Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

 

What kind of reasoning is this:

 

1) cause and effect is based on....

2) cause and effect

3) there is no cause and effect

4) therefore cause and effect is illusory

Since cause dependently originates, and what dependently originates is empty, likewise there is no real effect when there is no real cause.

[xabir2005]

 

Things don't have to be independent to be real. That's not a requirement for existence: be independent or have a core. Nor is it a requirement for it to be found. A cigarette can be found.

No. A core means an independent substance. There is no such thing in what is dependently originated. Dependent origination is merely conventionally designated, ultimately empty.

 

You cannot find a cigarette nor can you state that the cigarette is real since no cigarette as a reality or entity can be pinned down, cigarette being a mere dependent origination and conventional designation.

 

For example the consciousness that manifest dependent on eye and visual object is dependently designated as 'eye consciousness', but in reality there is no independent, findable, substantial reality of 'eye consciousness' or 'the consciousness'.

 

Therefore, Nagarjuna:

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation

Is itself the middle way.

 

....

 

Dependently arisen entities

Are called “emptiness,”

[For] that which is dependently arisen

Is that which has no inherent nature. (22)

Edited January 21, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Good article: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/nyingma-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

[Lucky7Strikes]

Since cause dependently originates, and what dependently originates is empty, likewise there is no real effect when there is no real cause.

Cause dependently originates on..what? You said cause dependently originates on cause, which makes no sense, since cause is not a "thing," but a principle, a description.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Entity of its own means an independent essence of its own.

 

Activities that dependently originates is empty of being an entity of its own. Since activities dependently originate and ceases upon the cessation of conditions, they have no self-essence (svabhava)

 

No establishing of conventional reality is necessary for action. A Buddha's knowledge is also not in terms of establishing entities.

 

As for powers, I merely wanted to bring out the point that powers are of course not solely attained by those who are enlightened. There are people who focus their practice on powers without any wish to attain enlightenment. This is actually a common knowledge. Anyway, I did not make the claims about powers, and I do not see why there is a problem with quoting scriptures which I see as an authority on these matters.

This is not a reply. You didn't reply to anything I wrote above. Also there are no explanations, but mere statements like the spaghetti monster example I illustrated above.

 

No one is talking about entities or independent essences here except for you, and your obsession with them. I don't care if something has an essence or not, it's not important. What's important is that activities have an effect on your experience and so do objects no matter how much you say they are illusory, empty, or without essence. Someone hits you in the head with a hammer. You bleed. So that hammer can be found, and it's very real.

 

There is a problem with quoting scriptures believing them to be authority, since you have no idea about their truths besides your blind faith in them. It is a problem, because the scriptures are not reliable, since they have been an oral tradition for 400 years. Do you know how much can be twisted and maligned in oral traditions? Even written traditions become soiled. Also, why shouldn't other scriptures be less true then? Why just because you are Buddhist, Buddhist scriptures are all true even regarding subjects you have no experience of? You are no different than an evangelical christian believing strictly in the bible for things he just takes merely on faith.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. A core means an independent substance. There is no such thing in what is dependently originated. Dependent origination is merely conventionally designated, ultimately empty.

 

You cannot find a cigarette nor can you state that the cigarette is real since no cigarette as a reality or entity can be pinned down, cigarette being a mere dependent origination and conventional designation.

 

For example the consciousness that manifest dependent on eye and visual object is dependently designated as 'eye consciousness', but in reality there is no independent, findable, substantial reality of 'eye consciousness' or 'the consciousness'.

You are really out of touch aren't you? The measure of reality is not whether something is independent or is able to be found. We don't measure reality with those standards, only you seem to do that. Again, let's say you feed a man a hamburger. You can say that hamburger is illusory or empty or whatever, but the fact is it will go down his existing throat, fill his existing belly, and give him existing energy to function through a whole lot of cellular process in his body.

 

So it doesn't matter if you say the cigarette is some conventional label. The cigarette is real in that it affects your lungs, gives you a dose of nicotine for the brain, tar goes in. It's real not because it has no substance or what not. It's real because it affects your experience of reality in a consistent manner. You aren't going to wake up tomorrow with a new lung.

 

Another thing. Your example of consciousness of eye is just stupid. Your eye and the objects don't generate eye consciousness. Then you'd be saying that taking someone's eye out, and his seeing consciousness is suddenly split into two. Or a dead man can see since there is his eye still intact and the visible objects.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Good article: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/nyingma-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

From the way you've been explaining things, I don't think you understand any of that.

