Is there an objective world?

[thuscomeone]

You claim the objective world exists. However Buddha has taught a path beyond the 4 extremes of existence. Emptiness of phenomena is beyond the 4 extremes of existence. The second you claim "objective world exist", you no longer hold the view that is beyond the extremes of existence.

I am not convinced you understand what you're talking about. It seems like you are repeating words that are way beyond your actual practical understanding. Kind of like a donkey carrying a Sutta on its back. The donkey is able to faithfully deliver the words of the Buddha, but has no clue about what it is delivering.

I have never claimed that the objective world "exists." My original assertion and question was: I believe that there are relative, dependently arisen insentient objects which come about due to processes which have nothing to do with the mind. Does this mean there is an objective world, an always changing and thus empty world that can be without the mind?

You are not convinced? That doesn't really mean anything to me. Beyond my practical understanding? I have wept, yes literally wept, at the fact of the beauty of emptiness. At the union of emptiness and form. At the fact that because of the ultimate inability to assert the four extremes, ungraspability is the nature of things/reality, whatever you want to call it. Since grasping is the root of all suffering in my mind, in realizing I had nothing to grasp ultimately, I felt for the first time that I could overcome all suffering. Don't tell me I'm just parroting words. You have done nothing to show me that you have a better understanding of emptiness than me. All you can do is make witty and snide remarks and call me a moron.

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

You are not convinced? That doesn't really mean anything to me. Beyond my practical understanding? I have wept, yes literally wept, at the fact of the beauty of emptiness. At the union of emptiness and form. At the fact that because of the ultimate inability to assert the four extremes, ungraspability is the nature of things/reality, whatever you want to call it. Since grasping is the root of all suffering in my mind, in realizing I had nothing to grasp ultimately, I felt for the first time that I could overcome all suffering. Don't tell me I'm just parroting words. You have done nothing to show me that you have a better understanding of emptiness than me. All you can do is make witty and snide remarks and call me a moron.

 

AH HA! I HAVE WEPT, I HAVE WEPT!

 

In realizing, in realizing....

 

I CAN I CAN!!!

 

the bliss, the bliss, the bliss, the bliss... . ...

 

T.T

 

Man, I miss Vaj. Well sort of.

[thuscomeone]

AH HA! I HAVE WEPT, I HAVE WEPT!

 

In realizing, in realizing....

 

I CAN I CAN!!!

 

the bliss, the bliss, the bliss, the bliss... . ...

 

T.T

 

Man, I miss Vaj. Well sort of.

Um...sure?

 

Is he gone for good or what?

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

[goldisheavy]

I was saying that even if they arose independent of mind, they would still arise dependent on each other. So they would still be dependently arisen, always changing and thus empty.

 

That's a very serious flaw in your thinking. What basis do you have for claiming that objects can arise independently of mind? What do you rely on to gather evidence of this?

 

I agree completely about not construing the object as "fixed" and truly existing sentient or insentient, such and such. But that is at the ultimate level. At the relative level these distinctions are absolutely necessary.

 

Wrong. The whole point of the ultimate level is that it supersedes the relative. If it didn't supersede the relative, it wouldn't be called "ultimate". The ultimate truth is more true than the relative truth. Furthermore, there is no clear separation between the ultimate and the relative truths. The entire point of introducing your mind to the ultimate truth is to give you more flexibility and more options with regard to relative truth and to thus emancipate you from the relative truth. Relative truth is what binds. Ultimate truth is what liberates.

 

Relative truth is delusion. Relative truth is thinking that "this laptop here really exists." This is peasant thinking. It's deluded thinking. It's wrong thinking. The ultimate truth is correct thinking. But we must acknowledge the presence and the weight of the relative truth, not because it's right, but because the mind can be in error. If we take the extreme position that relative truth doesn't exist at all, then we take the position that error or delusion do not exist. The relative truth is the truth of delusion. Because delusion can happen, there is relative truth. Because delusion can be removed, there is ultimate truth. So if we only acknowledged the ultimate but not the relative, we would be saying that it's impossible to be anything but blissful Buddha. So when we acknowledge the relative truth, it is the truth of suffering that we acknowledge. We acknowledge the relative truth in a negative light, but we speak of the ultimate truth in a joyous and positive light. Prajnaparamita is the ultimate truth and it is joyous. The relative truth is the truth of the disease. The ultimate truth is the truth of health. Just because the disease has truth to it, does not mean you want to be sick. We learn of the relative truth to learn what not to believe.

