text:
Why the nature of things is such as it is?
Namaste. My question is
Why the nature of things is such as it is?
I think that the question cannot be answered, because it points outside the grasp of our mind, but I am interested in possible deep evidences pro or contra.
Thanks.

When you say the nature of things i am assuming you mean things being:
1.Impermanent (anicca)
2.Suffering/Dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease (dukkha)
3.Non Self (annatta)
1.Why is the nature of things impermanent?
Because conditioned phenomenon is constantly in a state of flux.Why?Because something causes this to happen than this causes that to happen then that causes that to happen then...and so forth.
2.Why is the nature of things suffering/dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease?
Because the conditioned phenomenon keeps changing.(impermanence).And we keep grasping at it.What happens when you try to hold on to something that keeps moving and your adamant about staying put.You hurt yourself.You stress yourself.Let go.
3.Why is the nature of thing Annatta?
I can not answer this.It just IS.
Both Samsara and Nibbanna are devoid of an Ego.Both conditioned and the unconditioned have no permanent self/Ego.

This is a broad question, perhaps a whole category of questions.

Is the world like it is because it was created that way (by a creator God) for some reason?
No, Buddhism doesn't accept/teach about a 'creator deity'.

What do we know about the creation of the world?
Not much: it has "no discernible beginning".

What ought we to care about the creation of the world?
The Buddha said that instead of talking about such things, his intention was to teach about suffering and the end of suffering.

What is the nature of things?
The nature of things includes the 'three marks of existence', the laws of 'karma' and 'dependent origination', etc. etc.

Perhaps some interesting questions include:

Why do we perceive the nature of things to be as we perceive it?
Answers to that question include the theory of 'skandhas' and of 'identity view'.

Can we change the nature of things?
Well, good actions and evil actions, skillful and unskillful actions, have an effect.

Can we change our perception of the nature of things?
Supposedly yes: doings so is pretty well the purpose of Buddhism.

Short Answer: Because that's the way it is, and it doesn't matter.  Please read The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.
Long Answer:
There is no satisfying answer to this question because we're only asking because things happen to be this way.  If they were another way, we'd ask why things were THAT way.
It may be better to ask instead why you are asking that question.  Why not just accept that this is reality and that's that?  The very question you ask implies an attempt to give human existence cosmological importance. If so, what does this say about the attachment to your belief in your importance?  In short, is the question itself a symptom of an anthrocentric bias or agenda?
Now let's bring this back to Buddhism.
If you want to know why things are the way they are, then there is a Buddhist parable which is THE BEST Buddhist teaching I've seen on this and other metaphysical questions. It's called The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.  If you haven't read it, I recommend you do.  It teaches that only thing that matters is relieving your suffering, so stop the pointless speculation.
If you spend your time worrying about these things, then not only will you be distracted from the only thing that matters (relieving your suffering), but you may increase your suffering by agonizing about something you can't change.  Yes, nothing is more conducive to suffering than worrying about what's out of your control.
Which brings us to suffering. Buddhism has its 3 Marks of Existence. I'd interpret that as the 3 Marks of Experience. After all, suffering does not exist in the universe -- rocks, planets, and hydrogen atoms don't suffer, or at least I don't think they do.  Suffering is our REACTION to things, a reaction we can change, and this is where Buddhism is (and should always be)  situated.
Trying to elevate suffering into some kind of cosmological principle misses the point, and makes relieving suffering harder, by dramatizing it. Realizing the true role of suffering can put it into perspective and this itself is a big step towards relieving it.

The parable of the poisoned arrow always seemed like a cop-out to me. The historical Buddha seems happy to speak of many other esoteric, metaphysical things not directly related to the goal eliminating/escaping suffering, so his silence on the “unanswerable questions” on that basis seems suspect to my deluded, ego-attached mind.

@BrentCaldwell which is as it should be.

We don't see the nature of things since:

our mind is not focused enough
our mind is clouded by perception

So my developing insight leading to the cessation of perception and developing concentration you can see things as they are.

Before we come here, it is not easy  to see that a)
to get to b) means... I will suffer this and that. Before we come, all we
know is we wish to get from a) to b). For beings who are willing to see
 past the illusion, it works.

To give you personally fulfilment and happiness in everything you do. Could there be any other meaning for you? Some questions are merry-go-rounds, all take part and everyone goes round and round for fun. This one isn't like that. Or if it is, it is a roundabout for one.


text:
Impermanence is Buddha nature / Buddha nature is impermanence
Can anyone please explain these aphorism / these aphorisms?
Thank you in advance.

What is here to explain? Impermanence is Buddha-nature; Buddha-nature is impermanence! ;)

I don't know, so the following is a complete guess, and I hope someone will give a better answer.
Apparently the aphorism come from Dōgen.
Dōgen has a perhaps-non-standard view of Buddha-nature, which he calls Busshō.
My guesses are:

If according to Dōgen everything (real) is Buddha-nature then (because everything real is impermanent), therefore everything (i.e. Buddha-nature) is impermanent.
So for example any description of Buddha-nature and anyone describing Buddha-nature and anything to which the term Buddha-nature could be applied is impermanent.
As for the converse (i.e. impermanence is Buddha-nature), is that related to the third noble truth, or to rise and fall?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Material wealth and dukkha
This article on money and happiness prompted my asking myself:

Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?
If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?
What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?

