|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 7:21:28 PM
|
"I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction."
--Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika
Is it possible that that the Buddha's teachings are the biggest gaffe on everyone? Being and non-being, being Mind Only, is just a door (trap door) to the intutive direct perception of the world. My experience is just that, it is a door to the unimaginable, the rabbit hole. In other words, it is not just a teaching about the world. It is a method to suck your mind's interests into another dimension, another "world."
There is a glaring problem in Buddhist philosophy; as philosophy it fundamentally fails to prove the existence of its facts. For example, in the text I just cited, the logic begins with assumptions that have their basis only in the Buddha's teachings and not from logic. The fundamental teachings basically down to the same citation to authority, "the Buddha is omniscient; the Buddha said it's so; it's so." For example,
1. Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both, nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
2. There are four conditions: efficient condition;
Percept-object condition; immediate condition;
Dominant condition, just so.
There is no fifth condition.
3.The essence of entities
Is not present in the conditions, etc....
If there is no essence,
There can be no otherness-essence.
4. The power to act does not have conditions.
There is no power to act without conditions.
there are no conditions without power to act.
Nor do any have the power to act.
5. These give rise to those,
So these are called conditions.
As long as those do not come from these,
Why are these not non-conditions?
6. For neither an existent nor a non-existent thing
Is a condition appropriate.
If a thing is non-existent, how could it have a condition?
If a thing is already existent, what would a condition
do?
7. When neither existents nor
non-existents nor existent non-existents are
established,
How could one propose a "productive cause?"
If there were one, it would be pointless.
8. An existent entity (mental episode)
Has no object.
Since a mental episode is without an object,
How could there by any percept-condition?
9. Since things are not arisen,
Cessation is not acceptable.
Therefore, an immediate condition is not reasonable.
If something has ceased, how could it be a condition?
10. If things did not exist
without essence,
The phrase, "When this exists so this will be,"
Would not be acceptable.
11. In the several or united conditions
The effect cannot be found.
How could something not in the conditions
Come from the conditions?
12. However, if a nonexistent effect
Arises from these conditions,
Why does it not arise
From non-conditions?
13. If the effect's essence is the conditions,
But the conditions don't have their own essence,
How could an effect whose essence is the conditions
Come from something that is essenceless?
14. Therefore, neither with conditions as their essence,
Nor with non-conditions as their essence are there any effects.
If there are no such effects,
How could conditions or non-conditions be evident.?"
First chapter of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. From these, it is clear "the essence of entities is not present in the conditions..." is not proven and is taken a priori. The meanings of the terms in "2." are not given. I can go on. But essentially the first chapter of this text is a list of assumptions. I'm not saying they are not true. I'm saying they are not proven to be true from this text. This is the problem of metaphysics.
This problem is shared by the Western metaphysical philosophers.
1. The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being ALL the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.
2. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.
2.01 An atomic fact is a combination of objects
2.011 It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of an atomic fact.
2.012 In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing CAN occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing.
2.0121 It would, so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently a state of affairs could be made to fit.
If things can occur in atomic facts, this possibility must already lie in them.
(A logical entity cannot be merely possible. Logic treats every possiblity, and all possibilities are its facts.)
Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal objects apart from time, so we cannot think of any object apart from the possiblity of its connection with other things.
If I can think of an object in the context of an atomic fact, I cannot think of it apart from the POSSIBILITY of this context.
2.0122 The thing is independent, in so far as it can occur in all POSSIBLE circumstances, but this form of independence is a form of connexion with the atomic fact, a form of dependence. (It is impossible for words to occur in two different ways, alone and in the proposition.)
2.0123 If I know an object, then I also know all the possibilities of it occurence in atomic facts.
(Every possibility must lie in the nature of the object.)
A new possibility cannot subsequently be found.
2.01231 In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal qualities.
2.0124 If all objects are given, then thereby all POSSIBLE atomic facts also given.
2.013 Every thing is, as it were, in a space of possible atomic facts. I can think of this space as empty, but not of the thing without the space.
