[welihiedginly]

then what about this?



and this:

What about it Element?

I think in these suttas the Buddha is teaching that when the sense organs cease, the world perceived via the sense organs also ceases. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no "world" outside of our sensory experiences. The rupa element exists irrespective of our perceptions of it. When the Buddha taught "the all" he taught about the world experienced via the senses because that is the scope relevant to cessation of suffering. That doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is only a subjective reality.

[domeffire]

I think Element and I are interpreting "inherent existence" differently than most of the other forumers who have posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhav...C4.81na_sutras

"In the Mahāyāna sutras
In the Prajñāpāramitā sutras, the early Buddhist notion of no-self (anatta) is extended to all objects, so that all things are emptiness (śūnyatā), without inherent existence (svabhāva).[6][7]"


I think your right. Mahayana defines "inherent existence" differently than than the Theravadin literature.


In the Pāli canon, "sabhāva" is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts[8] and, when found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.[9]"

Imo, Mahayana is an extension of the Abhidhamma.

"In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).[10]"

WOW, this discussion really showed me how much I do not know or understand.

[Les Allen]

yes, the universe has non-self existence. the universe is not a self but it exists


all phenomena are not similar to nirvana. nirvana is the unconditioned. it is the uncaused. nirvana inherently exists. it is independent




Nirvana has inherent existence but is empty. although nirvana inherently exists, it is not a 'self'. it is not-self (anatta). it is empty of self (sunnata). the logic of Nagarjuna sounds questionable, in appearing to assert a synonomity between 'existence' and 'self'.

****

if we look down from above, upon the swirling mass that is the universe, it can be seen to exist. although there are no conditioned things in that universe that have inherent existence, the swirling mass itself swirls, moves & changes ceaselessly

buddha taught nirvana inherently exists, because it is the uncaused. buddha taught the reality of conditionality (causes & effect), impermanence and unsatisfactoriness in regards to conditioned things inherently exists or "stands". buddha taught the non-selfhood of all things, including Nirvana, inherently exists or "stands"

if "not-self" did not inherently exist, then how could all things be not-self? this simple statement refutes the logic of Nagarjuna

I think you mis-understand the concept of "self". I don't see self as simply a sentient being. A rock is a self. You are creating a duality within the structure of the universe that does not exist. There is no self and other. This applies to sentient beings and non-sentient beings. All things are empty.

Hands Palm to Palm,
Rhysman

[rozneesitcn]

I think Element and I are interpreting "inherent existence" differently than most of the other forumers who have posted.

By "inherent existence" do you mean not conditioned?

[ForumMasta]

I think you mis-understand the concept of "self". I don't see self as simply a sentient being. A rock is a self. You are creating a duality within the structure of the universe that does not exist. There is no self and other. This applies to sentient beings and non-sentient beings. All things are empty.

hi

'self' & 'suffering' are exactly the same thing, which is why the human world is full of suffering. 'self' is a construction of the human mind

kind regards

[gniewkoit]

In my meditations recently, I saw the world as a room of mirrors: most of us see only ourselves most of the time, and blame all our problems on the mirrors, I saw. Is it not possible that with the continuum of development, our consciousness can now see that there is more than one Uni-verse?

Where does the essential stream of consciousness go in between incarnations? Where do the Great Beings have their being? Could it not be that we are the reflection of a truer reality? What does it mean, the lesson of the moon's reflection on the pond? How can this reality be free of Inherent Existence and Empty, unless there is an other source of emanation? Where is the Pure Land?

[wJswn5l3]

imo, the universe is something subject to continual change & transformation of the various elements. thus, imo, the universe as a changing thing has an inherent existence, just like the reality of impermanence & conditionality has inherent existence. the natural creator is change (anicca) itself; conditionality (iddapaccayatta) itself

I think one would say that

the universe is something subject to continual change & transformation of the various elements.

means that the universe does not have an inherent existence. Just like the chariot does not have an inherent existence, because its existence depends on its components, the existence of the universe also depends on its various elements.

[TXmjLW9b]

Nirvana has inherent existence but is empty. although nirvana inherently exists, it is not a 'self'. it is not-self (anatta). it is empty of self (sunnata). the logic of Nagarjuna sounds questionable, in appearing to assert a synonomity between 'existence' and 'self'.