1.Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?
We all experience dukkha differently depending on our karma.The wealthy can afford to experience happiness born out of sensual pleasures than the poor.
2.If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?
How refined their dukkha is depends on how strong they attach to the happiness their wealth brings to them.The more they attach to it the more painful their dukkha is the less they attach the more subtle it will be.
3.What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?
Money or wealth does not bring suffering.It is our strong craving/attachment to it that brings suffering.Wealth is actually in a way kind of like a blessing.It is one of the karmic resultant of practicing generosity in previous lives and the result of being hard working and industrious.The Buddha often instructed lay people on how to preserve their wealth.And in the Adiya Sutta even describes the benefits to be obtained by having wealth.Adiya Sutta:Benefits to be Obtained from Wealth So don't see money or wealth as a cause of suffering.you can easily substitute the word money for anything under the sun and the only way it will cause us suffering is through our strong attachment to it.

hi, thanks for the reply, but i wasn't asking if wealth caused suffering, i think

Please forgive me.Did you want to know what the Buddha said about:
1.Just Money
2.Just Suffering
3.Or the relationship that Money has to  Suffering
Thanks

i only meant to say that's not a complete answer :)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Does yesterday have buddha nature
I am asking because I think that if the past has buddha nature, and the dharmakaya is impermanent, then there is nothing left of the enlightened when they die.

Dharmakaya is not impermanent. Where did you get such an idea?
Buddha nature/dharmakaya is not impermanent. Dharmakaya = the idea of Self, Buddhanature, Allah, Brahmin, Substrate... it's the thing that is beyond existence and nonexistence... it's beyond separation and non-separation. It's the thing that stands beyond time and exists without existing.
"Past" is a way of categorizing time.
It is just as much a figment of imagination as "present" and "future".
The only thing that exists is the "now" but even that is speaking relative to a "past" and "future" which do not truly exist except in your imagination.
Nonetheless, the imagination is an important tool for discussion, desire, economics, etc. It is the foundation of our worldy and supernatural discoveries.
Anyway, to give you a clear answer to your unclear question, the past does not have buddha nature since it is completely imaginary, dharmakaya is permanent (it is all-that-is), and your logic does not follow about enlightened people.
On the other hand, it is true, much is left behind through the bodhisattva path including the fetters which bespeaks of the fear you have of "nothing being left".

i think the dharmakaya is impermanent.


text:
Do beings without conscious experiences have buddha nature
A philosophical zombie is defined as follows,

Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures used to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike those in films or witchraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness.
Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism is true. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the ‘other minds’ problem.

Using this definition, would a being which is "not conscious" have Buddha-nature?
I ask because I want to know if the Buddha is dead and inanimate matter, and inanimate matter has Buddha nature, that means that the Buddha senses what inanimate matter does?
Moreover, I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is "like" a cognition.

The Question is invalid! Zombies don't exist!

it's a thought experiment :)

Meditate "thinking.. thinking..." whenever you get that thought ;)

hahahaha, maybe

They have Buddha nature in the same way that Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters have Buddha nature.

@SankhaKulathantille I don't completely understand the question, but I think that some examples of "beings without conscious experiences" might include a tree, or a stream, or a mountain.

@user3293056 Re your last question, "I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is 'like' a cognition", the quote "by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie" suggests that the answer is "no" or "mu": because 'qualia' is defined as (and cannot exist without) 'introspection' and 'conscious experience'.

Voting to close. The idea of the philosophical zombie is currently nothing more than a thought experiment. There is no evidence that zombies exist, and the notion that they could exist even in theory is highly controversial. I don't see how any of us could remotely know the answer to this question. It's sheer speculation and similar to asking if the Dementors in Harry Potter would have Buddha nature.

ok, tho thought experiments can be helpful

@ChrisW i am not sure what i mean by "like" there. can something be qualitatively "like" the smell of apricot, but have no qualitative likeness? it may seem, trivially not, but what about synaesthesia, a smell or touch can be like a smell, but not in any way actually smell at all

This question may seem speculative, but I think it actually has a basis in Buddhism. There is a class of beings called nonpercipient beings that don't have any consciousness at all. However, they are basically just a body that doesn't do anything, not a zombie per se.
Such a being would have Buddha nature because by the Tathagatagarbha Sutras teach that all beings have Buddha nature.

If we start differentiating conscious and non-conscious entities, and ask which one has Buddha nature, that would be implying that conscious entities have a permanent self and non-conscious entities have no permanent self. This conflicts with Buddha's statement that "all phenomena is not self".
If "Buddha Nature" refers to Nirvana, then Nirvana's nature is that it is something that is uncreated, not-destroyed, permanent and non-changing. It has nothing to do with being conscious or not. But without consciousness, mind and sufficient intellect, such entities cannot escape from suffering.
But are such entities actually suffering? That follows the statement that "all conditioned things are suffering", which means "continuously changing existence is suffering", rather than "life is suffering". So, yes.

Yes..
Even plants have been argued to have Buddha nature... after all Buddha nature is all-encompassing, the root of existence and non-existence..
My perspective:
Nothing has Buddha-nature! Nothing but "Buddha-nature" exists.
Buddha nature is the Universe. The world, items and conscious beings are just constantly changing interdependent items bobbing around within it...
Bodhisattvas thus identify themselves as the whole universe and not just as a person.

Zombies?? They are one kind of lives In our religion, we call them ghosts. We frighten them but they don't want us to frighten. They want us to donate something for them. Because their positions are lower than us. In our religion, the last time in our lives is very important for us because when we feel the evil things we know it that we are going to reach the evil where such as hell, lives of the animals. So that is the important time for us. Moreover we can also reach the zombies lives. When we have any donations, we can't change the other lives. So we can also call them interval lives between changing from one to another due to the last time. Therefore I want to tell you the zombies also exit. That is my thought.

The question is about a different kind of zombie. It's a shame that the philosophers even use the word because people often confuse it with the other kind. The philosophical zombie is simply an aspect of a thought experiment where the relationships between brain, mind, and consciousness are explored.

