I think Thomas is just saying that since a Buddha's attachments are all gone, there's no more need for him to strive to live, he just exists. He views everything happening, and has no reaction to it.
For example: let's say a man was fully and perfectly enlightened one day. He sees that his body and soul and thoughts and his consciousness are all part of this endless ocean, and he takes the ocean to be truth. The endless ocean is now his life. An apple falls on the ground, but the new Buddha just watches it, and watches himself starve. Indifferent to form, and indifferent to suffering. Perfectly accepting everything.
I don't believe in such a realization, but I think that's what the verse means. Judging from the fact that the Buddha walked around, ate, and talked, shows that the Buddha had not attained this ideal enlightenment.
To do anything you need to be attached to something.
Yet, in witnessing my own life, I've seen that I accept attachment, perfectly. The Buddha 'within me' knows the truth, and I am just a tiny cog reflecting the Buddha and chasing after desires and attachments.
We are all enlightened. I hope this is making some sense.
We love objects.
Re: love
voce io:
We are all enlightened. I hope this is making some sense.
It may make sense to your mind but it is not right. The Buddha is not a buddha of attachments and his response to circumstance is always immediate and appropriate.
"When hungry I eat, when tired I sleep".
An outsider asked the Buddha, "I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken." The World Honoured One remained silent. The outsider sighed in admiration and said, "The World Honoured One's great kindness and great compassion have opened up my clouds of delusion and let me gain entry."
After the outsider had left, Ananda asked the Buddha, "What did the outsider realise, that he said he had gained entry?" The Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip."
Commentary (part of)
"This matter really isn't in words and phrases, yet it is not apart from words and phrases. If you have the slightest hesitation, then you are a thousand miles away. See how after the outsider had intuitively awakened, only then did he realise that it is neither here nor there, neither in affirmation nor in negation."
John
We are all enlightened. I hope this is making some sense.
It may make sense to your mind but it is not right. The Buddha is not a buddha of attachments and his response to circumstance is always immediate and appropriate.
"When hungry I eat, when tired I sleep".
An outsider asked the Buddha, "I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken." The World Honoured One remained silent. The outsider sighed in admiration and said, "The World Honoured One's great kindness and great compassion have opened up my clouds of delusion and let me gain entry."
After the outsider had left, Ananda asked the Buddha, "What did the outsider realise, that he said he had gained entry?" The Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip."
Commentary (part of)
"This matter really isn't in words and phrases, yet it is not apart from words and phrases. If you have the slightest hesitation, then you are a thousand miles away. See how after the outsider had intuitively awakened, only then did he realise that it is neither here nor there, neither in affirmation nor in negation."
John
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: love
Quote:Quote:<hr>DT: And that leads directly to my objection to such misleading terminology ["ultimate reality"]. Even the concept itself is preposterous.
Thomas: Dave, basically I agree with you on that point.
DQ: That shows your limitations.<hr>
Detail your definition of ultimate reality, and I'll show you how there is no such thing.
Thomas: Dave, basically I agree with you on that point.
DQ: That shows your limitations.<hr>
Detail your definition of ultimate reality, and I'll show you how there is no such thing.
Re: love
It may make sense to your mind but it is not right. The Buddha is not a buddha of attachments and his response to circumstance is always immediate and appropriate.
"When hungry I eat, when tired I sleep".
That isn't true. It takes attachment to eat. Of course, sleeping just comes naturally. If someone were actually unattached to everything, though, they would only be able to view themselves starving, unless they had the attachment which they viewed which caused them to eat.
I know, in absolute certainty, that I am right. I am not just a person theorizing about some Buddha that I have only read about. I know myself.
"When hungry I eat, when tired I sleep".
That isn't true. It takes attachment to eat. Of course, sleeping just comes naturally. If someone were actually unattached to everything, though, they would only be able to view themselves starving, unless they had the attachment which they viewed which caused them to eat.
I know, in absolute certainty, that I am right. I am not just a person theorizing about some Buddha that I have only read about. I know myself.
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
love
Anna: What do you think life is?
Thomas: There are many possible answers to this question, but none of them would enhance your understanding if it is not already obvious you.
It is not obvious at all. I am clueless. If you know several possible answers, then out with them. Love is much easier to understand than life.
Thomas: There is no external purpose attached to life.
Oh, so all the seeming meaning is just accidental?
Thomas: There are many possible answers to this question, but none of them would enhance your understanding if it is not already obvious you.
It is not obvious at all. I am clueless. If you know several possible answers, then out with them. Love is much easier to understand than life.
Thomas: There is no external purpose attached to life.
Oh, so all the seeming meaning is just accidental?
