Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Lucky7Strikes]

The appearance of road, the appearance of car, and the appearance of car accident are all illusory, magical emanations.

 

As 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.

This whole quote by Nagarjuna is rubbish and does not prove the illusoriness of the world at all.

 

The first paragraph is problematic because the assumption that if there are conditions giving rise to action it eliminates the agent. An agent can be one aspect of the total conditions.

 

Second paragraph is wrong, because results can arise without agents....

 

I mean, the whole things is just series of extreme conclusions. It doesn't show anything about the world being an illusion. The best it can do it show that labels are illusory.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[hagar]

This whole quote by Nagarjuna is rubbish and does not prove the illusoriness of the world at all.

 

The first paragraph is problematic because the assumption that if there are conditions giving rise to action it eliminates the agent. An agent can be one aspect of the total conditions.

 

Second paragraph is wrong, because results can arise without agents....

 

I mean, the whole things is just series of extreme conclusions. It doesn't show anything about the world being an illusion. The best it can do it show that labels are illusory.

 

Guys

 

You both seem to report having attained an abiding, non-dual awareness.

So this is basically self-realized consciousness, having both affirmed and transcended oneness and diffrentiation, arguing with itself.

Then from whom does this pissing contest originate?

 

I know, I know. I went over the line. Apologies.

 

Edit; or do I say "I crossed the line"?

 

h

Edited January 30, 2012 by hagar

[Birch]

It's either just all part of the fun that self-realized entities get up to in their spare time, a bit of an ego tiff where they're using each other to saw off the remaining bits (like the black knight) or, could it be that this self-realization thing is just another impossible thing about which humans like to argue but is probably never attainable by a person. Given what it's supposed to be and what a person is.

Does it matter? I suppose it might if the idea is to lead people or something. Why fight to have yourself recognized as self-realized?

It's pretty interesting to read though.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Guys

 

You both seem to report having attained an abiding, non-dual awareness.

So this is basically self-realized consciousness, having both affirmed and transcended oneness and diffrentiation, arguing with itself.

Then from whom does this pissing contest originate?

 

I know, I know. I went over the line. Apologies.

 

Edit; or do I say "I crossed the line"?

 

h

Probably from me! I can't say I've realized anything, let alone some abiding non-dual awareness.

 

But it bothers me Xabir goes around not just the tao bums but other sites pretending to be some authority on Buddhism and enlightenment. In case you didn't notice, he used to go around trying to proselytize people, when really his ideas are unsupported and heavily based on doctrine and lacks any genuine self contemplation or general sound sense. There's also a generally condescending tone when he addressed other people experiences or insights. He just tucks it away into his own frame without really giving the other person his due.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's either just all part of the fun that self-realized entities get up to in their spare time, a bit of an ego tiff where they're using each other to saw off the remaining bits (like the black knight) or, could it be that this self-realization thing is just another impossible thing about which humans like to argue but is probably never attainable by a person. Given what it's supposed to be and what a person is.

Does it matter? I suppose it might if the idea is to lead people or something. Why fight to have yourself recognized as self-realized?

It's pretty interesting to read though.

Mmm.. not really. A part of me finds Xabir an interesting character study. He is a fundamentalist, but also claims insight and wisdom that stands on it's own. So...it's a bit fun poking him here and there.

[hagar]

Probably from me! I can't say I've realized anything, let alone some abiding non-dual awareness.

 

But it bothers me Xabir goes around not just the tao bums but other sites pretending to be some authority on Buddhism and enlightenment. In case you didn't notice, he used to go around trying to proselytize people, when really his ideas are unsupported and heavily based on doctrine and lacks any genuine self contemplation or general sound sense. There's also a generally condescending tone when he addressed other people experiences or insights. He just tucks it away into his own frame without really giving the other person his due.

 

First of all, I'm kind of impressed by your discussion. It is an amazing display of rigour in the topic at hand. Yet aren't all our ideas supported and based on some sort of doctrine?

 

Personally, I've witnessed a general decay of my writing over the years. I really do not have the brains for it anymore, and on top of that, my memory fails me. So I'm in awe that you are actually able to maintain your level of discussion.

 

But that said, it's very tempting to want to be right.

 

h

[xabir2005]

@luckystrikes: when I say emptiness, or no inherent existence, I don't mean rejecting the notion of existents as having some intrinsic, independent, consistently stable or unchanging essence only. Like you said, generally nobody sees the world as having intrinsic... Etc essence.

