Is a constantly changing object an object?

last SG · 2006-05-19T13:35:00+00:00

Even the name, label of the cup is empty because it is dependant on various conditions for arising. It is also impermanent, because once the conditions are...

casino_king SG

I just thought of another point.

For the constantly changing object to be called an object; the constant change must be predictable.

neutral_onliner SG

hey casino i have explained tis to laoda99 u can check the post Cool

casino_king SG

Originally posted by neutral_onliner:

hey casino i have explained tis to [b]laoda99 u can check the post Cool [/b]

Which thread/topic?

neutral_onliner SG

ok..ok i explain to u step by step ok?

casino_king SG

Thanks

neutral_onliner SG

ok pal i try to help have a slight idea wat is emptiness abt

Emptyness really means 'empty of inherent existence'.

ok do u noe wat it mean by 'empty of inherent existence'.

casino_king SG

That things exist only in relation to something else?

neutral_onliner SG

yes Cool

wat buddha is trying to tell us is tat we see thing thru our perception and give them label rather than see thing as they truly are.

Everything we see thru our eyes seem so real as if it truly exist as a single entity.Whereas in reality this is not so

in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts

casino_king SG

or maybe that things exists in the human brain? Like if nobody in this world ever thought of it, it doesn't exists?

geforce SG

u can read more abt the heart sutra to learn abt emptiness..

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/heart_s2.pdf

neutral_onliner SG

wat buddha is trying to tell us is tat we see thing thru our perception and give them label rather than see thing as they truly are.

Everything we see thru our eyes seem so real as if it truly exist as a single entity.Whereas in reality this is not so

in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts

so far so good ?

casino_king SG

Originally posted by neutral_onliner:

yes

wat buddha is trying to tell us is tat we see thing thru our perception and give them label rather than see thing as they truly are.

Everything we see thru our eyes seem so real as if it truly exist as a single entity.Whereas in reality this is not so

in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. [b]This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts

[/b]

Let's says someone tells you that a troup of monkeys exists in a certain place and you go and see it for yourself, lo and behold, the troup of monkeys are there! If the troup of monkeys are not "real" then they would not be there?

casino_king SG

Thanks, but since neutral_onliner is so kind...

neutral_onliner SG

wait wait relax...

ok take alook at this pic

ok so in conventional term this bicycle exist no doubt but if u look carefully (let say for example the bicycle is made up of three part :

-The metal structure

-front wheel

-rear wheel

now pls tell me where is the bicycle ? which part can be really considered a bicycle?

is The metal structure the bicycle?

or

is it the front wheel?

or

rear wheel?

geforce SG

more useful links and texts, read it when u have time..

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/sutras.html

casino_king SG

Originally posted by neutral_onliner:

wat buddha is trying to tell us is tat we see thing thru our perception and give them label rather than see thing as they truly are.

Everything we see thru our eyes seem so real as if it truly exist as a single entity.Whereas in reality this is not so

in our ordinary view, things appear to have some true of inherent nature, as if they were really there, as if we could find these real, independent entities if we searched for them. They appear to be there, independent of the causes and conditions that created them, independent of the parts of which they are made, and independent of the mind which conceives and gives them a name. [b]This is the appearance of true or inherent existence and our mind grasps it as real. Actually they exist depending on causes and conditions, parts

so far so good ?[/b]

Let's say we look at a car, it is made up of parts... engine, doors, windows, and we call it a car. If we look deeper, then they are metal, glass, plastics. And even deeper, molecules of carbon, hydrogen, iron. And even deeper, atoms and even deeper electrons and protons and even deeper, energy waves... ?

casino_king SG

Originally posted by neutral_onliner:

wait wait relax...

ok take alook at this pic

ok so in [b]conventional term this bicycle exist no doubt but if u look carefully (let say for example the bicycle is made up of three part :

-The metal structure

-front wheel

-rear wheel

now pls tell me where is the bicycle ? which part can be really considered a bicycle?

is The metal structure the bicycle?

or

is it the front wheel?

or

rear wheel?[/b]

OK the parts sum up to make the bicycle. Individually they are bicycle parts and not bicycle and so on.

neutral_onliner SG

yes correct so u see actually everything u see does not exist as a single entity.It is alway depended on other enity and condition.As for this example when all entities(wheel,metal structure) and all necessary conditons are met it will produced an effect when u eyes project on it. And ur mind will give a label called"bicycle" to it.To ur perception the bicycle seem so real so permanent as if it a single entity ,a one WHOLE item.BUT in actual fact in reality what the natural 'see' it just a wheel ,a metal structure and two wheels.There no bicycle in the 1st place.

try dismentle it part by part ..hey where is the bicycle now.

So u see we see thing thru the label we gave rather than see thing as they truly are

ok why not u go observe ur environment and see for yourself.Everything be it a car, a computer , a chair and photocopy machine , they DO NOT exist as a single entity.It is alway depended on other enity and condition.To put it simple it alway something plus something to give u something.however u mind will project them as if they are real so permanent as if it a single entity ,a one WHOLE item.And start giving labels.In actual fact they r compounded

sinweiy SG

indeed, remind me of :

Where Is The Cracker?

Ven: (Holding a cracker) A cracker appears to be a real cracker as there is some "cracker-ness" about it - it seems to exists "out there," independent of our Mind. If it really exists like that, then when we analyze and search for just what the cracker is, we should be able to find it. (The cracker is broken and a piece is held up) Is this piece a cracker?

Aud: Yes.

Ven: (Holding up the other piece) is this a cracker?

Aud: Yes.

Ven: (Crumbles the cracker pieces) what is this now?

Aud: Crumbs - a mess!

Ven: There is no cracker now? What happened to the real cracker we saw before? If it had some cracker-ness quality to it, where is it now? What we have now are the same atoms and molecules as before - but we call it crumbs and not a cracker!

Aud: The cracker is the collection of atoms and molecules. It is all the parts together!

Ven: But a collection is just a group of parts. If none of the parts by themselves are a cracker, then how can many parts together be an independent cracker with some cracker-ness quality? If you put many non-butterflies, such as grasshoppers together, does that make a butterfly? How can a group of non-crackers or crumbs make a real cracker?

Aud: Then there is no cracker at all? What am I eating?

Ven: What we are searching for is something that is a cracker independent of its parts. That real independent cracker can't be found because it doesn't exists. But a dependently existent cracker is there! What you are eating is still a cracker!

The cracker exists as a group of atoms and molecules put together in a certain pattern. Our Mind looks at it and conceives it to be a thing and calls it a cracker - it becomes a cracker because all of us together have conceived it in a similar way and agreed, by the force of social convention, to call it a cracker.

That cracker exists dependent on its causes and conditions - the flour, water and baker and so on. It depends on our minds conceiving it to be a thing and labeling it "cracker." Apart from this dependently existent cracker, there is no other cracker. It is empty of being a cracker inherently and independently with some cracker-ness quality to it. It exists - but not in the same way it appears to us to exist. It appears to be independent when it isn't.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/be_a_lamp_upon_yourself.htm
/\

« Previous Page Next Page »