Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website

last SG · 2012-12-12T09:15:01+00:00

Re the flag and the wind, I believe the answer has got to do with the mind, but this is not the proper answer to give at all. It is again more like playing m...

BroInChrist SG

BroInChrist, thank you for patient and earnest replies to all questioners. So the question now is with Jesus as an advocate, is the sins committed after acceptance of Christ absolved or mitigated, especially those committed in name of God, causing much sufferings. Or sufferings don't matter?

Consider please the following words penned by the Apostle John in his old age, taken from 1 John 1:5

"This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous.He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did."

I am not sure what you mean by sins committed in the name of God, perhaps you can elaborate further? Sin always carry with it consequences, be it on yourself or on those around you. Christians who sinned in times of weakness can always seek the forgiveness that is ever available in Christ's perfect work on the cross. Being a Christian is not a license to sin, but being a Christian avails one to God's throne of mercy that we can confidently come to in times of need as stated in Hebrews 4:14

"So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most."

When forgiveness is sought, Christians should seek to give restitution to those whom they have sinned against, and faced up to the consequences of their own actions.

Weychin SG

The concept of “Self” is very ingrained in many of us that we cannot imagine our existence without “Self”. Without great quietitude we cannot begin unravel this lumping. Everything aspect of our conscious lives evolved around this “Self”, if we unable to transcend this, it is the only reality.
Let us examine our consciousness in dreams, for eg. those who are born blind will never dream in visual images as it was never part of the consciousness whereas those who have visual faculties before being retain the ability to “see” dreams. Likewise, a person born without with limbs will have no consciousness of having such, unlike amputees who may experience phantom limbs!
Therefore, if we are devoid of one aggregate, that sense consciousness does not contribute to the total sum of our experience. The consciousness is not independent entity apart from our body.
We, our”I” consciousness are made of different senses, not unlike operating system software in a computer! “I”, is simply an awareness mechanism of our human body.

Weychin SG

It was not uncommon to convert non believer at knife point, especially in the New World, the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, various discriminatory practices and forcible conversion in North American Indian Reservations. The British discrimination of indigineous in Sri Lanka among others.

Consider please the following words penned by the Apostle John in his old age, taken from 1 John 1:5

When forgiveness is sought, Christians should seek to give restitution to those whom they have sinned against, and faced up to the consequences of their own actions.

Jui SG

Yes it's a bit bizarre when you try to wrap your head around this concept. I know I certainly had a terrible time with it. But upon reflection, I discovered that sensing is simply a result of having sense organs, and thinking, a result of having a brain do its work, where the resulting mental processes are labelled "thought". I'm sure that nobody can refute that, with or without thought, there will still be experience and experiencing.

So does that mean that there's an experiencer experiencing experience (heh heh!)? After all, you can say that since there's a constant experiencing there has to be a constant something right? True, but you need to look properly at what this something is. Under observation, you'll find that there is no experience of "literally having no experience" which has zero content, just the experience of "nothing", where there is content. There's really is no experiencer outside of experiencing i.e. experiencer and experiencing are actually one thing.

And what is experience if not everything happening at this very moment? So if every moment (and thus, experience) is new, aren't "we" being reborn every single moement?

Just to be clear, by "self-destruction" you're talking about being nihilistic right? Since my understanding of buddhism is not as clear as I would like, and that some schools apparently do not hold the exact view, I can only offer how much I know.

The buddhist answer is that things really do exist in the sense that they have their causes and are able to effect change. The problem is that there's nothing you can really do to prove objective existance of their qualities, since our world really is just a construct of our sense organs and mind. The world really does exist, just not the way we think we do.

People suffering from mental illness, people with brain damage or born without certain sense organs etc, their view of reality certainly aren't the same as ours, and the fact that we're susceptible to optical illusions, mis-hearing of sound, smelling non-existant smells and other tricks of the mind already prove that we're not that immune to having a false understanding of what is out there. What is conventionally true is just true "to us", and frequently but not necessarily true "to everyone".

Conventional truth: You experience seeing a pretty girl in red". Ultimate truth: You really don't know if that's true, could be the lighting that's showing her dressed in red, heck she could be a transvestite for all you know. And all your experiencing as the conventional truth is a result of everything in that situation: Your state of mind, you previous experiences, the functioning of your senses and a lot of other factors.

