Dependent Origination

[jupiviv]

Just above was written:

"he wise who cherish Perfect-knowledge, may be divided into three classes: disciples, masters and Arhats. Common disciples are separated from masters as common disciples continue to cherish the notion of individuality and generality; masters rise from common disciples when, forsaking the error of individuality and generality, they still cling to the notion of an ego-soul by reason of which they go off by themselves into retirement and solitude. Arhats rise when the error of all discrimination is realised. Error being discriminated by the wise turns into Truth by virtue of the "turning-about" that takes place within the deepest consciousness. Mind, thus emancipated, enters into perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom." - Buddha

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb11.htm

That's correct. But there is work to be done even after the error of discrimination is realised. This understanding has to permeate one's mind to a degree that one can discriminate wherever necessary without fear of error.

[Dennis Mahar]

not that.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

not that.

"What is emptiness, indeed! It is a term whose very self-nature is false-imagination, but because of one's attachment to false-imagination we are obliged to talk of emptiness, no-birth, and no-self-nature."

[Dennis Mahar]

the error in thinking is imputing inherent existence.

"What is emptiness, indeed! It is a term whose very self-nature is false-imagination, but because of one's attachment to false-imagination we are obliged to talk of emptiness, no-birth, and no-self-nature."

Spot on.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

In terms of 'imputing inherent existence' it seems that clinging, discrimination, and the notion or view that what is clung to/discriminated has self-nature, all arise simultaneously. None of which can arise without the others.

The 'one fine day' Pam alludes to clearly shows itself as discrimination, as you say it, always/already abiding in the infinite. Or, the usual case of desire for existence, and the less common moving's case of desire for non-existence. Without either, or with either, still here we are.

Despite that such distinctions/projections, even of 'meditation' or a better example 'I'm now absorbed into infinite space' are clinging, I wouldn't 'support' that all 'meditation' (that is, to have the eyes closed and remain attentive of formations as they pass by, whether they are dreams, feelings or thoughts) is useless. Lucidity is something that is often brought about with such attention void of excessive sense distraction. I also don't think this is 'up for debate', from experience emptiness and the fantasy of Ego-possessions or the notion 'it's happening to me' can be very clear with such attention.

It all being like a fantasy in which one imagines they are being hunted or have been wronged, only to realize nothing self-affecting has occurred and still here we are.

[jupiviv]

In terms of 'imputing inherent existence' it seems that clinging, discrimination, and the notion or view that what is clung to/discriminated has self-nature, all arise simultaneously. None of which can arise without the others.

Discrimination can arise without clinging when one's understanding of emptiness has developed sufficiently.

Despite that such distinctions/projections, even of 'meditation' or a better example 'I'm now absorbed into infinite space' are clinging

"Clinging" just means ignorance/delusion. It doesn't matter if you discriminate or not - you may be deluded either way. Samsara manifests itself as the alternation between various delusions, and also as the desire to have other people recognise them as true.

In the end you are the only credible doctor of your delusions. It is entirely up to you to decide whether what you say is infected with them or not. As religious people say - if you believe something to be true then it is true. This is hard to accept, but vital for any real spiritual progress.

[Dennis Mahar]

Jupiviv's emotional neediness for Parent constitutes the breeding ground for his arrogance.
Rightfully scorned derisively by Shen who can stand on two feet.

[Leyla Shen]

jupiviv:

Continuity requires a beginning and end and a contrast with something that doesn't continue.

All three conditions are met with finite things since finite things are not themselves the continuity of finitude. Thus, finite things are not “in-here(nt)” (how’s that for a string of coherent symbolic logic) and, since this is the case, it is the case that there is a continuity of finitude.

If the entirety of finitude(the infinite) is said to be continuous, then the definition of continuation must be changed to mean "eternity".

So, you are saying you can bind (limit) the infinite in space (‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) but not time? The infinite is every when but not every where?

There is no contradiction. The finitude of all things cannot be present in one thing.

You’re not listening.

The same way He makes them arise.

Oh, you mean nature. But nature is a She...

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Discrimination can arise without clinging

I'm not sure you are using the word in the same way that we've discussed it here, or in general, in the way it is meant to be used.

"Clinging" just means ignorance/delusion.

Clinging and ignorance/delusion you could say are simultaneously arising also, but it isn't that clinging means ignorance.

Clinging, as previously discussed, is the holding on, grasping, settling, landing of consciousness.

It causes ignorance due to everything being impermanent, the reason for this should be clear enough.

Yet for consciousness to land on, or cling to, anything, is discrimination.

Or if we are being as accurate as possible, it is differentiation - otherwise there would be no-thing to cling to.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv:

Continuity requires a beginning and end and a contrast with something that doesn't continue.