 

It is not just "no inherent existence" but "no existence" (or any of the extremes).

 

Likewise when we say "no independent self" or "no unchanging self", it doesn't just mean that since it could be taken as meaning "so there is a self, albeit dependent, or albeit changing". It doesn't mean "the seer exists but depends on the seen" but rather it is "there is no seer".

 

We realize that there never was or is a self.

 

So what is really meant here is "no self". "No independent, unchanging self" is just an extended pointer but the main point is really no self. Same goes for emptiness of phenomena - emptiness really means no existing phenomena (and also no non-existence, etc).

 

It is the view of existents that cause suffering. The ordinary mother will grieve after her son's death. Why? Because there is the view of I - subjective self, and mine, the objective possession of self, which includes objects of craving like "my son" seen as truly existent.

 

Even though the son is known as being impermanent rather than everlasting (so no "unchanging self"), the view of existence itself, and the posessiveness and craving after that object, is what causes suffering and clinging.

 

And the investigation and realization is really about discovering no self and no truly existent phenomena.

 

Related notes:

 

"The difference is that for Tsongkhapa, conventional truths are able to withstand ultimate analysis since all that is being analyzed is the subtle object of negation, inherent existence, not the existence, of a conventional truth.

 

For Gorampa, they can not, since no phenonena can survive examination via the course object of negation, existence. Gorampa accepts that Candrakiriti specifically identifies (in the Prasannapāda) a subtle object of negation, but according to Gorampa, it is just a formal identification since inherent existence is automatically eliminated when existence itself is analyzed.

 

According to Tsongkhapa, what is being misperceived by sentient beings in conventional truths is the inherent existence of conventional truths i.e. he claims that when an ordinary person sees a chair, they are seeing an inherently existent chair. However, Tsongkhapa also claims that ordinary sentient beings are incapable of distinguishing between mere existence and inherent existence.

 

Gorampa points out that Tsongkhapa's first assertion is untrue, since inherent existences does not appear, and Tsongkhapa's second assertion is self-contradictory, sentient being only see existences, not inherent existences.

 

Tsongkhapa replies that conventional truths are linguistic entities, mental imputations, and that therefore, the notion of inherent existence is embedded in all imputations of conventional truth. Gorampa counters that this interpretation of conventional truth is faulty, since in fact relative truths are first and foremost appearances to a deluded mind, and what such a deluded mind grasps is not a truly existent object, but rather a merely existing object, and imputations of inherency are confined to the philosophical speculations of scholars, not the naive imputations of ordinary persons such as Chai wallas, who would never imagine their tea cups had some intrinsic nature that made them teacups.

 

So, at base, a large part of the disagreement hinges on how these two masters understand conceptual operations in sentient beings and what they understand Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Candrakirti to be saying about such conceptual operations. This is why Tsongkhapa places such importance on seperating and identifying the correct object of negation, and why Gorampa thinks that such an effort misses the point and is unnecessary, since the coarse object of negation is sufficient for removing wrong views via the classic tetralemma (in ordinary persons -- awakened persons have no need of the caturskoti).

 

N"

Edited February 2, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

@wowee: I don't know if you believe in karma, but for your own sake I hope you avoid making such unwholesome mental and speech karma.

 

Even though karma is ultimately empty and illusory, the conventionally observed efficacy of karma cannot be denied on that level.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html

 

"Once, monks, in this very Rajagaha, Suppabuddha the leper was the son of a rich money-lender. While being escorted to a pleasure park, he saw Tagarasikhi the Private Buddha going for alms in the city. On seeing him, he thought, 'Who is this leper prowling about?' Spitting and disrespectfully turning his left side to Tagarasikhi the Private Buddha, he left. As a result of that deed he boiled in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, many hundreds of thousands of years. And then as a result of that deed he became a poor, miserable wretch of a person in this very Rajagaha. But on encountering the Dhamma & Discipline made known by the Tathagata, he acquired conviction, virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment. Having acquired conviction, virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment on encountering the Dhamma & Discipline made known by the Tathagata, now — on the break-up of the body, after death — he has reappeared in a good destination, the heavenly world, in company with the devas of the heaven of the Thirty-three. There he outshines the other devas both in beauty & in glory."