So conventional truths are essentially false, because everyone has a different take on their experience. But that said we all have to operate conventionally, just that with the understanding that ultimately this experience is not what we think it is, we can work at being a better functioning human being, conventionally :) .

Weychin SG

You would have realised that the Yahweh in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus Christ has different roles. One is a patron deity of the tribes of Israel has much anger, that wage much destruction on Israelis’ enemies and anyone, including Israelis who worship other gods.
The other is the New Testament God that embraces Gentiles but with a double standard with Jews as chosen people and professing(conditional) love and forgiveness.
This are aspects of Christianity I more familiar with. Please pardon my ignorance.

Weychin SG

We contemplate the concept of "I" consciousness as "Soul"and deconstruction of "Self"! Have a good weekend ahead of you!

It seems this dialogue is getting us nowhere. Until and unless you have some knowledge of the different interpretations of the Buddhist teachings and understand where each of these teaching leads to, we will always be on different wavelength and it will be a fruitless never ending conversation.

Does God exist? To a Christian, it is a ‘Yes’, a ‘truth’. To a Buddhist, the ‘Yes’ would be an ‘error’. It is ultimately true in a conventional sense to either party. That is term 'Conventional Truth' to the Buddhist.

Can I assert that ‘truth and ‘error’ does or does not exist is an ‘Ultimate Truth’? This statement is not relevant when we speak of ‘Ultimate Truth’ in Buddhism. When the Buddhist talks about ‘Ultimate Truth’ it is in reference to the subjects of non duality, Emptiness, the ultimate nature of phenomena. Of course we use conventional terms to explain, describe what it is, but ultimately, it has to be experience, realized by each individual concerned.

By the way, the posted link to the article by one author does not in any way represent that IT IS the accepted interpretation for all Buddhists.

Not all teaching by every religion can be evaluated for logical consistency. To us Buddhists, experiences and realization is an absolutely essential part of our life and it does not need to be evaluated logically.

Have a nice weekend I will not be on the net anyway.

BroInChrist SG

By the way, the posted link to the article by one author does not in any way represent that IT IS the accepted interpretation for all Buddhists.

Have a nice weekend I will not be on the net anyway.

1. I am sorry if my ramblings here are causing you some frustration. It will take some time to be acquainted with the diverse interpretations within Buddhism. So I would rather dialogue over what you think the Buddha taught on some of these things. In the same way, I will not burden you with having to know all the diverse views of Christians over a topic but on what I believe is the correct view.

2. The issue of God's existence IMO is not a matter of conventional or ultimate truth. God either exists or He does not. If God does not exist and I believe He does, then I am wrong.

3. Why would it be irrelevant to speak of truth and error even in an ultimate sense? Whatever subjects that the Buddha touched upon, you believe he spoke the truth and not error. Again I am not focusing on experience because as I have said one cannot quibble with an experience. But I would like to focus on the teaching/belief aspect which can be evaluated. The laws of logic are a negative test for truth. So we can see if a teaching is self-refuting, or contradict itself. If it does, it means it is false. But the converse is not necessarily true. A logical statement does not mean it is true, just that the conclusion follows correctly from the premises.

4. I understand that one link or article written by a Buddhist does not mean you accept that as well. However, I do think that most, if not all Buddhists, should agree on a core set of doctrines. Even within Christianity, the essentials are not disputed, but sadly we are divided over many peripheral issues.

BroInChrist SG

When I refer to Self it means the person, regardless of whether he is physically complete or not. Yes, a blind person cannot know what it means to see. But he is a person with a self no less. He may lack the experience, but that in no way calls into question his existence or his personhood or self. Hope you can get my point.

BroInChrist SG

The NT does not teach conversion by compulsion. It is contrary to the teaching of Christ or His life example. Neither did the Book of Acts teach by word or example any use of lethal force to compel conversion. If this is done at all it can be judged as being contrary to Jesus' teachings and cannot be approved or endorsed.

Weychin SG

So the next question to ask is whether this “Self” consciousness is dependent on being alive or is “Self” independent of the living body. So does “Self” still exist if a living person is unconscious, eg. in a coma, without brain activity.

