Re: Is the universe made of the same substance?
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:34 pm
All thoughts is Dharmakaya, all rabbit horns 'arise' from that, as this talk, 'arises' from that.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
There are no maps of reality, there are only maps of practice. If the map ends with a dualistic view, what good is it? Look around and tell me if you can point out reality.futerko wrote:"Such are the Bodhisattvas of sudden enlightenment who enter the scheme of manifested things, turning to the pure land, disliking the worldly and desiring the sacred."oushi wrote:Linji wrote:"It is because you are running about seeking everywhere and cannot put your heart at rest that the patriarchs say 'My, the fellow with his head on his shoulders is looking for his head!'.
Doesn't this suggest that although all maps maybe relative representations of reality, they are not thereby equally invalid?
Ah, I see. I thought you were suggesting before that such teachings were indistiguishable from any other.oushi wrote:There are no maps of reality, there are only maps of practice. If the map ends with a dualistic view, what good is it? Look around and tell me if you can point out reality.
An old master said: "To say it is like a thing is to miss the point."
Linji teachings are, in my opinion, the most direct teachings of Zen\Chan.
When I talk about all is empty by my righteness; appaerance / emptiness equality is lost. Then I forget empty mind -empty phenomena interdependency.muni wrote:All thoughts is Dharmakaya, all rabbit horns 'arise' from that, as this talk, 'arises' from that.
there is one HUGE difference. unlike anything that has come before, modern scientific elements were not themselves naively arrived at prior to analysis. (part of this section of this series) to equate them with classical notions of "5 elements" is not only silly, it's also dangerously ignorant. if you feel the need to attack them, (why? what is it exactly that you're disputing? do you imagine the idea of scientific theories being at least somewhat provisional taking the scientific world by storm? "at least somewhat," because the machines we type these on... but i'm sure you've heard that before.) you'll have to modify the argument to suit its target, which means actually thinking about what you're saying. it's creepy, the way you sound like a machine. worse, you yourself admit that you could write a program to output whatever you're churning out: "According to others, this universe is made of X, Y, Z, etc." variables. *shudder* give me some honest science any day.DarwidHalim wrote:According to scientist, this universe is made of energy and space.
You don't really mean that. But of course absence is an important concept to consider.Nothing wrote:There is no such a thing as an Universe!
There is NOTHING!
If there is Nothing, what is a thing? How can you say that there is no thing, when there never was a thing. Your statement is completely meaningless.Nothing wrote:There is no such a thing as an Universe!
There is NOTHING!