Moot Responses ...

I thought it an appropriate response to the unnecessary tone of condescension you adopt, particularly in the last line of the following:

Or am I mistaken?

 

You are mistaken ...

But then, you don't want to be mistaken ... do you?

 

Hmmm ... well then ... let's examine the two words "eternal" and "permanent".

Eternal: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing; perpetual; ceaseless; endless; enduring; immutable

Permanent: existing perpetually; everlasting, especially without significant change; intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforseeable conditions; long-lasting or nonfading

Sure looks like they both have the same characteristics in meaning ... lasting forever; always existing; perpetual ... existing perpetually; everlasting ...

It's apparent that any reasoning outside your own is going to be flawed.

Also apparent you're going to result to insults when your reasoning is refuted by someone else.

Perhaps then you have no intention of reasoning rationally with anyone but your own self ... or perhaps someone who holds the same views as you ...

That being the case, all I can say is ... I see ...

And leave it at that ...

HTML:

 

Then you have my apology.

My reasoning was not refuted.

Again, perhaps? But then you conclude...well, I think we should go on, at least a little.

I would grant the adjective 'permanent' to self if only it did not carry the meaning of 'unchangeability'

 

What I am getting at is that this finite whirlpool, that has a beginning and ending because it is within infinity, is also infinite. That everything within an infinity is still infinite if only in its finitude. The idea of eternal recurrence is the same. The fact of a things existence evinces its eternity, and recurrence, not in any future, but its self-same existence. Consciousness appears to tend to a joyous state of such knowledge, a feeling of timelessness.

 

There has to be some underlying reason you have adopted this idea. Can you please offer an analysis to explain why "everything" within infinity is still infinite?

So far, in my writings in this thread I have been offering the Buddhist concept of why things are not infinite, or rather not-self. Though, it is not the concept in its entirety.

What I had previously been offering through explaination was the reasoning behind the concept of non-self by using Buddhism's core teachings and that would be the Four Noble Truths, the first teaching Buddha gave after attaining to enlightenment. Although I seemed to not have been able to get past the Third Truth. That is beside-the-point.

In teaching non-self, Buddhist thought of the concept of non-self is that everything, all appearing phenomena, are produced from previously appearing phenomena. And that the previous phenomena which became the condition for the appearance of subsequent phenomena no longer exists. That its appearance, duration, and disappearance are but a moment, given that there can be several hundred or more moments in less time it takes to blink an eyelid. Although some teachers will say an uncountable number of moments in the time it takes to snap a finger, and still others will say several thousand or more. The significance is that there are many moments that transpire in a very short time that we can measure with time.

For sake of Buddhist philosphy, I would like to dispense with the term "moment" and call it "dhamma". Dhamma can be compared to, but is not the same as, the terminology of "atomic particles" or precisely those "quanta of atomic particles" that constitute an atom. But like I said are not the same for in Buddhist terminology dhamma means "truth" and refers to all moments of appearing phenomena, past, present and future.

That each dhamma that appears, endures, disappears is unique in its appearance, endurance and disappearance. There is no returning to any previous condition on the reasoning that the previous dhamma, whose condition gave rise to the resultant dhamma is lost, as is the condition itself that the previous dhamma produced ... forever ... no more recurrence. What appears conditions the arising of the next. This does not mean that subsequent dhamma are the same previous dhamma, rather that each subsequent dhamma are uniquely different than its previous condition and the conditioning of this new dhamma is different than the next dhamma that results from this condition. If it were true that each subsequent dhamma conditioned by the previous dhamma were the same recurring dhamma, there would be no subsequent dhamma because the prior or previous dhamma would exist eternally and would not be subject to change ... then, and only then can I agree that it would exist infinitely and within infinity. As is, if eternal dhamma, or infinite dhamma existed infinitely, then the resulting conditioned dhamma would fill a reality matrix so quickly as to bring about an extinction event due to its continuous increase ... much like an extinction event from an overpopulation model.

As its indication; eternal, eternity, eternally, infinite, infinitely, infinity are all time-based concepts. If one were to see correctly the true nature of reality, there would not exist any concept of time; past, present or future.
In the clinging to dhamma that have passed we conceive time being of the past. And we continuously cling to them as long as we have "memory" that can hold the event for any given length of time and use this event to calculate present and future events. It is in becoming conscious of the appearance of conditioned dhamma the moment they appear that we conceive of a present. It is in the clinging to these appearing dhamma, taking into account the appearance of there previously conditioned dhamma and their subsequent results, tracking the way they condition each other and forming expectations on how they will condition the appearance of the next dhamma that we create a concept of a future.


"Now" cannot even be conceived properly without applying what the implication of "Now" represents. Such as applying a past, present or future to signify that "Now" is not the past, and "Now" is not the future, but that "Now" is the present moment. Seeing it this way still indicates the presence of the conception of time.