Weychin SG

Upon one’s demise, we can either choose whether “Self” ends which discussion ends.
Or when we die, the “Self” remains, residual of karmic consciousness, subject to our habitual clinging. It is with this identify that we cling “Self as “Soul”.
When only if we are born with human parents that we develop a human consciousness. Again investigation shows one’s”Self” is developed in this human body, pending its functionalities. The provision of “Self” comes with being born and not with introduction of “Self”.
Similiarly, if being born an animal, similiarly the consciousness will be that of an animal. Just a dog would have dog “Self” or a cat with cat”Self”!
I think the Christian belief is that animals have not “Soul”, but when we observe or interact with animals, we will find that they are capable of acting for “Self”, exhibiting free will.

Aik TC SG

I think this is a little confusing for him.

Buddhism is not the same as Advaita Vedanta because we teach no-self and emptiness. Emptiness of inherent existence means we don't establish an ultimately existing brahman. Advata Vedanta is a Hindu teaching, not a Buddhist one.

Therefore Buddhism is neither monism or absolutism or advaita. Related article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

From what I understand from the ‘Central Philosophy of Buddhism’ by TRV Murti, Absolutism, advaitism (non-dualism) in Buddhism (both the Madhyamika and the Yogacara) actually preceded the Upanisadic tradition by several centuries and also influences it as well. The Vedanta philosophers could not accept Buddhist metaphysics, the denial of self, momentariness etc; but they press into service the Madhyamika dialectic and Vijnanavada analysis of illusion. It is also stated that no absolutism can be established without the dialectic and a theory of illusion and that is where I think, the term Absolutism (advaitism) in the general sense is applied to both the philosophy of the Madhyamika and the Yogacara.

An Eternal Now SG

So what does it imply? It would seem that there would be either a subject or an object, but not both.

There is no subject or object. Subject is empty of a self-standing, independent Self or agent or controller or perceiver apart from experience. Object is also empty in that they are dependently arisen and empty of any inherently existing substance.

An Eternal Now SG

Upanishadic tradition* actually predates the Buddha, needless to speak about Madhyamika and Yogacara which came much later.

Advaita and Absolute are not terms used in the context of Madhyamika teachings etc. Advaya is. However it should be understood that Madhyamika emphasizes more about the non-duality of being/non-being, existence/non-existence, whereas Yogacara may emphasize more about the non-duality of subject/object. Nonetheless Buddhist non-duality is different from the Advaita's 'one without a second' sort of ultimate source and substratum of Brahman.

While the Advaita Vedantin tradition may or may not have implemented certain Buddhist teachings, in the end they refute the Buddhist teachings as being fundamentally incompatible with their tenets.

In any case, it must be understood that the emptiness teachings reject a substantially existing Brahman or ultimate reality.

The ultimate truth of emptiness is not the same as some Absolute [inherently existing metaphysical essence, which would oppose emptiness]. Ultimate truth is not the same as ultimate reality.

*http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/upan.htm

In particular we shall consider the Upanishads from two perspectives the Buddhist and the rationalist-materialist. In doing so we shall consider primarily those Upanishads which scholars believe were composed before the time of the Buddha. There are well over hundred Upanishads in existence but only a dozen or less of these are considered as early. These are the Upanishads commented on by the Medieval Hindu commentator Sankara[9] who flourished in the eighth century CE. They are also the ones that were considered as the “principal Upanishads” by early Western commentators like Paul Deussen.[10] The earliest of the extant Upanishads are the Bṛihadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upanishads all in prose. Not only are they the earliest but also the longest accounting for over three-quarters of the principal Upanishads. They are considered as being composed about the sixth century BCE. Three other prose Upanishads are also considered pre-Buddhist. These are the Taittiriya, Aitreya and Kausitaki Upanishads. The other “principal” Upanishads were the Kena, the Kaṭha, the Iśā, the Muṇḍaka, the Praśna, the Māṇḍūkya, and the Śvetāśvatara. To these the Maitri Upanishad is sometimes added although it is clearly post-Buddhist. As stated this essay will be confined to the five pre-Buddhist Upanishads and only few references will be made to the other principal Upanishads.

An Eternal Now SG

On a lighter note.

If I ask "Are you OK?"

You answer, "Who is asking?"

If conventional truths are ultimately false, then by direct inference such conventional truths are false. Perhaps it is a bad choice of words to call it conventional truth and ultimate truth. Language is a tool of communication, and it can communicate truth. Otherwise all communication would fail. I subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. Reality is what is. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, what is. So if the weather is cool, and I say "the weather is cool", then that is a true statement.

It is false ultimately but on the level of conventions it may be true (that is, on the presumption of self and things which is how language works), and language does not actually need to have substantial existence to work (for example we know that a car has no self-essence of car anywhere inside or outside its components, yet conventionally we impute 'car' for communication purposes) which is why,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

An Eternal Now SG

Thanks for sharing.

