Intuition and Logic.

[rebelrebel]

LOL! No, the finger is the moon. But, where you guys are getting it wrong, is thinking that pratityasamutpada is merely a conceptual formulation. It is not like other teachings, and you won't get that until you get that. Interdependent origination is not a formula, it's in fact how all formulas manifest and how you have come up with the choice to speak your words.

 

You think you are in control, making choices, but you don't realize that you are out of control, conditioned, and the cause to the effect of your opinion is an endless chain of not seeing emptiness directly, which is not the same as seeing a "one" behind all things.

 

It's much subtler than that.

 

So no... I have not gone wrong.

No you have misunderstood me. If you saw that dependent origination is NOT "dependent origination", you would not cling to it as you do. And you don't to study need dependent origination to know this.

Edited October 30, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

No you have misunderstood me. If you saw that dependent origination is NOT "dependent origination", you would not cling to it as you do.

 

No, dependent origination is dependent origination, but it's not merely the concepts of it, it's not merely the finger, it's the shining moon, but only when you get it intuitively.

 

As the Buddha also said, besides the finger pointing metaphor, "When you see dependent origination, you will see the dharma, and when you see the dharma you will see me."

 

So, it is the moon, but only when you stop clinging to it as a concept.

[rebelrebel]

You don't even need dependent origination to see that it is not "dependent origination." There is no necessity for it. Thinking you need dependent origination to be free is another obstruction.

Edited October 30, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

No you have misunderstood me. If you saw that dependent origination is NOT "dependent origination", you would not cling to it as you do.

 

No, dependent origination is dependent origination, but it's not merely the concepts of it, it's not merely the finger, it's the shining moon, but only when you get it intuitively.

 

As the Buddha also said, besides the finger pointing metaphor, "When you see dependent origination, you will see the dharma, and when you see the dharma you will see me."

 

So, it is the moon, but only when you stop clinging to it as a concept.

 

 

 

You don't even need dependent origination to see that it is not "dependent origination." There is no necessity for it. Thinking you need dependent origination to be free is another obstruction.

 

I completely disagree, so do the Buddhas. I think they are far more qualified than any of us here.

 

 

 

There is no necessity for it. Thinking you need dependent origination to be free is another obstruction.

 

See this is showing that you don't understand dependent origination.

 

It's not that you need it, it's that you exist due to the fact that it's how existence works.

 

It doesn't work any other way except originating dependently add infinitum.

 

So, in a sense, you are dependent origination.

[rebelrebel]

No, dependent origination is dependent origination, but it's not merely the concepts of it, it's not merely the finger, it's the shining moon, but only when you get it intuitively.

 

As the Buddha also said, besides the finger pointing metaphor, "When you see dependent origination, you will see the dharma, and when you see the dharma you will see me."

 

So, it is the moon, but only when you stop clinging to it as a concept.

I completely disagree, so do the Buddhas. I think they are far more qualified than any of us here.

Well I have to disagree with you as well. Do you need a buddha to tell you what is right in front of your face? Do you need a teacher to tell you what is happening at this moment for you? I certainly don't think you do.

 

Look, I'm not denying dependent origination. "Dependent origination" is pointing to an obviously present process. But, let me ask you this, is a tooth brush a "tooth brush?" or is it just what it is? In the same way, the words/identification of dependent origination are obviously NOT the process which is present as an undeniable fact. Unless you think a thought is the same as a process of nature/the universe. The identification of that fact is just an interpretation/translation of it and not the fact itself.

If you see this, you wouldn't need so much emphasis on dependent origination because this is pointing to the exact same thing that one would get from a logical analysis of dependent origination. Well not quite exact, it goes a bit deeper. It is just a lot easier.

Edited October 30, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

Well I have to disagree with you as well. Do you need a buddha to tell you what is right in front of your face? Do you need a teacher to tell you what is happening at this moment for you? I certainly don't think you do.