If we were to correctly perceive "Now" as being here without a past, or here without a future, but here, "Now" in this eventless point then there would be no more arisings of dhamma, no previous dhamma, and no conditioning subsequent dhamma. There would be no appearance, no duration, and no disappearance in that these dhamma [appearance, duration, disappearance] are time-based notions in which a certain amount of time has to pass from appearance to disappearance. That amount of time is the duration period between appearance and disappearance. Also, there would be no greed, no ill-will, no delusion, no volition, no consciousness, no mentality, no physical formations, no sensations, no feelings, no craving, no clinging, no existing, no being born, no dying, no perceptions, no self ... none of the conditions necessary to result in the absence of Nibanna.

Just the notion "Feeling" in itself implies that something is in a state of change or else it would not be felt. Sensation, what occurs when something contacts the senses, implies something is in a state of change. Change is a conceptual term used to indicate a passing of time on the basis that if there were no time to measure when a change occured then change itself would no longer be conceived.

In the First and Second Noble Truths it is a result of perceived notions of time that things exist mainly because we condition the arising of the next dhamma through our clinging to their previous appearance. In clinging, we use the properties of the previous dhamma as they appeared to condition the next dhamma. And since, according to the Second Noble Truth, craving conditions clinging, we crave the feelings of either pleasure (greed), pain (ill-will) or neither-pleasure-nor-pain (delusion) from the sensation our senses experience from coming into contact with the conditioned-resultant [appearance, duration, disappearance] (of) previous dhamma. Basically and simply put, we create the conditions for the appearance of subsequent moments, through consciousness and various mental factors which become the conditioning factors for each subsequent moment because we either want the next appearance to be like the previous, or we don't want it to appear at all, or we are unsure.

In not wanting it to appear, we still use a faculty of memory to remember what the conditioned previous sensation was in order to recall that we exhibited ill-will or displeasure, or that we don't/didn't like it.

This is the Buddhist reasoning behind conditioned events, i.e., Volition is conditioned by Ignorance, Consciousness is conditioned by Volition, Mental and Physical formations are conditioned by Consciousness, the Six Base [Senses] are conditioned by Mental and Physical formations, Contact is conditioned by the Six Base, Feelings are conditioned by Contact, Craving is conditioned by Feelings, Clinging is conditioned by Craving, Existence is conditioned by Clinging, Birth is conditioned by Existence, and finally, Death is conditioned by Birth.

Yet, it is not the reasoning in its entirety outside of divulging the Abhidhamma, the heart of Buddhist Philosophy which, with analytical precision and a systematic completness enumerates the various mental factors involved with ones experiences with reality.

Can you please share your meaning here on this above statement without using non-analytical "in fact" statements?

To me this is the same as comparatively saying "God exists because the bible says he does" without haveing any proof to support such a belief system.

In other words, can you please provide an analysis for why this should be believeable?

HTML:

 

Feeling in and of itself cannot even be conceived without the notion of time.

Feeling, not using Buddhist thought here, indicates some presence of change that is being registered to the mind through various mental or physical contacts, and sometimes both. And feelings have a duration. They have a point of beginning, a duration and a point of ceasing.

It is not possible for one to "feel" timelessness since the very act of "feeling" is rooted in time or a concept of time. For "timelessness" to be conceived, the notion of "feeling" would have to cease resulting in one not having any "feelings" at all. Nor is it possible for one to conceive of the "feeling" of timelessness since "feeling" is rooted in the concept of time.

For timelessness to occur, or for there to not be any "time" based functioning all feeling would cease, mentality would cease, ones own body would cease to function. The mind and body as is depends on various factors related to time itself ... like breathing ... a heartbeat ... thought ... seeing ... hearing ... smelling ... tasting ... touching ... sensation ... feeling ... perception ... consciousness ... mind ... self ... infinity ... eternity ...

To signify timelessness or the absence of a conceived notion of time would be to signify the absence of feeling. As such, "feeling" and "timelessness" cannot even be used to describe each other, at least not in this realm of existence. Perhaps in the formless realm.

HTML:

 

Hi there, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Do you know how long my ban lasts?

 

Because infinity is 'everything' There is nothing separate from it.

True, it cannot recur in any precondition or resultant condition but can only recur in its own existing condition. Recurrence may sound the wrong term for something that runs once only, but in an infinite causal eventuation, once is enough for it to run infinitely. 'Recurrence' is simply expressive of how we humanly grasp this.

Yes.

This seems to be where we misunderstand eachother. No two moments are the same. Moment itself is the apprehension of infinite motion. What is past is eternal and cannot be changed, but what passes can be acted upon. There is nothing outside infinity.