I have never seen a zombie. Is this an invention of human fear? If I told you that I have dreams about flying cows, would flying cows have a Buddha nature?
What keeps us from seeing Buddha nature is the concept of self that we entertain in our hearts and mind.
If the cup is empty, it can be filled. If the cup is full of muddy water, you can put nothing in it till you empty out the muddy water and wash the glass.
A koan in Zen is "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Some masters say yes and some say no. It is unanswerable unless one uses it as a koan. More on this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)


text:
Losing my religion, and shikantaza
I was raised in a secular family, went to CofE church a little as a young child, but only to support my mum. Actually I'm way more drawn to Nietzsche now than Christianity, though I cannot see any answers in his work.
I visited Thailand as a teenager, took a few meditation classes, and would say I had a sort of conversion experience upon reading more about Buddhism, in general. But don't feel like there's any reason to keep my faith; it hasn't I think helped my mental health or my life, only got me to where I am today. Almost spiritually exhausted.
In effect, I feel like I have nothing to look forward to and nothing to look back at. I am scared of dying, but not to the extent that I would assume a religion to cheer myself up.
For a long time I believed that I won't be annihilated when I die, but the more I think about it, and I have done so a lot, the more it seems that this is an irrelevance, something that tells me about my life now not the future.
But, I can sometimes feel good in the present moment, and wondered whether shikantaza might help me feel better about that. I can't find an exact phrase to describe that, but maybe Soto zen might help me to be how I am or want to be, in life and death, even though I am so tired with everything but this fluctuating enjoyment of now. Which incidentally, does not seem very Nietzschean: I don't place much value on happiness as a way of life hedonism etc.
I have visited a local Soto group, without meeting a teacher there, and enjoyed doing so. The people seemed cool etc., too. But I wanted to ask if Soto meditation has the answers to the rest of my post, or what the answers were. Even what I am asking.
Thank you for any encouragement or for any insight.

Shikantaza means "just sitting" or "single-minded sitting". It is a state of being where you are present here and now, no matter on what you experience, in body or mind.
About losing your religion: the Buddha said that there are three marks of existence, one of them is impermanence of all compound things (anicca). In other words, anything that once begins to exist, one day ends (changes to other thing or ceases to exist). So your opinion about what is your religion, or even yourself and what you consider your religion, will certainly change and/or cease to exist.
About your annihilation when you die: one of main questions that buddhism bring to us is this: "What is this I?"? Because most of times we get identified with things that we bring with us, like the body that we carry or the thoughts and emotions that we have. We think that these things are "me", however, these also are compound things that began one day and that will cease to exist certainly. If you strip yourself of all impermanent things in yourself, what remains? Is there something that remains? So what is this that you call "I"? Before answering to where will you go when you die, you must answer what is this that you call "I" and answer what in this "I" dies with the death of the body.
Zen buddhism have quite diverse opinions about where are one going when s/he dies. Each master say one thing, but for certainly, the most important thing (and that's what shikantaza and enlightenment is all about) is to be totally in the present moment. This does not means that it's wrong to make plans for the future: on the contrary, it means that even making plans, you are totally conscious that you are in the present moment, and any plan may not happen, and even knowing that you are fine.
Suffering (dukkha) for buddhism is also inherent in all compound things, because when they cease to exist, if one haves desire or attachment for it, s/he will suffer. Buddhism says that there is a root, a cause for desire or attachment to exist, that is a kind of ignorance, a delusion, that prevent one of experiencing the reality as it really is. And that's what about shikantaza: experiencing the reality as it is, completely, here and now.

I agree with you concerning Nietzsche: there should not be the answers in his works, because his life, especially its end, :-) witnesses that he was faced in front of good problems, but he found no good solutions  (conversely to Buddha :-) ) It seems for me that practices usually give some experience and a spiritual ground for your life. So this is not a question of belief, this is a question of experience. So I allow myself to recommend you to look at two books: “Zen training” by Katsuki Sekida and “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula.

Here is another pdf link for "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. In the link above, there are some odd things added to the text such as the "Instructions for Life" on page 55 which are not part of Dr. Rahula's original text. http://bs.dila.edu.tw/zh/downloads/download_document.html?gid=4210

@Robin111 Thanks. I don’t read the linked book, because I have read only Russian translation of “"What the Buddha Taught"”, so I get a link to the first English version which I found by Google.


text:
The middle is way between extremes
Sorry for the noobie lay questions.
Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons.
E.g. enjoying reading a book because it is innately pleasurable and because it is an extrinsic good in teaching me something.
It seems to me that there is no way to do so, that we cannot resolve opposites into one reason or meaning for being. That whatever you think of dialectics, nothing can be synthesized with an absolute opposite.
I think then that any reason or meaning is had to the exclusion of something else, and there is a fundamental deficiency in thought, such that any meaning is absolute i.e. a lie, or contradicted.

You might be asking several questions, but let me try to just answer the first one, where you ask,

Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

On the contrary, at least initially, the first of the "four noble truths" is that everything is dukkha (i.e. stressful, unsatisfactory, cause of anxiety, etc.).
It's important to understand dukkha: What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths?

Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

If you're asking, "What does the 'middle way' mean in Buddhism?", there's a Wikipedia article about that: Middle Way
In summary, I think that the 'Middle Way' doesn't mean "both of the two different mutually exclusive reasons" ... instead it usually means "neither of the two different mutually exclusive extremes".
For example:

Should we pursue sensory pleasure (hedonism), or, should we mortify the body with asceticism? The Buddha's "middle way" answer to that question was, "neither of those two extremes" (e.g. eat to live, but not live to eat).
Should we believe in eternal life of the self/soul after death, or, should we believe that death is annihilation? The answer is "neither".
Should we believe that everything exists, or, that nothing exists? No...