2.0131 A spatial object must lie in infinite space. (A point in space is an argument place.)
A speck in a visual field need not be red, but it may have a colour; it has, so to speak, a colour space round it. A tone must have A pitch, the object of the sense of touch A hardness, etc.
2.014 Objects contain the possibility of all states of affairs.
2.0141 The possibility of it occurrence in atomic facts is the form of the object.
2.02 The object is simple.
2.0201 Every statement about the complexes can be analyzed into a statement about their constituent parts, and into those propositions which completely describe the complexes.
2.021 Objects form the substance of the world. Therefore, they cannot be compound.
2.0211 If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had sense would depend on whether another proposition was true.
2.0212 It would then be impossible to form a picture of the world (true or false).
2.022 It is clear that however different from the real one an imagined world may be, it must have something - a form - in common with the real world
2.023 This fixed form consists of the objects.
2.0231 The substance of the world CAN only determine a form and not any material properties. For these are first presented by the propositions -- first formed by the configuration of objects.
2.0232 Roughly speaking: objects are colourless.
2.0233 Two objects of the same logical form are - apart from their external properties - only differentiated from one another in that they are different.
2.02331 Either a thing has properties which no other has, and then one can distinguish it straight away from the others by a description and refer to it; or, on the other hand, there are several things which have the totality of their properties in common, and then it is quite impossible to point to any one of them.
For if a thing is not distinguished by anything, I cannot distinguish it - for otherwise it would be distinguished.
2.024 Substance is what exists independently of what is the case.
2.025 It is form and content.
2.0251 Space, time and colour (colourdness) are forms of objects.
2.026 Only if there are objects can there be a fixed form of the world.
2.027 The fixed, the existent and the object are one.
2.0271 The object is the fixed, the existent; the configuration is the changing, the variable.
2.0272 The configuration of the objects forms the atomic facts.
2.03 In the atomic fact objects hang one in another, like the links of a chain.
2.031 In the atomic fact the objects are combined in a definite way.
2.032 The way in which objects hang together in the atomic fact is the structure of the atomic fact.
2.033 The form is the possibility of the structure.
2.034 The structure of the facts consists of the structures of the atomic facts.
2.04 The totality of existent atomic facts is the world
2.05 The totality of existent atomic facts also determines also determines which atomic facts do not exist.
2.06 The existence and non-existence of atomic facts is the reality.
(The existence of atomic facts we also call a positive fact, their non-existence a negative fact.)
2.061 Atomic facts are independent of one another.
2.062 From the existence or non-existence of an atomic fact we cannot infer the existence or non-existence of another.
2.063 The total reality is the world
2.1 We make to ourselves pictures of facts.
...
2.1511 Thus the pictures is linked up with reality; it reaches up to it.
...
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
--Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein
Tractotus Logico-Philosophicus
E.g., "Infinite [logical] space" is not proven. It is assumed. Existence and non-existence is not proven; it is assumed, is conflated with object, and taken to be a mere representation of the fact, not the object itself forming a "model" of reality, which is assumed to EXIST outside of the representation which is in the mind.
I remember in college my philosophy professor was very proud of the fact that Wittgenstein wrote this by writing little notes as he ducked fire while fighting in the trenches of WWI, confused by citation to higher authority.
In both Nagarjuna and Wittgenstein what we see is the basic assumption, the meaningfulness of the words presented as representing clear picture of what the writer sees in HIS OWN MIND. That is, an existence.
Then there is the new physics which sometimes proposes a probabilistic universe, where knowables are always indefinite, blurry and possibly not there, where causation is outright rejected, and only likely probabilities can possibly be ascertained. (Remember, karma is not just causation; it is also retribution -- which is about a mental state of satisfaction [of just deserts]).
Then consider that all philosophers, logicians and scientist are ruled by that which is not "counter-intuitive" or violative of the "common-sense." These terms have never been probed and are taken for granted. In fact, they cannot be probed, or probing them would be futile to the purpose of extracting logical representations (only wild gestalts).
I am saying that no language can obtain facticity beyond mere probability, and no mental event can obtain a picture of the world that is not indefinite or clearly translatable. Whatever appears in the mind is non other than mind, the existence or non-existence of which is indefinite. There is no possible proof of this, other than one's own mind. That is only intuitional knowledge obtains with certainty and is all that matters. Any language that diverts from this precept is ignorant and delusory. Logic, while effective for the cause of propogations of the shared delusion, has no connection whatsoever to the way things are neither existence or non-existence. Because, existence and non-existence has never been, nor ever will be established beyond a mere assumption (an as we all know, it is a law of the universe that whatever you ASSUME makes an ASS out of U AND ME).
The Buddha's teaching of the Middle Way was more or less "neither existence, nor non-existence," where every "thing" is suffused through and through with NOTHING OTHER THAN MIND, and mind itself can never be established an existent or non-existent, where no-thing-ness ever obtains and neither perception nor non-perception (while reaching its feelers up) ever connects to any thing whatsoever. Mind is nontransitive.
The fundamental wisdom of the immaculate Precious Guru Buddha is just this: Identification is ignorance. Reaching out, grasping, clinging and releasing is madness, misery, hell.
Join me in...
___
The Rabbit hole
Now look at Lord Jigten Sumgon's aphorism: "Two thoughts cannot occupy the mind at once."
Now look at this from the Tractatus: "There is one and only one complete analysis of the proposition."
Think just this thought...
"Not existence, non-existence, both or neither."
___
This is not a philosophical proposition. It is a suction device, a picture cancellation machine, an energy neutralizer, an inter dimensional gateway. Though it is also the finally and completely analyzed [non]picture/description of the mind.
We have reached the climax of human endeavor relative to signs. The proliferation of adhered categories has cause a total breakdown in communication: it is impossible to avoid category error in dialogue. This is a profoundly destructive opportunity to return to where we came from.
___
This is the ship:
"Neither reach nor release."
___
The power of the ship depends on all who board it.
Activity must be geared not to the logical clarification of thoughts but to the liberation of thoughts. Otherwise one will suffer like the bee buzzing toward the flower while enclosed in a jar.
"What can be shown cannot be said."
...
"The thinking, presenting subject; there is no such thing.
"Where in the world is the metaphysical subject to be noted?
"You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do NOT really see the eye.
"And from nothing IN THE FIELD OF SIGHT can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye."
...
"If by eternity is understood not endless duration but timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present.
"Our life is endless in the way that our visual field is without limite
"Not how the world is, is the mystical, but THAT it is.
"The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole.
"The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feeling."
"Scepticism is NOT irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
"For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something CAN be SAID.
"There is indeed the inexpressible. This SHOWS itself; it is the mystical.
"The right philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e., the propositions of natural sciences [which are breaking down], i.e., something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy - but would be the only strictly correct method."
"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
"He must surmount these propositions; then he see the world rightly.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Drop all discussions about what is and is not, and show...
"The world and life are one.
"I am my world."
What can possibly be is not up for discussion, but demonstration. We cannot point to any thing; we can only point the way. The sign is not important. It is utterly meaningless. Its value is not in itself. Its value lies in whether it points the way.
There is timeless eternity in the present, of that do not doubt. What this present can possibly be, has been demonstrated by the mystics. Gotama is the best of them, because his directions are all-inclusive of every other and violates none.
Ösel Rigpa Dorje, an emanation of Mahakala, has come to destroy... |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 13 2009 7:23:11 PM |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 10:47:25 PM
|
Hi Osel....
This seems like a pivotal discovery for you....congratulations.
My only comment is this:
What can be proven? Can ANYTHING be proven? Not if you don't want it to be. I have a plethora of relatives who still insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old MAX. You can't prove anything to anyone. Proof comes from within, from personal experience. IME dropping the need for proof is a huge step.
Spirituality is individual. Organize it, ritualize it and it becomes "religion". There is not one path for everyone....there is only each individual path. The Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, these are all examples of individual spirituality in essence....we are not to "follow" them in any way other then in example....and that example is to find your own way. They did.
Don't know if this is what you wanted me to take from this, but this is what was taken.
Love,
Carson |
 |
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 11:11:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hi Osel....
This seems like a pivotal discovery for you....congratulations.
My only comment is this:
What can be proven? Can ANYTHING be proven? Not if you don't want it to be. I have a plethora of relatives who still insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old MAX. You can't prove anything to anyone. Proof comes from within, from personal experience. IME dropping the need for proof is a huge step.
Spirituality is individual. Organize it, ritualize it and it becomes "religion". There is not one path for everyone....there is only each individual path. The Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, these are all examples of individual spirituality in essence....we are not to "follow" them in any way other then in example....and that example is to find your own way. They did.
Don't know if this is what you wanted me to take from this, but this is what was taken.
Love,
Carson
Whatever proof there is in scientific facts is indefinite, though at times useful for some passing goal. Of what can be said about the Transcendental: neither existing, not existing, both nor neither. Existence is transcendental. The simplicity of the path: neither reaching nor releasing.
quote:
The urge towards the mystical comes of the non-satisfaction of our wishes by science. We feel that even if all possible scientific questions are answered our problem will not be touched at all. Of course in that case there are no questions anymore; and that is the answer.
One can exchange "science" for "language" "religion" "government" "society" whatever... |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 13 2009 11:47:22 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2009 : 11:35:06 PM
|
Osel,
The Dalai Lama breaks down Madhyamaka view to the bottomline.
The bottomline is pretty simple and practical. Even though another person's body, thoughts and emotions are constantly changing, these will appear in our own mind as an unchanging "person" i.e. a labeled and named thoughtform.
This "discrepency" between appearance and reality is applicable to ALL phenomenon in the external world and internal world.
Dalai Lama says Vajrayana is built on Madhyamaka view. Dalai Lama completely rejects Yogacara (mind-only) school. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 14 2009 01:56:47 AM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 10:46:57 AM
|
Gone to THATness.
Simply swallow the Cosmos, and the field of the ones gone to THATness. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 14 2009 10:50:36 AM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 1:56:37 PM
|
Well you call it THATness.
I call it the present moment.
BTW, I am getting Flight of the Garuda on loan today. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 14 2009 1:59:58 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 2:03:56 PM
|
TomAto/Tomahto....still the same red, round fruit/vegetable. Words are labels attached to concepts....experience requires no language.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2009 : 2:28:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Well you call it THATness.
I call it the present moment.
BTW, I am getting Flight of the Garuda on loan today.
Wonderful...
quote:
If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits.
--Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein
Flight of the Garuda is a treasured and dear teaching. I think you will really love it. Shabkar Rinpoche was Ri Me, egalitarian and ecclesiastical. Aside from that, his mystical description of the karmic generation of the universe is amazing. His pointing out instructions are succinct and instantly useful.
With no past or future to contend, where can a concern arise? |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 14 2009 2:36:57 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2009 : 2:39:08 PM
|
Flight of the Garuda is really excellent. Are there any other Dzogchen books like this?
Humans are already in the highest state of Buddha-level meditation naturally and always....right "here and now". |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 15 2009 2:48:35 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2009 : 7:46:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Flight of the Garuda is really excellent. Are there any other Dzogchen books like this?
Humans are already in the highest state of Buddha-level meditation naturally and always....right "here and now".
I agree. I think Garuda is special. I know of nothing else like it. That Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche essay is special like that. For the tools to destroy fixed views, I have re-discovered "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein. But definitely, Garuda is wow.
The only thing I've encountered that is more dear to me was the transmission of Ganga Mahamudra Upadesha by my lama.
Of course, this forum is very special. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Ösel Rigpa Dorje "Mahakala" Breaks IT Down...
