Emptiness and Existence

last SG · 2013-02-07T21:56:13+00:00

"The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination."I fully concur! But then how come the...

BroInChrist SG

just because god is your centre, it should be mine?

i love audi, should you?

i love rugby, should you?

i love real estate, should you?

You are confused.

I do not have to love Audi like you do.

I do not have to love rugby like you do.

I do not have to love real estate like you do.

WHY NOT?

Because none of these things places an obligation upon us. We don't owe them anything. They are THINGS created by us to be used for our enjoyment and pleasure.

Consider our parents. They gave birth to us. Without them we do not exist. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to honor them and provide for them, then it shows how unfilial we are. How much more so when we are talking about God our Creator? God made us. Without Him we do not exist. God is not just the centre of our lives. He is the REASON we are alive. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.

BroInChrist SG

"Then you should also note that the notion of contingent and necessary beings is taught in philosophy but it is not called emptiness which (as mentioned before) is a rather misleading term."

i have no idea what u are talking about.

"In the desire to avoid a theistic conclusion or beginning the buddhist ends up biting the bullet of an illogical conclusion."

no, a theistic conclusion also lead to other illogical problems of unfairness and indifference in lifes, etc. the three sticks concepts applies to anyone who put them there. and If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

our credit is to the ultimate source is already mentioned BTW:-

We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

Please google and see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ to appreciate the philosophical distinctions made.

Apart from a theistic context the question of unfairness in life does not even arises.

The ultimate source you speak of aka clear light. Can you elaborate on what it is? Because the answer you give is again neither this or that, neither here nor there. Can give a clear explanation on this clear light using clear words so that we can clearly understand? ; p

zeus29 SG

You are confused.

I do not have to love Audi like you do.

I do not have to love rugby like you do.

I do not have to love real estate like you do.

WHY NOT?

Because none of these things places an obligation upon us. We don't owe them anything. They are THINGS created by us to be used for our enjoyment and pleasure.

You are confused.

>>>> eh. I thought you are confused one even after so many attempts by so many people about our position on the question about the creator.

I do not have to love Audi like you do.

I do not have to love rugby like you do.

I do not have to love real estate like you do.

WHY NOT?

Because none of these things places an obligation upon us. We don't owe them anything. They are THINGS created by us to be used for our enjoyment and pleasure.

Consider our parents. They gave birth to us. Without them we do not exist. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to honor them and provide for them, then it shows how unfilial we are.

>>>> errr. Isn’t it obvious? Without our parents, we wont be here?

How much more so when we are talking about God our Creator? God made us. Without Him we do not exist. God is not just the centre of our lives. He is the REASON we are alive. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.

>>>> “How much more so when we are talking about God our Creator? God made us. Without Him we do not exist. God is not just the centre of our lives. He is the REASON we are alive.” -> err. Kindly speak for yourself. You do realize that it’s your belief. Not ours. There’s absolutley nothing wrong with you believing in it and if it makes you a better person, why not? It’s not ours, though.

>>>> “If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.” -> nope.

sinweiy SG

Please google and see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ to appreciate the philosophical distinctions made.

Apart from a theistic context the question of unfairness in life does not even arises.

u can sort of say, an ultimate source is "necessary". but it's also something that's sunyata, non-dual or no words can describe "IT". that say:-

By itself, Nibbana is quite unexplainable and quite undefinable. As darkness can be explained only by its opposite, light, and as calm can only be explained by its opposite, motion, so likewise Nibbana, as a state equated to the extinction of all suffering can be explained by its opposite?the suffering that is being endured in Samsara. As darkness prevails wherever there is no light, as calm prevails wherever there is no motion, so likewise Nibbana is everywhere where suffering and change and impurity do not prevail. http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/102.htm

same as the ultimate source, can only use its opposite to explain. u use insight to see it. like finger pointing the moon, but it's not the finger pointing. IT is like the reflection of Moon in the water. it is there, but u cannot grab or attained IT. hence Buddha taught Sunyata as it. even use many name for it, but he's aim is for us to let go of the name/words in order to discern IT. as an "agent" in all of sentient beings, it can be attained by All.

BroInChrist SG

You are confused.

>>>> eh. I thought you are confused one even after so many attempts by so many people about our position on the question about the creator.

I do not have to love Audi like you do.

I do not have to love rugby like you do.

I do not have to love real estate like you do.

WHY NOT?

Because none of these things places an obligation upon us. We don't owe them anything. They are THINGS created by us to be used for our enjoyment and pleasure.

Consider our parents. They gave birth to us. Without them we do not exist. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to honor them and provide for them, then it shows how unfilial we are.

>>>> errr. Isn’t it obvious? Without our parents, we wont be here?

>>>> “If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.” -> nope.

Yes, without our parents we won't be here. But without God the universe won't be here.

BroInChrist SG

u can sort of say, an ultimate source is "necessary". but it's also something that's sunyata, non-dual or no words can describe "IT". that say:-

You said it well. Darkness can only be experienced with reference to light. Likewise the notion of emptiness (contingent) can only be explained with reference to that which is necessary. And the necessary precedes the contingent.

zeus29 SG

Yes, without our parents we won't be here. But without God the universe won't be here.

yes, according your your beliefs. not ours.

sinweiy SG

sorry i see that which u think is necessary is Not even contingent(if personal). we already had our scientific analysis. sunyata Is the necessary for all to exist. without sunyata, everything is not possible. sunyata IS change.

It affirms the existence of existence; but negates the self nature of existence.

