We are the reflection. Even the moon itself is a reflection.
Anyway, that's enough.
We are the reflection. Even the moon itself is a reflection.
Anyway, that's enough.
All an eye can perceive is light , without perception we don't know anything is there.
Everything I know abut you I know from the glow of a screen , is what you are saying literally true?
So, we are a reflection in that we exist due to conditions. We aren't the solid phenomenon that we think we are. We don't exist on our on side only. We exist due to a series of other factors, or conditions. No different then the moons reflection in water.
On the literally true side (from what I understand): The eye doesn't "see". It feeds information, measurements, shades, etc., back to the brain and the brain manufactures a picture based on that information.
A reflection of the moon in water: Metaphorical. You and I are like a reflection of the moon in water. How so? The reflection of the moon in a lake makes the moon appear to be there in the water, but of course it isn't, it's merely a reflection. What makes it appear though is a series of "conditions". The Buddhists call this "conditioned existence", also "emptiness". If there are clouds, or the angle of the moon isn't right, or the phase doesn't allow for a reflection, etc., etc., the moon won't appear in the water of the lake. The "conditions" weren't right.
You and I, the actual moon, mountains, trees, everything you see, feel, taste, think, and so on are like that reflection in that we only appear, exist, due to certain conditions. When those conditions change we no longer appear, exist. If the conditions that made the entire universe appear hadn't existed, there wouldn't be a universe. And if you believe in God, you can factor God into that.
So, we are a reflection in that we exist due to conditions. We aren't the solid phenomenon that we think we are. We don't exist on our on side only. We exist due to a series of other factors, or conditions. No different then the moons reflection in water.
Why might that understanding be important in the relief from suffering that is the point of Buddhism? That's up to you to figure out, or not, as you wish.
Does DeCartes "I think therefore I am" apply?
Does DeCartes "I think therefore I am" apply?
more like
I am, therefore I think
Does DeCartes "I think therefore I am" apply?
more like
I am, therefore I think
Oh, wouldn't it be nice if that were true!
>>Does De Cartes "I think" apply<<
Not to you.
"Saying we are like reflections.............................due to a series of conditions................trick of words"
Think so do you?
Move the moon out further away from the earth and the entire topography of the planet changes. Move it closer and it changes in a different way. Get cancer, a change in conditions, then tell me it's a trick of words. Change just an infinitesimal piece of your DNA and you are a different person.
I learned a lot about you in this thread, Plane. Thank you.
Emptiness is a fact. Everything exists because of other things that exist.
having everything appear to be separate
There isn't a reputable scientist in the world today that wouldn't tell you that emptiness is scientificly accurate.
That's what shunyata, emptiness, means UP. It means everything is inderdependent. Nothing exists on its own.
The proof? You can start with Darwin.
You said you understood emptiness. It doesn't appear like you understand any of it.
Everything is interdependent and emptiness have exactly the same meaning for Buddhism.
Try reading up on it then get back to me.
Look UP, you're being highly dishonest. You said you knew something about this but I find you don't even understand how the Buddhists are defining the words in play.
If want to learn what the Buddhists mean by emptiness let me know. It you're going to try and tell me what they mean, go talk to the wall my friend.
I told you a lot more then just "because it does".
You're being less then honest right off the bat again.
But I suspect you have no other goal. I don't believe for one second you want to learn a thing. I think you're very happy with your preconceptions.
Now, one more time. And I'm being very generous here. If you want to learn something let me know. If not don't waste my time.
The proof? You can start with Darwin.
I've gotten to know you so well in this thread, plane, it's fast becoming familiarity breeds contempt. I'm so sorry.
Why don't you try posting to me again in say, hmmmmmm, 2 years? Yeah, I'll talk to you in 2 years or so.
That's what shunyata, emptiness, means UP. It means everything is inderdependent. Nothing exists on its own.
'Everything is interdependent' and 'emptiness' do not have the same meaning. You might as well be telling me 'fishsticks' means 'everything is made of atoms'.
"Everything is interdependent" and "emptiness" DO have the same meaning to a Buddhist
Your analogy of "fishsticks" and "atoms" is not valid. Nobody thinks atoms and fishsticks are the same thing, or analogous, or have similar traits.
The reason I say you are coming at this from the wrong angle is this: It appears that you are trying to make BSB reconcile his specific Buddhist definition of "emptiness" with your pre-defined general definition of the word.
That a Buddhist might use the word "emptiness" to describe a specific condition that non-Buddhists are unfamiliar with is perfectly rational.
In order to understand that usage, though, the non-Buddhist must not attempt to constrain it to the definitions familiar to them. It is, by its nature, a new concept and must be approached as such.
It may be that the "emptiness" BSB is describing has a positive meaning, such as "lacking strife" or "lacking conflict" or even "lacking significance" which might seem negative in our competitive world but might also be looked on as gaining peace.
For now I will ask you to define what you mean by emptiness.
If you have similar meanings, perhaps you project them into the meaning you are seeking from shunyata.
