thuscomeone

In that case, you are still proposing that there are things. What you just typed is a thought; therefore it proposes things. Any thought proposes things. There are no changing things, only the process of change.

You're right. It doesn't negate reincarnation. You said reincarnation is not one of the questions he refused to answer. It clearly is. No, it is not continuous, except that one has the illusion that it is if one has a concept of "impermanence" that they cling to. Impermanence isn't pointing to any things. It is a process.

All of those are thoughts. To put it simply once again, thoughts project permanence onto that which has only impermanence. Clinging to any of those positions will only lead to suffering.

Umm... 7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death, 8. or does not exist after death, 9. or both exists and does not exist after death, 10. neither exists nor does not exist after death

No, it is not continuous. It is impermanent (conventionally), but ultimately not permanent nor impermanent, not both, not neither.

Then it is the pali canon that is contradictory, not me... http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html

You continue to confuse the ultimate and conventional. I am speaking purely conventionally here. Thought ultimately has no continuous nature since it is impermanent. All words are only used to get out of samsara. I sense that you are seeking something permanent.

Human nature? I was responding to your assertion that I'm being nihilistic. I won't say that I do or not. Either way, it's a tangle of views that only lead to suffering. The Buddha knew that, and that is why he refused to answer it. You should read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "no-self or not-self?"

Illusion of solidity = content of thoughts. non-solidity of thought = thoughts change just like sensations change. It's like waves and water.

You have to distinguish between the thought (the arising experience of the thought) and the content of the thought. The thought itself is impermanent. The content of the thought creates the illusion of permanence. Our problem is that we are never aware of the nature of thought itself in relation to experience. Thoughts are just like sensations in that they are impermanent experiences.

It's not nihilistic because it doesn't deny human nature. Like I said before, there are two natures that are discernable. The nature of thought (solidity) and the nature of "nature" (non-solidity). It doesn't deny thought -- which creates the illusion of all these continuous "things" around us. It recognizes that even thoughts can be accepted and not presumed to be solid. Thoughts themselves are a part of nature.

The non conventional can't be described. Any word is wrong. It's just ___ There is no non solidity in thought. Every thought creates some sort of solidity and continuity. Thoughts themselves are just arising experiences and are not solid either.

Don't be like that. You know that I was talking about "things" in a conventional sense. Once again, we need to communicate somehow. When I said "the conventional is thoughts only," I meant that conventional truth IS thought. Conventional truth is the illusion of solidity created by thought. I am aware that all of experience, not just thought, is "empty." When I said just live your life, I obviously meant to live it with the "view" in mind. Though, if you are trying to achieve something with this view, you are deluded. Seeing impermanence --> Seeing anatta --> Seeing suffering --> liberation That's enough for me.

Of course.

...

As to the space thing, I've got it now. There is no space apart from the things that make up space i.e., mind and matter as they are conventionally called. And these "things" are impermanent; thus space is impermanent. The conventional is thought/concepts only. I call it "this" because we need to communicate. You can also call it experience, "suchness", "tada", "what is." What is "this" actually? I don't know. I can't know. Neither can you. Eh, I would say that it is the destination. Because there isn't much more to do after you see it than just live your life.

I'll have to admit, you've got me on the space thing. Is space the "deathless"? lol Identity does in fact imply continuity; no matter which way you spin it. But yes, identity can be conventional. In fact, it is only conventional. Change does not require a "thing" that is changing. Change implies that there are no things. The correct way to see impermanence is so, so, so subtle The way I see it, the mind is a map to reach the destination. To get where you want, you have to use the correct map. But when you get there, you don't need the map anymore. What remains? Anything I say would be wrong. Just "this."

Uh, space what? Ok, what is a "thing" to you? To me, it is something with an identity -- "some-thing". An identity implies continuity. If there is constant change, how can there be an identity? No, the fact that I'm aware of some continuity just means that our minds (thought) can only produce the illusion of continuity. That "continuity in observance" is just rapidly changing mind moments. Nothing more. Impermanence itself is not a view to be clung to. It gets dissolved in the end as well. It is thought that creates the self. I believe that the true meaning of anatta (no-self) is that no thought can ever describe reality. Every thought creates continuity where there is only impermanence.

By contextualize, do you mean, for example, that the present is essentially timeless since it contains the past and future? I used to believe that. That involves dependent arising. The problem with dependent arising is that it flys in the face of impermanence. When you say that there is a past or a present, you are creating another subtle concept of permanence/continuity. Impermanence is the only fact. Dependent arising is just a relative tool for ending suffering (this being the cause, this being the way out), not a metaphysical/ontological doctrine to be clung to Yes actually that is exactly what continuity means. You are still saying the moments are related, that moments have a connectedness to them. They don't. That's what impermanence means. This continuity you are proposing is only in your mind. "Observing the abrupt Change of all States discloses their discrete nature: When continuity is disrupted means, when it is exposed by observation of the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession. For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall, but rather the characteristic becomes properly evident through their discrete disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts, hitting in on reality one by one separately, instead of as a continuous flow of slow change." Visuddimagha. 824 Think of any two moments from your past. They are completely different, no matter how much you may think otherwise. Then you project the concept "past" -- which proposes sameness -- onto these two completely different moments. There is a disconnect between the nature of thought and the nature of "nature." I firmly believe that it is the failure to see this disconnect that results in all of our suffering.

The notion of continuity is actually absurd if you take it to its full, logical implications. Continuity would require a completely static universe where nothing could ever happen, move, interact, or change.

Oh, so one moment is the same as the next? That's what continuity means.

Hmmm, well what's the difference between mindfulness and awareness in your opinion? Eh, I wouldn't say there's no such thing as good and bad actions, right and wrong. Things may be empty, but that doesn't negate compassion.

"Keep in mind", you know, it's a phrase we use to communicate. You're caught up in looking at reality as continuous and linked, rather than as disjoint moments.

Well I was quoting from when Bodhidharma told the second patriarch to bring him his mind so he could pacify it and the second patriarch said that he couldn't find his mind... Anyway, these are nice words, but I'm not so concerned with them. Yes, relatively you can say that you have something called a mind. And in fact you can't avoid saying that, because it's our nature to do so. But ultimately all you have are disjoint, temporary moments. No continuity that can be made into a mind. "Mind" is just another concept that creates the illusion of permanence in the midst of impermanence. If you do ultimately have a mind, please show me it. Also, keep in mind here that he isn't talking about mind as in consciousness or the brain, as in the way we use it. He uses it to mean "the reality of your own self nature." Actually, I would say that "mind" as he uses it translates more to "experience" than to "consciousness." Ah, here's the story/koan that it's from: Hui-ke A Chinese scholar-monk famed for his mastery of Buddhist and Taoist scriptures. According to legend, when Bodhidharma agreed to accept him as a student, Hui-ke cried, “My mind is not at rest!” Whereupon Bodhidharma said, “Bring me your mind and I will set it at rest for you.” Hui-ke explained that this was just the problem—search as he might for his mind, he could not find it. “There!” proclaimed Bodhidharma, “I have set your mind at rest.”

Bodhidharma would like to know where this thing you call "mind" is...