Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
Malcolm wrote:
futerko wrote:
smcj wrote:
Whereas the Buddhists simply say that there is an infinite regression


No, they don't. The whole point of Buddhism is to avoid such an issue of infinite regress.


In fact, Budddhists accept certain kinds of infinite regression as a logical consequence of dependent origination, for example, the infinite regression of dependent causality.


The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates, nor has it ever, which is effectively the same as saying that there is no empirically infinite linear temporal duration.

Time and causality are "in mind" phenomena, which taken as concrete facts of existence, would render Buddhism an utterly pointless exercise in futility.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:32 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2193
futerko wrote:
The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates, nor has it ever...

That doesn't sound right. In fact, it sounds nihilistic...

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
smcj wrote:
futerko wrote:
The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates, nor has it ever...

That doesn't sound right. In fact, it sounds nihilistic...


I'm sure Nagarjuna is tired of hearing that. :tongue:

...however I'm sure he won't fall into despair because of it!

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
Nothing comes from nothing.
Anything that will always exist must have always existed in the past.
Hence Nagarjuna says "Nothing whatsoever arises."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:01 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2193
dude wrote:
Nothing comes from nothing.
Anything that will always exist must have always existed in the past.
Hence Nagarjuna says "Nothing whatsoever arises."

My elementary school level educations on this was from the Gelug camp, and I think they have a different spin on this.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2295
From "Nagarjuna's Letter To A Friend", translated by the Padmakara group:
Quote:
Although performing wrong and evil deeds
Does not at once, like swords, create a gash,
When death arrives, those evil acts will show,
Their karmic fruit will clearly be revealed.

Quote:
The aggregates are not a simple whim,
From neither time nor nature do they come,
Nor by themselves, from God, or without cause;
Their source, you ought to know, is ignorance,
From karmic deeds and craving have they come.

_________________
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
smcj wrote:
dude wrote:
Nothing comes from nothing.
Anything that will always exist must have always existed in the past.
Hence Nagarjuna says "Nothing whatsoever arises."

My elementary school level educations on this was from the Gelug camp, and I think they have a different spin on this.


What's their spin on it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Posts: 460
Location: South Africa
smcj wrote:
Where does karma/rebirth "come from"?=Where did God "come from"?


I already have that one in my reply. It seems so obvious to me.

Create your own non-answer (God did it) and then ask other religions why their answer is so "inadequate".

I see what you did there.

_________________
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Posts: 460
Location: South Africa
dzogchungpa wrote:
From "Nagarjuna's Letter To A Friend", translated by the Padmakara group:
Quote:
Although performing wrong and evil deeds
Does not at once, like swords, create a gash,
When death arrives, those evil acts will show,
Their karmic fruit will clearly be revealed.

Quote:
The aggregates are not a simple whim,
From neither time nor nature do they come,
Nor by themselves, from God, or without cause;
Their source, you ought to know, is ignorance,
From karmic deeds and craving have they come.


That has just won me a case of beer. I will send you half, thanks :cheers:

_________________
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
The karmic fruit is a half case of beer?!? :thinking:

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:36 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2193
From: Je Tsongkhapa's "Three Principal Aspects of the Path".

Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
As long as these two understating (sic) are seen as separate,
One has not yet realized the intent of the Buddha.


So I guess Tsongkhapa thinks things do arise, of a sort…

From Malcolm in another thread:
Quote:
The Gelug commitment to arguing essenceless existence is fruitless because there are is no such thing as an essenceless existence.

I like the idea of essenceless existence. It's the only way I can swallow any of the Mahyamaka. And personally I'm a Shengtongpa anyway, so I really don't care.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Posts: 460
Location: South Africa
futerko wrote:
The karmic fruit is a half case of beer?!? :thinking:



Sounds fair to me

_________________
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
mindyourmind wrote:
futerko wrote:
The karmic fruit is a half case of beer?!? :thinking:



Sounds fair to me


Karmic fruit beer, tastes ok at the time but leaves a bitter aftertaste. :tongue:

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
In space‘spaciousness (emptiness-interdependence, form-emptiness/emptiness-form), there is no cristallizing, no substantial samsara. But the creating mind is a magician.
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Oh, a master said on a travel to a religious one ( when he asked from what religion the master was) something like: "my God is from where your God is coming from" :smile: A created God as a thought its source is the uncreated field of reality.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:55 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2193
Quote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
smcj wrote:
Quote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.


No any importance for own practice. In constructed teachings are many seemingly contradictions about how all is.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 171
smcj wrote:
Quote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.


There are many contradictions arising during attempts of uttering the ineffable, conceptualizing the non-conceptual.
This is why philosophies are secondary to practice and experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
tatpurusa wrote:
smcj wrote:
Quote:
Whether samsara or nirvana, Longchenpa: “the source is endless beginningless uncreated field of reality”. When a thought tries to understand this, cristallizing is a fact. Woopsee.

Longchenpa and Nagarjuna do not necessarily agree with each other.


There are many contradictions arising during attempts of uttering the ineffable, sconceptualizing the non-conceptual.
This is why philosophies are secondary to practice and experience.


Exactly.
Without a determined effort to find out what the whole truth is for ourselves and resolve the contradictions, contemplating and debating abstract theory is nothing more than a frivolous pastime.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 4:55 pm
Posts: 3
mindyourmind wrote:
Along come the Buddhists, "believing" in karma and rebirth, but not in a creator god. To put it in its simplest form, where does karma / rebirth "come from"? Who created such an exquisitely complex system, if there is no god?

Please be as technical and detailed as you can, I have been bet a case of beer that the Buddhist cannot meaningfully answer this, and that the best we can do is to ask questions like "Who's asking" and "ask your teacher".


The beginning:
Quote:
"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The end:
Quote:
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am
Posts: 242
smcj wrote:
Just a footnote; one definition for 'God' in christian thought is 'the uncaused cause'. In other words they don't have an answer to the infinite regression question of 'where did God come from', so they answer it by saying, in effect, that God caused himself. That of course is a paradox. Whereas the Buddhists simply say that there is an infinite regression, also a paradox. So either tradition's answer is a paradox.


http://propositionzen.wordpress.com/201 ... -the-enso/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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