Author Topic: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus  (Read 1994 times)

Offline paracelsus

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2018, 08:43:40 pm »
Quote
[Chaz:] In your view, how does something truly exist?
Quote
[Matibhadra:] Nothing truly exists, because nothing exists the way it is imagined to.
Quote
[Chaz:] But, something can't exist inherently, apart from the imagined?

To inherently exist means not to be designated by a name. Since nothing exists which is not designated by a name, nothing inherently exists.

Quote
[Chaz:] If something is imagined, isn't that a product of the sense consciousnesses and the Nidanas?

The image of something's inherent existence exists, and is a product of the mind, but something's imagined inherent existence does not exist, and is never produced even by the mind.

Quote
[Chaz:] Doesn't that suggest there is something on which the imagination is based- something that the senses contact and the mind forumulates?

Sure. A falsity, or that which is wrongly imagined to exist in a way it does not, does exist, is a reality, and has to exist or to be a reality in the first place, in order to be a falsity. What does not exist is merely the falsity's imagined true and inherent existence.

Quote
[Chaz:] Or are these imagined things simply conjured out of nothing?

Again, falsities are not just imagined; rather, as above, they are realities, but still they are not truths, because as opposed to truths they are imagined to be what they are not.

To sum up,
  • a chair
    • exists, or is a reality,
    • is a falsity, because it is imagined to inherently exist, and
    • does not need to be destroyed;
  • the image of the chair's inherent existence
    • exists, or is a reality,
    • is a falsity, and that which makes a reality become a falsity,
    • needs to bee destroyed;
  • the chair's imagined inherent existence
    • does not exist, or is not a reality,
    • is neither a truth nor a falsity, and
    • does not need to, and could not anyway, be destroyed;
  • the chair's lack of inherent existence
    • exists, or is a reality,
    • is a truth, because it is not imagined to inherently exist,
    • is that whose realization destroys the existent image of the existent chair's non-existent, merely imagined, inherent existence.


Just to keep with my coffee example:

1. My coffee:
      - existed, was a reality.
      - was a truth because there was no delusion about its inherent existence.
      - It was cold but did not need to be destroyed.

2. The image of the coffee's inherent existence:
       - exists, or is a reality but
       - is a falsity, although it leaves a real but non-inherently existing cup of coffee
       - which needs to be consumed

3. The coffee's imagined inherent existence:
       - did not exist, in that it wasn't imagined to exist,
       - so the coffee could exist, temporarily, as a cup of coffee (but without inherent existence)
       - and was then consumed.

4.  The coffee's lack of inherent existence:
       - existed and was a reality
       - was a truth because it existed as a non-inherently existent entity with the capacity to   
          interact with   
         other non-inherently existent entities (such as taste buds etc)
       - the realisation of which meant that the coffee (which I do prefer cold) was consumed even   
         though it did not inherently exist, which is proven by the fact that it now doesn't exist 
         inherently or otherwise.

I apologise if my logic is a bit woolly, but it seems as if we are giving ourselves a lot of work to do in finding inherently logical places for all the non existences and I'm trying to clarify things a bit in my mind.

At least Matibhadra's train of logic seems to have proven that we do indeed have Two Truths, the "Relative Truth" that exists in the non-inherently existent world of Samasara and contains a lot of falsities, which is imaginary but has bound us since beginning-less time, and from which we would be freed if only we weren't bound by it, and the "Ultimate Truth" which seems to be that, in fact, we aren't bound at all except that we falsely imagine that we are bound, and have been since beginning-less time which sounds like the bondage at least has a fairly inherent existence, even if we don't.

Is there a simpler solution to this?

Koan practice?

 :teehee:




« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 08:52:59 pm by paracelsus »

Offline Matibhadra

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2018, 05:49:54 am »
Quote
[Chaz:] In your view, how does something truly exist?
Quote
[Paracelsus:] Nothing truly exists, because nothing exists the way it is imagined to.
You presume to know how I imagine something to exist.

Nothing exists the way it is imagined to by non-buddhas, of course. I didn't presume that you are a non-buddha.

Quote
[Paracelsus:] I discerned perfectly clearly that my coffee was cold.

This is highly contradictory. Since you presume to be a buddha, of course you must presume that your discernment is always perfect; but, since a buddha's enjoyments are always perfect, how could your coffee possibly be cold?

Quote
[Paracelsus:] This was straight out immediate Zen experience of ultimate truth.

What precisely? Your presumption that you are a buddha or your presumption that a buddha's coffee could ever be cold?

Quote
[Paracelsus:] You can't go breaking bits off "One Mind" saying that this characteristic is real and this one isn't.