Edited February 2, 2012 by xabir2005

[wowee]

[xabir2005]

Awww, don't take what I meant the wrong way, what I've said was at best ambiguous, you cannot point out the words I used to directly mean I cursed you. I didn't mean to curse you and hope for misfortune to befall you. Let me explain. Because you said it's all illusory, I thought you'd be the best person to show how 'illusory' an automobile accident involving yourself as a victim really is and its proper place(if any) in reality. I was merely holding you up to your words. That's why I told you to 'do it' and wondered if you could. But since you are still around now, I doubt so. So your 'ultimate reality=illusory' garbage is stupid, absurd, pretentious, mumbo jumbo, senseless, gibberish, hogwash, ludicrous. It has no place at all in reality.

You should talk to more trained expert yogis.

 

http://vajranotes.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/magic-milarepa-passing-through-solids/

 

The scholar launches in by asking: “Does this rock have solidity?” (Scholars are prone to ask such questions, imagining that these issues are highly consequential.) The scholar expects Milarépa to be ignorant of the logical analysis that pertains to such questions. He is therefore surprised and not a little put out when Melarépa answers: “No.” Undeterred, the scholar says: “But this is nonsense! See for yourself!” and taps the rock with his staff to prove his case. Milarépa simply passes his hand through the rock as if it were not there, and says: “See no reason to believe in the existence of this rock.” The scholar is quite taken aback by Milarépa’s powers, but his arrogance gets the better of him and he concludes that this must be some kind of trickery on Milarépa part. So the scholar then waves his hand through the air, asking: “Does this space have solidity?” Milarépa replies: “Yes”, and proceeds to beat on the air so loudly with the scholar”s stick, that the man has to cover his ears for the din. At this point the scholar realises that he has made some sort of error. He sees that he was rather badly mistaken in assuming he could best Milarépa in an intellectual debate. He is all the more impressed when Milarépa shows no sign at all of being jubilant about his own victory.

 

.....

 

yadave wrote:

People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side. Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so.

 

Namdrol:

 

But some people don't.

 

yadave:

 

Namdrol, are you saying some people go through the tree, as in walking through a wall?

 

Regards,

Dave.

 

Namdrol:

 

One day Candrakirti was walking through a passageway in Nalanda, his head in a book, and he bumped his head on a pillar -- a student saw this and said "Aha! That pillar is not so empty, is it!". Candra looked at him, and passed his hand right through the pillar much to the student's embarassed astonishment. Or so this traditional story runs.

 

Of course there is kashina meditation -- ostensibly, if you meditate on the kashina of earth, you gain control over the earth element and can travel through mountains, etc.

 

It is my opinion that the apparent solidity of phenomena such as trees and rocks, etc., is directly related to the solidity of one's delusion. The more solid one's delusion, the more solid apparent phenomena seem.

 

On the other hand, people with very solid delusions regularly kill themselves too, through not recognizing that solid things will kill them, like the ground when they attempt to fly off buildings.

 

But is said also in the suttas that the Buddha once levitated to an elevation of 14 palm trees. Such yogic feats are described too often in Buddhist texts generation after generation for me to simply reject them out of hand.

 

N

Edited February 3, 2012 by xabir2005

[headless]

[Lucky7Strikes]

@luckystrikes: when I say emptiness, or no inherent existence, I don't mean rejecting the notion of existents as having some intrinsic, independent, consistently stable or unchanging essence only. Like you said, generally nobody sees the world as having intrinsic... Etc essence.

 

It is not just "no inherent existence" but "no existence" (or any of the extremes).

 

Likewise when we say "no independent self" or "no unchanging self", it doesn't just mean that since it could be taken as meaning "so there is a self, albeit dependent, or albeit changing". It doesn't mean "the seer exists but depends on the seen" but rather it is "there is no seer".

 

We realize that there never was or is a self.

 

So what is really meant here is "no self". "No independent, unchanging self" is just an extended pointer but the main point is really no self. Same goes for emptiness of phenomena - emptiness really means no existing phenomena (and also no non-existence, etc).

 

It is the view of existents that cause suffering. The ordinary mother will grieve after her son's death. Why? Because there is the view of I - subjective self, and mine, the objective possession of self, which includes objects of craving like "my son" seen as truly existent.

 

Even though the son is known as being impermanent rather than everlasting (so no "unchanging self"), the view of existence itself, and the posessiveness and craving after that object, is what causes suffering and clinging.

 

And the investigation and realization is really about discovering no self and no truly existent phenomena.

I know what you are saying and you are merely stating your convictions again. Please go back and read my post, because I addressed this point.