A water fall seen from a distance appears like a shiny solid sheet in one complete piece. but upon closer inspection, we see clearly that the pieces is only a continous flowing stream of water. there is essentially no fixed waterfall, there is only water falling.

BroInChrist SG

It affirms the existence of existence; but negates the self nature of existence.

That which changes is caused ultimately by that which is unchanging, aka the necessary being.

The statement "affirms the existence of existence" sounds irrational. Something either exists or it does not. That which exists is either contingent or necessary. The entire universe began to exist a finite time ago, it is thus contingent. The cause of the universe is not.

Water falling or water fall? Mere semantics and grammar tense. One is noun whereas the other is present continuous tense. Surely it is strange to base doctrine on the syntax and grammar of language? Yes, the waterfall may not have existed before, but insofar as it has been there, it is true that it existed or is existing if it is still there. The issue of existence is distinct from the duration of its existence.

sinweiy SG

double-post

sinweiy SG

That which changes is caused ultimately by that which is unchanging, aka the necessary being.

by the word contingent u mean not necessary or questionable?

it's not refering to necessary or not necessary. everything that existed, is just like an illusions/dream, due to continuous changing and dependent arising. "affirms the existence of existence" mean there's existence/phenomona/creation/manifestions, but no permanent inherent existence. it's the ultimate truth/noumenon. everything is inter-connected(quantum physic theory).

the "necessary" source is not a being. it's neither changing nor not changing. it's BOTH and neither. to say just not changing is a disgrace to the Ultimate source. however it does have the functions of 见闻觉知(see, hear, sense, & cognize) which are the Essential Nature of Tathagata and ALL Phenomena.

imagine a being/entity/God that look like a Man, with all the organs, skin, eyes, face, hair, height, size and also have a man's organ etc. then there must be some type of look. a handsome look? a normal looking man? does it look like Morgan Freeman? like in the movies Evan Almighty or Bruce Almighty ? Is he black, white or asian looking? might be a mix of all ethnic group or from the middle east. organs are for supporting life. if can life forever, what is a human form with all the organs for? and why must He, not she? why discriminate women? that's what make the religion questionable/ irrational/nonsensical.

if there's a being form then to us is just a divine/deva being in heavenly realms. to us the Ultimate source do not have a personal form what so ever. it cannot be found, aka sunyata. yet all manifesting.

Buddhism is flexibility rather than rigid/stubborn. one universe began to exist at a certain time, yes, but before that there was a previous universe. if there's a very beginning of universeS then it will disgrace the Ultimate source's perfect manifestation. the explaination of time in Buddhism is close to science that talk about light-years. note that :

Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed.

the Void period, is also about 1/4 of universe's life-span! so people might think that the universe had ended. but not actually. after certain long aeon, it will start again. to me, this explaination are very science like, rather than story like.

(Abhidhamma is our science in Buddhism. http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/425491 . there's less tale-like/story-form teaching. ) time space in Buddhism IS inconceivable!.

BroInChrist SG

by the word contingent u mean not necessary or questionable?

(Abhidhamma is our science in Buddhism. http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/425491 . there's less tale-like/story-form teaching. ) time space in Buddhism IS inconceivable!.

By contingent is it means that the entity need not have existed or the event need not have happened. But just because things/events are contingent it does not mean they are illusions. The problem would be in mistaking that which is contingent as necessary, which is what I think the Buddha was addressing. Where I think he went wrong was in saying that therefore ALL things are contingent and thus illusion. But if everything is an illusion, does that apply to that statement itself? If so, it self-refute. If not, then that statement is false.

I have no idea what this ultimate source it is that you refer to. Basically you would deny that it is God but somehow it is being reified or deified to be like God.

Anyway, movies are movies, take them as pure entertainment. God is Spirit, and thus any physical manifestation of Him (a theophany or even the incarnation) should not be idolised. God has no physical attributes because He is an invisible spirit. The God of the Bible is thus transcendent yet immanent. He is distinct from His creation but yet can act within His creation.

We only know of one universe which is the one we live in. It is not scientific to speak of multiverses or prior universes at all. And neither is there any evidence to think that the universe is cyclical. Such a notion goes against what we know in science. Where does the energy come from to kick start the big bang?

sinweiy SG

I have no idea what this ultimate source it is that you refer to. Basically you would deny that it is God but somehow it is being reified or deified to be like God.

then u are the wrong one. the illusion is not referring to contingent or not existed event/entity, but all really happening events and entities. who is talking about not existed event/entity? i think u are. and i think u miss out that which is noumenon. everything is an illusion in the noumenon aspect. we are not refering to the phenomona aspect. hence i had said that u keep misunderstood the meaning and incline into nullism which is mara's teaching.

ultimate source for one do not judge or need to plan the path of each and everyone, as if everyone is fated. there's no freewill if all is fated.

yes, invisible or spirit would to us mean they are either ghosts or devas.

Beings having a spontaneous birth are generally invisible to the physical eye.

Conditioned by their past Kamma, they appear spontaneously,

without passing through an embryonic stage.

Petas and Devas normally, and Brahmas belong to this class.

http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=52

Buddhas have the triple bodies, the Truth Body, Bliss body and all manisfestions bodies. like a tree, the root is the Truth, the trunk is the Bliss, and the leaves are the manisfestions. All in one and one in all.

"transcendent yet immanent", u are begining to talk like Buddhist. it's this yet that. hah.

energy can be recycled too. simple. like u see water can be liquid, solid and gas state. water turn to cloud, rain, evaporate back to cloud, u cannot see the energy yet no energy lose. can say the ultimate source is all powerful, hence no lose of energy. i thought u don't believe in big bang.

« Previous Page