A question to the Buddhist schollars.

[C T]

Find me space apart from things in space. Mind and matter make up space.

 

When we say space, we're referring to an expanse or an area. Does that area have parts? Of course. The directions are the parts. There is left side, right side and up and down

You are speaking of objects held to be existing within space?

 

I am inclined to investigate the essence which separate objects, the 'apart' aspect, or The spaceness aspect, if you will.

 

(sincere question, btw. Not debating with you, just picking at what you care to share)

[thuscomeone]

thuscomeone, please understand that even if people generally regard you with warmth, unless the people are Buddhas, they are bound to get upset at this or that thing you are saying. Once people are upset, it's only natural to throw in an insult, or to use curt language. If we take a hard and unforgiving line toward this behavior, we'll have to limit our conversation only to noncontroversial topics. This means we'll destroy every useful and significant conversation.

 

So when I say it's OK to get heated up, I am not saying let's just insult each other with abandon. I am not normalizing limitless amounts of insults. I am normalizing some amount of insult for the reason I described above. Plus, beings have to practice tolerance and if everyone is sweet to you, why do you need tolerance for? The whole point of tolerance is so that you can allow people to treat you harshly from time to time, up to a certain reasonable limit.

Please don't lecture me on right and wrong. I know for myself. And don't condescend to me. I know what you're doing. Let's just stick to the debate. I don't want this to be personal.

[thuscomeone]

You are speaking of objects held to be existing within space?

 

I am inclined to investigate the essence which separate objects, the 'apart' aspect, or The spaceness aspect, if you will.

 

(sincere question, btw. Not debating with you, just picking at what you care to share)

I think we can put it like this. Things appear to be separate. So there appears to be space between them. Now, when we realize non-duality, we see say that there is actually no separation between mind and matter. So, in that non separation, where is space?

[goldisheavy]

No, I shouldn't abandon it until you actually give me a more than one line criticism.

 

Your view is basically solipsism. You should abandon it.

 

If I truly held to a solipsist view, then on the basis of what would I abandon it, considering I wouldn't experience anything as external to myself?

 

Is solipsism what scares you in my view?

[thuscomeone]

No. Even if I gave you 500 lines of criticism you shouldn't abandon your false views. You should only abandon your false views when you become personally convinced they are false through your own personal investigation. Whatever anyone says at best should serve as inspiration to investigate.

 

So what I am saying is basically a suggestion that, hey, there is something wrong with this view. Why not check it out?

Well, see, you haven't really done anything at all to prove that my view are false. If you did, then I would reconsider them. I haven't really seen a strong argument from you yet. For your own views or against my views.

[thuscomeone]

If I truly held to a solipsist view, then on the basis of what would I abandon it, considering I wouldn't experience anything as external to myself?

 

Is solipsism what scares you in my view?

Solipsism is an ignorant, deluded view. Ignorance scares me.

[goldisheavy]

Please don't lecture me on right and wrong. I know for myself. And don't condescend to me. I know what you're doing.

 

I don't condescend to you. I am explaining to you the reasons for leniency. Enjoy forgiveness yourself and then extend forgiveness to others in turn. How is that a bad deal?

 

Let's just stick to the debate. I don't want this to be personal.

 

Why not? Aren't you beyond ego fixations, thuscomeone? Hasn't your sublime view freed you from emotional disturbances? I suppose you don't want this discussion to be personal, but you want your enlightenment to be personal. Well, it doesn't work that way. You have to get wet and dirty to become enlightened.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Solipsism is an ignorant, deluded view. Ignorance scares me.

 

Why is solipsism an ignorant view? Why does ignorance scare you?

[Apech]

You have to get wet and dirty to become enlightened.

 

I usually enjoy reading your posts GiH ... but you have lost me here.

[thuscomeone]

I don't condescend to you. I am explaining to you the reasons for leniency. Enjoy forgiveness yourself and then extend forgiveness to others in turn. How is that a bad deal?

 

 

 

Why not? Aren't you beyond ego fixations, thuscomeone? Hasn't your sublime view freed you from emotional disturbances? I suppose you don't want this discussion to be personal, but you want your enlightenment to be personal. Well, it doesn't work that way. You have to get wet and dirty to become enlightened.

No, insults and personal attacks do not lead to enlightenment. I am not immune to becoming angry, but I attempt to avoid it. You don't have to get angry. That is a poisonous view.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Well, see, you haven't really done anything at all to prove that my view are false. If you did, then I would reconsider them. I haven't really seen a strong argument from you yet. For your own views or against my views.

 

That's understandable. In my view this propensity is described as intentionality. In other words, we tend to see whatever we want to see. This applies to you and to me as well.

[thuscomeone]

Why is solipsism an ignorant view? Why does ignorance scare you?

Solipsism is a view which completely ignores dependent arising. And it is possibly the most selfish view one could have. The world is ME. It is the ultimate triumph of the ego.

 

Because it leads to suffering, energy draining debates like this one, dick measuring contests, anger, arrogance and extreme pride (you), hatred and many other things.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

No, insults and personal attacks do not lead to enlightenment.

 

There is no way to become enlightened without ever discussing topics considered controversial by ordinary beings. There is no way for ordinary beings to discuss a controversial topic and remain completely unmoved. So I would say some amount of insults and personal attacks are necessary on the way to enlightenment.

 

I am not immune to becoming angry, but I attempt to avoid it. You don't have to get angry That is a poisonous view.

 

Why are you not immune?

[thuscomeone]

There is no way to become enlightened without ever discussing topics considered controversial by ordinary beings. There is no way for ordinary beings to discuss a controversial topic and remain completely unmoved. So I would say some amount of insults and personal attacks are necessary on the way to enlightenment.

