat, I am not talking about imagination. I am talking about the "essence" of the elements. Although I am not spontaneously experiencing them, I am still experiencing them.

[dharmagoat]

dharmagoat, I am not talking about imagination. I am talking about the "essence" of the elements. Although I am not spontaneously experiencing them, I am still experiencing them.

Everything we experience is influenced by our imagination to some extent. This influence is minimal when we experience something unexpected that we have no prior conception of. It is this kind of experience that I am asking about here.

[DarwidHalim]

According to scientist, this universe is made of energy and space.

According to others, this universe is made of 5 elements + consciousness.

According to others, this universe is made of X, Y, Z, etc.

Regardless, how many things you want to say, at the end, you will come to the conclusion that those nature of bla, bla, bla is simply like mist.

For you this "mist" is said as bla, bla, bla.

But, what is the point to be happy with that bla, bla, bla, when inside that bla, bla, bla is baseless and rootless?

5 elements are just concept.
As long as, you cannot find 5 inherent things, they are just concept - a label on top of the cloud.

This universe is made of mickey mouse, donald duck, human, fish, water, etc.

Yes, you can category this universe as much as you wish as A to Z.

But, when you really ask: I really want to find out the inherent thing that make the universe.

What kind of answer can you get?

Not even 5 elements. Because these 5 elements are simply concept, like Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck.

Nothing inherent.

Scientiest try to find the inherent nature that form this universe. Until now, they still cannot find. What they say today, is different with what they say in the past and will be different again in the future.

Why? Because they never ever find the answer that can consist of inherent existent elements.

They can waste their time in that searching, at the end they will get nothing satisfied.

It is like someone who try to find the trace of birds flying in the sky.

Until aeons, you won't find it.

Looking for something impossible. It is not we do not have the ability to find. But it is because the nature itself doesn't have what you are looking for and it just cannot have it.

If this nature has inherent existence, without doubt you will find the answer soon or later.

But, if this nature has no inherent existence, without doubt you will fail.

No point to find the trace of birds in the sky.

The answer is obvious - NO SUBSTANCE for the mysterious substances you are looking for.

[Andrew108]

May be you should tell the guys at CERN that they are waiting their time.

[DarwidHalim]

Probably yes. But it will be pointless.

It is better for them keep searching for themselves until they get tired by themselves.

They just don't know what they are looking for is actually the the trace of bird in the sky.

Let them try and let them satisfied with their illusory answered, soon or later they will reject their own answer and propose a new one again. This cycle will continue until their next lifes probably.

Not knowing the nature of what you are searching, you waste your time to search for something that is obviously doesn't have.

Samsara is the greatest deceiver.

You fool your ownself.

[dharmagoat]

5 elements are just concept.

A concept based on an experience (not an experience based on a concept). I can vouch for that.

[Jyoti]

Below is my rough translation of Bodhidharma's work.

Bodhidharma (Treatise of the nature of awakening)
達摩大師《悟性論》
1. [During meditation...] The myraid of appearances return to emptiness, to further cling to the existence of emptiness is still a disease.
森羅萬像並歸空，更執有空還是病。
2. The self-origin of all phenomena is neither empty nor exist, the delusion of the ordinary person discussed these as right and wrong.
諸法本自非空有，凡夫妄想論邪正。
3. If these are considered as not two, who to say such view is ordinary and not holy.
若能不二其居懷，誰道即凡非是聖。

The commentary:
1. All phenomena appearances being analyse, nothing is found, so it is considered empty, but to cling to this emptiness as ultimate is another errant view.

2. 'empty' refer to the negation of mere appearance of phenomena, 'exist' refer to asserting the four elements are real substance. Neither of these two view is correct, but the ordinary person discussed these two views, cling to one and reject the other, but no matter which one they considered as right, it is still wrong, since both are wrong.

3. However, if these two ('empty' and 'exist') are not view as two separate views, but realize as inseparable reality of phenomena, then this view is no longer ordinary.

The problem with DarwidHalim's thesis matches all the three as stated in the commentary.

Jyoti

[DarwidHalim]

So, you should know now why reality cannot be said as such and such.

When there is no inherent existence, whatever we say just fall into false sense.

It is automatic.

[Andrew108]

You've conditioned yourself in a Buddhist way. Whilst not entirely a bad thing to do, it's important to be aware of this limitation.

[oushi]

May be you should tell the guys at CERN that they are waiting their time.

Actually they are wasting our money.

So, you should know now why reality cannot be said as such and such.

The whole point is that it can be said as such and such. Everything is reality, that's why it's pointless to say it is like that or it isn't. Even false views cannot be excluded from reality, as that would create duality.
We cannot escape reality, no one can. No matter how far you go with you imagination, you wont get our of reality. As such, no view can be seen as ultimate, so pointing out false views is like chasing ones own tail.