Honestly speaking, and I'm not trying to be facetious or intentionally difficult, I can't wrap my finger around the notion that there is no-self. It's like negating the very notion of "I think, therefore I am". If there are senses, then it presupposes a sensor. If there are thoughts, then it presupposes a thinker. To say that there is no self seems to me more than just deconstruction, but self-destruction and perhaps even the destruction of meaningful communication.

It is certainly not self-destruction because to 'destroy' a 'self' would imply that there was a self to begin with.

But it can be realized that there was indeed, no such substantially existing 'self' to begin with, that could later be annihilated or destroyed.

So we are not 'destroying' a self but simply seeing through that notion. Indeed, thought does not need to presuppose a thinker and senses does not need to presuppose a sensor.

Just like raining does not need to presuppose a 'rainer'. Raining rains, raining IS rain.

Wind blowing does not require a blower, etc. Blowing = the wind. We are not denying that causes and conditions are required for wind: for example, the interaction of air pressure, etc. But we are saying there is no ultimate self, controller or agent that 'controls' wind. There is just the blowing/wind. The same goes for self and experience.

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeCW-b41_E

An Eternal Now SG

It would be better to be clearer in expressing... a 'Self' as having inherent existence, independent, being an agent or controller or perceiver of things, that sort of 'Self' has never been existing to begin with. No such 'self' exists whether you are ignorant of the truth of no-self or not. Always already, there has never been a seer apart from seeing/seen, a doer apart from deed. The flow of aggregates goes on without a core-self.

That being said, personality and sense of self can arise.

Dog does not have dog self, cat does not have cat self.

Dog has dog personality, cat has cat personality.

An Eternal Now SG

There should be some clarity of what the Buddhists are refuting.

The Buddhists are not saying that a person cannot have unique personality. Obviously I have a unique personality that is distinct from other people's personality. Personality in the sense of traits, behaviours, habits, etc etc.

The Buddhists however are rejecting a Self that is: A separate, or independent, or changeless self or agent, apart from and unaffected by all conditioned experiences.

Instead as Jui has very nicely explained, it is this flow of experiences, thoughts, senses, etc, that flows, is ever-changing, not separate from our moment to moment flow of thoughts and actions and experiences, and displays its personality but with no inherently existing, substantial entity, or 'core' of its existence.

For example: a car has no 'car-essence' apart from the various parts that function interdependently to give rise to a function called 'driving'. No unchanging, separate, independent car-essence can be pinned down in the engine, in the wheels, etc, nor can it be pinned down or established apart from all its parts. Yet we can observe certain 'traits' or 'personality' of that car. That however does not imply a substantial existence that can be located or pinned down somewhere.

Likewise, the 'self' and the 'five aggregates' are likewise. There is no central Self or controller or self-essence of a being, yet it does not deny a unique personality and mindstream of each individual person conventionally speaking.

An Eternal Now SG

It seems to me that it becomes the person who is deified, or rather "realises" that he is actually God.

No, that is not the case. You are thinking that the person, as an individual person, becomes deified. It is not the case that the person is God. There is no ego involved (if it is the individual person that is 'God' then that would certainly be an 'egoic' kind of position), instead the ego dissolves in this realization.

Actually what the person experiences is a dissolving of his 'old me', a dissolving of a sense of a separate or individual existence, so there is no question of the person or old me becoming deified. (as mentioned in the 'salt doll' example in the upanishads example) Instead, what 'takes over' is transpersonal true I AM/Self that is all-pervasive consciousness underlying and giving rise to life, and an animating life force that transcends him and lives him. And this realization and experience is common to all the mystical/contemplative traditions of all religions throughout the world, whether or not you agree with the mystics' understanding of God.

This is why I find that this quote is very similar to the mystic's experience and there is no doubt to me that this author has experienced similar states:

20 I have been tcrucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives uin me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, vwho loved me and wgave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

I have personally been through that realization, so has a number of people in this forum. It is a humbling realization, not a self-centered one.