 

 

 

Why are you not immune?

Because I am not perfect . Even if I claim to be realized, that doesn't make me perfect. It's perfection in imperfection.

 

I didn't say that insults won't happen. But allowing them as some sort of means to awakening? No.

[goldisheavy]

Solipsism is a view which completely ignores dependent arising.

 

What do you mean by this? I am saying things like chairs and tables and so on are dependenly arisen. My mind's conscious and subconscious contents are dependently arisen. I say the same thing about your mind's contents.

 

And it is possibly the most selfish view one could have. The world is ME. It is the ultimate triumph of the ego.

 

Why would that be bad? Is it because this doesn't leave breathing room for your own ego?

 

Because it leads to suffering, energy draining debates like this one, dick measuring contests, anger, arrogance and extreme pride (you), hatred and many other things.

 

That's funny. Why would someone who believes oneself to be the sole living being waste energy debating, trying to spread the view to others, and so on? Doesn't this sound strange? I mean, if I think I am the only one who exists, why do I want to share my view? Why do I care about justice and skillful means? How do you explain all this?

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Because I am not perfect . Even if I claim to be realized, that doesn't make me perfect. It's perfection in imperfection.

 

I think every person on Earth should claim to be realized. I see no possible drawbacks. Everyone is perfect in their imperfection. You agree, right?

 

I didn't say that insults won't happen. But allowing them as some sort of means to awakening? No.

 

I suggest we should allow some insults, but not too many.

[thuscomeone]

What do you mean by this? I am saying things like chairs and tables and so on are dependenly arisen. My mind's contents are dependently arisen. I say the same thing about your mind's contents.

 

 

 

Why would that be bad? Is it because this doesn't leave breathing room for your own ego?

 

 

 

That's funny. Why would someone who believes oneself to be the sole living being waste energy debating, trying to spread the view to others, and so on? Doesn't this sound strange? I mean, if I think I am the only one who exists, why do I want to share my view? Why do I care about justice and skillful means? How do you explain all this?

Such a person probably wouldn't care about others. For there would be no others. They would most likely be a control freak. They would probably debate it just to continue solidifying their deluded view and gaining certainty in it.

 

Further, they would probably spread this view to others, poisoning their minds as well.

 

You don't see any problem with ignorance itself? There's nothing inherently wrong with lying to yourself? If this is so, please don't claim to know what the Buddha taught.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

I think every person on Earth should claim to be realized. I see no possible drawbacks. Everyone is perfect in their imperfection. You agree, right?

 

 

 

I suggest we should allow some insults, but not too many.

I should have said "promoting." Not "allowing."

[goldisheavy]

Such a person probably wouldn't care about others. For there would be no others. They would most likely be a control freak. They would probably debate it just to continue solidifying their deluded view and gaining certainty in it.

 

Debating can help one gain certainty in just about any view except solipsism.

 

As for being a control freak, how about attempting to completely forbid people from using insults?

[goldisheavy]

Such a person probably wouldn't care about others. For there would be no others. They would most likely be a control freak. They would probably debate it just to continue solidifying their deluded view and gaining certainty in it.

 

Further, they would probably spread this view to others, poisoning their minds as well.

 

So if I don't believe other people exist, I will attempt to spread my view to other people so that these nonexistent people will become poisoned?

 

You don't see any problem with ignorance itself?

 

Right. Ignorance is only wrong within some kind of context and not in and of itself. I don't believe there is something that can be considered absolutely ignorant. Ignorance is relative, and so is wisdom.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with lying to yourself? If this is so, please don't claim to know what the Buddha taught.

 

I claim to have a decent familiarity with what the Buddha taught. I claim that out of the various systems of thought, Buddhism is my favorite. I claim that all systems of thought are imperfect. I claim that Buddha is imperfect. I also claim that I am not a Buddhist.

 

That should be enough for now.

[thuscomeone]

Debating can help one gain certainty in just about any view except solipsism.

 

As for being a control freak, how about attempting to completely forbid people from using insults?

Anyone who has a position, including a solipsist, is going to try to gain certainty in and justify their position.

 

Are you talking about me? I'm a control freak because I don't enjoy being insulted? People can use insults all they want but that doesn't mean I have to like them or promote them. I understand people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean I promote insults.

[thuscomeone]

This is getting personal. This is about truth, not me. Further, you continue to twist my words to try and make your points. I won't bite anymore. Let's get back to the topic or call it quits.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[deci belle]

Seth says they're talking about the same thing! Bravo! The thing is not their arguments. It is the middle way in action. Just seeing it is not sticking.

Keep drilling into it Seth.

 

I have nothing to say to you, thuscomeone— you are brilliance itself (what little I can grasp)!!❤

Edited July 20, 2011 by deci belle

[goldisheavy]

Anyone who has a position, including a solipsist, is going to try to gain certainty in and justify their position.

 

Solipsism is not any old position though. I think in this specific case the nature of the solipsist position makes it different from all other positions and deserves exceptional treatment (i.e. don't try to apply what is generally true of all manner of positions to solipsism).

 

Are you talking about me? I'm a control freak because I don't enjoy being insulted?

 

No. You'd be a control freak if you took that a step further and urged moderators to take action based on your desires.

 

People can use insults all they want but that doesn't mean I have to like them or promote them. I understand people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean I promote insults.

 

Do you promote tolerance to insults?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ok. Go live your deterministic life. .

 

Accept whatever this dependent origination throws at you.

@ Thuscomeone

 

I didn't know you would take this so personally. I just wanted to point out that your view leads to a deterministic lifestyle that attributes everything to the d.o. process.