[xabir2005]

Cause dependently originates on..what? You said cause dependently originates on cause, which makes no sense, since cause is not a "thing," but a principle, a description.

A cause is precisely another phenomenon (for example 'sun' is the cause of 'sunlight'), and all phenomenon dependently originates and hence empty, so no cause can be established.

 

So conventionally observed cause and effect is upon analysis, empty, and illusory.

 

Just contemplating on one phenomenon is enough to realize the empty nature of all phenomena.

 

 

Those who meditate on a single phenomenon and thus understand

That all phenomena are like an illusion and a mirage,

Ungraspable, hollow, false, and not solid,

Will soon proceed to the heart of enlightenment.

 

~ The Sutra Requested by Sky Treasure

 

 

Through one, you will know all.

Through one, you will see all.

 

~ The Sutra of the King of Meditative Concentration

Edited January 22, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

This is not a reply. You didn't reply to anything I wrote above. Also there are no explanations, but mere statements like the spaghetti monster example I illustrated above.

 

No one is talking about entities or independent essences here except for you, and your obsession with them. I don't care if something has an essence or not, it's not important.

It is most important since seeing a fundamental essence is the cause of suffering and the cycle of birth and death as it leads to grasping. It is what all Buddhists are trying to get rid of through enlightenment.

What's important is that activities have an effect on your experience and so do objects no matter how much you say they are illusory, empty, or without essence. Someone hits you in the head with a hammer. You bleed. So that hammer can be found, and it's very real.

That is a conventional observation which is only valid as a conventional truth. On that level only, the pre-analysis level, the sentient-being's-vision-of-things level, it is a valid statement, and that for practical purposes we all (even enlightened ones) communicate through the language of conventions. On that level also, 'self', 'others', space, time, and so on are also valid conventions. We use it all the time in language, even the Buddha talks about it just for practical purposes.

 

But all conventional truth upon analysis, are seen to be false. For example 'A causes B' already presumes the existence of A, and B, and that A caused B. But if we investigate A, or B, we find there is no real essence to A or B at all. There is really no A or B at all, let alone an A that caused B.

 

Ultimately, we realize there is no hitting, and no bleeding, and no hammer. We realize what Heart Sutra is talking about. Of course appearances can't be denied, but to state that there is a real hitting, bleeding, or hammer in or behind appearance is to make false reifications.

 

When all conventional truths are invalidated through the wisdom of emptiness, all concepts ceases.

Edited January 22, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

From the way you've been explaining things, I don't think you understand any of that.

I don't engage in Madyamaka reasonings. I very much prefer Mahamudra and Dzogchen style approach to gaining insight.

[Lucky7Strikes]

But all conventional truth upon analysis, are seen to be false. For example 'A causes B' already presumes the existence of A, and B, and that A caused B. But if we investigate A, or B, we find there is no real essence to A or B at all. There is really no A or B at all, let alone an A that caused B.

 

Ultimately, we realize there is no hitting, and no bleeding, and no hammer. We realize what Heart Sutra is talking about. Of course appearances can't be denied, but to state that there is a real hitting, bleeding, or hammer in or behind appearance is to make false reifications.

 

When all conventional truths are invalidated through the wisdom of emptiness, all concepts ceases.

If you hit the Buddha with a hammer, and he has a body made of flesh and bones, he will bleed and feel the pain. They are not mere appearances, because appearances suggest only superficial events that do not have a lasting transformative effect on your life. Of course, this is measured in degrees, but say watching a light hearted movie is what you can call an appearance. Someone stabbing you with a knife is not an appearance.

 

Therefore, there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer. That the effects can be observed and have a lasting consequence is the measure of their reality, not your concepts of whether it is empty or not. Concepts do not create this world but are built upon them. It is inconsequential how much you deny A or B, or their essence. The fact that they have an effect on you is what gives them their reality, not their essence and what not.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't engage in Madyamaka reasonings. I very much prefer Mahamudra and Dzogchen style approach to gaining insight.

Don't post stuff you don't have understandings of pretending somehow they help your points.

[Protector]

How about each one of you writes down your points then look over them and see what works

Instead of discussing points you seem to be responding to the previous reply and forgetting what is important

Not that I know what is important here since I wasn't following the discussion

In point form, this is this and that is that, GO!

[Lucky7Strikes]

A cause is precisely another phenomenon (for example 'sun' is the cause of 'sunlight'), and all phenomenon dependently originates and hence empty, so no cause can be established.

 

So conventionally observed cause and effect is upon analysis, empty, and illusory.

