Codependant origination and emptiness

[billcu1]

Yeah, but the catering is really good…

rossum

Your words rossum are clear and true. Attachment to beliefs of any kind is wrong too. Because as you say “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your words rossum are clear and true. Attachment to beliefs of any kind is wrong too. Because as you say “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth.”

So you think it’s wrong to be attached to the belief that love is superior to hate?

 

[rossum]

So you think it’s wrong to be attached to the belief that love is superior to hate?

The problem is with the attachment, not with the belief. Detachment is a Buddhist virtue. By all means hold that belief, which is of course correct:

Hate is not overcome by hate;
by love alone
is hate appeased.
This is an ancient law.

– Dhammapada 1:5

But do not become attached to the belief. The attachment can lead to problems: “You do not believe exactly what I do so I have to kill you.” It is not religions which cause killing, but attachment to religions.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But do not become attached to the belief. The attachment can lead to problems: “You do not believe exactly what I do so I have to kill you.” It is not religions which cause killing, but attachment to religions.

Why have a religion at all if you are not attached to it?

You seem to be equating attachment to fanaticism.

Catholics do not believe “attachment” means the same as “fanaticism.”

 

[rossum]

Why have a religion at all if you are not attached to it?

If you are attached then you will never attain nirvana, because your attachment will always draw you back for yet another lifetime.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you are attached then you will never attain nirvana, because your attachment will always draw you back for yet another lifetime.

rossum

Aren’t you attached to attaining nirvana?

One cannot escape being attached to something.

 

[billcu1]

So you think it’s wrong to be attached to the belief that love is superior to hate?

The attachment itself. I must say I am impressed by what you’ve said It’s the first time I’ve got a response like that! Yes. That’s it. Love is superior to hate. But also hate is love in the making. I don’t want to confuse you with that issue though. But yes love is what it’s all about. Remember, this knowledge will pass away, and faith, and hope, but what remains forever ?

 

[billcu1]

The problem is with the attachment, not with the belief. Detachment is a Buddhist virtue. By all means hold that belief, which is of course correct:

Hate is not overcome by hate;
by love alone
is hate appeased.
This is an ancient law.

– Dhammapada 1:5

But do not become attached to the belief. The attachment can lead to problems: “You do not believe exactly what I do so I have to kill you.” It is not religions which cause killing, but attachment to religions.

rossum

Your quote from the pali cannon rossum makes me think of one reason why I’m not crazy about rampant “casting out demons” stuff. I believe in the Tong-len technique. It might just be an exercise but giving love to the demons calms them. After all they only bother you because at some point the tables must’ve been turned.

 

[tonyrey]

Your words rossum are clear and true. Attachment to beliefs of any kind is wrong too. Because as you say “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth.”

If there is no truth it is nonsense to believe the statement “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth” is true! If there is no truth the distinction between “true” and “false” is an illusion. In other words it is gibberish.

It is ironic that you describe rossum’s words as “clear and true”. Are you quite sure?

And - according to you - your attachment to the belief “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth” is wrong too!

:extrahappy:

 

[rossum]

If there is no truth it is nonsense to believe the statement “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth” is true! If there is no truth the distinction between “true” and “false” is an illusion. In other words it is gibberish.

It is ironic that you describe rossum’s words as “clear and true”. Are you quite sure?

And - according to you - your attachment to the belief “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth” is wrong too!

If you think that you have found the ultimate truth, then you are mistaken. Whatever you have found it is not, and cannot be, the ultimate truth. At best it might be a finger pointing at the ultimate truth, but a finger is only a finger, it is not the ultimate truth.

Why do you think that the ultimate truth can be expressed in a human language, when all human languages are conventional, not ultimate?

The finger that points to the moon is not the moon, it is just a finger. It is an error to think that the finger is the moon.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The finger that points to the moon is not the moon, it is just a finger. It is an error to think that the finger is the moon.

rossum

The finger that points to the truth that the only ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth is also just a finger.

 

[tonyrey]

*If there is no truth it is nonsense to believe the statement “The ultimate truth is that there is no truth” is true! If there is no truth the distinction between “true” and “false” is an illusion. In other words it is gibberish.