And so on.
The problem is that asking, "Is it this extreme, or is it that extreme?" implies that it's one extreme or the other: which reminds me of what's called a false dilemma, also known as a "fallacy of the excluded middle".

hm thanks for the reply but i didn't really like it... i shouldn't really claim to be new to thinking about this. maybe i expressed myself badly, but i feel that that there is something unsettling there, about being unable to synthesize opposites. i welcome any further comment though, especially ones which draw more heavily from the sastra literature. thanks @ChrisW

having thought a bit more i realized i agree... maybe in a world of permanence we could embrace both extremes. but yeah, thanks, thanks for the answer :)


text:
Negation and the middle way
Following on from this and this thread, I'm going to expound my understanding / of the relevance of the Buddhadharma.
To avoid the extremes of thought, right up to any kind of differentiating consciousness if you can, is to live meaningfully. Because the mind cannot find meaning in fragments.

Consciousness has two aspects. The first is known as discriminating
  consciousness. This is taken to be the activities of cognition, of
  apprehension, and of discrimination (commonly, what we take to be
  memory, judgment, and reasoning.)

And to life valuably we do so without affirming either. Because there is no reality to the negative value of either extreme.

The object of inference is not ultimately real, it is a conceptual
  construction. And part of what the mind puts into it when the mind
  constructs the object of inference

And so to live the middle way without affirming either extreme, is an active / creative life. Because our world really does consist of both these facts, of no self and impermanence.
So my actual question is just: does this put me in any particular group of Buddhist thinkers?

What do you call "extremes of thought"? There's this popular notion that buddhism avoid any and all extremes, making it easy to label whatever is "too much" as an "extreme"and thus, "non buddhism". Yet, the expected concentration to develop all jhanas is "extreme"; a layman may also consider becoming a monk something extreme. Nibbana, is something quite extreme. So it is the motivation of a boddhisatva aiming for liberation.

yeah i wouldn't make that mistake and i don't see how it's implied in my argument. but thanks.

I did not assume you did, rather I'm justifying the significance of my question.

the question was clear and to the point !

hey, just saying that i kinda have given up on thinking on this, so i wanted to apologise to anyone i bugged in any way etc. maybe meditation will throw up new (less bad?) questions but i'm not really in a place to start that right now. peace :) !!

Could you please reference your quotes? Moreover, I suggest you study LoRig, for instance Lati Rinpoche's Mind in Tibetan Buddhism. According to Sautrantika, an inferential consciousness realizes its object of engagement.

That doesn't sound like a Buddhist understanding of the middle way to me, although it is close in some ways. In Buddhism the two extremes are described in some places as the extremes of indulgence and mortification, and in others it is talked about as the extremes of eternalism and anihilationism. This second description is taken up in detail in Madhyamaka philosophy.
I'll tackle your question mostly from a Theravadin perspective since that's the tradition I'm in but you could do so from others as well.
The core problem with framing it that way is that from a Buddhist perspective, meaning is conceptual. From our experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and cognizing we generate concepts to make sense of it all. We make concepts of objects, time, space, etc... so that we can interact with things, and these concepts become superimposed over out experience. Conventionally we can say that these concepts are real because they give us an accurate description of the world. But at the end of the day, these concepts aren't a part of the things they describe. They are mind-made representations, and when we mix them up with our experience, our whole way of viewing things becomes distorted.
Meaning is one of these concepts. It is something created by the mind to help us make sense of things. It is a valid concept because it really does give us a description of human action and purpose and such, but if we forget that it is something that we ourselves are generating then we can fall into a trap. For example, we start looking at things that occur naturally and somehow think that they also have some kind of purpose or meaning beyond what people do to them. Or we can look at ourselves looking for some sort of pre-established purpose that we just have to find, when in fact our purpose is something create and choose for ourselves.
To understand this deeper, I would recommend studying the Mulapariyaya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html), the Madhupindika Sutta
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html), and a very good but also concise book called Concept and Reality (http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/concept_and_reality.pdf)

i have read a LOT of buddhist work. i wasn't being socratic in the OP tho, tho i do think you misunderstood it tbh. i.e. nothing you said SEEMS to me to contradict anything i said ? can you edit your answer to show where you think what i said isn't buddhist :) ?

OK then. I can go into more detail in my explanation then. Do you want me to expand what I said from a Theravadin perspective or a Madhyamaka perspective?

i don't mind, as long as you explicily tackle what doesn't seem buddhist... i won't be offended!!!

I've edited my answer to give more detail. Are there other matters I should cover?

if you can, and i don't want to strain the point here, but can you show where i said that meaning isn't conceptual? i.e. include quotation next to the refutations :) !!?
thanks, appreciate it.


text:
Submission in Buddhist teachings / practices
I have heard people, Buddhists I guess you would say, mention submitting to a higher power. It was just in passing, but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism.
I think I would like to "submit", and can do so without losing my mind etc.. Well, I don't know if that makes any sense, but thanks for any guidance.

The idea of surrender in Buddhism in general can vary very, very widely, depending on the particular ideology. Some ideologies believe you need to submit totally to a Guru to be enlightened, others do not. It depends on how people have set the system up in the first place. Pureland Buddhism is particularly strong about this point, and I encourage you to look it up.
That being said, it is important to mention that Buddhism is not, at its core, about believing in something or submitting to an ideology.. it is about The Dialectic or Conversation that happens when you try something, find out it is not quite as described, then ask a question about your personal experience and get a clarifying answer, or engage in a debate. That is the dynamic. Discovery through experience, discussion and debate.
So, submission and dominance fall then to the status of Dualistic Thinking, and are no different than black and white, cold and hot, or back and front. Both are illusory... Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)).
Surrender in the Buddhist sense, on the other hand, is about letting go of any fixed notion of self, the universe or any other idea, and trusting in experience to guide you to truth. It doesn't mean that you give up.. it means you let go of the strong attachment you have to particular ideas about the world and yourself, and allow mind and body to take you to places where you can experience truth.

hello you mention the dialectic and while i appreciate this is off topic and not strictly buddhist, what would you say about the dialectic and self submission ?

