DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - dependent origination- a dilemma

**Glanteeignile** · 06-14-2011, 01:10 AM

welcome phoenix

further, as you seem to say, one will get stuck attempting to reason the infinite emptiness of a "tree". it can be reasoned:

1. there is no tree because it is composed bark, roots, leaves, etc,

2. there are no bark, roots, leaves, etc, because they are composed of the earth, water, fire elements, etc;

3. there is no earth, water, fire elements because they is composed of various atoms;

But then one gets stuck because these causal factors cannot be broken down any further

so the Buddha regarded it sufficient the body is broken down into earth, wind (breath), fire (warmth) & water so the mind can see directly this physical body is not permanent, not something 'solid' and not a 'self'

i would keep it stretching further to say that there are no atoms, no subatomic particles, no quarks, gluons,positrons, photons, bosons and so on. the question for me is not only about disintegration into finer particles and hence the establishment of emptiness based on that but also (and primarily so) the question of the very existence of any particle no matter or how small or fundamental or ultimate.

the theory of emptiness will dismiss the possibility of any such fundamental particle, be it atom or wind or earth or fire in its ultimate essence. even the most minute particle wont be partless as it will have upper, lower, left, right etc parts but owing to not only its aggregatory character, but also upon dependence of the perceiving subject or other intervening medium, its identity is actualised.

if we are to analyse anything, it will fail to exist or maintain its identity on its own. a dog will not appreciate the colour of grass as green like we do being colour blind and so there are two dependent realities of the same entity. we cannot say this is the ultimate colour of grass. of course at night it will appear black to both irrespective of the species difference depending upon the intervening medium of light. but if we are to investigate at what is causing the difference, difference in retina will vanish once we analyse retina in the ultimate sense, photons will vanish once we analyse for the essence of photon or light and so on, essence or true self lacking in every thing.

your thoughts.......

06-14-2011, 01:10 AM	#24
Glanteeignile Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 565 Senior Member	welcome phoenix further, as you seem to say, one will get stuck attempting to reason the infinite emptiness of a "tree". it can be reasoned: 1. there is no tree because it is composed bark, roots, leaves, etc, 2. there are no bark, roots, leaves, etc, because they are composed of the earth, water, fire elements, etc; 3. there is no earth, water, fire elements because they is composed of various atoms; But then one gets stuck because these causal factors cannot be broken down any further so the Buddha regarded it sufficient the body is broken down into earth, wind (breath), fire (warmth) & water so the mind can see directly this physical body is not permanent, not something 'solid' and not a 'self' i would keep it stretching further to say that there are no atoms, no subatomic particles, no quarks, gluons,positrons, photons, bosons and so on. the question for me is not only about disintegration into finer particles and hence the establishment of emptiness based on that but also (and primarily so) the question of the very existence of any particle no matter or how small or fundamental or ultimate. the theory of emptiness will dismiss the possibility of any such fundamental particle, be it atom or wind or earth or fire in its ultimate essence. even the most minute particle wont be partless as it will have upper, lower, left, right etc parts but owing to not only its aggregatory character, but also upon dependence of the perceiving subject or other intervening medium, its identity is actualised. if we are to analyse anything, it will fail to exist or maintain its identity on its own. a dog will not appreciate the colour of grass as green like we do being colour blind and so there are two dependent realities of the same entity. we cannot say this is the ultimate colour of grass. of course at night it will appear black to both irrespective of the species difference depending upon the intervening medium of light. but if we are to investigate at what is causing the difference, difference in retina will vanish once we analyse retina in the ultimate sense, photons will vanish once we analyse for the essence of photon or light and so on, essence or true self lacking in every thing. your thoughts.......
	Quote