It is an ultimate truth that you have evaded the issue about “there is no truth”. Nothing can ever make it false, however much you deny it. Even your denial is worthless if truth doesn’t exist in any shape or form.

Why do you think that the ultimate truth can be expressed in a human language, when all human languages are conventional, not ultimate?

You are equating a convention with an arbitrary description - which is by no means self-evident. In your opinion what precisely does “ultimate truth” mean?

The finger that points to the moon is not the moon, it is just a finger. It is an error to think that the finger is the moon.

It is also an error to think the finger is pointing to nothing - but then negativity is the essence of Buddhism. Flight from reality is a temptation if you find life unrewarding but it is a soul-destroying illusion because it implies life is ultimately a waste of time and energy - and total extinction is highly desirable.

 

[billcu1]

It is an ultimate truth that you have evaded the issue about “there is no truth”. Nothing can ever make it false, however much you deny it. Even your denial is worthless if truth doesn’t exist in any shape or form.

You are equating a convention with an arbitrary description - which is by no means self-evident. In your opinion what precisely does “ultimate truth” mean?

It is also an error to think the finger is pointing to nothing - but then negativity is the essence of Buddhism. Flight from reality is a temptation if you find life unrewarding but it is a soul-destroying illusion because it implies life is ultimately a waste of time and energy - and total extinction is highly desirable.

Where are you getting this stuff. What do you think rossum is saying. Well I guess it all just goes over some’s head. What is your truth? Is it Thomism? Well I can promise it will pass away. Is you faith what keeps you? Doomed to die. Only one thing goes on forever and you have to become it. I’ve known Buddhism for a long time and I’ve never seen any of the things you are saying it is pertain to it.

 

[billcu1]

No, “existence” is a word in the English language. It is meaningless in Russian, it is not even written in meaningful Cyrillic characters.

The characters “existence” only have conventional meaning, as looked up in an English language dictionary. You will not find that character combination in a Russian dictionary or a Chinese dictionary. Hence the meaning of “existence” is not absolute, but relative. Relative to whatever dictionary you are using.

You cannot express the absolute using relative, non-absolute, symbols.

The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon, and can never be the moon. It is only a finger pointing. You are mistaking the finger for the moon. That is an error.

rossum

Sorry to get a little distracted here. What about Chandrakirti was he a mahasiddha? Like Tilopa and Nagarjuna?

nonduality.com/goode6.htm#note

 

[tonyrey]

It is an ultimate truth that you have evaded the issue about “there is no truth”. Nothing can ever make it false, however much you deny it. Even your denial is worthless if truth doesn’t exist in any shape or form.

You have evaded all my points and failed to answer my question.

In your opinion what precisely does “ultimate truth” mean?

 

[rossum]

It is an ultimate truth that you have evaded the issue about “there is no truth”. Nothing can ever make it false, however much you deny it. Even your denial is worthless if truth doesn’t exist in any shape or form.

I have no problem with truth. It is the qualifier “ultimate” which has the problem. How do you know that the qualifier is correctly applied?

You are equating a convention with an arbitrary description - which is by no means self-evident. In your opinion what precisely does “ultimate truth” mean?

Language is a convention between groups of people. One group decided that “elf” would mean a mythical humanoid, that group is called English speakers. A different group decided that “elf” would mean the number 11, that group is called German speakers. There is nothing intrinsic in the phoneme “elf” to attach it to one meaning or the other. The assignment of meaning to phoneme is arbitrary. It is merely a convention. A Russian speaker would use the phoneme Одиннадцать to represent 11.

It is also an error to think the finger is pointing to nothing - but then negativity is the essence of Buddhism.

A mirage is not nothing. A mirage appears to be water, but it is not what it appears to be. Nothing does not appear to be water. Buddhism sees the world as a mirage. It is not nothing, but it is not what it appears to be either. Enlightenment allows you to see through the mirage.

and total extinction is highly desirable.