 

Yes, I did, because I was heavily conditioned, first by society, then by incredibly powerful deity worship and seeing a "one" in everything.

 

If you don't know what's in front of your face and who's looking from within you, and how the looking is happening, then you better get some Buddha medicine.

 

If you think it's all not dependently originated, then you got another thing coming.

 

All is because dependent origination is how all does it's is'ness.

 

You are free to disagree with me, but I think it's just an opinion that originates dependent upon a whole lot of pre-conceptions, based upon interpretations of experiences based on experiences and interpretations.

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha had teachings that were figurative and those that were literal. Pratityasamutpada is one of the literal teachings of exactly how things work and how one can de-condition one's workings.

[Sunya]

:lol:Mikaelz, that was the worst response I have seen you give. By quoting me and deliberately leaving out the Key point I was making at the end, and then miss- representing my argument, you make your self worse than the worst politicians or Fox journalists. Stop trying to confuse everybody with your crap, or at least read a post properly before responding.

 

touchy touchy

 

I have my experiences and as a result I tend to Believe things that match them, but its not some Iron clad belief that cant look in new ways, or is not willing to explore angles I have missed.

I am saying I am open to Discussion.

 

nobody's saying your experience is wrong, what is being said is that the belief was apriori to the experience and thus the experience and your subsequent belief cannot fully held to be true.

[Marblehead]

Good Morning All,

 

I want to disagree with someone too so I fingered this would be a good thread in which to do that. (Yes, that typo was intentional. Hehehe.)

 

The finger and the moon. Yes, if one looks at the pointing finger instead of the moon when the moon is pointed at and the person pointing says, "Look at the beautiful moon." that one has missed the point. Kinda' like looking at a rose plant and seeing only thorns - you miss seeing all the beautiful flowers.

 

V. likes to talk about dependent origination and I really have no problem with this because I simply translate this into 'cause and effect'. Where I do have a problem is that if one holds to this concept too tightly there would be a tendency to negate free will and this would be contrary to one of my prime concepts.

 

It is my opinion that our life is not written out for us. We can create whatever life we want for ourself (excluding insurmountable limitations set by our environment). There is no destiny - there is no karma that is going to keep you in a hole that you cannot get out of; there is no destiny that you must face at any given point in your life.

 

You have the free will to change your life if you don't like the present one. You have the choice to stop suffering any time you wish to do so without any help from anyone else and without following any dogma or doctrine.

 

You have the free will to walk any path you choose to walk.

 

This is what logic tells me. Logic is a wonderful thing. The processes of nature are wonderful things. These processes are what allowed life to become in the first place. These processes should be understood. One needs not follow anyone else's instructions in order to do this - just open your eyes and observe without preconception. See only what you see and add nothing to it nor subtract anything from it.

 

Then understand the hows and whys of these processes and apply them to your everyday life. I believe that this is the best way to live a long and contented life.

 

All very simple. And quite natural. Then you will be totally free even if you are locked in a bird cage.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

V. likes to talk about dependent origination and I really have no problem with this because I simply translate this into 'cause and effect'. Where I do have a problem is that if one holds to this concept too tightly there would be a tendency to negate free will and this would be contrary to one of my prime concepts.

 

 

 

This is why D.O. is not just cause and effect and is subtler because its revealing emptiness, the non-inharency of everything, so the more you see emptiness the freer your will. Otherwise look at the choices you make. Notice how they rely on conditioning too, even spontaneous ones are conditioned subconsciously and unconsciously. So I think most people don't exercise free will. Even this post of yours is an opinion conditioned by a pre-conception that thinks D.O is merely cause and effect. But it's not. So your opinion is conditioned incorrectly, thereby negated. Sorry to use this as an example but, it's better you see the truth.

 

Not that your entire post is wrong but as you do make beautiful points as well.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

Hey V! How are you today?

 

"The more you see emptiness, the freer your will". I like this very much!

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey V! How are you today?