I would say.. I think you may be asking the wrong question :-) To have a dialectic, you need to pose a question for discussion.'What would you say about' is a request for an opinion (which is fine.. its just not really an opening for a discussion). Basically.. ask a hard question and work out the answers between you. Don't assume anyone knows anything you don't.. go through the process of experience, discussion and resolution.

Quick question: why is submission dualistic thinking and surrender is not. In the same way submission contrasts dominance, surrender is contrasted by resistance. Isn't that also dualistic

That's a very good question. The answer is that everything that can be conceptualized is essentially dualistic, including surrender.
Considering surrender is a more facile way to reach the non dual state behind that idea than is submission.
In the end, 100% of everything is dual since we are alive. Or.. at least.. we think we are :-) You see, you have to be careful to limit the scope of inquiry, otherwise you will always end up with a sort of nihilistic approach, since at their root, everything is dual, and you will get nowhere.
"And then not." - Every Master's final words.

I realized I may have appeared glib in my answer.. let me clarify. Surrender is a better concept to proceed from if you want to reach the non dual experience BEHIND the thing. Submission is not as good, as it is more deeply rooted in culture and biology, and is more difficult to sort out, whereas Surrender is less so. Surrender is also well established in the literature, and various brilliantly scammy masters have created wonderful lies for us to use to accidentally trip over the Truth about that idea. :-)

I am recently extremely interested in Buddhism, I've read the dhammapada, done  alot of thinking and reading about it. However I have not actually done much meditating. My most recent experience in trying or doing meditation was during a moment I was feeling suicidal. I get suicidal thoughts fairly often I think compared to most people.
Anyways, a very short time into it, a part of my mind gave me an incredibly strong thought/order telling me to submit. I 'submitted' (idk how, it's all just mental) and immediately felt much better. Since this experience I have felt more at peace, and so I paradoxically am more empowered. In this case, submission is the cause of dominance.
This experience was hardly dualistic in the usual sense. The concepts have now become merged into a whole, or at least, the opposite result followed the opposite action.

Hello Veronica and welcome to Buddhism SE. The answer does not really address the central question which is "... but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism ...".

I totally fail to understand how sharing my experience while endeavoring to practice Buddhism, when that experience was one of 'submitting', does not, in fact, centrally address the practice of Buddhism.
I didn't touch on theory, but practice. All the other answers I have read have addressed theory.

'Letting go','giving up' or 'relinquishing' ('vossagga') is the core Buddhist practise.

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation
  and ripens in relinquishment (vossagga). MN 118

It is like submission to the Nirvana element, which can dissolve mental negativities.

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all...Those who trust in the Dhamma of
  dispassion have trust in the best; and for those who have trust in the
  best, the best result will be theirs. AN 4.34


text:
Life testament, illness and Buddhism
I would like to ask a question about ones last will and how buddhism views that.
In Denmark where i live we have an option called a "life testament". In here there are 2 options that will be taken into account if one becomes severely ill or are about to die.

Does one want life-prolonging treatment if one is about to die?
Does one want life-prolonging treatment if illness or injury is leaving one behind without the possibility to take care of oneself either physically or mentally?

I was wondering if im breaking any buddhist rules if i answer no to any of those?
I have tried thinking about it but i cannot fully grasp it at the moment.
Lets say i was in a traffic accident and was left as a vegetable. By writing the life testament and answering no to life-prolonging treatment because it would only op hold the life of a vegetable am i then breaking anything?
Is this the desire/craving for non-existence im wandering into here?
Should i just let things be and play out according to my kamma. Im a bit confused.
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
May you be happy, peaceful and free from physical and mental suffering.
Harshani

No, you are not breaking any rules(precepts) by saying 'no' to either of them. You are simply saying "I don't want your help". That doesn't break the 1st precept. Whether it is Vibhava tanha or not depends on the mind state at the time. If the intention is not to be a burden to the society or to your loved ones, it is not Tanha. Even monks are allowed to reject medicine in that case.

Thank you for the answer Sankha. Im a bit worried about this still. So i will not fill out that Life testament at all. I will just let life take its course and let my kamma play out. What happens, happens.

Meditate on the worrying :)

There are many views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, but many are critical of the procedure.
An important value of Buddhism teaching is compassion. Compassion is used by some Buddhists as a justification for euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain. Keyword is intention (cetana). However, it is still immoral "to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive."
For bhikkhus the rules are explicitly spelled out.
The monastic code (Patimokkha) states:

"Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life,
  or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death,
  or incite him to die (thus): 'My good man, what use is this wretched,
  miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,' or
  with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various
  ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is
  defeated and no longer in communion."