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: love
<span style="color:white;">Anna: It is not obvious at all. I am clueless. If you know several possible answers, then out with them. Love is much easier to understand than life.</span>
Basically, life is all about transformation. In order to bring about transformation, both mind and matter are required. If you imagine -hypothetically- that Anna had no body, and that Anna's consciousness would somehow be able to float around in space without it, you might ask: what the heck am I going to do as a disembodied spirit? I mean, Anna's spirit would obviously lack sensation, feeling, memory, and all those other neat properties that come built in with the human model. It would be completely static. Spiritlife might appear dull to you. Of course, most people don't believe in disembodied spirits, neither do I; it is just a thought model.
Human life, on the other hand, is full of changes and transformations. It is full of experience. You experience exactly that which you are meant to experience. Consequentially, everybody is always in the right place, although it doesn't always seem so. Basically, life is a learning process and with increasing wisdom you become increasingly aware of the process itself. Some people understand this, some don't. Some are rising, some are falling, some are walking blindly and very few walk with their eyes fully open. The process is both, collective and individual. There is no abiding difference between you and me, only temporarily. Some people experience suffering and hardships, while others experience bliss and happines. Those experiences are feedbacks. We strive for happiness. Happiness is an indication that things went right. The Dalai Lama was right about that.
Thomas
Basically, life is all about transformation. In order to bring about transformation, both mind and matter are required. If you imagine -hypothetically- that Anna had no body, and that Anna's consciousness would somehow be able to float around in space without it, you might ask: what the heck am I going to do as a disembodied spirit? I mean, Anna's spirit would obviously lack sensation, feeling, memory, and all those other neat properties that come built in with the human model. It would be completely static. Spiritlife might appear dull to you. Of course, most people don't believe in disembodied spirits, neither do I; it is just a thought model.
Human life, on the other hand, is full of changes and transformations. It is full of experience. You experience exactly that which you are meant to experience. Consequentially, everybody is always in the right place, although it doesn't always seem so. Basically, life is a learning process and with increasing wisdom you become increasingly aware of the process itself. Some people understand this, some don't. Some are rising, some are falling, some are walking blindly and very few walk with their eyes fully open. The process is both, collective and individual. There is no abiding difference between you and me, only temporarily. Some people experience suffering and hardships, while others experience bliss and happines. Those experiences are feedbacks. We strive for happiness. Happiness is an indication that things went right. The Dalai Lama was right about that.
Thomas
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
life
Oh, Thomas! What I meant, was, what is it? Is it anything? How does it start? Did some chemicals just pop together and start moving? In other words, is life devoid of life? Or is there something unquenchable and timeless about life? Does only life beget life, or does it come from the inanimate, as David suggested?
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: life
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Oh, Thomas! What I meant, was, what is it?</span>
Oh, in a scientific way; not in an existential way...
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Is it anything?</span>
I can't see any meaning in this question.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: How does it start?</span>
The scientific version is: supernova -> star formation -> planet formation -> terraforming -> climatic entropy reduction -> biosynthesis.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Did some chemicals just pop together and start moving?</span>
That seems to be what happened, but this is only one aspect of the phantastically complex history of life. Why did protocells form? Why did proteins and replicase form? Why do chemicals bond? Why do atoms form? The question leads right back to the beginning of the universe and to the most fundamental questions.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: In other words, is life devoid of life?</span>
No. How can life be devoid of life?
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Or is there something unquenchable and timeless about life?</span>
Nothing unquenchable. Nothing timeless.
<span style="color:white;">Does only life beget life, or does it come from the inanimate, as David suggested?</span>
There is nothing inanimate in the universe. The universe itself is animate.
Thomas
Oh, in a scientific way; not in an existential way...
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Is it anything?</span>
I can't see any meaning in this question.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: How does it start?</span>
The scientific version is: supernova -> star formation -> planet formation -> terraforming -> climatic entropy reduction -> biosynthesis.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Did some chemicals just pop together and start moving?</span>
That seems to be what happened, but this is only one aspect of the phantastically complex history of life. Why did protocells form? Why did proteins and replicase form? Why do chemicals bond? Why do atoms form? The question leads right back to the beginning of the universe and to the most fundamental questions.
<span style="color:white;">Anna: In other words, is life devoid of life?</span>
No. How can life be devoid of life?
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Or is there something unquenchable and timeless about life?</span>
Nothing unquenchable. Nothing timeless.
<span style="color:white;">Does only life beget life, or does it come from the inanimate, as David suggested?</span>
There is nothing inanimate in the universe. The universe itself is animate.
Thomas
Re: ----
voce io
--------------------
John, I've been calm since the summer.
It doesn't appear that way.
If you want to test yourself I would advise similar to what Tharan said to Rhett. Go through "The Blue Cliff Record" and "The Book of Serenity", both Ch'an books each containing 100 cases.