There is no total extinction. All that is extinguished are illusions, mirages and our mistaken ideas. You cannot extinguish what never really existed in the first place. What is extinguished is your error in thinking that the illusion actually was real. Can you extinguish the water in a mirage? No, all you can do is to realise that it was never really water in the first place, just an illusion of water.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Sorry to get a little distracted here. What about Chandrakirti was he a mahasiddha? Like Tilopa and Nagarjuna?

nonduality.com/goode6.htm#note

The title mahasidda comes from the Vajrayana tradition. I am not Vajrayana so I cannot comment on the applicability if that tile. Chandrakirti is certainly very important as the founder of the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, which is the dominant school of Madhyamika Buddhism.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have no problem with truth. It is the qualifier “ultimate” which has the problem. How do you know that the qualifier is correctly applied?
rossum

If you have no problem with truth, why do you have a problem with ultimate truth?

How do you know the qualifier “ultimate” is incorrectly applied?

After all, haven’t you correctly applied it when you say the only ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth?

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Buddhism is here.

newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

I think tonyrey is working from the traditional Catholic perspective on Buddhism. If you want to correct that perspective, you might do so by pointing out the errors in this article, if there are any.

What you have said in previous posts about the gods, that they are hardly significant in Buddhism, is said also in this article. So this is a huge difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

But the extent to which there are parallels between the two is also significant. For example, when the Buddhist monk is encouraged to live in poverty, renounce marriage, and live by alms, he might also be talking about the Dominicans and Franciscans of the 13th century, who pretty much did likewise. Being detached from worldly riches and pleasures is certainly not exclusively Buddhist. But the main difference is that in Christianity the soul does not get its self identity lost in the pursuit of Nirvana.

Christianity, like Buddhism, emphasizes return to the Maker of all, but in positive joy, not in negative oblivion, as tonyrey pointed out…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The title mahasidda comes from the Vajrayana tradition. I am not Vajrayana so I cannot comment on the applicability if that tile. Chandrakirti is certainly very important as the founder of the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, which is the dominant school of Madhyamika Buddhism.

rossum

Yes, I think the proliferation of schools of Buddhism easily matches the proliferation of Christian sects. This accounts for the rise of relativism in the modern world. With so many choices to make, how can you ever be certain which choice is right or “ultimate.”

That is where Catholicism differs both from Protestantism and Buddhism. It teaches from an objective and infallible and ultimate source of truth … God. Men have always rebelled against this truth. Even today within the Catholic Church there are many rebels whose minds have been poisoned by the infectious spread of relativism and uncertainty.

 

[rossum]

If you have no problem with truth, why do you have a problem with ultimate truth?

You have examined every single truth among all the truths that exist everywhere and have determined which of them is ultimate? My, what a hard worker you are! Now all you have to do is to determine the ultimate language in which this truth is to be expressed, and to write the ultimate dictionary for the ultimate language in which the ultimate truth will be expressed. I wish you well in your work.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Buddhism is here.

newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

And if you look at the bottom of that page you will see, “APA citation. Aiken, C.F. (1908).” Knowledge of Buddhism in the West has advanced greatly since 1908. There were no reliable translations of the major Mahayana sutras until the 1950; before that time the details of the terminology were not well understood. That article is very outdated, just as a description of the Catholic Church from 1908, pre-Vatican II, would also be outdated.

What you have said in previous posts about the gods, that they are hardly significant in Buddhism, is said also in this article. So this is a huge difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

We agree. I have never denied that there are large differences in the underlying philosophy. Similarities lie more in the basic moral rules.

But the extent to which there are parallels between the two is also significant. For example, when the Buddhist monk is encouraged to live in poverty, renounce marriage, and live by alms, he might also be talking about the Dominicans and Franciscans of the 13th century, who pretty much did likewise. Being detached from worldly riches and pleasures is certainly not exclusively Buddhist.

Indian influence, both Hindu and Buddhist, was present in Alexandria and Egypt. Given that Egypt was one of the sources of Christian monasticism, it is not surprising that some elements of commonality exist: begging, tonsures, beads, specific clothing, vows, communal living etc.

But the main difference is that in Christianity the soul does not get its self identity lost in the pursuit of Nirvana.

What is lost in nirvana is the illusion of self identity, that you thought existed but actually didn’t. Can you lose the water you see in a mirage?

Christianity, like Buddhism, emphasizes return to the Maker of all, but in positive joy, not in negative oblivion, as tonyrey pointed out…

No return to the maker – nirvana is not a maker – and no oblivion. All that is destroyed is illusions. When the illusions are destroyed all is clear.

rossum