 

Just contemplating on one phenomenon is enough to realize the empty nature of all phenomena.

No...we are not speaking about a specific cause, but the principle of cause and effect which you said was empty and dependently originated. Do you understand the difference? The principle of cause and effect describes the relationship between observed phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. What is a principle, namely, "the way things work" dependently originated on exactly?

[Lucky7Strikes]

[xabir2005]

No...we are not speaking about a specific cause, but the principle of cause and effect which you said was empty and dependently originated. Do you understand the difference? The principle of cause and effect describes the relationship between observed phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. What is a principle, namely, "the way things work" dependently originated on exactly?

There is no principle apart from phenomena. Phenomena dependently originates. If no phenomena, no dependent origination. The same goes for the ultimate nature of mind. As Namdrol nicely puts, If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other. .... It was queried whether the nature of the mind could exist whether there was a mind or not -- but such an assertion has obvious flaws, like asserting wetness without water, or heat without fire. Edited January 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Don't post stuff you don't have understandings of pretending somehow they help your points.

Oh I didn't pretend it had anything to do with discussions. I just randomly found and shared it here because I think it is interesting.

[xabir2005]

If you hit the Buddha with a hammer, and he has a body made of flesh and bones, he will bleed and feel the pain. They are not mere appearances, because appearances suggest only superficial events that do not have a lasting transformative effect on your life. Of course, this is measured in degrees, but say watching a light hearted movie is what you can call an appearance. Someone stabbing you with a knife is not an appearance.

 

Therefore, there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer. That the effects can be observed and have a lasting consequence is the measure of their reality, not your concepts of whether it is empty or not. Concepts do not create this world but are built upon them. It is inconsequential how much you deny A or B, or their essence. The fact that they have an effect on you is what gives them their reality, not their essence and what not.

The 'there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer' is simply a conventional observation. Ultimately, there is no 'thing' that can be observed. Concepts is our imputation on appearances. Appearances are just like dreams, illusory, nothing real. The cause is illusory, the effect is illusory, which is to say that there is no real cause and no real effect. The 'conventionally observed' transformations in a dream does not make the [conventionally imputed] cause and effect of a dream real.

 

This is why the Buddha said "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

 

p.s.

 

"(One says), 'All these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination.' But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

 

"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [Wylie: sems, Sanskrit: citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition." [32] ~ Primordial Experience

 

 

Also, Namdrol:

 

The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory.

 

Nāgārjuna states:

"Why? This action

does not arise from conditions,

and does not arise without conditions,

therefore, there is also no agent.

 

If there is no agent,

how can there be an result which arises from an action?

If there is no result,

where will a consumer be observed?

 

Just as the Teacher's emanation

is emanated through his consummate magical power,

if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,

there is again a further emanation;

 

in same the way, though that agent

performs an action, it has the form an emanation.

For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation

making a [third] emanation.

 

Affliction, actions, bodies,

agents, and results

are like fairy castles

mirages, and dreams.

Edited January 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

A nicely written post just posted by Namdrol:

 

 

And at the end of the day, we will still be left with the fact that all of these so called "things" are just imputations of identity onto impermanent collections, which themselves are composed of still further impermanent collections.

 

So whatever clinging we have to any impermanent collection whether internal or external in terms of identity is certain to lead to suffering. This is the point of Madhyamaka i.e. to demonstrate that the beleif that attributions of identity onto impermanent collections are anything more than mere conventions is a delusion.

 

Of course these conventions work, but they are no more real than the habit of the "I" we attribute to our personal collection of aggregates. The habit of "I" certainly works, but that "I" is not real. The imputation of salt onto a given collection we have chosen to call salt "works" but the "salt" can't be found apart from the imputation we make onto that collection so we can use it effectively.

 

The problem most laypeople have with the MMK is that people rarely are acquainted with the views that MMK is seeking to correct. Without understanding Abhidharma, most of the arguments in the MMK will seem rather pointless if not obscure in the extreme. Some people mistakenly think that MMK is a panacea -- when it fact it is rather narrow text with a rather narrow project i.e. to correct Abhidharma realism and bring errant Abhidharmikas back to a proper understanding of dependent origination and help them to abandon a kind of naive essentialism that had crept into Buddhism.

 

Madhyamaka as a whole is an excercise in trying to introduce people to the real meaning of dependent origination i.e. the emptiness of persons and phenomena based in the Buddha's observation that statements about existence and non-existence were at odds with the real meaning of dependent origination.

 

Since there are no permanent phenomena, claims for the existence and non-existence of phenomena are completely naive on anything other than a conventional level.