An Eternal Now SG

Not exactly. Existence implies some thing that is truly there, inherently and independently regardless of conditions. We know that our dream tiger has no real existence upon waking up but is mere-appearance, but we mistakenly think that our waking world has true existence. Dependent origination dissolves the view of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Emptiness means empty of extremes. The four extremes are seen through: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence. Even though everything is vividly appearing, they are fundamentally empty of any true existence that can be pinned down, so they are entirely illusory like a magic trick, an apparition, a mirage. And despite their emptiness, appearances magically appear as mere-appearance due to dependent orignation.

The Buddha said:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

" '(One says), "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist." Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [Wylie: sems, Sanskrit: citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition.[33]

~ Primordial Experience

"Everything arises and disappears according to the law of [causally] interdependent co-creation (pratityasamutpada). And yet, as with a burnt seed, since nothing can arise from nothing, cause and effect cannot actually exist. Cause and effect, which is fundamental to 'Existence' (bhava), is a conceptual discrimination occurring within the essence of Mind-itself, which appears as [both] cause and effect; and yet, since the two [i.e., cause and effect] do not exist as such, creation and destruction [which are dependant on cause and effect] cannot exist either. Since creation and destruction do not exist, self and other cannot exist; [from whence it follows] since there is no termination (samkrama), [the two extremes of] eternalism and nihilism do not exist either. Therefore, it is established that the deceptive dualism of Samsara and Nirvana is actually a fiction."

- Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra | excerpt from Bodhicittabhavana

Kamma being a form of energy is not found anywhere in this fleeting consciousness or body. Just as mangoes are not stored anywhere in the mango tree but, dependent on certain conditions, they spring into being, so does kamma. Kamma is like wind or fire. It is not stored up anywhere in the Universe but comes into being under certain conditions.

~ K Sri Dhammananda

(10:56 AM) Thusness:    what is an unit of experience make of?
(10:56 AM) AEN:    ok done
(10:56 AM) AEN:    luminosity? emptiness?
(10:57 AM) Thusness:    what else?
(10:57 AM) AEN:    conditions?
(10:57 AM) Thusness:    good what else?
(10:58 AM) AEN:    karmic propensities?
(10:58 AM) Thusness:    very good.
(10:58 AM) Thusness:    :)
(10:58 AM) Thusness:    a moment of manifestation is always all of these taking place.
(10:58 AM) Thusness:    instantaneously it is gone.
(10:59 AM) Thusness:    now...all of these are empty in nature
(10:59 AM) Thusness:    and one cannot be viewed separately...
(10:59 AM) Thusness:    if i were to ask, does the seed exist or not exist?
(11:00 AM) AEN:    icic..
(11:00 AM) AEN:    empty?
(11:00 AM) Thusness:    and what does that mean?
(11:00 AM) AEN:    empty of existence, non existence, both neither
(11:00 AM) AEN:    eh i gtg in a few minutes
(11:00 AM) AEN:    going out with family
(11:00 AM) Thusness:    ok.
(11:01 AM) Thusness:    it cannot be understood in terms of the 4 extremes.
(11:01 AM) Thusness:    when conditions are there, these seeds cannot be said to exist.
(11:01 AM) AEN:    icic
(11:01 AM) Thusness:    when conditions are there, they manifest
(11:01 AM) AEN:    oic
(11:01 AM) Thusness:    get it?
(11:02 AM) Thusness:    when u say exist before conditions, u posit it to be an 'entity'
(11:02 AM) Thusness:    understand?
(11:02 AM) AEN:    ya
(11:02 AM) Thusness:    that has to be somewhere and sometime and something
(11:02 AM) Thusness:    this is the momentum
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    this is buying in into momentum
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    however when u understand what buddha taught
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    u do not buy into this momentum.
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    u take it as it is.
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    it is empty
(11:03 AM) Thusness:    get it?
(11:04 AM) AEN:    back
(11:04 AM) AEN:    icic
(11:04 AM) AEN:    ya means not identified?
(11:05 AM) Thusness:    no...means existence or non-existence and the 4 extremes are only meaningful for one that posit an 'I'
(11:05 AM) Thusness:    u have to get used to seeing in the form of "DO"
(11:05 AM) Thusness:    and emptiness
(11:05 AM) AEN:    icic..
(11:05 AM) Thusness:    then the mind does not rest upon anything.
(11:06 AM) Thusness:    and the views, together with the practice can then reap fruit
(11:06 AM) Thusness:    why the practice is hard to reap fruit?
(11:06 AM) Thusness:    because while the experience might be there, there is no 'seeing' due to reaction of the momentum.

~ Thusness, 2007

« Previous Page Next Page »