Are you saying Nirvana is not-self? I thought "Form is not-self," "Feeling is not-self,"...

Also, I thought it is commonly agreed that the definition of not-self is 'empty' of self, which means that self does not inherently exist, i.e. 'self' is dependent on others. For you to say that Nirvana inherently exist, but is also not-self (does not inherently exist) seems to be saying Nirvana is both white and black in the same breath.

I think your problem with Nagarjuna is not with his logic. Your problem is with his definition of terms like 'sunyata.'

If you want to say Nirvana has inherent existence, then it is NOT-'not-self.' Does NOT-'not-self' implies 'self'? Well, that's for you to figure out.

if "not-self" did not inherently exist, then how could all things be not-self? this simple statement refutes the logic of Nagarjuna

But I don't want to discuss Nirvana, so I'll just address this point.

If phenomenons do not exist, then the concept of "not-self" will not exist, because there is nothing to attach the concept of 'not-self' to.
So the concept of "not-self" is dependent on the existence of phenomenons, that's is why the concept of "not-self" does not inherently exist.

Nagarjuna's logic is fine here.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality (iddapaccayatta).

Paccaya Sutta

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma

Now, regarding this quote, if let us assume that there is only 'XYZ' in the world, and it is in the state of Nirvana. So there is nothing in the world that is not in the state of Nirvana.

Can we describe XYZ as 'conditional?' 'inconstant?' 'unsatisfactory?' 'Not-self?'

If not, does Dhamma exist in this world? I think not, because there will be nothing that is in the state of 'inconstant'/'unsatisfactory'/'Not-self.'

So we can say that Dhamma does not inherently exist, because existence of Dhamma depends on the existence of a phenomenon that is not in the state of Nirvana.

Dhamma is anatta as well.

[Tij84ye]

Hi everyone. Are we in the philosophy or the Cultivation4Liberation business? Happy CULTIVATING, Tom

[Onervemurce]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....069.than.html

[uphokyhuP]

the universe does not have an inherent existence. Just like the chariot does not have an inherent existence, because its existence depends on its components, the existence of the universe also depends on its various elements.

Yuan

i defined the universe as a mass of change or swirl. the 'swirlishness' has inherent existence, just as impermanence has inherent existence

as i said, impermanence is not something impermanent. impermanence has inherent existence because impermanence is permanent

in the same way, the universe (which unlike the chariot) has inherent existence

the chariot has a function based on its permanence. when its permanence ceases, the chariot ceases

but the universe is not the same because the function of the universe is to evolve & change infinitely (unlike the chariot)

[engideNedmupe]

Are you saying Nirvana is not-self? I thought "Form is not-self," "Feeling is not-self,"

buddha taught all things, including nibbana, are not-self...

[indocrew]

Originally Posted by Rhysman

Monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam see God as having inherent existence. The un-caused cause.

Would Buddhists see the universe as having inherent existence? And if not, why? If one look at the logic of the Vijnanavada; Existence, real existence means efficiency, i.e. it has to keep producing an effect, meaning it has to change at all time. What is absolutely changeless is also absolutely non-efficient and does not exist. To be static means to be motionless and eternally unchanging. Not to be static means to move and to change every moment. There is motion always going on in living reality, but of this motion, we notice only some special moments which we stabilized in imagination. The deduction is that, change is existence, what does not change, does not exist. It follows that concepts such as God, Angels are just our imagination and does not existed.

Everything, necessary must have an end, whether it is a knowledge deduced by observation or by deduction without the help of our sensory experience. We would have notice by observation, that such thing as fire, changes every moment, so do our thoughts, even our body is constantly changing, and by a broad generalization, not just the body, but everything, is older by a moment in every succeeding point instant. There is no need of thing to be dependence on special cause for it to end, as if that is the case, then we would have empirical objects which never would have an end and would have an eternal existence.

[CIAFreeAgent]

Originally Posted by Rhysman

"All phenomena must have either self-existence or non-self-existence. There is no phenomenon which is other than these two, nor are there any expressions which do not come under these two categories. All phenomena which are the subject of this treatise are similar to nirvana because all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence.