 

"The more you see emptiness, the freer your will". I like this very much!

 

 

Thanks! Breath in... space.... out.... release.... in.... space...AH! ;-)

[Marblehead]

This is why D.O. is not just cause and effect and is subtler because its revealing emptiness, the non-inharency of everything, so the more you see emptiness the freer your will. Otherwise look at the choices you make. Notice how they rely on conditioning too, even spontaneous ones are conditioned subconsciously and unconsciously. So I think most people don't exercise free will. Even this post of yours is an opinion conditioned by a pre-conception that thinks D.O is merely cause and effect. But it's not. So your opinion is conditioned incorrectly, thereby negated. Sorry to use this as an example but, it's better you see the truth.

Not that your entire post is wrong but as you do make beautiful points as well.

 

And, of course, this is where our paths separate because while you are looking at the emptiness I am looking at the fullness and this, of course, makes what I highlighted in red null and void and therfore an incorrect understanding and thusly it is I who must suggest to you that it would better for you if you discard your misunderstanding and seek the true light.

 

And while it is true that you Buddhist understanding is valid in your view it is not logical nor has it ever been intuited by my essence to be so.

 

Therefore I must suggest that it is your mind and logic and intuition that has been conditioned by all the reading you have done regarding Hinduism and Buddhism that has lead you astray from the truth that can readily be seen simply by observing nature.

 

So, no, I'm not sorry when I suggest that you are deluded when you speak of such matters because that is exactly how I feel and to say anything less would not be the truth as I understand it.

 

Logic and intuition do not require dogma in order to be applied. All that is required is that we observe and realize. And this can be done only by unlearning all the dogma and doctrine that you have been forcing into your brain and become truely empty and therefore open for the truth that can been had through observation, logic and intuition.

 

Hehehe. This is fun - we should do it more often.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Hey V! How are you today?

 

"The more you see emptiness, the freer your will". I like this very much!

 

 

The more you see emptiness the emptier your life will be. I like this better.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The more you see emptiness the emptier your life will be. I like this better.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Actually the experience of emptiness is fullness.

 

Marble emptiness in Buddhism doesn't mean empty like in a jar, it means mailable, non-inherent and luminous. I've explained this to you before, I think more than once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It always dumbfounds me when people prefer to take things personally rather than learn something new. Is that exercising free will? Or... pre-conditioned reaction?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Actually the experience of emptiness is fullness.

Hi V: Being the simple kinda guy i am, that seems confusing.. even with the good explanation that follows, i have to wonder, why not just say what needs to be said? Parables and metaphors are useful only when words fail.. analogies are useful for finding common interpretations of similar experiences.. but, generally, good use of language is a great tool for communication.. it's a bit frustrating when someone says, it really doesn't mean what it says..

 

Be well..

[C T]

Actually the experience of emptiness is fullness.

 

Marble emptiness in Buddhism doesn't mean empty like in a jar, it means mailable, non-inherent and luminous. I've explained this to you before, I think more than once.

It always dumbfounds me when people prefer to take things personally rather than learn something new. Is that exercising free will? Or... pre-conditioned reaction?

You mean like this page has to be *full* of *emptiness*, uncorrupted in other words, before it can be filled with some *thing*, or substantiated?

 

Logicians often cannot see things this way. Their argument is empty = empty. Full = full. Things have to very black and white, or they find it quite hard to function otherwise. Many logicians struggle with obsessive needs for every aspect of their lives to be organized and plain to the eye, or else they can fall apart. Remember that movie with Russell Crowe in the lead - whats it called, oh yeah, A Beautiful Mind - thats a classic example!

 

 

 

I think there is a word for this, and its called 'fixated view' which ties in with 'wrong view' in Buddhism. But most people, i figure, have issues with the application of the word 'wrong', so i prefer 'fixated'.

 

Does this tie in with your patient explanation of the concept of *emptiness/fullness*?

 

Bee good V!