On the other side, there are the Vakkali Sutta and the Channa Sutta.
a) In the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87), the monk Vakkali, who is "sick, afflicted, gravely ill," tells other monks of his intention to use a knife to commit suicide. Upon learning of Vakkali's intention, the Buddha personally visits Vakkali to speak with him. In the course of their discussion, it becomes apparent that Vakkali is well progressed on the path to enlightenment—having already gained direct and genuine insight into the impermanent, self-less, and ultimately unsatisfactory nature of existence. After the Buddha parts company with Vakkali, he goes to the nearby Mount Vulture Peak to dwell for the rest of the day and night, and that night he is visited by "two devatas of stunning beauty" who remark to him that Vakkali is "intent on deliverance" and that "he will be liberated as one well liberated." The next day the Buddha has monks deliver a message to Vakkali recounting the devatas' auspicious visit and assuring Vakkali that his death will be a good one: "Do not be afraid, Vakkali, do not be afraid! Your death will not be a bad one. Your demise will not be a bad one." After Vakkali receives this message from the Buddha, he "uses the knife," as planned, and kills himself.
Upon receiving word of Vakkali's suicide, the Buddha leads a group of monks to the Black Rock on the Isigili Slope, where Vakkali's corpse can be seen:
"Then the Blessed One, together with a number of bhikkhus, went to the Black Rock on the Isigili Slope. The Blessed One saw in the distance the Venerable Vakkali lying on the bed with his shoulder turned. Now on that occasion a cloud of smoke, a swirl of darkness, was moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters. The Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus thus: 'Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?' 'Yes, venerable sir.' 'That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: 'Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna.'"
b) In the Channa Sutta (SN 35.87) the monk Channa, who is suffering intensely due to sickness, tells the monks Sariputta and Mahacunda that his condition is worsening and that he intends to kill himself using a knife:
"Friend Sariputta, I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned. Just as if a strong man were to split my head open with a sharp sword, so too violent winds cut through my head. I am not bearing up… Just as if a strong man were to tighten a tough leather strap around my head as a headband, so too there are violent pains in my head. I am not bearing up....Just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to carve up an ox's belly with a sharp butcher's knife, so too violent winds are carving up my belly. I am not bearing up....Just as if two strong men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of hot coals, so too there is a violent burning in my body. I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned."
Sariputta and Mahacunda exhort Channa not to kill himself but he decides to do so anyway, asserting that he has led a “blameless” life. Sariputta, believing that Channa may have broken precepts of the Patimokkha by having inappropriately close relationships with laity—and assuming that Channa would not attain Nibbana upon death as a result—approaches the Buddha to inquire about the nature of Channa's rebirth. The Buddha replies that Channa has done nothing wrong and that he has, in fact, attained freedom from the round of birth and death:
"The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sariputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sariputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sariputta, should you remember it."
It is noteworthy that Channa’s suicide appears to be something of a non-issue in his case, and we may reasonably conclude from this sutta that suicide—when carried out to avoid unbearable physical pain associated with terminal illness—was considered, by the Buddha himself, to be an acceptable course of action."

Thank you Utamwara. Does the Pitaka say anything about euthanasia, suicide and that matters for laypeople?

@Harshani - AFAIK are these the only references in the Pitaka.

Human life is are and if you have not got to any stage of sainthood then the best option is to prolong your life. Perhaps this will give you an option to practice more targeted at liberation if things turn out for the better.


text:
Two unconditioned dhammas?
In A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, Professor Hirakawa states:

Both nirvana and space were considered to be unconditioned dharmas. This fundamental classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned is found in the Agamas.

In what passage from the agamas (and/or pali?) we read space to be unconditioned?

If I recall correctly, the second sentence is definitely true in the Pali texts. But the first sentence, I don't recall seeing space classified as unconditioned in any of the early texts that I've read. Nevertheless, I can understand how it can be classified that way. If I had to guess, I'd say it's an Abhidhamma classification.

@Unrul3r is correct. Because the aforementioned book is almost devoid of notes, only much later an explanation appeared. It's abhidhamma material, the context of the sentence confused me.

In the Sarvāstivādin tradition since the compilation of the Dharmaskhanda, three unconditioned dharmas have been recognized: analytical cessation (pratisankhayā-nirodha), nonanalytical cessation (apratisankhayā-nirodha) and space (ākāśa). In the Theravada tradition, only one unconditioned dharma, nirvana, is recognized [...]. According to the Samaya, the Mahāsanghika, Ekavyavahārika, Lokottaravādin, and Kaukutica schools all recognized the following nine unconditioned dharmas: (1) analytical cessation (2) nonanalytical cessation (3) space (4) the realm of infinity of space (5) the realm of infinity of consciousness (6) the realm of nothingness (7) the realm of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness (8) the law of dependent origination (9) the law of the noble path [...]. The Sarvāstivādins disagreed with this position and did not recognize the existence of a principle of Dependend Origination separate from conditioned dharmas. For the Sarvāstivādins, the law of Dependend Origination itself was conditioned.
For the Mahaśiśākas, the path to nirvana was recognized as an unconditioned dharma because the practices established by the Buddha were considered to be eternal truths. The Sarvāstivādins opposed this position by maintaining that although nirvana was unconditioned, the wisdom the Buddha had realized was conditioned and not eternal.

Interesting. So who's correct? 9 unconditioned dharmas sounds a lot...

Hirakawa seems mistaken to say that the Law of D.O. is conditioned. As the laws are never included into dharma lists. Also, logic suggests that laws are permanent entities. And finally, this would be contradictory to suttas, which Sarvāstivādins can not afford.

@catpnosis it seems he is simply listing what he found to be the positions of other schools

Space is one of the 24 kinds of derived-materiality (UpadayaRupa), which is one of the 2 kinds of materiality (the other is primary-materiality, BhutaRupa, which is composed of the 4 elements of earth, water, fire, and air). They're all conditioned dhammas. Only Nibbana is the unconditioned one. Further info. is available at Vism.XIV.34

Hirakawa probably only meant that "classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned" is found in the Agamas, not that space were considered to be unconditioned dharma "is found in the Agamas".
Conditionality of space (akasa) was controversial topic even inside of Sarvastivada. If it would be mentioned to be non-conditional anywhere inside of Agamas (i.e. in sutras, as in 'Buddha's words') it would not be that controversial subject.

Majjhima Nikaya 115 classifies all elements (dhatu) into conditioned & unconditioned thus this is not something exclusive to the Agamas. As for 'space', it is obviously conditioned, which is why, for example, people buy bigger houses for more space. Regards.

@Dhammadhatu How is all this related to my answer? Statement of Hirakawa was about Agamas, question about space in Agamas, I answer about Agamas. I answer that there is no such statement. 'Space' isn't "obviously conditioned", because, there was controversy exactly about this point. If something is obviously conditioned there would not be controversy about that.


text:
Noumenon and "mind only"
according to wikipedia anyway:

The noumenon (/ˈnɒuːmɨnɒn/) is a posited object or event that is known
  (if at all) without the use of the senses.