I find a little bit annoying that some people criticize my asking questions as a sign of unwillingness to learn. I do not ask questions for which I do not want answers. I ask questions exactly because I do want answers and do want to understand. I am not afraid of difficult answers. But I am not satisfied with shallow ones. If my questions are hard to answer, the person I am questioning is free at any time to say so. I don't mind. But if all I get is some "it is what it is, kid" answer, I'm not afraid to express my dissatisfaction, and I see no reason why I should be.[/color]
I have long ago concluded that old age does not make you need to pee more often: it just makes you feel you need to pee more often.
It would be logical for the organ that makes you feel a desire to pee would become less insistent over the years, but this is not the case. This is another seeming paradox.
This entire post supports my last. You expect a pat answer that matches your expectation of the meaning of "emptiness." BSB must reconcile his meaning of the term with your expectation. He must do it in a manner acceptable to you. BSB apparently doesn't view this as his responsibility. I think he is right.
[...]
I think you want an answer that reconciles your meaning of emptiness with the concept of shunyata. You want it given in exactly the format you prescribe.
[...]
To bring this rambling road back to its intended course, I believe you have fixated on the idea that "emptiness" could not possibly equate to "interdependence of existence" and you simply will not be moved until someone can put together the right kinds of words to reconcile your understanding of those terms. In short, you will not be moved until someone moves you - and that is impossible because you have put up impenetrable intellectual barriers. Whatever BSB's shortcomings may or may not be as a teacher or a person, I believe it is not his lack of ability to teach on this issue that is the problem. It is your lack of ability to learn on this issue. That is completely a matter of will on your part, because you lack no other quality necessary for learning.
BSB has provided a link to an explanation of the concept and challenged you to read it. I haven't taken the time to look yet though I'll probably read it at some point because this conversation has whetted my interest. But I am not demanding answers - you are. So if you have read the link, has it answered your question? If you haven't, why not? If it hasn't answered your question have you asked follow up questions? If you haven't looked at that link (and that before your last post) you have failed to fulfill your responsibility in the learning process. Learn is a verb. If you have not already looked at the link, it would indicate to me that you are more interested in "winning" the debate than actually learning about the concept. If that analysis is valid, BSB is right not to engage you in your chosen manner.
I have not heard of any exercises in which one holds his bladder closed.
Give that man a cigar 8)
Spending so much time in the hospital and doctor's offices the last few months, I've been doing quite a bit of reading up...
Oh? I hope all is ok
That is adult male bovine excrement.
Spending so much time in the hospital and doctor's offices the last few months,
I've been doing quite a bit of reading up...
Allow me to clear a few things up.
Allow me to clear a few things up.
I think you have done a good job of parcing out the problem , even supposeing you have come to a wrong conclusion , you would still have framed the problem neatly and made it easyer to evaluate.
BsB seems also to have become exasperated with me , dang it.
Did you also notice what I was doing wrong?
| What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence. What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive. Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the antithesis to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of everything, e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so on. Perhaps we can give Plato some credit by assuming that the essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm of mind. After all, it is the mind that perceives properties of an object and imputes cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the mind that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the mind does not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and tactile sensation. And, there cannot be visual and tactile sensation if there is no physical object. The perception thus depends on the presence of sensations, which in turn relies on the presence of the physical object. This is to say that the cup's essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the physical object. Obviously, its essence is neither physical nor mental. It cannot be found in the world, not in the mind, and certainly not in any heavenly realm, as Plato imagined. We must conclude that the objects of perception have therefore no inherent existence. If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it must also apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines, etc. A car, for example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and many other things to work. Perhaps we should consider the difference between man-made objects, such as cups, and natural phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human beings. One may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not imply the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human being, there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions, habits, behaviour, and other things we can draw upon to describe a person. We can even divide these characteristics further into more fundamental properties. For example, we can analyse the mind and see that there are sensations, cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we can analyse the brain and find that there are neurons, axons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. However, none of these constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the brain. Again, the essence remains elusive. |
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
grasping leads to suffering/dissatisfaction
..........emptiness is a means/tool to help you stop grasping.........in the end, all of the Buddha's teachings are about stopping suffering/dissatisfaction.........
there is only you watching your mind watch your mind.........
............your thoughts are interdependent also......why grasp onto them?.....why build your house of them?.........they aren't solid.......they have no separate self......they'll only fall apart later when conditions change......think of all those thoughts you, everybody, had in the wake of 9/11...........where are they now?......think of the world you, everybody, constructed using those post 9/11 thoughts/concepts.........where is that world now?........it was a conditioned world.........it had no independent self.......
If you were in a Zendo the master would sneak up behind you and whack you with a stick.
BSB asked me to post this on his behalf:
Plane "If I am driveing nails with it , is it still a cup or is it now a
hammer?"
Very good, Plane. Now you're moving in the right direction.
"Last night a wooden horse neighed and a stone man cut capers" from a
Zen koan or poem
=================
BSB
"Look at the dust riseing over the sea and hear the roar of waves over the land."