 

As I have explained before, you dismiss reality, existence, on the basis of dependence of objects you observe in reality. And this is totally unjustified. You have no sufficient evidence in making such claims. Your theory of dependent origination, that what you observe or what is experienced arises on dependence of another phenomena simply explain a certain way reality operates. It has no grounds for dismissing it entirely.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

You should talk to more trained expert yogis.

 

http://vajranotes.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/magic-milarepa-passing-through-solids/

 

The scholar launches in by asking: “Does this rock have solidity?” (Scholars are prone to ask such questions, imagining that these issues are highly consequential.) The scholar expects Milarépa to be ignorant of the logical analysis that pertains to such questions. He is therefore surprised and not a little put out when Melarépa answers: “No.” Undeterred, the scholar says: “But this is nonsense! See for yourself!” and taps the rock with his staff to prove his case. Milarépa simply passes his hand through the rock as if it were not there, and says: “See no reason to believe in the existence of this rock.” The scholar is quite taken aback by Milarépa’s powers, but his arrogance gets the better of him and he concludes that this must be some kind of trickery on Milarépa part. So the scholar then waves his hand through the air, asking: “Does this space have solidity?” Milarépa replies: “Yes”, and proceeds to beat on the air so loudly with the scholar”s stick, that the man has to cover his ears for the din. At this point the scholar realises that he has made some sort of error. He sees that he was rather badly mistaken in assuming he could best Milarépa in an intellectual debate. He is all the more impressed when Milarépa shows no sign at all of being jubilant about his own victory.

 

.....

If you are going to rely on ancient anecdotes as evidence for your understanding of reality, you might as well take in scriptures and tales from all types of religions. It makes Buddhism no more true than say, Islam or Christianity.

 

yadave wrote:

People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side. Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so.

 

Namdrol:

 

But some people don't.

 

yadave:

 

Namdrol, are you saying some people go through the tree, as in walking through a wall?

 

Regards,

Dave.

 

Namdrol:

 

One day Candrakirti was walking through a passageway in Nalanda, his head in a book, and he bumped his head on a pillar -- a student saw this and said "Aha! That pillar is not so empty, is it!". Candra looked at him, and passed his hand right through the pillar much to the student's embarassed astonishment. Or so this traditional story runs.

 

Of course there is kashina meditation -- ostensibly, if you meditate on the kashina of earth, you gain control over the earth element and can travel through mountains, etc.

 

It is my opinion that the apparent solidity of phenomena such as trees and rocks, etc., is directly related to the solidity of one's delusion. The more solid one's delusion, the more solid apparent phenomena seem.

 

On the other hand, people with very solid delusions regularly kill themselves too, through not recognizing that solid things will kill them, like the ground when they attempt to fly off buildings.

 

But is said also in the suttas that the Buddha once levitated to an elevation of 14 palm trees. Such yogic feats are described too often in Buddhist texts generation after generation for me to simply reject them out of hand.

 

N

Opinion. Namdrol says this is his opinion. He doesn't have some profound insight about yogic powers or miracles or the solidity or flexibility of phenomena and only guesses. He relies on sutta to support his ideas.

 

Again, what makes this sort of approach any more superior than the opinions of a catholic bishop who relies on biblical tales?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

As for you constant claim that thoughts can't be found, here's a recent study on how scientists can locate thoughts as certain brain waves and even reconstruct words based on visual observation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042

[xabir2005]

If you are going to rely on ancient anecdotes as evidence for your understanding of reality, you might as well take in scriptures and tales from all types of religions. It makes Buddhism no more true than say, Islam or Christianity.

 

 

Opinion. Namdrol says this is his opinion. He doesn't have some profound insight about yogic powers or miracles or the solidity or flexibility of phenomena and only guesses. He relies on sutta to support his ideas.

 

Again, what makes this sort of approach any more superior than the opinions of a catholic bishop who relies on biblical tales?

Modern examples here: http://www.amazingabilities.com/index.html

[xabir2005]

As for you constant claim that thoughts can't be found, here's a recent study on how scientists can locate thoughts as certain brain waves and even reconstruct words based on visual observation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042

I have read this news. I am not surprised and think that it might be possible to refine that technology to be of good use in the future. Mind and matter are highly interconnected, but it doesn't mean mind = matter, thought = brain, or mind is located in brain.

[xabir2005]

I know what you are saying and you are merely stating your convictions again. Please go back and read my post, because I addressed this point.