 

So you can keep insisting that salt harms snails as much as you like. Since you are making a conventional statement you are not going to get any complaint from me, but if you assert that there is saltiness in salt, for example, you have only two courses -- mire yourself in the myriad contradictions of asserting that there is an essence of salt or simply accede the point that "salt" is a conventional identity proposition that is at best a functional imputation and nothing more than that.

 

N

[Jetsun]

If you hit the Buddha with a hammer, and he has a body made of flesh and bones, he will bleed and feel the pain. They are not mere appearances, because appearances suggest only superficial events that do not have a lasting transformative effect on your life. Of course, this is measured in degrees, but say watching a light hearted movie is what you can call an appearance. Someone stabbing you with a knife is not an appearance.

 

Therefore, there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer. That the effects can be observed and have a lasting consequence is the measure of their reality, not your concepts of whether it is empty or not. Concepts do not create this world but are built upon them. It is inconsequential how much you deny A or B, or their essence. The fact that they have an effect on you is what gives them their reality, not their essence and what not.

 

Yes it is possible if you take this stuff too far you can end up in a state which the Buddha called "falling into the pit of the void" which can lead to a pathological state called Depersonalization where you see the world as completely unreal and a dream, but instead of freeing you it cuts you off from your emotional life as you see everything as inconsequential.

 

If someone says they have reached enlightenment or a realisation and they say they are no longer emotionally impacted by the world then most probably they have fallen into the pit of the void.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zIKQCwDXsA

[xabir2005]

Yes it is possible if you take this stuff too far you can end up in a state which the Buddha called "falling into the pit of the void" which can lead to a pathological state called Depersonalization where you see the world as completely unreal and a dream, but instead of freeing you it cuts you off from your emotional life as you see everything as inconsequential.

I certainly do not have such problems in the sense of doing things with the idea of 'things being inconsequential', but I do not perceive of any conventional truth as real. In action, I am always responsible, always helpful, kind and compassionate to others as much as I can. I do not do things that harm myself or others.

 

Ultimately there is no 'myself and others', but when dealing with the area of morality, you have to use conventions (including 'myself and others') just for practical purposes of communicating. But in action, it can be completely spontaneous with no perceived projected conventions. This is the state of a Buddha.

If someone says they have reached enlightenment or a realisation and they say they are no longer emotionally impacted by the world then most probably they have fallen into the pit of the void.

Actually the entire purpose of Buddhist practice is to attain liberation and furthermore a state of omniscience.

 

What does liberation entail? Freedom from the ten fetters or afflictions:

 

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[7]

doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)[8]

attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)[9]

sensual desire (kāmacchando)[10]

ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)[11]

lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)[12]

lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)[13]

conceit (māno)[14][15]

restlessness (uddhaccaŋ)[16]

ignorance (avijjā)[17]

 

 

Note that all these stop arising not because you dissociate from feelings - dissociation is a state of delusion because there is the view that there is a 'self' that can 'cut itself off' from the feelings. Rather, it is that there is no longer the condition of ignorance that can result in the afflictions, and therefore the afflictions permanently stop arising. Having not even arisen, they of course cannot be dissociated from or indulged in. When all ten fetters are cleared, this is the state of Liberation.

 

It is not however about a 'me' not being affected by the world since there is no such 'me' that can 'cut itself off from the world'. Nor does it mean a person becomes cold to others - in fact compassion should increase, not decrease, as a result of awakening since now you know the true condition of sentient beings, the trap they are in, and the suffering that arises out of that.

 

p.s. I am not making any claims here, I am just stating that it is possible for the end of all afflictive emotions (but compassion and so on are good, non-afflictive).

Edited January 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[Jeff]

A nicely written post just posted by Namdrol:

 

...

So whatever clinging we have to any impermanent collection whether internal or external in terms of identity is certain to lead to suffering.

...

 

N

 

The key issue is the "clinging". As discussed... even though the hammer is "impermanent", at the level of existence, it is still felt in the moment.

 

[xabir2005]

The key issue is the "clinging". As discussed... even though the hammer is "impermanent", at the level of existence, it is still felt in the moment.

 

The key is that though appearance is appearing, or felt, to reify it as 'the hammer is there' or 'that IS there', this is the state of delusion. The 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' or 'non-existence' are false views about the world.

 

So the Buddha says,

 

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. ~ Kaccayanagotta Sutta

 

Only when all delusions are seen through can one truly start to experience liberation.

Edited January 23, 2012 by xabir2005