Your assertion of such a ridiculous absurdity as a “One Mind” which cannot be broken into parts, and which includes a merely imagined non-existent, implies that you imagine an inherently existent mind, and therefore that you actually are a non-buddha, which by the way also explains why your coffee is cold.

Quote
[Paracelsus:] This particular perfect experience is not repeatable and can't be simulated by anyone, even if they wanted to try.

The particular experience of imagining an inherently existent anything, such as your ridiculous “One Mind”, is the most repeated and repeatable experience by just everyone in samsara; actually, it is the very basis of samsara, also known as “ignorance”.

Quote
[Paracelsus:] It is not repeatable because existence is a concatenation and nothing but, and the coffee in question is not existent, it has been drunk and is broken down into its component chemicals etc. There is no going back.

The same applies to mind, and explains why your idea of “One Mind” is so ridiculously self-contradictory.

Otherwise, I'm sorry that you had to drink a cold coffee! May I suggest that next time you drink your coffee while it's still hot instead of distracting yourself with silly ideas such as “One Mind”.

Quote
[Paracelsus:] If you wish for experience of One Mind the best thing is to avoid over-intellection

Why should I wish for the experience of a silly imagination of what does not exist? I way prefer to experience a hot coffee!

Quote
[Paracelsus:] and quibble about meanings which will bind you up like a tangling vine.

Do you want to say that the ridiculous idea of “One Mind” you have been quibbling about did not entangle you?

Quote
[Paracelsus:] Take direct experience as a guide. Have a cup of tea.

Direct experience of what? Of your cold tea?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 05:55:50 am by Matibhadra »

Offline Matibhadra

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2018, 11:52:23 am »
Quote
[Paracelsus:]
1. My coffee:
      - existed, was a reality.

And a sad reality to that effect, as you drank the coffee already cold.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - was a truth because there was no delusion about its inherent existence.

Right if you were a buddha, which cannot be the case since you missed the coffee while it was still hot.

Still, even if there is no delusion about inherent existence, the image of inherent existence may still be there, as with bodhisttvas on the eighth, ninth and tenth grounds, and therefore the coffee would still not be a truth.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - It was cold but did not need to be destroyed.

Why then did you swallow it?

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
2. The image of the coffee's inherent existence:
      - exists, or is a reality but

This contradicts your previous statement, itself wrong as above shown, according to which your coffee “was a truth because there was no delusion about its inherent existence”.

Indeed, as long as the image of the coffee's inherent existence exists, the coffee is no truth, but rather a falsity, even if someone is not deluded by such falsity.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - is a falsity, although it leaves a real but non-inherently existing cup of coffee

Congratulations, you managed to write your first sentence without mistake.

Still, the mere fact that the non-inherently existent cup of coffee is real does not mean that it is “a truth”, as you said above, because it is imagined to be inherently existent even by undeceived bodhisattvas on the eighth ground and above.

You are obviously confounding imagining inherent existence (which every non-buddha does) with being deceived by such an imagination (which only sentient beings below the eighth bodhisattva ground do).

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - which needs to be consumed

This is plain preposterous! You want to consume the image of the coffee's inherent existence!

And precisely you, who boasted not to be subject to the imagination of the coffee's inherent existence!

But then, do you prefer to consume the image of the coffee's inherent existence hot or cold?

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
3. The coffee's imagined inherent existence:
       - did not exist, in that it wasn't imagined to exist,

Then according to you Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do exist just because they are imagined to exist!

Now, since you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, why would you not believe, as you did, that you are a buddha, someone who does not imagine the coffee inherently to exist?

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - so the coffee could exist, temporarily, as a cup of coffee (but without inherent existence)

Your second unmistaken sentence; now you just have to take the coffee while still hot and you are the champion!

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - and was then consumed.

This is the sad part, as it was cold.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
4.  The coffee's lack of inherent existence:
      - existed and was a reality

Thumbs up!

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - was a truth because it existed as a non-inherently existent entity

If so, any existent would be a truth, because nothing inherently exists, and the absurdity would follow that no falsities would exist.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
with the capacity to interact with other non-inherently existent entities (such as taste buds etc)

Any falsity has the capacity to interact with other non-inherently existent entities, and they are still falsities, not truths, none the less.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
      - the realisation of which meant that the coffee (which I do prefer cold) was consumed even   though it did not inherently exist,

The coffee, hot or could, can only be consumed *because*, not “even though”, it does not inherently exist.

Indeed, an inherently existent coffee, just like your inherently existent “One Mind”, which cannot be broken into parts, would be thoroughly indigestible.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
which is proven by the fact that it now doesn't exist inherently or otherwise.