 

And why is it I am able to give you this original, never before heard of instruction on the relative vs. ultimate truth? It is because I embody the teachings of the Buddha instead of merely memorizing them.

Edited December 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

That's a very serious flaw in your thinking. What basis do you have for claiming that objects can arise independently of mind? What do you rely on to gather evidence of this?

 

Wrong. The whole point of the ultimate level is that it supersedes the relative. If it didn't supersede the relative, it wouldn't be called "ultimate". The ultimate truth is more true than the relative truth. Furthermore, there is no clear separation between the ultimate and the relative truths. The entire point of introducing your mind to the ultimate truth is to give you more flexibility and more options with regard to relative truth and to thus emancipate you from the relative truth. Relative truth is what binds. Ultimate truth is what liberates.

 

Relative truth is delusion. Relative truth is thinking that "this laptop here really exists." This is peasant thinking. It's deluded thinking. It's wrong thinking. The ultimate truth is correct thinking. But we must acknowledge the presence and the weight of the relative truth, not because it's right, but because the mind can be in error. If we take the extreme position that relative truth doesn't exist at all, then we take the position that the error or the delusion do not exist. The relative truth is the truth of delusion. Because delusion can happen, there is relative truth. Because delusion can be removed, there is ultimate truth. So if we only acknowledged the ultimate but not the relative, we would be saying that it's impossible to be anything but blissful Buddha. So when we acknowledge the relative truth, it is the truth of suffering that we acknowledge. We acknowledge the relative truth in a negative light, but we speak of the ultimate truth in the joyous and positive light. Prajnaparamita is the ultimate truth and it is joyous. The relative truth is the truth of the disease. The ultimate truth is the truth of health. Just because the disease has truth to it, does not mean you want to be sick. We learn of the relative truth to learn what not to believe.

 

And why is it I am able to give you this original, never heard of instruction on the relative vs. ultimate truth? It is because I embody the teachings of the Buddha instead of merely memorizing them.

For objects arising independently of mind, look at how rain is formed. It is naturally dependently arisen, yet mind plays no part in the process of rain's arising (aside from labels).

 

No relative truth is not thinking that this really exists. Relative truth is dependent arising of appearances. Ultimate truth is emptiness beyond the four extremes. They are one in the same. One is not "more" true than the other. I have no idea where you are getting that from. Relative truth is not spoken of in a negative light. Ever heard of samsara is nirvana? The relative is blissful and free already because it is also the ultimate.

 

It is correct relative view and no fixed ultimate view together that liberate. Correct relative view leads to no fixed ultimate view (fixed as in existing, not existing, both or neither).

 

Please don't act like you have some secret teaching that only you know about. Nobody here is impressed.

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

For objects arising independently of mind, look at how rain is formed. It is naturally dependently arisen, yet mind plays no part in te process of rains arising (aside from labels).

 

If you can see the rain form in the sky no matter what's going on in your mind, you are lying. For example, if you went out in the rainy weather, and took a hit of salvia, is there a guarantee you would still perceive rain? If you have good meditative skill, and you went out in the rain and entered one of the intangible peaceful abiding, would you still perceive rain? If you went outside in the rain, and laid down on the bench and fell asleep. Would you still perceive the rain? Salvia, meditation, sleep, all those are ways to affect mind's state. Since rain perception is not independent of mind's state, and is, in fact, dependent on it in every way, there is no rain outside your own mind.

[thuscomeone]

If you can see the rain form in the sky no matter what's going on in your mind, you are lying. For example, if you went out in the rainy weather, and took a hit of salvia, is there a guarantee you would still perceive rain? If you have good meditative skill, and you went out in the rain and entered one of the intangible peaceful abiding, would you still perceive rain? If you went outside in the rain, and laid down on the bench and fell asleep. Would you still perceive the rain? Salvia, meditation, sleep, all those are ways to affect mind's state. Since rain perception is not independent of mind's state, and is, in fact, dependent on it in every way, there is no rain outside your own mind.

But if I have never been outside my own mind, how can I know that there isn't rain outside of my own mind? See, if I have never been outside of my own mind, how can I know if rain is or isn't outside of my own mind? To know at all I would have to go outside and see. I cannot go outside (100% certain on that) so I cannot say that it is or it isn't there when my mind isn't there. So right now, I would have to say that it is impossible to know...

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

It is correct relative view and no fixed ultimate view together that liberate. Correct relative view leads to no fixed ultimate view (fixed as in existing, not existing, both or neither).

 

There is no correct relative view. Relative views are views like "This laptop is here." "The sky is blue." "God wrote the Bible." "Flying Spaghetti Monster is the supreme God." "Paying $500 dollars for a computer is too much." "Objective reality exists." These kinds of views are relative views. Relative views are characterized by their inconstant applicability. A view that sometimes applies, sometimes doesn't apply, is sometimes relevant and sometimes irrelevant, is a relative view. The mistake that sentient beings make with regard to relative views is that they give more weight to the relative views than they deserve. This is what it means to be caught up in samsara. To liberate beings from the limiting shackles of the relative views, the Buddha has taught about the ultimate view. The ultimate view has a characteristic of being always relevant and always applicable and of being steady and constant and reliable -- this is what makes it peaceful. Another property of the ultimate view is that it is able to dissolve relative views. Because relative views are unstable and are applicable only sporadically, they are worrisome and stressful when relied upon. Ultimate view has the power to pacify relative views.

 

Please don't act like you have some secret teaching that only you know about. Nobody here is impressed.

 

I am not going to change how I behave for you. Furthermore you should speak for yourself. If you are not impressed, that's fine. You're not important enough to be worth impressing, so there is no problem at all. On the other hand, if you say nobody is impressed, you overstep your bounds. Don't speak for others. Doing so is just a way to make your position appear more valid and more weighty than you fear it really is.

 

But if I have never been outside my own mind, how can I know that there isn't rain outside of my own mind?

 

You can't know that.

 

See, if I have never been outside of my own mind, how can I know if rain is or isn't outside of my own mind?

 

There is no way to know it.

 

To know at all I would have to go outside and see. I cannot go outside (100% certain on that) so I cannot say that it is or it isn't there when my mind isn't there. So right now, I would have to say that it is impossible to know.

 

You can know the state of your mind. When you suffer, you know this. When you are liberated from suffering, you also know this.

[thuscomeone]

There is no correct relative view. Relative views are views like "This laptop is here." "The sky is blue." "God wrote the Bible." "Flying Spaghetti Monster is the supreme God." "Paying $500 dollars for a computer is too much." "Objective reality exists." These kinds of views are relative views. Relative views are characterized by their inconstant applicability. A view that sometimes applies, sometimes doesn't apply, is sometimes relevant and sometimes irrelevant, is a relative view. The mistake that sentient beings make with regard to relative views is that they give more weight to the relative views than they deserve. This is what it means to be caught up in samsara. To liberate beings from the limiting shackles of the relative views, the Buddha has taught about the ultimate view. The ultimate view has a characteristic of being always relevant and always applicable and of being steady and constant and reliable -- this is what makes it peaceful. Another property of the ultimate view is that it is able to dissolve relative views. Because relative views are unstable and are applicable only sporadically, they are worrisome and stressful when relied upon. Ultimate view has the power to pacify relative views.

Correct relative view is dependent arising. You cannot assert an emptiness/ultimate truth/freedom from fixed views apart from dependent arising. Only because of dependent arising is there emptiness. So if you do not have the correct view of things as dependently arisen, you have missed emptiness.

Edited December 22, 2009 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Correct relative view is dependent arising. You cannot assert an emptiness/ultimate truth/freedom from fixed views apart from dependent arising. Only because of dependent arising is there emptiness. So if you do not have the correct view of things as dependently arisen, you have missed emptiness.

 

Presentation and hearing of the view of dependent arising is relative. However the maturation and the result of full digestion of the view of interdependent co-arising is the ultimate view.

 

So when you read of the ultimate view in the Suttas or Sutras or Tantras, or when you hear of it from someone, especially when this happens for the first time and you are not yet accustomed to contemplating it yet, what you perceive is only the relative view.

 

When you have fully digested the view of interdependent co-arising, it means you've exhausted considering every possible implication of it, and have become steady and confident in a manner that is inconceivable and impossible to describe.

[thuscomeone]

Presentation and hearing of the view of dependent arising is relative. However the maturation and the result of full digestion of the view of interdependent co-arising is the ultimate view.