 

As I have explained before, you dismiss reality, existence, on the basis of dependence of objects you observe in reality. And this is totally unjustified. You have no sufficient evidence in making such claims. Your theory of dependent origination, that what you observe or what is experienced arises on dependence of another phenomena simply explain a certain way reality operates. It has no grounds for dismissing it entirely.

Existence means existence of 'something'. An entity must be established to have some reality in order for it to be existent, then become non-existent.

 

The Buddha: ..."What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

 

 

So through this analysis, we discover there is no Self of the tathagata, for it to be existent, non-existent etc.

 

This analysis with regards to Self can be applied to phenomena as well (therefore twofold emptiness: emptiness of persons/subjective self, and emptiness of objects) - if phenomena dependently originates, this is to say there is no core or substance of anything that is unaffected by causality - as such this arises, that arises, this ceases, that ceases, everything is entirely causal without some 'causally unaffected substance'.

 

The analysis can go even into atoms and so on (some people may think that gross objects are dependent but the elements are truly existent - in fact as Namdrol states, this is "the primary difference between Buddhist schools was in how far down they were willing to extend that analysis. The non-Mahāyāna schools stopped at paramanus i.e. "atoms"; the Mahāyāna Yogacara school stopped at consciousness. Madhyamaka extended its analysis all the way and came up with emptiness as the basis of reality i.e. that in the end, reality has no objective basis whatsoever").

 

So as Namdrol said: Molecules are made of atoms which are made of electrons and protons, etc.

 

By stopping at the salt molecule, you are making precisely the mistake Madhyamakas criticized Sarvastivadins for making i.e. arbitrarily stopping your analysis at a false level of irreducibility.

 

And earlier explained,

 

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

 

 

p.s. such analysis is still inferred, and if you wish to come to a realization of it, you may have to practice according to the contemplative traditions - whether it is Vipassana, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

It is a problem, because the scriptures are not reliable, since they have been an oral tradition for 400 years.

Namdrol:

 

Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.

And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.

Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions.

 

Tantras later than that.

 

But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.

 

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Modern examples here: http://www.amazingabilities.com/index.html

You are completely missing the point here. Just because someone can levitate, or have telekinetic powers, it doesn't at all demonstrate that reality is illusory. If a man a hundred years ago saw a rocket being launched, or a cell phone conversation, he would consider them miracles. But does that mean that the world is indeed an illusion, that it does not exist? No.

 

Also do these examples somehow show insight into these phenomena? Nope. They don't. They are just examples and at best guesses as to what creates these abilities.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Namdrol:

 

Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.

And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.

The only complete surviving ancient Buddhist scriptures are the Pali Canon.

 

From Wiki:

 

The Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the only completely surviving early Buddhist canon, and one of the first to be written down.[2] It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the passing away of Shākyamuni.[3][4][5] First printing of the whole Buddhist Canon was done by imperial order in China in CE 868.[6]

 

Three sources from different scholars cite it. It was first printed more than a thousand years after the Buddha died.

 

The Gandharan Texts date to 1st century BCE, so at least three hundred years after the Buddha's death.

 

But most of the early Buddhist teachings are based on the Pali canon. And it was written down in 29 BCE.

 

But listen, you took my quote out of context. You don't understand my point of view at all. Not relying on scriptures is my point, not dismissing them.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have read this news. I am not surprised and think that it might be possible to refine that technology to be of good use in the future. Mind and matter are highly interconnected, but it doesn't mean mind = matter, thought = brain, or mind is located in brain.

Uh...

 

whoever said anything about mind = matter? Huh? Does the article say that?

 

You keep saying thoughts can't be located. Well, here is evidenced experiments showing that indeed thoughts can be located as particular brain waves.

[Lucky7Strikes]

But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.

 

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.[/i]

Reality does not exist based on Buddhism. It's not Buddhism first then reality second. Buddhism is built on a view or a certain understanding of reality. Hence awakening to the truth of reality also does not belong to Buddhism. It belongs to reality.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Existence means existence of 'something'. An entity must be established to have some reality in order for it to be existent, then become non-existent.

No...don't go contorting definitions. Existence simply means something has reality. Not that something has an essential some entity to it. The flowing of water cannot be said to be a "thing." Because it is in action, a flow, there is no thing about it. Likewise when you swing your arm to throw a baseball, the throwing is not a thing, it is a motion. The vibrations of sound waves also cannot be said to be having an entity. It is also a movement. The rays of light cannot be said to be something either. It is just a particular vision of phenomena we choose to call light. But all these are real, because they have consistency and consequential quality to them.

