PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:09 am
tkp67 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:41 am
Yes I deviate from the norm but the norm has not proven to be empty so you can appreciate my position.
Denying cause and effect is how all thing become corrupt in the first place. It is the great evil that caused the suffering Shakymuni saw when he left the temple.
Perhaps, like when learning arithmetic, a worked example will help. I read these two comments, and while I can identify subject, verb and object, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.
Sure I'm easy.
peterc wrote:How can the norm be proven to be empty? By whom? Empty in what sense? And what is the position that you hold that we should appreciate?
Since we are playing by particulars I must call out this blatant logically fallacy.
You state and I quote "I read these two comments, and while I can identify subject, verb and object, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say." and then go and ask a question based on the meaning as written. Also the norm being empty wasn't contested by the previous poster. Yet obvious a detractor because of the vocal stand taken in this thread. What an interesting phenomenon. Has anyone tried to examine it? I can unpack that one quite deeply if you ever care to understand it.
See this is the typical nature of this behavior here. Point to some lack in grammar and then use it as smoke to gaslight the topic. This is why there are a handful of personalities that react this way every time yet never address the points at face value.
Don't worry my friend I am easy, adaptable and gracious enough to accommodate you none the less. Good will naturally accompanies a lack of attachment and bias so why wouldn't I display these traits. Seems reasonable, right?
To your question, simply put it is empty because everything is empty until someone projects an intrinsic self into the matter. The minute a non issue becomes a grand issue you can be sure the person making the stink has a personal stake in the outcome.
Which "all thing" became "corrupt"? In what sense corrupt? What is the "first place" here? What is this "great evil" you speak of, and by temple, do you mean his father's palace or something else?
I don't know Peter,perhaps you understand this better than you like to admit. I did make a gross error using temple and thank you for bringing that to my attention. So yes, palace is the intended word and thus your understanding is correct.
In this instance I assume that the meaning can be discerned from questions. It is unfair to make that assumption? I don't mind erring on the side of caution here. So let me give a detailed and verbose explanation.
All things are literally that. Corruption is being used in the following context: "the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.".
Thus all things by nature are corruptible due to a number of factors but impermanence and delusion are primary here. The first place is from the beginningless beginning or more succinctly from the recorded annals of time. The great evil is the cause and effect of the caste system.
I hope you find this sufficient. If not perhaps you can simply let me know where the disconnect is.