Would you explain what you mean a bit more here?

[rex]

Hi Rex,

 

I know that what you have presented is true according to Buddhist thought. However, I am a Philosophical Taoist and it is my understanding that this is not consistent with Taoist philosophy and therefore is not consistent with my understanding of the Manifest aspect of Tao.

Why thanks Marblehead! We've heard lots of the Buddhist view - I'd be ever so grateful if you could balance it out with the Philosophical Taoist view.

 

Peace & Love!

Now that's the universal langauge that should transcend all differences - namaste!

 

edited for typos

Edited December 22, 2009 by rex

[Pietro]

This is an interesting subject to me. Do you think there is an objective world? Objective meaning a world/reality apart from our minds (mindstreams in buddhism)? In Buddhism, the true nature of the mind is empty and non dual yet I still do not think that this denies that there are things which are independent of our minds. Now I don't mean objective as in inherently existing, I mean it as if our minds were not here, everything we see around us would not be here. I do think there is a reality independent or our minds. There is insentient matter and natural dependently originated processes that we can observe taking place that happen without any aid from our mind. I see no reason for those processes to somehow "dissapear" if our minds were not here. I have a hard time expressing myself on this. What do you think?

 

 

If there is no objective world, how can the phrase "is there an objective world?" hold a true answer.

The problem with the claim "there is no objective world" is not iv it's true, but if it can be true.

[goldisheavy]

Presentation and hearing of the view of dependent arising is relative. However the maturation and the result of full digestion of the view of interdependent co-arising is the ultimate view.

Would you explain what you mean a bit more here?

 

Relative is that which is sometimes relevant and sometimes irrelevant. It is sometimes true and sometimes false. For example, if I say "Today is Tuesday" that's a relative truth. It's true for me, right now. What if 3 days from now I said the same thing, "Today is Tuesday", would that still be true? No, it would be relatively false. That's why we wouldn't say that "Today is Tuesday" is the ultimate truth.

 

Alternatively, if I say, "You have 20,000 pairs of shoes", it might be false now, but when you go to sleep and have a dream, you might actually have 20,000 shoes in your dream, and at that time the same statement will be true.

 

What makes relative truths unstable like that is the fact that their truth depend on various causes and conditions in the mind. Since the causes and conditions are always shifting, and the truth statements themselves are not similarly shifting, the statements either become false or fall out of relevancy altogether. For example, any truth talking about forms is irrelevant in the formless realm (of perception). So if we say that goldisheavy is slightly fat, that's not relevant in the formless realm.

 

And being relevant simply means you're able to make use of it. So, if you know that goldisheavy is slightly fat, you can suggest diet and exercise for example. Or you can make a funny joke. These are some of the ways you can use that truth. But in the formless realm, such truth has no purpose, is not connected with anything, and you cannot use it in any way.

 

When you first hear an exposition on the view of dependent arising, what does it look like? It's a series of statements and maybe questions. It's probably in English (unless you're also fortunate enough to know Pali, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Chinese, or Japanese). Right as you hear the exposition for the first time, it might seem alluring and interesting. But say, the Dharma talk ends and you go back to your girlfriend. You are playing with your girl and forget all about dependent arising. The only truth you need then is how to cuddle and the truth of dependent arising is irrelevant. Let's say later in the day you go to sleep and have a dream where 20,000 shoes appear to you. And let's say you're worried that your house is overflowing with the shoes. You might be stressing over where to put all those shoes and wondering whether or not you need them all and so on. So the truth about 20,000 shoes would be relevant at the time of that dream, but the truth of dependent arising would not be.

 

Assuming when you hear exposition on dependent arising for the first time you're not accustomed to contemplating it yet, as in, the exposition is truly novel to your mind, at that time, the truth of dependent arising is just one more truth competing for your attention with tens of thousands or even millions of other seemingly equally weighty relative truths.

 

Assuming you're attracted to the teaching of dependent arising, eventually you'll spend more and more time pondering various implications of dependent arising. You'll bring it to mind, and start considering this and that implication of it. How it affects your day to day life. How is it relevant to your thinking. How is it relevant to your eating and everything else.

 

As you contemplate it, you may find it more and more relevant in more and more situations. At some point you might even be unable to forget about it for more than 1 hour at a time. Later on you might feel that whether or not you remember it, it is always there, because your very bones begin to carry the consequences of contemplation.