 

 

The Buddha: ..."What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

 

 

So through this analysis, we discover there is no Self of the tathagata, for it to be existent, non-existent etc.

The analysis is laughable. There are no explanations, no inquisitiveness, but mere statements. Just claims. Tathagata is not here not here, blah blah, therefore he is no where. There's no explanation on what the qualifications for the existence of tathagata, or of locating a tathagata. The whole dialogue is just exclamations.

 

Why not can the tathagata be in form, in perception, in feeling, in body? What are we exactly looking for when we ask the question, whether is is in it or not? Why is he not in all these experienced combined together? And you call this type of thinking analysis? Yeah, ok.

 

This analysis with regards to Self can be applied to phenomena as well (therefore twofold emptiness: emptiness of persons/subjective self, and emptiness of objects) - if phenomena dependently originates, this is to say there is no core or substance of anything that is unaffected by causality - as such this arises, that arises, this ceases, that ceases, everything is entirely causal without some 'causally unaffected substance'.

So? So that says reality doesn't exist? This somehow concludes to: "reality is an illusion"?

 

The analysis can go even into atoms and so on (some people may think that gross objects are dependent but the elements are truly existent - in fact as Namdrol states, this is "the primary difference between Buddhist schools was in how far down they were willing to extend that analysis. The non-Mahāyāna schools stopped at paramanus i.e. "atoms"; the Mahāyāna Yogacara school stopped at consciousness. Madhyamaka extended its analysis all the way and came up with emptiness as the basis of reality i.e. that in the end, reality has no objective basis whatsoever").

 

So as Namdrol said: Molecules are made of atoms which are made of electrons and protons, etc.

 

By stopping at the salt molecule, you are making precisely the mistake Madhyamakas criticized Sarvastivadins for making i.e. arbitrarily stopping your analysis at a false level of irreducibility.

 

And earlier explained,

 

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

I see that now you are strictly quoting Namdrol. Why are so so unable to explain yourself, your own ideas and insights?

 

But getting to the quote, Namdrol's arguments just say that the imputations are subjective and therefore carry no reality in themselves. "Salt" is just a label. "Atom" is just a label. Well ok. But how does this say that reality is an illusion? That there is no reality, no existents? Absolutely not. It just says phenomena works as a whole and dependently originates. This logic does not counter the physicalist view of the universe either or that the world works a giant system as a whole, which is actually more akin to Advaita, that the world is One.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[headless]

Modern examples here: http://www.amazingabilities.com/index.html

 

OoOoOohhH.....so you're trying to say that these people have genuine abilities to levitate?

 

Interestingly, you seem to have a conflicting opinion over here http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/439655

 

eh? Mr. An Eternal Now?

 

LOLOL

[Lucky7Strikes]

OoOoOohhH.....so you're trying to say that these people have genuine abilities to levitate?

 

Interestingly, you seem to have a conflicting opinion over here http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/439655

 

eh? Mr. An Eternal Now?

 

LOLOL

Nice find!

 

Yea, so Xabir...why does that seem to you like some fake actor, and suddenly when you need examples to support your points other examples become legitimate?

 

Anyway, you are doing tragically bad in this debate. It's pretty clear by now you don't really have any more insights or perspectives to offer. And can't really explain yourself logically either. All you've done now is just repeat your doctrine over and over and has been awhile since you've directly addressed any of my criticisms. Usually, in a debate if you are confident in your claims one tends to directly address the criticism. When you start losing ground, the participant just becomes repetitive. Kind of like just muffing your ears and blabbering. By now your only support is resorting to authority, quoting Namdrol and the Buddha.

 

So you lose. As childish as that sounds this is what a debate becomes. And honestly I don't like doing it because I just observe how cruel it turns out. But this isn't a constructive discussion where we are trying to figure something out together. Nor is is sharing of insights. You have a very narrow concept of what is correct and what is incorrect and I'm just investing myself into revealing how hypocritical, illogical, and nonsensical the wisdom you promote across varying spiritual sites really is.

 

If you look back on this thread you might find yourself just not answering to certain criticism beyond a point and shifting the discussion to a new topic. And every single instance it's been the same. You first try to answer, then find that you can't, then by the end you just begin quoting the Buddha. Your wisdom is very much a thin coated disguise.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes