I don't exist.

Even more paradoxically, Buddha argues in addition that the object is not some holistic amalgam that is somehow “greater than the sum of its parts,” meaning either 1) that, if you took all the parts away, the object would still exist or 2) that chariot-ness is to be found in parts of the chariot. If you take a chariot apart, there is no chariot. Furthermore, the chariot is made of just these parts. As in Aristotle, where formal causes (of the four causes) are the most evocative of what he calls substance, you need certain shapes to make a chariot—wheels, axle, seat and so on. You could of course make them out of wood, stone, bananas or mandrill hair. But the chariot-ness doesn't reside in the wood. It doesn't even reside in the wheels! And yet, here we are, a chariot.

Early Buddhists did tend to reduce objects to atomic relations that were not analyzable further. Yet as this example demonstrates, the truth is far stranger than that, as later Buddhists argued.

The inescapable conclusion from all this is that emptiness does not mean “reduction to parts or relations.” Emptiness is precisely the principle of nonholistic irreduction.

You're kind of lucky it isn't on German Idealism/Sartre or I'd be more annoyed right now

I don't get this thread. ┐('～`；)┌

Get thee hence, Hermann Hesse!

STOP CONFUSING ME RELIGION OF MINE!!

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:27:38 PM by Aondeug

It's Usht, not Urst. Seriously, was there someone before me here named Urst/Urist? Cause people keep doing that.

Regardless, does this topic have a topic anymore?

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:29:59 PM by Usht

On there being an Urst. Not that I am aware of. In my case it's because I only just glanced at your username maybe once.

On there being no topic: Yeah. More or less.

Other confusing things in Buddhism: Buddha nature.

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:31:28 PM by Aondeug

Do questions about the Buddha-nature have the Buddha-nature?

This thread does not exist...?

Mu.

And to pvt...

Mu.

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:33:42 PM by Aondeug

I like that answer.

A master brought a piece of bread to his three students one day. The first one just asked what it was supposed to mean and was slapped by the master. The second took the bread and bit it. The master smile. The third took the remainder of the bread, put it on head and walked away. The master danced with joy at this sight.

Mu.

A master brought a piece of toast to his three students one day. The master then ate the piece of toast. The students asked, "Why did you bring this piece of toast?" The master said, "It was my lunch." Some students somewhere else were enlightened by something unrelated around the same time.

I wonder if Buddha uses the same dealer as me.

Buddha dharism is not to be confused with "Nothing exists." Of course, you can see and feel this metal spoon in your hand. What then, if you were asked to put to words everything about this spoon?

Asides from the obvious metal, the curvy end and the handle.. you try and decipher what type of metal this spoon comes from — the atoms comprising the metal, the quarks comprising the atoms. And then you have to guess what lies within the layers of thin metal of the spoon, what this spoon is used for (so many uses. Shovelling, digging, jabbing, etc.)

Finally, you realize that whatever you think the spoon is, it isn't. The spoon you see is just a mental representation of the object in your mind. Because you can only experience this world through your rather limited sensory and nervous systems. (Why don't you hear the high-pitched dog whistles?) This is one way of enlightenment.

And you ask — who are you? Outside of the memories in your mind? The learned behaviours? The white skin, black skin you wear? Outside of your physical body? —Consciousness? What lies within this consciousness, this awareness you possess since birth?

edited 2nd Mar '11 6:12:49 PM by QQQQQ

And it still makes no sense. Which is why I am Buddhist.

Oh well. Even the wrong words can have someone achieving enlightenment, at the right time. (Or are you doing this because you're secretly hoping to get it on with the jolly belly-laughing Buddha?)

edited 2nd Mar '11 6:13:22 PM by QQQQQ

I plan to reach it by saying things make no sense regardless of whether or not actually do.

I am the void around which the various emotions and representations swirl. I am nothing, which is why everything is so bloody difficult.

"And thus he said to the young lady, 'You, my dear, do not exist for it is impossible to define what makes you what you are.'

'Is that so?' answered the woman, sticking a gun to his temple.

'There is no need for such violent ways. You obviously know who you are,' said the man, 'albeit in a way that can't truly be defined.'

'Albeit this,' said the young woman, blowing out the man's brain. 'Miserable waste of human life.' And with her task finished, she adorned her cowboy hat and rode off into the sunset on her trusty steed, Juniper."

And that is how I usually think of such a discussion going.

edited 2nd Mar '11 7:44:56 PM by SandJosieph

With Hotei? Sure why not. And Bhikkuni. I want them too. And Bhikkhu. Mmm...Sangha...