 

As you continue examining it, something strange happens. Your place in the world changes. Your relationships with yourself, other people, Buddhas, and insentient objects change. You begin noticing that your dreams are affected and so on. And, as you keep practicing contemplating the view of dependent arising, you realize there is no substantial difference between ignorance and knowledge, between foolishness and wisdom, between Buddha and sentient being, between dream and waking, between sentient and insentient and so on. At some point you can't even tell if you've ever began practicing this view or if you were always like this. It seems like everything changed and nothing changed. It seems like you've learned so much and at the same time like you haven't learned even one thing. Since I am trying to describe the indescribable, obviously these descriptions do not suffice and do not fully or even partially capture anything.

 

The intention of awakening gathers steam, and at some point becomes unstoppable and unblockable. Then, even if you took LSD, or went to sleep, or lost yourself in meditation, or got knocked out by getting hit in the head, or died in a ditch, or rotted alive in the field somewhere, no matter what, nothing could obscure or block your realization and your realization would even transcend any idea you have of yourself. In some sense it's not even yours. In some other sense you can't be sure if realization belongs to you or if you belong to it, or if maybe there is no difference. Or if there is a difference, that's maybe fine too, because there might be no difference between having and not having a difference. Thus your mind would constantly abide in an open, peaceful, effortless and unconcluded state, but at the same time, there is no way you could identify what state it was, because what would you compare it to? At that point your heart and mind would become free and unimpeded and all possibilities would become open.

 

At that time, your presence, your life, your mind, your conduct, your view would be ultimate and inscrutable. At that time, should the truth of 20,000 shoes arise in your mind, it would have the same meaning and impact as liberation itself. At that time all truths and all phenomena would be liberation. All views would be ultimate and since there will no longer be a substantial difference between ultimate and relative views, your views won't be even ultimate. They will become indescribable. At that time, even if 10,000 Buddhas put their heads together, they couldn't describe your true way of being and nor could they complete the description of your merit, or even properly begin describing it. At that time, should your body be cremated, your very ashes would have the same wisdom as your person before cremation.

 

To give you an example, imagine that your mind is a chunk of steel. The teaching on dependent arising is a hammer. Every time you contemplate dependent arising, the steel of your mind heats up, softens, and the hammer strikes the steel of your mind. After you contemplate dependent arising 10,000 times, it's like this chunk of steel being hit with 10,000 hammer blows by a skillful blacksmith. The result is a sharp sword of wisdom! The sword retains its shape even though it's no longer being hit by the hammer. The sword can even cut the hammer that forged it in half and not lose its sharpness one bit. That's the symbolic sword of wisdom.

[Marblehead]

 

I do not believe the world ceases when the body dies. For as long as there remain the subtlest of consciousness, cause and effect remain; for as long as cause and effect remain, worlds of all different manifestations and dissolutions will continue to shape and reshape. How these worlds appear, however, would be beyond the grasp of our present levels of consciousness.

My view on the matter. Its limited.

 

Well CowTao, considering that you are of a Buddhist bent in your philosophy I would say that you did quite well with that paragraph.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Objective world is said to exist independently of observers.

 

Consensual reality is said to exist as a function of consensus between observers.

 

Objective world doesn't depend on observers. Consensual reality does.

 

I think that this is an excellent series of thoughts and I am in total agreement with it.

 

(I am sure it is obvious to everyone that I believe an objective world exists?)

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

If you accept the existence of an objective world, it's only on blind faith that you can do so.

 

However, I totally disagree with this.

 

Through reason, logic, and scientific evidence one can establish the fact (and it is a fact) that an objective world exists.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Why thanks Marblehead! We've heard lots of the Buddhist view - I'd be ever so grateful if you could balance it out with the Philosophical Taoist view.

 

I am, and will always try to do that. But it is difficult for me to enter an arguement between two Buddhists. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Those with penchants for dreams as representing some element of reality, do not understand the process of dreaming.. their's is a story they tell to support their preferred beliefs.. from a taoist perspective it is amusing to hear such stories, to reject the objective universe while living in it's midst.. it's a great story, but wholly unfounded on anything other than clever semantics.. how does one sit down at their computer and compose a post that says their computer is an illusion.. then, sequentially read and respond to replys?

 

Life happens, either you're there for it, or.. you are comtemplating mind-play..

 

Be well..