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

Hi V: Being the simple kinda guy i am, that seems confusing.. even with the good explanation that follows, i have to wonder, why not just say what needs to be said? Parables and metaphors are useful only when words fail.. analogies are useful for finding common interpretations of similar experiences.. but, generally, good use of language is a great tool for communication.. it's a bit frustrating when someone says, it really doesn't mean what it says..

 

Be well..

 

The reason the Buddha used emptiness, which is Shunya in Sanskrit or Shunyata in Pali, was to negate clinging to experiences and ideas as ultimate. Nagarjuna, considered a second Buddha even states, that one should even consider emptiness empty. As in, not to use emptiness itself as merely a conceptual view and to negate negation as well... in the end.

 

Negating any sort of clinging, naturally leads to the experience of free flow fullness.

 

What emptiness first and foremost means is, dependent origination, so... it should always be contextualized first as the result of seeing dependent origination, which is saying that all arisings arise due to causes and conditions which are themselves arisings from causes and conditions add infinitum, since beginningless time. Thus, all arisings, even consciousness is empty of inherent existence as in, there is no self existence to be found anywhere. So, emptiness is the appropriate word to use, because when examining anything in contemplative meditation, you don't find anything substantially there. Everything is like a hologram, including yourself.

 

So... it's quite well defined for Buddhists. I've tried to help here, but not many actually read my posts, they just react. Those that do read my posts have found them helpful, while plenty of others just find themselves feeling threatened?

 

Anyway... thanks for asking.

 

The experience of what the Buddha means as shunyata, is fullness.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi V: It is my practice to be curious.. to ask: What is that? How does it relate to the 'Environment'? then, shut up, still my mind, and.. let the situation reveal itself.. Oh, when i use the term 'Environment', it is all-inclusive, all possibilities of environment.. considering we are interconnected throughout the Cosmos, my use of the term 'environment' includes the Whole Process.. or, that's my understanding of our 'Environment'..

 

I really do try to read everyone's posts with the same curiosity: What is the message? How does it relate to the 'Environment'? Does it enhance the Human Experience? Is it consistent with the 'Way' things are?

 

So, thanks for sharing.. and as i find the opportunity for stillness and subsequent contemplation, i will consider the effect of expressing wisdoms in the manner Buddhists favor.. there must be something to it, there's a bunch of Buddhists out there..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Actually the experience of emptiness is fullness.

 

Marble emptiness in Buddhism doesn't mean empty like in a jar, it means mailable, non-inherent and luminous. I've explained this to you before, I think more than once.

It always dumbfounds me when people prefer to take things personally rather than learn something new. Is that exercising free will? Or... pre-conditioned reaction?

 

Yes, V., I know. You have said that before. But you keep saying emptiness so I keep saying fullness.

 

It always diumbfounds me when people say one thing but mean the total opposite.

 

And I have learned something new V. I have learned that when you say "empty" you really mean "full". Life is strange that way sometimes.

 

Kinda' like a woman telling me she loves me when in reality what she means is I want your money.

 

So I suppose it coud be said to be a logical response for me to mention fullness whenever someone mentions emptiness. No, I don't think that it is anything pre-conditioned, not intuitive either, just plain logic. But yes, of course, it is my exercise of free will because I could opt to remain silent but you know me well enough by now to know that I won't. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

You mean like this page has to be *full* of *emptiness*, uncorrupted in other words, before it can be filled with some *thing*, or substantiated?

 

Logicians often cannot see things this way. Their argument is empty = empty. Full = full. Things have to very black and white, or they find it quite hard to function otherwise. Many logicians struggle with obsessive needs for every aspect of their lives to be organized and plain to the eye, or else they can fall apart. Remember that movie with Russell Crowe in the lead - whats it called, oh yeah, A Beautiful Mind - thats a classic example!

I think there is a word for this, and its called 'fixated view' which ties in with 'wrong view' in Buddhism. But most people, i figure, have issues with the application of the word 'wrong', so i prefer 'fixated'.