John
--------------------
John, I've been calm since the summer.
It doesn't appear that way.
If you want to test yourself I would advise similar to what Tharan said to Rhett. Go through "The Blue Cliff Record" and "The Book of Serenity", both Ch'an books each containing 100 cases.
John
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
life
There is no scientific explanation. I realize no one knows the answer, but I look for insights, intuitions, henids even. If love exists, why not life?
Life is devoid of life if it arises out of the inanimate automatically when certain chemicals happen to get near each other. Like putting a car engine together, finally putting in some fuel and then turning on the ignition system. I do not call that life. If that is how we work, then there is no life.
Life is devoid of life if it arises out of the inanimate automatically when certain chemicals happen to get near each other. Like putting a car engine together, finally putting in some fuel and then turning on the ignition system. I do not call that life. If that is how we work, then there is no life.
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
life
Is your life different than a car engine?
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: life
You're missing my point mate.
Nature works it's ways, it produces mechanistically becuse it resembles what we label machines, it produces machines because again, these things bear resemblance to that which we label as such. One specific sub-class of these machines we call car engines, for greater clarity. Simply being a machine does not make it any less of a car engine. Another specific sub-class of these machines, we call life. It's machine like qualitites make it no less alive.
It's one of the most complicated machines that we know of though, and it is possessed of many emergent qualities. One of those qualities (a symphony of many of the forces within it) has been variously labelled. One such designation is 'soul'.
Plain old non-organic machines don't have the complexity of organic machines, at least not yet. Until they gain that complexity and the ensuing ever-growing associated emergent phenomenon, life is safe with it's own designation.
Nature works it's ways, it produces mechanistically becuse it resembles what we label machines, it produces machines because again, these things bear resemblance to that which we label as such. One specific sub-class of these machines we call car engines, for greater clarity. Simply being a machine does not make it any less of a car engine. Another specific sub-class of these machines, we call life. It's machine like qualitites make it no less alive.
It's one of the most complicated machines that we know of though, and it is possessed of many emergent qualities. One of those qualities (a symphony of many of the forces within it) has been variously labelled. One such designation is 'soul'.
Plain old non-organic machines don't have the complexity of organic machines, at least not yet. Until they gain that complexity and the ensuing ever-growing associated emergent phenomenon, life is safe with it's own designation.
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
life
Ha,ha, you're missing my point, too. I am not jealous of machines. The machine-like qualities that life has are what makes cell biology so fascinating a study, the immune system in particular. We make machines that mimic life because we are copying it. You say there are emergent qualities, one of which has been labelled soul. Well, that sounds like soul comes after the fact, and this is really the crux of my question. Is soul emergent or are life-machines emergent? Is there a force called "life" which is irreducibly necessary to spark the simplest life form in the first place?
The soul is a symphony - I like it!
The soul is a symphony - I like it!
men and women
I think all this, is silly! It's like trying to explain magic.. there isn't any! There is a simpler more reasonable explanation, or reasoning.
Love is an attachment, love isn't, love is, love isn't... if you can't come to a conclusion, it's probably just magic, or something you want to believe. God is this, god isn't this. Love is this, love isn't that. What about a reasonable explaination, that everyone could agree on?
The more reasonable outlook on love, is that it is just a complexity.. I think love is just a complexity, it isn't some magical thing.
I also believe love is a lot more about hormones that most people will admit (it's more of a safe drug, or a bunch of hormones, and other things).
So I guess I believe that we could love objects, we just aren't willing to, because we believe in magic. And/or that it isn't physically possible to love objects, yet, because they aren't complex enough objects, with the right thing in the right place. We don't like to admit that hormones play a big part in love, though. We like to create the idea that it's magic. When you touch someone, you have a lot of hormones in your body firing about, that make you feel good. It isn't magic.
So if I cut off her arm, or you cut off his leg... you could still love him/her, since he is just a complex person made of many things (objects). If you cut off his/her head though - does most, some or all love go? None? then why do people re-marry? Materials.. humans are just materials, or objects. But it isn't magic
If not, then I don't see ANYTHING wrong with loving dead people. But wait, aren't dead people just objects too. Again.. I think it's object love. haha.
Love is an attachment, love isn't, love is, love isn't... if you can't come to a conclusion, it's probably just magic, or something you want to believe. God is this, god isn't this. Love is this, love isn't that. What about a reasonable explaination, that everyone could agree on?
The more reasonable outlook on love, is that it is just a complexity.. I think love is just a complexity, it isn't some magical thing.
I also believe love is a lot more about hormones that most people will admit (it's more of a safe drug, or a bunch of hormones, and other things).