I know that the term is used in Buddhism, at least after its sinification. Often noumenon seems to mean reality itself, the buddha nature.
Avoiding that last gloss, may I ask if the "noumenon" is "mind"?
And whether extinction, be that impermanence, nirvana or final nirvana, is noumenally real?

I think that this might be the result of a translation problem. The concept of a noumenon in western philosophy is very foreign to Buddhism I think. In western philosophy a noumenon is the opposite of a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is experienced, whereas a noumenon is something that is somehow outside of experience all together but somehow exists anyways.
Most forms of Buddhism don't settle well with the idea of any kind of reality having some sort of existence that is independent like that because it falls into the error of essentialism, or at least it appears to.
I think you may be coming across this word in an off translation or something relying on such a translation, because I suspect a translator may be trying to translate the concept of 體用 (tǐ yòng, usually now translated as essence and function) as noumena-phenomena, but I don't think this is a very good comparison at all. Definately the term 體 does not mean noumena, but something more like the nature of something.

Well actually in the teachings with regard to the sense-consciousnesses, six are enumerated:

Auditory consciousness (sense of hearing, the ear, its "objects" like sounds)
Visual consciousness (sense of seeing, the eye, its "objects" like sights)
Scent consciousness (sense of smelling, the nose, " " smells/scents/odors/aromas)
Taste consciousness (sense of tasting, the tongue, " " tastes)
Tactile consciousness (sense of touching, the body/skin, " " textures, etc.)
Mind consciousness, or mental consciousness

The raw perceptions of the first 5 themselves have no dialogue, no commentary, no "story" ... the sixth one can meld and blend the first 5
So in Buddha's teachings, there is nothing outside the Six sense-consciousnesses, and therefore it seems untenable that one could argue that mind is "knowable but beyond the senses" unless one is referring to a different breakdown of the sense faculties, their focal points/objects, and the combined consciousness.
You should know that it is possible for a yogin to "withdraw" from the five coarse sense perceptions and experience the luminosity and delight of the sixth sense-consciousness.  There are instructions in the suttas/sutras, most notable is perhaps the Buddha's discourse on breathing meditation, which is in most traditions the foundation to introspection, insight, attainment, and liberation.

Yes, Noumenon is our Tathagata nature, our Buddha Nature, Tao, God, Allah, Brahmin... whatever that thing is that is beyond the dualism of existence and non-existence: the Mind.
Noumenon is the opposite of phenomena, things that are perceivable through the senses or in Buddhist terms are a part of the five skandhas (see Surangama Sutra).
This is why it is so important to become more detached from phenomena because they detract the Buddhist from realizing the only worthy goal of the Noumenon, the Source of all things, the Us that is beyond time and space.
The more one develops a worldly way, the more one is attached to meaning-ful phenomena be it money, sensual pleasure, relationships, and the infinite dualities that trap us to the wheel.
The more one grows in the spiritual path, the more one is able to perceive the foundational unity of all things. The profound truth in Emptiness.
One is unable to be so attached to any particular thing--not with a numbness, but with a crystal clear clarity developed through the understanding of Dharma and most importantly through the transformation of consciousness itself that takes place by success in meditation/awareness/vipassana.
This is the Right Path as espoused by the Eightfold Path and the last question you asked is different question, that would take an entire paper to discuss, but basically yes.

This is really a misleading new-age'ish answer, concepts don't cross cultures and noumenon (in Kantian sense) has definitely nothing to do with God, Allah or whatever else you mention.

"concepts don't cross cultures"
this is incorrect. concepts do not become owned by a culture. information is freely shared and the spiritual path, all spiritual paths, however tangential they may become, are connected to this path of acheiving "whatever that thing is that is beyond the dualism" of the senses (your "Kantian" definition)

If you read Kant, you will see that he defined noumenon very technically, and that it does not overlap with "God" (he was Christian). You can use concepts in vague ways, but it is just not helpful. Equating Tao, Mind, "whatever is beyond the dualism of existence and nonexistence" etc is just a pseudo-intellectual reverie.

No it isn't. Nondualistic attainment is the aim of Buddhism.

Noumenon is definitely not nondualistic attainment, but a theoretical concept, part of Western philosophy tradition, having its background, reasons (highly technical) it was being created etc, and as such not even remotely equivalent to those other ones. You can't mix everything together.

Ohh OK. I'm not talking about that technical stuff. Just "whatever that thing is that is beyond the dualism of existence and non-existence: the Mind."
I'm pretty sure a lot of other religions would get mad at my usage of their God-terms as well to reference to this All Important Concept.

Nonetheless however New Agey it may feel, I think it is valuable to make these kind of references to the common student who dislikes philosophy because I've seen plenty of philosophy students light up when they see how what they were actually looking for was Buddhadharma all along. I think Buddha left the most important concepts behind to support our practice and oftentimes a lot of complex ideas are easily expressed with Buddhadharma..


text:
Is mathematics empty?
Buddhists say that everything is empty.
Is mathematics empty?
I thought that "empty" meant conceptually constructed. But how can the fact (not the expression) 2 + 3 = 5 not be a fact which is true regardless of how we are counting?

Empty in the context of Buddhism means conditioned. The equation 2+3=5 works in Euclidean universes. In other universes, 2+3 may equal something else. In the same way, the interior angles of a triangle contain 180 degrees on a plane, but not on a sphere.

Experiences are empty, wagons are empty, but only in the sense that they don't have a soul, wagons still exist. I think when you apply emptiness, annata to abstractions, you get nonsense, particularly when you apply it to things of ethical consequence, like, is the act of killing empty and the act of not killing empty and thus all morally the same.