 

Does this tie in with your patient explanation of the concept of *emptiness/fullness*?

 

Bee good V!

 

Yes it does! As you well know... "emptiness" also means the lack of a fixated view. Because identifying everything with a.. "all encompassing thing that is everything" would be a fixated view. Which is why the Buddha denied any substantialist non-duality, such as Monism as described in the Vedas and by Vedanta and called it an extreme view of Eternalism and not in alignment with true and total liberation from Samsara. He called the goal of Monism, or "one-ism" as a very high level delusion leading merely to a formless bliss realm where all levels of manifest karma is merely repressed through an intense level of focus on a one encompassing infinite concept... deemed non-conceptual by Monist paths, but the Buddha said that this is just a concept that is bigger than the normal range, thus he transcended the jhanas/samadhi's as giving any real way to enlightenment other than a way of cultivating and integrating "right view" if you are a Buddhist with one's sub-conscious energies and unconscious formless mind realms. Nagarjuna said this as well, that "paths that don't see dependent origination/emptiness 'right view', merely get to the edge of Samsara", but don't fully empty out all future possibilities of re-experiencing of Sasmsara because they maintain a backbone that is true, and ultimately real in and of itself that all things manifest from and through. This is clinging to a fixated view and is ultimately the cause of re-experiencing Samsara as an aspect of it after the pralaya (big crunch) of this universe and then the next "big bang", because a person who believes in this "one thing" that is all things, is actually re-absorbed by that fixed view and recycled. Thus, no true liberation from Samsara for Monists. This is why the heavens of Monists that are considered "Eternal" by them, actually are not.

 

The Buddha saw that everything is relative and non-inherent, even the experience of Nirvana is relative and non-inherent.

 

Though in language one can go the opposite direction, but it's very clear what that means in Buddhism to say that the only inherent is relativity, non-inherency, or impermanence is actually permanent. So you see? But, Nagarjuna as the king of logic showed that because dependent origination reveals that nothing really arises, because not one thing is inherently established, one cannot say that anything is there to be emptied as well. So here he is showing that logic and study does have it's limits and to truly experience the meaning of emptiness as prescribed by the Buddha, is a state of non-dual, non-conceptual fullness and bliss... total liberation from any form of clinging, either form, or formless.

 

Yet, the Buddhas non-conceptual bliss is not due to identifying with a single substratum concept that all things are based on, it's by emptying completely, even the, "I AM" camp, or "All is Tao", unless Tao is defined as the flow of impermanence and not considered an actual existent or fundamental source of all things, because that type of non-conceptual substantialist non-dual experience would still be based on a subtle clinging to a backbone, a truly existent "mysterious" something that one rely's on. Thus... is reabsorbed into at the end of a cosmic eon during the pralaya. Wiki on Prayala... pretty deep.

 

This is what makes the Buddhist teaching of emptiness extremely subtle and clearly a different realization of how things work than other spiritual traditions. The Buddha said so himself, "This teaching is not taught on Earth at this time that I now teach it." He said that even some solitary realizers prier to him, pratyekabuddhas, realize the truth experientially, but didn't have the conceptual ability to describe how they got there. So, he was the first during this period on Earth to teach this extremely subtle teaching known as the Dharma. Wiki on the meaning of the term, "Dharma" You wil not find it in the Vedas, or the I-ching, or the Bible. Though there is great wisdom in these books, they in and of themselves do not lead to total exhaustion of the re-production of a Samsaric experience for an individual. I myself use the I-Ching with great delight, but integrate the information with "right view". As not to loose grounding in the dharma.

 

People say..."this is dogma" and get all concerned, but no... that's just dependent origination. Your experience is pre-determined by view either conscious or unconscious, and if the view is not correct as in, "right view" of the first of the 8 fold path, which is "dependent origination" a deceptively profound view. Then it's not the view that ends proliferation of Samsaric re-experiencing during the next universal cycle, because you would have just re-absorbed back into your substratum you call, "true nature".

