tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post5115107398587234231..comments2024-03-18T10:07:38.422+08:00Comments on Awakening to Reality: Eternalism, Nihilism and the Middle WaySohhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-51290160322948396292012-07-21T23:07:30.824+08:002012-07-21T23:07:30.824+08:00Pretty cool, and a very easy way to grasp dependen...Pretty cool, and a very easy way to grasp dependent origination. I also watched the talk; it's cool to see this getting more professional attention in the west.<br><br>While it wasn't directed to me, Harsha, I have some thoughts on your comment.<br><br>The atom arises dependently just as the molecule did; on its respective fundamental particles. Protons, neutrons, electrons. So too do those arise from quarks. My understanding of modern science is too primitive to go farther, but I'd put forth that it's as valid to say that the universe is more 'form' than 'stuff'; pattern than substance. I'll bet that any smaller 'constituents' we might discover will turn out to be the same way.<br><br>For even substance itself to arise there must be the 'gap', a condition for the arising of form. Form is emptiness, etcetera. I extrapolate that future models will fall in line with this, although I don't think it's necessarily that out of line as is. Between the discrete and the continuous; that's a middle way, no?Banehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07719146628733847149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-25040937080082352172012-07-16T15:52:12.519+08:002012-07-16T15:52:12.519+08:00Yes truly thank you One question, what realizes th...Yes truly thank you <br>One question, what realizes the emptiness of self?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-37756298523411955602012-07-03T13:51:25.651+08:002012-07-03T13:51:25.651+08:00Thanks for taking the time to write this long repl...Thanks for taking the time to write this long reply. I am occupied for a few days, but will try to respond once I am free.Harshanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-61861868878149204532012-07-01T21:21:29.269+08:002012-07-01T21:21:29.269+08:00To put it in another way - the practice we, as ins...To put it in another way - the practice we, as insight practitioners, undergo is to understand the nature and essence of experience (Awareness) for the purpose of liberation.<br><br>Our approach is phenomenological and therefore we do not look elsewhere other than this immediate moment.<br><br>The view challenges our existing dualistic and inherent framework and attempt to neutralize it so that we can have a clean, pure, direct and immediate authentication of "experience" as suchness. The purpose is to liberate our deeply rooted held view rather than to establish anything. When experience is in primordial and natural condition, views are also dropped. The problem is only about dropping it too early.An Eternal Nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-7264371909657691982012-07-01T19:25:58.509+08:002012-07-01T19:25:58.509+08:00(Continued) Reasons to Meditate on the Nature of M...(Continued) Reasons to Meditate on the Nature of Mind<br><br>It is important to know why we practice meditation. There are two main types of meditation: analytical meditation and placement meditation. The Madhyamaka school has given us extensive, clear explanations of how external things or phenomena are actually emptiness. In analytical meditation we meditate on these reasons and arguments; however it is very difficult to actually meditate on the emptiness of phenomena. In the tantric, or Vajrayana, tradition of Tibet, rather than meditating on the nature of external phenomena, we meditate on mind itself. The technique of mahamudra meditation is essential and unique to the Vajrayana tradition."<br><br>Etc etc<br><br>Anyway I like what this guy had to say:<br><br>http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html<br><br>An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object.<br><br>Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself.<br><br>Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it.<br><br>Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way.<br><br>That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.An Eternal Nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-67246332814881825942012-07-01T18:57:53.431+08:002012-07-01T18:57:53.431+08:00"This isn't what annihilation means. When..."This isn't what annihilation means. When you look at salt under a microscope, you are looking at photons not salt, which are annihilated on your retina. Particles are not objects, they are packets of energy. This energy dissipates into heat when it interacts with cells in your eyes that are photosensitive."An Eternal Nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-61139823102117119732012-07-01T13:52:28.209+08:002012-07-01T13:52:28.209+08:00small correction - the last line of paragraph sho...small correction - the last line of paragraph should end 'models will say some things are not basic, some other things will be.'Harshanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-81746369747671401362012-07-01T13:50:32.938+08:002012-07-01T13:50:32.938+08:00I have a question about this - even though 'wa...I have a question about this - even though 'water' is a label, the underlying parts could have inherent existence. Atoms themselves have parts. But ultimately, there are basic inherent things in the Standard Model of physics - the backgroud spacetime itself and quantum fields whose vibrations we name as elementary particles. Using physics is double edged as even though the models will say somethings are basic, some other things will be.<br><br>True, this model is not final and is in the process of being changed. But the next model will also have inherently existing features. My question is how can we as practitioners without any direct access to physics experiments can directly rule out any model which has inherently existing qualities.<br><br>When one says that one sees sunyata in all dharmas, this seems like an analysis of first person sensory and conceptual experience. I also dont understand this btw - but hopefully will discuss this later.Harshanoreply@blogger.com