[DarwidHalim]

If we say car, for example.

99.999% we will fall into existence of car not only as label, but also as something findable as substance, having intrinsic self.

Unless we can know car is just a label referring to some non-intrinsic appearance, we are safe. Unfortunately, only enlightened beings can do that at all time.

We can for sure say this reality as this or that. It is useful, technology is built based on that. Our communication is based on that.

However, there is a hidden dangerous at all time that you will make a mistake in moving beyond just label into the wrong step, which is to think there is such thing as inherent existence thing.

As long as, we know that reality Actually cannot be say as such and such, it is safe to say in your daily life this is as such and such. You won't be deluded.

But, if we think oh reality definitely can be said as this or that, because I can touch it, I can eat that, so it has inherent nature, for sure you have been deluded at that instant.

[futerko]

So, you should know now why reality cannot be said as such and such.

The whole point is that it can be said as such and such. Everything is reality, that's why it's pointless to say it is like that or it isn't. Even false views cannot be excluded from reality, as that would create duality.
We cannot escape reality, no one can. No matter how far you go with you imagination, you wont get our of reality. As such, no view can be seen as ultimate, so pointing out false views is like chasing ones own tail.

Does that mean you would not refute the idea that everything is in fact made of cheese?

[Jyoti]

But, if we think oh reality definitely can be said as this or that, because I can touch it, I can eat that, so it has inherent nature, for sure you have been deluded at that instant.

One doesn't realize the meaning only at the next phenomena encountered, or the next phenomena encountered and so on. So one does not get deluded because of what one does or say about anything. One can say anything about reality, it doesn't have a single impact on the person saying it. But it make a difference on the listener whether or not he understood the meaning. The meaning is not suppose to be realized again and again, but once realized, one no longer remain in delusion. One simply upholding the reason in the thinking, it has nothing to do with attempting to find the meaning all over again, through attention to what should and should not be done, think or say, especially relying on the technique of negation and concept of emptiness which is only mean to introduce persons to the actual meaning. As long as you have yet to realize the meaning, then these technique of negation is not the ultimate, and you have to exercise these technique to whatever circumstances you encountered with your body, speech and mind. Using these technique as a stand point of philosophical debate also will get you no way, because these techniques are only facilitative, it does not have the range of the definitive meaning that come directly from the intellect.

Jyoti

[oushi]

99.999% we will fall into existence of car not only as label, but also as something findable as substance, having intrinsic self.

Find me one such a person. I know there are cartoons out there, that may delude children, but adults wont fall for that.

Unless we can know car is just a label referring to some non-intrinsic appearance, we are safe. Unfortunately, only enlightened beings can do that at all time.

Malcolm, you were right!

Does that mean you would not refute the idea that everything is in fact made of cheese?

Reality is irrefutable. No idea points to reality, as it cannot be abandoned in the first place. This way, ideas are not wrong, neither are they right. Reality simply is. Looking for truth in the library of concepts, is delusion. Now you point me to one of books and ask if its true. If reality is library, no book is library, no book is something else then library.

"It is because you are running about seeking everywhere and cannot put your heart at rest that the patriarchs say 'My, the fellow with his head on his shoulders is looking for his head!'.

[DarwidHalim]

The meaning is not suppose to be realized again and again, but once realized, one no longer remain in delusion.

Yes, you are right. But, are we belong to that type of person or not? This type of person is extremely rare. And in his past life he has again and again train himself not to be deluded.

It is not possible to remove the deep and strong ignorant with just one realization. This strong and deep ignorant will create strong doubt in us in a very clever way.

Unless, at every moment you can see clearly the truth of lacking inherent existence, you are in the state of ignorant.

This is related with the second important point highlighted by Garab Dorje - do not remain in doubt.

This is extremely difficult practice.

This mind will smack you down and drag you down in a very clever way until you think you are not deluded, but actually you have been deluded.

Some people even need the next and next rebirth to master it.

[oushi]

Unless, at every moment you can see clearly the truth of lacking inherent existence, you are in the state of ignorant.

Inherent existance, or lack of it, is just another view, isn't it?

This is extremely difficult practice.

Only if we make it such by striving.

[futerko]

"It is because you are running about seeking everywhere and cannot put your heart at rest that the patriarchs say 'My, the fellow with his head on his shoulders is looking for his head!'.

"Such are the Bodhisattvas of sudden enlightenment who enter the scheme of manifested things, turning to the pure land, disliking the worldly and desiring the sacred."

Doesn't this suggest that although all maps maybe relative representations of reality, they are not thereby equally invalid?