Infinity is beyond us, and we are never beyond it.

The first three are, the latter three space-based. But I think we agree it doesn't matter. Time is a measure of changing space. You say reality is without time, and I say that is because it is infinite.

We agree thus far.

Here is where it seems we will disagree forever more. I hold that the conditions that result in "what-have-you" cannot be separated from those that result in its absence, and necessitate eachother.

And so self requires time. Timelessness thus remains to us a supposition.

While a 'feeling' of timelessness does seem inconceivable, I can't help but feel this is what consciousness must approach. If I am deluded in this, then so be it, as I can't see how to shake the feeling.
What is a "formless realm"? It seems equally inconceivable.

 

I see. So you offer no logical or analytical reasoning as a basis for your believing such and such ... only "because" ... ???

Dude ... you're not making any sense. Perhaps to you it makes perfect sense. And asking you to provide some kind of analytical reasoning is out of the question since you don't have any. So all I can say is you are just full of "techo-babble" ... more of nothing but blah-blah-blah.

Infinite motion would indicate that once it arrises, it continues arising infinitely without ever ceasing. If this were the case, there would be no production of another moment as there would be no conditioning process for another moment to appear as this previous moment would forever be in a state of expansion or arising. Asking you to provide a logical reasoning behind this statement is also out of the question because I doubt you have any.

Analysis ... !!!

Don't tell me you believe this just "because" ... ???

Space itself is time-based. Without time to measure distance or area, there would be no concept of what "space" is. Just like time can be considered space-based as well. They both are mutually dependent on each other for their conceptual existence, just like the electromagnetic field, so is spacetime.

I doubt it. I doubt you even know or have an idea of what I was talking about. I think that is why you say you agree with me.

Aye. So be it.

I might as well be discussing this with a mindless automoton who believes the bible is Gods word because the bible says it is ...

Again I conclude this discussion because you don't seem to participate outside of "because", or "I think", or "I feel" ...

HTML:

 

Logic itself compels the thought of infinity. Do you have any reasoning that suggests that there is anything separate from infinity?

I am reasoning from the assumption that the universe is infinite. All reasoning is conducted from some kind of view or conception of actuality. As I teach eternal recurrence, I do not expect to be understood at once by ones who teach nothingness.

Once it arises? Again, we are talking about infinity, not something with a beginning.

As though logic alone were what makes an idea what it is! What 'previous' moment?! Moment is only ever present.

I'll treat this exclamation as a request out of human decency.

Infinity is beyond us as we are finite in nature. Therefore we are never beyond it, only within it. It is only logical. You know what else I have to say about us being infinite with infinity itself.

Only insofar as we may perceive it. We can reason that it is based in nothing but itself if we assume infinity.

Without 'Self' in other words.

As you say, only for their 'conceptual' existence. You are not in any way showing that infinity is not actual.

lol Dhamma means moment does it not? If it does, then I did indeed have an idea of what you were talking about (credit me with this much at least!) and agreed up to where I said I did.

You should have quoted those two sentences separately as you have made the latter appear to refer to the former. It makes no sense to post the latter out of context.

No one participates outside of "I think" or "because" or "I feel", whether expressing fact or idea. What do you imagine you are achieving by comparing me to a mindless automaton?

 

it is not possible to have an idea of infinity.

 

by basing your argument on the assumption of infinity, you are basing it on something that is non-evident.

 

mati:

That is a misconception. It is only possible to have an idea of it.

No, my assumption is quite evident.

 

You are correct in stating that, Dejavu.

However, you alone assume it to be evident. You also provide nothing on which to base your assumption.

Care to take the last word?

HTML:

 

Now, I realize this is off-topic, so I do apologize. I'm curios to ask though, where goes the line that seperates sharing and discussing from arguing and proving?

Now, more on topic:

You say feelings are of three types, and by saying so I assume you mean feelings or [only] of three types. These types being greed, ill-will, and delusion(ignorance and confusion). I ask: Howw is it not possible to have feeling with understanding? The understanding that the feeling is neither definitive nor permanent. Is an enlightened being then emotionless? Does an enlightened being not feel joy or compassion? Can one not feel sorrow without suffering?

 

In reading the thread "Do you really want liberation?" you say, "It doesn't matter what school of Buddhism we learn from. What does matter, and you "hit the nail on the head" here, is that we develop friendliness, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, that we practice altruism for all living beings."

This seems to be a direct contradiction of your statement that feelings are [only] of three types and that feelings are part of the chain that must be broken to end suffering and therefore that feelings themselves should be eradicated. Or it's merely a direct contradiction of my understanding of your statements.

 

Darrell:

Granted, I have not provided the universe, which has provision enough to bear my assumptions.

Am I to assume that yours and other resistance to my thinking the universe is infinite is based in the assumption that it is not?