Namdrol wrote:Sunlight is not eternal since it is produced.
so what you are saying is that
one cannot experience something which is not produced.
and I assume here that by produced
you mean arising from causes
and so what you are saying is that if it is not the result of cause, it cannot be experienced.
Am I getting this right?
I think that Serenity's position (which i do not support)
is that this 'god' thing does not arise from conditions but has always been there as the great spirit of the universe or whatever, and so serenity is drawing some comparison between that and the idea of original mind, buddha nature, what remains after kleshas have been exhausted, which is being regarded as not produced by a cause.
All the same, I am one of those fools who loves to find an exception to the rule, so I will keep pondering if anything can be said to be experienced but which does not arise from causes.
What I am working on right now, is pondering at what point the non-conscious matter in the universe, of which we are composed, begins witnessing its own existence, as we do. Somehow your statement seems to fit into that. In his 17 stanzas, Nagarjuna asserts that one thought follows another, and that a thought does not spontaneously arise from no thought. So, I would like your thoughts on the arising of awareness itself.
If we refer to the 12 links of dependent arising and say that they are beginning-less, how does begingingless-ness differ from what we would refer to as being eternal?