[rex]

I am, and will always try to do that. But it is difficult for me to enter an arguement between two Buddhists. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

No arguments - honest. I'm genuinley interested in other perspectives and would see it as information/education only - after all, I'm in no position to say whats right or wrong. Does Philosophical Taoism countenance Early Heaven and Later Heaven, the Five Shen and different realms of existence, or is all this the preserve of Religious Taoism?

 

Namaste!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

To better understand Taoism, read the accounts of people labeled as 'Taoists' before there were the concepts of 'Taoism.. authors looked back in history and found certain traits of certain people to be consistent with 'their' notion of Taoism.. but, the Taoists that were Taoists before there was 'Taoism', share a resonance not found after the 'naming'..

 

Be well..

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The objective world exists as a verifiable continuum.. the tree that was in my front yard yesterday, is still there when i awake today.. The dream i had last night has no consistency, no continuum, the dream i had the night before was completely different, no relationship with last night's whatsoever..

 

Be well..

[forestofclarity]

This is exactly the problem. It is not the same tree. Relatively speaking, there have been many changes: the movement of sap, the sloughing of old bark, the movement of insects. Atomically, the molecules and atoms are shifting in and out of patterns of alignment. We assume it is the same, we assume that it is solid and unchanging, just like we assume our mind patterns are who we really are.

 

Greetings..

 

The objective world exists as a verifiable continuum.. the tree that was in my front yard yesterday, is still there when i awake today.. The dream i had last night has no consistency, no continuum, the dream i had the night before was completely different, no relationship with last night's whatsoever..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

No arguments - honest. I'm genuinley interested in other perspectives and would see it as information/education only - after all, I'm in no position to say whats right or wrong. Does Philosophical Taoism countenance Early Heaven and Later Heaven, the Five Shen and different realms of existence, or is all this the preserve of Religious Taoism?

 

Namaste!

 

Hi Rex,

 

Yep, what you mentioned is beyond Philosophical Taoism. What TzuJanLi mentioned above is very valid. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both spoke of the ancients who held to Tao. I personally have not studied any of the more ancient writings prior to Lao Tzu and basically accept what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu say about them.

 

Regarding Heaven, in my understanding, it refers to the universe excluding Earth. That is all - nothing more, nothing less. We do not speak of different realms of existence although we do not deny the possibility that there are.

 

Really, the only thing we can honestly talk about is the Manifest (objective) universe because that is all we can observe in the manifest. This is true however I must add that we can experience the Mystery when we are in the state of 'wu'. This is referring to the understanding that the Manifest universe is called 'yo' and the unmanifest 'all else' (potential every and any-thing) is the Mystery which is called 'wu'.

 

Generally speaking 'wu' cannot be spoken about but it can be experienced. 'Yo', on the other hand, is what we experience with our conscious mind and our senses and therefore we can speak to these things.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

This is exactly the problem. It is not the same tree. Relatively speaking, there have been many changes: the movement of sap, the sloughing of old bark, the movement of insects. Atomically, the molecules and atoms are shifting in and out of patterns of alignment. We assume it is the same, we assume that it is solid and unchanging, just like we assume our mind patterns are who we really are.

 

Hi Forest,

 

While what you say is true regarding change, I think you have taken this idea to the very extreme and it has no place in a discussion of everyday life. Sure, any living thing changes - that is a given. But even though that tree has grown 1 1,000 of an inch during the past 24 hours doesn't mean that it is not the same tree. It is the same tree, it is just that it has gotten one day older and the processes of life has caused growth.

 

You are still your parents' child. Nothing will ever change that. Even if they disown you, you are still their child. Even when your parents pass on you are still the child of those two people.

 

The tree is still a tree and it still stands in the same place and will continue to do so until it is removed from existence.

 

And the moon is still the same moon even though it will be in a different place in the heavens from one moment to the next.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

 

Life happens, either you're there for it, or... not.

 

Be well..

 

Hi TzuJanLi.

 

I apologize for changing your sentence but it just felt like the right thing to do. You know - wu wei.

 

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I apologize for changing your sentence but it just felt like the right thing to do. You know - wu wei.

Hi Marblehead: LOL, it's not 'my' sentence.. and, i am honored you took the time to simplify it, thanks..

 

Be well..

[Birch]

How old are you?

 

 

Depends which one we're talking about;-)

I was born yesterday;-)