All three conditions are met with finite things since finite things are not themselves the continuity of finitude. Thus, finite things are not “in-here(nt)” (how’s that for a string of coherent symbolic logic) and, since this is the case, it is the case that there is a continuity of finitude.

Just because finite things aren't inherent doesn't mean they don't exist or continue. They are a continuation of their own finitude, but not of finitude as a whole.

If the entirety of finitude(the infinite) is said to be continuous, then the definition of continuation must be changed to mean "eternity".

So, you are saying you can bind (limit) the infinite in space (‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) but not time? The infinite is every when but not every where?

How can the emboldened part mean that the infinite is bound in space? It means the *opposite* of that. The infinite cannot be wholly present in one location precisely because it is present in all locations.

There is no contradiction. The finitude of all things cannot be present in one thing.

You’re not listening.

See above.

The same way He makes them arise.

Oh, you mean nature. But nature is a She...

I used the word "God" to test my suspicion that you have an irrational dislike of it, or at least of the capitalisation of its first letter. Whenever I use it you seem to become obtuse for no apparent reason. That is indicative of deeper delusions, not to mention quite funny.

[jupiviv]

Discrimination can arise without clinging

I'm not sure you are using the word in the same way that we've discussed it here, or in general, in the way it is meant to be used.

I don't think it is useful to define all discrimination as clinging, since in Buddhism it is used in a negative sense. I certainly don't want to abandon discrimination. I only want my discrimination to be unobscured by ignorance.

"Clinging" just means ignorance/delusion.

Clinging and ignorance/delusion you could say are simultaneously arising also, but it isn't that clinging means ignorance.

To me, clinging doesn't mean *all* ignorance, but only the forms of unnecessary ignorance that prevent us from being more rational.

Clinging, as previously discussed, is the holding on, grasping, settling, landing of consciousness.

Consciousness doesn't cling or hold on to anything. It is merely the awareness of things.

It causes ignorance due to everything being impermanent, the reason for this should be clear enough.

If everything is impermanent, then what is impermanence? There is no reason to refrain from discrimination and judgement just because things die.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Clinging, as previously discussed, is the holding on, grasping, settling, landing of consciousness.

Consciousness doesn't cling or hold on to anything. It is merely the awareness of things.

One could just as simple say: "Consciousness doesn't detachedly mirror anything. It is merely the messy conception of loads of things".

Declarations like these do not help that much. Clinging is declared to happen, like suffering. At least in Buddhism it starts there. And then it uses the notions of settling, lingering and landing to explore the issue. How would you imagine "giving something inherent existence" would work in proper, easy to understand terms?

[jupiviv]

How would you imagine "giving something inherent existence" would work in proper, easy to understand terms?

I think it refers to the inability to be consistently rational in one's dealings with things, and linking one's thoughts together. We may become conscious of something, but we can't look at it from all perspectives, or put it in relation to something else. Whenever our thinking endangers our unconscious desires, it short circuits and ends in a cul-de-sac.

It's probably an evolutionary mechanism to prevent us from becoming too rational and not caring much about reproduction and the competition for resources. If you prevent your various drives and instincts from expressing themselves normally then you're in danger of either exploding or those drives finding a more subtle, more "intellectual" outlet. It's not easy to avoid that danger, and it seems to me that a lot of Buddhist texts describe techniques/methods of dealing with these issues. That is fine, but sometimes a person can get trapped in the method itself and forget about the real goal.

[Dennis Mahar]

I used the word "God" to test my suspicion that you have an irrational dislike of it, or at least of the capitalisation of its first letter. Whenever I use it you seem to become obtuse for no apparent reason. That is indicative of deeper delusions, not to mention quite funny.

Wanker.
Shen asks for supporting evidence and gets monkey.

Get rid of that Avatar.
monkey move.

[jupiviv]

I used the word "God" to test my suspicion that you have an irrational dislike of it, or at least of the capitalisation of its first letter. Whenever I use it you seem to become obtuse for no apparent reason. That is indicative of deeper delusions, not to mention quite funny.

Wanker.
Shen asks for supporting evidence and gets monkey.

Get rid of that Avatar.
monkey move.

It's painfully obvious that I used the word "God" to mean "Nature", "the All" or "Reality", and I've already explained why things are ultimately caused by the All. It's her problem if she thinks that I magically become a Creationist whenever I say "God".

[Dennis Mahar]

Justifier.
piss weak.
Get rid of that Avatar.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How would you imagine "giving something inherent existence" would work in proper, easy to understand terms?

I think it refers to the inability to be consistently rational in one's dealings with things, and linking one's thoughts together. We may become conscious of something, but we can't look at it from all perspectives, or put it in relation to something else. Whenever our thinking endangers our unconscious desires, it short circuits and ends in a cul-de-sac.