 

Of course it gets subtler than this, because after one has realized emptiness as a first stage Bodhisattva, one works on reversing the personal dependent origination cycle through the accumulations which can happen as fast as an instant, or take many eons. So, enlightenment in Buddhism is not "non-existence" as many Westerners fear. It's actually a revelation that Samsara is Nirvana when rightly realized and in fact you get to keep on existing, just as a liberated being here to bring the goodies of one's ultimate realization of the non-inherency of everything.

 

This is also why I find the English language tedious. I find Sanskrit to be the most potent spiritual language because it has words that are very uniquely adept at describing spiritual experience through, when the meaning is understood contextually. Because even the term "yoga" can be used to talk about putting two pieces of clay together, which has nothing to do with spirituality unless you want to think metaphorically.

 

 

 

Kinda' like a woman telling me she loves me when in reality what she means is I want your money.

 

You have money?? You lucky dog!!

 

So I suppose it coud be said to be a logical response for me to mention fullness whenever someone mentions emptiness. No, I don't think that it is anything pre-conditioned, not intuitive either, just plain logic. But yes, of course, it is my exercise of free will because I could opt to remain silent but you know me well enough by now to know that I won't. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Ok, ok... it's just... well my post above explains why "fullness" needs to be contextualized with "emptiness" for a Buddhist in order to remain on the path of the Dharma.

 

Take care!

 

Greetings..

 

Hi V: It is my practice to be curious.. to ask: What is that? How does it relate to the 'Environment'? then, shut up, still my mind, and.. let the situation reveal itself.. Oh, when i use the term 'Environment', it is all-inclusive, all possibilities of environment.. considering we are interconnected throughout the Cosmos, my use of the term 'environment' includes the Whole Process.. or, that's my understanding of our 'Environment'..

 

I really do try to read everyone's posts with the same curiosity: What is the message? How does it relate to the 'Environment'? Does it enhance the Human Experience? Is it consistent with the 'Way' things are?

 

So, thanks for sharing.. and as i find the opportunity for stillness and subsequent contemplation, i will consider the effect of expressing wisdoms in the manner Buddhists favor.. there must be something to it, there's a bunch of Buddhists out there..

 

Be well..

You are funny. I can tell nicely steeped in practice as well. Very sweet comment. Thank you for sharing your joy.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay. I will switch sides for a moment.

 

I will agree with V. regarding the term "emptiness" in one aspect.

 

During meditation (however one meditates) I believe that it should be for the purpose of 'emptying' ones mind of all 'clinging' (preconceptions and prejudices) so that one can experience the fullness of life in its true expression.

 

Therefore emptiness does play a role in Taoist philosophy. Chuang Tzu spoke on emptiness (of the mind) a number of times.

 

So it is not really the concept that I am disagreeing with, it is rather the application of the term.

 

When I am not meditating I wish to experience the fullness of life "after" I have emptied my mind of "clinging".

 

Peace & Love!

 

BTW I just want to say this to see how it sounds. To empty the emptiness of emptiness is the same as fulfillment.

[C T]

M: "To empty the emptiness of emptiness is the same as fulfillment".

 

The greater the fulfillment, the freer the will! Wonderful! Sadu! Sadu!

[Marblehead]

M: "To empty the emptiness of emptiness is the same as fulfillment".

 

The greater the fulfillment, the freer the will! Wonderful! Sadu! Sadu!

 

Now you got me started. Hehehe.

 

The greater the fulfillment the less free will (choices) need be applied. (Are we nearing free-flow yet?)

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It seems that when i begin to conceptualize 'free-will', it gets less 'free', and more 'willful..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

It seems that when i begin to conceptualize 'free-will', it gets less 'free', and more 'willful..

 

Be well..

 

Yep. Hehehe. That is the result of ego. We need keep that little bugger in check.

 

Peace & Love!