What is the reason for this? It is because the inherent existence of all phenomena is not to be found in causes, conditions, aggregations or individualities. Thus all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence and are empty.

Some assert that a result already exists inherently in the nature of its cause; but then it cannot arise because it already exists. Others assert that a result exists inherently but not in the nature of its cause; so it cannot arise because it is not in the nature of its cause. Yet others assert that a result both does and does not exist inherently in its cause; ; but then they are asserting contradictory views about an object because an object cannot simultaneously both exist and not exist. Because phenomena do not arise inherently so also they do not endure or cease inherently."

IMO, the above logic precludes any form of inherent existence. It really does not matter if you believe that Nagarjuna really received this from the Nagas and that it was a true lost teaching of the Buddha. The logic still stands. Your above quote from Nagarjuna is on the teaching of the subject of non-duality. It is a Mahayana doctrine that there is no ultimate difference between Samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. Conventional dualities as we understand it is denied, as ultimately all phenomena are empty of all characteristic and that all dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

I believe one would not find this teaching of non-duality in the Theravada tradition which is aim at the extinction of suffering, i.e. going from the conditioned world of Samsara to the unconditioned Nirvana and not aiming for a unifying principle in our experience of the phenomena world itself.

[Tamawaipsemek]

Your above quote from Nagarjuna is on the teaching of the subject of non-duality. It is a Mahayana doctrine that there is no ultimate difference between Samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. Conventional dualities as we understand it is denied, as ultimately all phenomena are empty of all characteristic and that all dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

I believe one would not find this teaching of non-duality in the Theravada tradition which is aim at the extinction of suffering, i.e. going from the conditioned world of Samsara to the unconditioned Nirvana and not aiming for a unifying principle in our experience of the phenomena world itself.

Yes, and any ideas about the universe and inherent existance can only be conceptualised within our limited concepts, such as time.

[Pa33anger]

Also, I thought it is commonly agreed that the definition of not-self is 'empty' of self, which means that self does not inherently exist, i.e. 'self' is dependent on others.

hi

'empty' of self means there is not self there, such as there is no 'self' in a rock. (it does not mean 'self' is dependent on others)

277. "All conditioned things [i.e., excluding Nirvana] are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things [i.e., excluding Nirvana] are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things [i.e., both conditioned & unconditioned, including Nirvana] are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...p.20.budd.html

If not, does Dhamma exist in this world? I think not, because there will be nothing that is in the state of 'inconstant'/'unsatisfactory'/'Not-self.' conditioned things are in the state of 'inconstant'/'unsatisfactory'/'Not-self.'

the uncondtitioned Nirvana is the state of 'constant'/'satisfactory'/'Not-self.'

So we can say that Dhamma does not inherently exist, because existence of Dhamma depends on the existence of a phenomenon that is not in the state of Nirvana. buddha included Nirvana within the scope of Dhamma.

for example, the mind sense base, buddha described as mind (mano), mano vinnana (mind-consciousness) and dhamme (dhamma). contrary to Thanissaro's translation, dhamme does not mean 'ideas'. dhamme is used here because Nirvana is a mind-object known by mind (mano). dhamme means all things that are dependent upon being known by the mind sense base, which includes feelings, perceptions, ideas, mental images & the unconditioned Nirvana

if we follow your logic, Nirvana is not independent because it is dependent on being known by the mind. naturally, this logic does not conform to buddha

Nirvana remains unconditioned & independent despite its existence being dependent on mind to be known

as Buddha explained in the quote: "impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self" are the norm, even when they have not been discovered & revealed by a buddha to humanity

in the same way, even if Nirvana is not known, it still exists. perfect peace from suffering always exists, waiting to be discovered

kind regards

[AttableBewNaw]

Hi Element,

For the first time, I found that I am not able to comprehend your responses. In a way, I understand, and agree with many of your statements. But I got confused when reading your statements all together. It is like reading "A is black." "Black is not the same as white." "A is white." all in the same paragraph.

I think part of the problem is that we differ on the meaning of the words that we use. Heck, we don't even look eye to eye on what the word 'universe' means.

So I'll refrain from responding until I can figure out how you are using these words.

P.S. Maybe you can tell me what you think 'inherent existence', 'self' and 'not-self' means to you.