The funny thing here is that no one was ever asking for a proof that the coffee did not inherently exist, since it is agreed from the start by all parties.

Therefore, you would better spend your time trying to show how your imagined “One Mind” which cannot be broken into parts would not inherently exist.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
I apologise if my logic is a bit woolly,

Your logic is not woolly; it is plain wrong, as shown manifold times above, and in previous posts. And, rather than apologizing, just what you have to do is to fix it.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
but it seems as if we are giving ourselves a lot of work to do in finding inherently logical places for all the non existences and I'm trying to clarify things a bit in my mind.

I'm sure you are looking for inherently logical places, but you are alone in this. Maybe you find them near to your inherently existent “One Mind”.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
At least Matibhadra's train of logic

Treating an opponent in the third person, according to psychologists, betrays a subconscious wish to dismiss what one could not tackle.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
seems to have proven that we do indeed have Two Truths, the "Relative Truth"  that exists in the non-inherently existent world of Samasara and contains a lot of falsities, which is imaginary

A supposed “Truth” (with capitalized “T”, of course) which contains a lot of falsities and which is imaginary! It's getting better and better!

Besides, if one of your “Two Truths” is a “Relative Truth”, the other is necessarily an “Absolute Truth”, which shows how deeply ingrained is your belief in absolutes, or in the very inherent existence you arrogantly claimed to be free from the imagination of.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
but has bound us since beginning-less time, and from which we would be freed if only we weren't bound by it,

Do you believe that one is “bound” by a truth? For the rest of us Buddhists one is bound by falsities, and *freed* by truths!

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
and the "Ultimate Truth" which seems to be that, in fact, we aren't bound at all except that we falsely imagine that we are bound,

Rather than “ultimate truth”, this statement is the ultimate foolishness, such as saying that one is omniscient although not being aware of it.

Indeed, if one is not bound at all, how could one be bound by a false imagination? And if the imagination that one is bound is false, how could one be bound at all, even by this imagination?

To your credit, you are not alone with in upholding this silly idea, which apparently has Manichaeist roots in Central Asia, where it infiltrated the Ch'an school, and through it Tibetan Dzogchen.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
and have been since beginning-less time which sounds like the bondage at least has a fairly inherent existence, even if we don't.

Here you just again confess how much you are indeed deceived by the very image of anything's inherent existence, which you so arrogantly claimed to be free from.

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
Is there a simpler solution to this?

Thinking straight is much simpler than it might seem to some. It is called “Buddhism”

Quote
[Paracelsus:]
Koan practice?

Just good old straight thinking, also known as “Buddhism”.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 12:36:20 pm by Matibhadra »

Offline Chaz

  • High-Functioning Sanctimonious Reprobate
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Facts have no moral judgment.
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2018, 01:15:37 pm »
Chaz puts his moderator hat on ....

Quote
I'm not too crazy about the tone this thread is taking all of a sudden.  It's also hopelessly off topic now.  I'm locking the convo, temporarily at least, until Meez and I can discuss.  Some of you will be contacted privately.
I'm unlocking this thread and discussion may continue.  For the record I'm not crazy about threads going off-topic like this one and my preference would be to take the "truth" tangent elsewhere,  but I'll leave it as is for you guys

« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 08:59:41 am by Chaz »

Offline Dairy Lama

  • Member
  • Posts: 5316
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2018, 05:29:36 am »
Ultimate truth is that it is empty of self or inherent essence/characteristics.  So, it is empty of "cold".  It's also empty of "hot".

I'm not sure.  I think it's empty of an essence of "coffee" - not empty of transient characteristics like hot and cold, or black and white. 

To put it another way, there are no noumena, only phenomena.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#Noumenon_and_the_thing-in-itself

Ooops!  :focus:
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream"

Offline Chaz

  • High-Functioning Sanctimonious Reprobate
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Facts have no moral judgment.
    • View Profile
Re: Amida Buddha & The Book of Exodus
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2018, 09:09:13 am »
Ultimate truth is that it is empty of self or inherent essence/characteristics.  So, it is empty of "cold".  It's also empty of "hot".

I'm not sure.  I think it's empty of an essence of "coffee" - not empty of transient characteristics like hot and cold, or black and white. 

To put it another way, there are no noumena, only phenomena.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#Noumenon_and_the_thing-in-itself

Ooops!  :focus:

Kant aside ....

Transient characteristics, by virtue of their transience, are empty of self.  They arise and disolve.  Coffee isn't always cold.  Cold varies.  Cold changes.  Cold is empty of cold, even if it is a required property of coffee.  The temp of a cup of coffee is an aspect of the coffee's self, so it's empty of cold or hot.


 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal