You keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
(Aside from the fact that no phenomena is independently originated, but just speaking hypothetically) explain why the existence of a phenomenon depends on some kind of awareness of it.
You keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
Because by definition one is inert and the other is in motion. How can there be an arising from a state which is itself entirely determined by its non-arising?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:27 pmYou keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
I can give many examples of phenomena which occur, but of which no known being is aware (things occurs that nobody has any awareness of).futerko wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:30 pmBecause by definition one is inert and the other is in motion. How can there be an arising from a state which is itself entirely determined by its non-arising?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:27 pmYou keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
yes, of course you can. The fact of you giving them as examples means they are entirely graspable and so merely abstractly not-known, but their nature is entirely knowable by the very fact we are talking about them.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:33 pmI can give many examples of phenomena which occur, but of which no known being is aware (things occurs that nobody has any awareness of).futerko wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:30 pmBecause by definition one is inert and the other is in motion. How can there be an arising from a state which is itself entirely determined by its non-arising?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:27 pm
You keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
By the same logic, since there is nothing that possesses an intrinsic “it” quality in the first place, nothing interacts with anything.futerko wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:30 pmBecause by definition one is inert and the other is in motion. How can there be an arising from a state which is itself entirely determined by its non-arising?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:27 pmYou keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
It is metaphysical hedge-betting to consider this may be the case simply due to a complete absence of dependently originated evidence. This absence of interdependent causality on the side of the "absolute" means there can be no interruptions arising from it.
Well, as you previously mentioned the term "ultimately" - what I am saying is that it is only interacting with itself and nothing is coming or going from the outside. Dependent origination could not possibly be interrupted by any actual "ultimate" then, this is due to the brute fact that it is already the case, it cannot be supplemented by anything new arriving which is not already present, no future state of more completion.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:38 pmBy the same logic, since there is nothing that possesses an intrinsic “it” quality in the first place, nothing interacts with anything.futerko wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:30 pmBecause by definition one is inert and the other is in motion. How can there be an arising from a state which is itself entirely determined by its non-arising?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:27 pm
You keep saying that but you don’t explain why that is true.
It is metaphysical hedge-betting to consider this may be the case simply due to a complete absence of dependently originated evidence. This absence of interdependent causality on the side of the "absolute" means there can be no interruptions arising from it.
yes, of course you can. The fact of you giving them as examples means they are entirely graspable and so merely abstractly not-known, but their nature is entirely knowable by the very fact we are talking about them.
We seem to be back to Kant, empirical phenomena are subject to time and so they have some kind of timeless correlate in some ultimate dimension which is other than here...PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:42 pm
[...]
You are conflating, for example, knowing that cancers exist, and knowing or not knowing that a cancer is occurring. It’s not the same thing.
What other dimension?futerko wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:46 pmWe seem to be back to Kant, empirical phenomena are subject to time and so they have some kind of timeless correlate in some ultimate dimension which is other than here...PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:42 pm
[...]
You are conflating, for example, knowing that cancers exist, and knowing or not knowing that a cancer is occurring. It’s not the same thing.
That doesn’t mean it depends on awareness of it.
what I am saying is that, prior to something coming into any specific "being's" awareness. It must nevertheless be dependently originated and thus "made of the same stuff" rather than something not previously present, but rather which emerges from a state which is other than this one.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:57 pmThat doesn’t mean it depends on awareness of it.
You are juggling two different topics.
On the contrary, the very condition for any phenomenal experience is dependent origination and not any sort of metaphysical arising from without.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:06 am According to your position, if a person has never directly experienced pain, therefore they cannot directly experience pain.
Well, you keep going off in different directions with this conversation, and never backing up your assertions, jumping back and forth between phenomena being necessarily dependently arising, and how nothing can exist if you don’t know about it.futerko wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:43 am Couched in more Buddhist terms, are the three marks of Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta conducive to liberation or not?
the mere acknowledgement that phenomena are dependently originated is enough by itself to follow through on a view which rules out eternalism and annihilationism.
Well, the only point here is that karma is inbuilt and not coming from outside. Take care, I had fun!PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:47 amWell, you keep going off in different directions with this conversation, and never backing up your assertions, jumping back and forth between phenomena being necessarily dependently arising, and how nothing can exist if you don’t know about it.futerko wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:43 am Couched in more Buddhist terms, are the three marks of Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta conducive to liberation or not?
the mere acknowledgement that phenomena are dependently originated is enough by itself to follow through on a view which rules out eternalism and annihilationism.
I’m done.
In the Uttiyasutta (AN 10.95) a monk called Uttiya asks:
The Buddha responds with silence.“But when Master Gotama, through direct knowledge, teaches the Dhamma to his disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the passing away of pain and dejection, for the achievement of the method, for the realization of nibbāna, will the entire world be thereby emancipated, or half the world, or a third of the world?”
Then the Venerable Ānanda said to the wanderer Uttiya: “Well then, friend Uttiya, I will give you a simile. Some intelligent people here understand the meaning of what is said by means of a simile. Suppose a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and arches, and with a single gate. The gatekeeper posted there would be wise, competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits acquaintances. While he is walking along the path that encircles the city he would not see a cleft or an opening in the walls even big enough for a cat to slip through. He might not know how many living beings enter or leave the city, but he could be sure that whatever large living beings enter or leave the city all enter and leave through that gate. So too, friend Uttiya, the Tathāgata has no concern whether the entire world will be emancipated, or half the world, or a third of the world. But he can be sure that all those who have been emancipated, or who are being emancipated, or who will be emancipated from the world first abandon the five hindrances, corruptions of the mind that weaken wisdom, and then, with their minds well established in the four establishments of mindfulness, develop correctly the seven factors of enlightenment. It is in this way that they have been emancipated or are being emancipated or will be emancipated from the world.
“Friend Uttiya, you asked the Blessed One from a different angle the same kind of questions that you had already asked him. Therefore the Blessed One did not answer you.”
1-2. Is the world eternal or not eternal?
3-4. Is the world finite or infinite?
5-6. Are the soul and the body the same or different?
7-10. Does the Tathāgata exist after death, or not exist, or both, or neither?
May I propose a fourth?Lethemyr wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:03 amWhen this question is alluded to, I've seen roughly three responses:
1) No. The number of sentient beings is infinite and so, while every being will become enlightened, there will never be a time when there are no more beings in need of enlightening.
2) Yes. Eventually, there will be no more beings in need of enlightenment. Every sentient being will have crossed to the other shore.
3) It doesn't matter. Focus on things that matter.
To say the opposite, that it's certain that some beings will eventually make this choice but that other beings never will, is likewise to say that these things are predestined. In this case the view would arguably be even worse than Makkhali's – a sort of non-theistic variant on the predestinarianism of Jansenius and Calvin.“Bhikkhus, a hair blanket is declared to be the worst kind of woven garment. A hair blanket is cold in cold weather, hot in hot weather, ugly, foul-smelling, and uncomfortable. So too, the doctrine of Makkhali is declared the worst among the doctrines of the various ascetics.