And yet inherent existence, attachment and desires tend to occur on a way shorter notice. Just when seeing something or feeling, a bliss, a hurt, a scenery. These things are not passing first through some hyper-rational dealing before reactions to it are being generated. Nobody could live like that! What essential Buddhism explores is the possibility to get that realm into focus, how things form, how our first reactions (and the "landing") is being performed. It might involve a partial rewiring of the subconscious processing of things although not exactly "raw" either. Just the henid level: proto-thought since it often won't just arrive as a discernible thought to examine. Thoughts come way later but still can become a lead-in to deeper examination and attention. This is also the reason that putting the process in words can be terribly deceiving as it remains "unnameable" but still very present.

[jupiviv]

And yet inherent existence, attachment and desires tend to occur on a way shorter notice. Just when seeing something or feeling, a bliss, a hurt, a scenery.These things are not passing first through some hyper-rational dealing before reactions to it are being generated.

Firstly I'm not sure I'd call inherent existence an "occurrence", because strictly speaking it is a contradiction in terms.

We can't analyse or control all of the unconscious processes happening in our body, and it is useless to try. However, it's obvious that some of them can be, even "on short notice". I don't think sight or hearing or emotions *must* be irrationally dealt with before(and if!) rationality catches up. Granted, that's the way things are with 99.9% of people on earth, but exceptions are possible.

What essential Buddhism explores is the possibility to get that realm into focus, how things form, how our first reactions (and the "landing") is being performed.

Yes, in analysing the unconscious mind we also gain some control over it.

[jupiviv]

Justifier.
piss weak.
Get rid of that Avatar.

I'm going to tell on you to my Dad in Heaven if you don't stop being a meanie1!!1!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

We can't analyse or control all of the unconscious processes happening in our body,

He who claims liberation as his own,
as an attainment of a person,
is neither enlightened nor a seeker.
He suffers his own misery.

we also gain some control over it.

Still clinging to egotism Jup.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We can't analyse or control all of the unconscious processes happening in our body, and it is useless to try. However, it's obvious that some of them can be, even "on short notice". I don't think sight or hearing or emotions *must* be irrationally dealt with before(and if!) rationality catches up. Granted, that's the way things are with 99.9% of people on earth, but exceptions are possible.

Well, the word "control" is perhaps not the right one here. And certainly the idea of some "unconscious mind" might be another contradiction! If you want to address for example indigestion, it might be possible by prevention (diet) or calming down (if it were nerves). Now that might seem like rational planning but the diet as well as the calming work first and foremost by observation and attention. Or perhaps changing some habits long enough so that the automatisms at least disappear, which is another example of influencing subconscious processing. This is just a very common, simple example how we can analyze and control processes by understanding some of the causality involved and increasing awareness of what precedes. To get that far some attention needs to be given on what is happening. Here some of the known meditation practices make sense, not as shutting off but to turn on perception more fully, to become observant.

Perhaps we could use it as analogy. The notion of suffering as indigestion, as inability to process basic experiencing, causing residues and acid to appear, karma to attach and confusion about things to arise.

[jupiviv]

And certainly the idea of some "unconscious mind" might be another contradiction!

Why? So much of what goes on in the brain is unconscious, and the mind is seated in the brain as far as I know.

If you want to address for example indigestion, it might be possible by prevention (diet) or calming down (if it were nerves). Now that might seem like rational planning but the diet as well as the calming work first and foremost by observation and attention.

Sure, the observation and attention may not involve much/any rationality. It may be like an exception handling loop in a Java program, or a gecko trying to catch a moth. However, a conscious form of attention is more useful to a person who values consciousness.

[jupiviv]

We can't analyse or control all of the unconscious processes happening in our body,

He who claims liberation as his own,
as an attainment of a person,
is neither enlightened nor a seeker.
He suffers his own misery.

Whoever said that should take his own advice and retract those words.

we also gain some control over it.

Still clinging to egotism Jup.

"Control" here just means conscious and purposeful action.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And certainly the idea of some "unconscious mind" might be another contradiction!

Why? So much of what goes on in the brain is unconscious, and the mind is seated in the brain as far as I know.

There's lot in our guts and nervous system or even the world around us we're not conscious of but still could be very relevant in their effects on us. But to stretch that as being "mind" seems not very useful. I prefer like with the term "mindfulness" to have it linked with attention and awareness. Some active principle like "use your bloody mind for once". To have an "unconscious mind" or even some "unconsciousness" as a place or organ somewhere does not seem like helpful concepts. Something perhaps for the realm of science to categorize further in terms of brain function.

[jupiviv]

To have an "unconscious mind" or even some "unconsciousness" as a place or organ somewhere does not seem like helpful concepts.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is. Consciousness is probably a process that works very much like other neural activity.