So I guess I believe that we could love objects, we just aren't willing to, because we believe in magic. And/or that it isn't physically possible to love objects, yet, because they aren't complex enough objects, with the right thing in the right place. We don't like to admit that hormones play a big part in love, though. We like to create the idea that it's magic. When you touch someone, you have a lot of hormones in your body firing about, that make you feel good. It isn't magic.
So if I cut off her arm, or you cut off his leg... you could still love him/her, since he is just a complex person made of many things (objects). If you cut off his/her head though - does most, some or all love go? None? then why do people re-marry? Materials.. humans are just materials, or objects. But it isn't magic
If not, then I don't see ANYTHING wrong with loving dead people. But wait, aren't dead people just objects too. Again.. I think it's object love. haha.
men and women
"We make machines that mimic life because we are copying it."
Some machines aren't (in fact most) made to copy humans.. for example a calculator. or a watch. If a calculator had a human brain, it would take forever for that calculator to do a bunch of simple calculations.
I think human brains have their purpose, but machines can be more beneficial in many situations. Problem is pollution of course.. if there could be some calculators that could run off sugar for example, that would be nice. I don't think machines are trying to copy humans though. I think some machines are (example, neural software) But I don't think the major goal of all machinery is to copy humans.
In fact some times I wish I could just weld or fix some computer into my body to use. That's all you are doing with a wrist watch, really.. wearing it. I mean realistically, if you created a watch that "thunk" like a human, that watch wouldn't keep time!
I say it's great that we can make machines mimic humans, but I also think there needs to be continued development on the non-human machines. After all, we already have humans.. so having a computer that could do something different than a human, would be the key to creating something better than a human.
Either that, or magic.
Edited by: foncuse at: 12/30/03 1:10 pm
Some machines aren't (in fact most) made to copy humans.. for example a calculator. or a watch. If a calculator had a human brain, it would take forever for that calculator to do a bunch of simple calculations.
I think human brains have their purpose, but machines can be more beneficial in many situations. Problem is pollution of course.. if there could be some calculators that could run off sugar for example, that would be nice. I don't think machines are trying to copy humans though. I think some machines are (example, neural software) But I don't think the major goal of all machinery is to copy humans.
In fact some times I wish I could just weld or fix some computer into my body to use. That's all you are doing with a wrist watch, really.. wearing it. I mean realistically, if you created a watch that "thunk" like a human, that watch wouldn't keep time!
I say it's great that we can make machines mimic humans, but I also think there needs to be continued development on the non-human machines. After all, we already have humans.. so having a computer that could do something different than a human, would be the key to creating something better than a human.
Either that, or magic.
Edited by: foncuse at: 12/30/03 1:10 pm
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: life
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Life is devoid of life if it arises out of the inanimate automatically when certain chemicals happen to get near each other. Like putting a car engine together, finally putting in some fuel and then turning on the ignition system. I do not call that life. If that is how we work, then there is no life.</span>
You are looking for the divine.
The point you make is expedient. The problem with the mechansitic understanding of life is that it simplifies things beyond recognition. Life is not devoid of life. I cannot assume that you really believe this. A car engine is a laughable analogy. Life can be explained in a scientific manner, but we have to ask ourselves whether scientific descriptions are always adequate. Sience looks at functions and relations. It describes phenomena from the outside. It is always incomplete and dependent on perspective (i.e. anatomy, molecular biology, neuroscience, etc.).
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Is there a force called "life" which is irreducibly necessary to spark the simplest life form in the first place?</span>
Such a theory has been brought forward in the 19th century; it is known as vitalism. The term "elan vital" comes to mind. There is general agreement that the theory has been superseded/invalidated by scientific discoveries, particularly genetics, although this is somewhat debatable. Did you read Henri Bergson? I think that his criticism of science had some very good points. Unfortunately, his terminology is quite obfuscated.
Thomas
You are looking for the divine.
The point you make is expedient. The problem with the mechansitic understanding of life is that it simplifies things beyond recognition. Life is not devoid of life. I cannot assume that you really believe this. A car engine is a laughable analogy. Life can be explained in a scientific manner, but we have to ask ourselves whether scientific descriptions are always adequate. Sience looks at functions and relations. It describes phenomena from the outside. It is always incomplete and dependent on perspective (i.e. anatomy, molecular biology, neuroscience, etc.).
<span style="color:white;">Anna: Is there a force called "life" which is irreducibly necessary to spark the simplest life form in the first place?</span>
Such a theory has been brought forward in the 19th century; it is known as vitalism. The term "elan vital" comes to mind. There is general agreement that the theory has been superseded/invalidated by scientific discoveries, particularly genetics, although this is somewhat debatable. Did you read Henri Bergson? I think that his criticism of science had some very good points. Unfortunately, his terminology is quite obfuscated.
Thomas