I'm not quite inclined to vote as "off-topic" as I can see this as a valid philosophical question (to those inclined on buddhist philosophy, even though practitioners simply disregard it). My rationale is that the Sarvāstivādins regarded conditioned arising as anatta (opposing the Mahāsanghikas), so whether concepts were anatta or not seems to have played a part in the history of buddhist thought. But I think, as it is, the question empowers opinion based answers.

yeah you're totally not understanding that i'm asking about theory of buddhism not practice !!!

In 'pure' mathematics, the truth of an expression like 2+3=5 depends on the definition of the addition operator and the definitions of the numbers such as 1 and 2 and 3 and so on. I think these definitions are 'axiomatic'.
In 'applied' mathematics e.g.when you're adding physical objects (such as apples), then the truth depends on your ability to identity "one apple" (which isn't obvious: in the real world, some apples are smaller, some are attached to the tree, some are rotting, etc.).
Furthermore mathematics is something which you do (sometimes) and which you stop doing: therefore IMO it's conditioned and impermanent.

More generally I think it's a category of knowledge. Here's a (slightly rude or brusque or plainspoken) quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance -- this quote is talking about Aristotle's "dialectic" but it could IMO equally be talking about "mathematics":

"As best I know, Aristotle's opinion is that dialectic comes before
  everything else."
"And from the dialectic come the forms," Phædrus continues, "and from. -
  - " But the Chairman cuts it off. He sees it cannot go his way and dismisses
  it.
He shouldn't have cut it off, Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real
  Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a particular point of view he would
  not. He might learn something. Once it's stated that "the dialectic comes
  before anything else," this statement itself becomes a dialectical entity,
  subject to dialectical question.
Phædrus would have asked, What evidence do we have that the dialectical
  question-and-answer method of arriving at truth comes before anything
  else? We have none whatsoever. And when the statement is isolated and
  itself subject to scrutiny it becomes patently ridiculous. Here is this dialectic,
  like Newton's law of gravity, just sitting by itself in the middle of nowhere,
  giving birth to the universe, hey? It's asinine.
Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric. Rhetoric is
  in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece. That is so
  historically, and that is so by any application of common sense. The poetry
  and the myths are the response of a prehistoric people to the universe
  around them made on the basis of [etc.]

i get what you are saying, "2+3=5" is an expression, a thought. i just wonder if there is no reality to mathematics; i have interesting (i hope!) reasons but won't post them rn

actually i will post n: simply that applied mathematics is empirically adequate but doesn't deal in unique particulars.

Oh God, Dialectic, in the sense of the back and forth exploration of truth... DOES come before everything else: all that is is Experience! Even in one self there is the dialectic of event and awareness of it, leading to actions, and the results of them... And Dialectic DOES arise from Rhetoric: "Story", which is what all of phenomenal reality is: an all-encompassing story, Play, Experience. There really is nothing else at all. Thank you both for your illuminating question and answer!

@ulmo I think maths was invented (and is a fabrication, a thought, sense-objects of the mind).

Emptiness in eastern philosophies usually have a more subtle meaning than we use in the west. Check this wikipedia article on Emptiness. And there are many answers regarding emptiness (sunyata) like this one. There is also an article in wikipedia on Śūnyatā.
The most common understanding on emptiness (on Buddhism) is that it is dependently originated. It means that it does not have inherent meaning or value, but it relies on other things. In mathematics the numbers two, three, five and so on just has meaning because of the number one. And also, the number one only has meaning relying on the other numbers.
In a more practical sense, numbers only has meaning because of the objects, like apples, rocks or sheep. Now, emotions, that have no clear bounds, can't be numerically described. You could say that you felt happy twice today, but you can't express its intensity and form numerically. Then math is true not because it has inherent meaning, but because it works for what it is used.
There is another interpretation I read on this QA (and also in some wikipedia article but I couldn't find it):

[Emptiness is] a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not.

In math words, the number one only exist because there is the zero. And there is zero only because of the one. (Although the zero was "created" much after the integer numbers). If we couldn't distinguish between zero and one, no numbers would make sense. There is only happy because there is not-happy. There is only "self" because we define our bounds, we define what is not-me.
Likewise we can only perceive suffering if we know what is not-suffering.
So, when we say that math is empty, we don't mean that it is false or is meaningless. But we mean that is not absolutely true, that it is true in relation to something. Truth is a relation, not an absolute thing.

no i don't mean false or meaningless, i mean lacking in svabhava etc. i've done a tonnnnnee of research on this so your post is getting a downvote for being kinda wrong

Then, could you improve your question? If you are specific on the question, you will probably get specific answers. And also, if you tell me what is wrong in my answer, I can try to fix it.

I liked in the movie "Lucy" where she said, "There are no numbers." Truer words were never spoken. We can see what is false, but can't put in to words what finally reveals itself to be true. Best to not try!

There is a mathematician Gödel who stated back around the 1920s using something we might imagine as "meta-math" that any axiomatic system (so any mathematical system you can create or imagine) cannot satisfy simultaneously two properties.  Which two?

That the system is complete
That the system is consistent

I shall try and state in a useful metaphor these key insights.  I like to imagine a wheel and at the center of the wheel are some basic operations like multiplication, addition, subtraction.  However, it could be anything.  We are basically trying to figure out all the infinite possible combinations of our basic fundamental rules and then see if we can make this infinite variety of conclusions both internally consistent and completely exhaustive of every possible outcome.
This is like trying to build a house with some basic pieces: a roof, a chimney, a floor, a basement, a fridge, a garage, a kitchen.  Now say you try every combination of possibilities such that the fridge ends up on top of the place and the roof ends up on the ground.  This is us trying to make all the exhaustive combinations possible, but in doing so we contradict the terms we have used: fridge is now roof and roof is now floor.
In short: if we tried to make our system demonstrably "complete" then we would invariably end up with a plethora of contradictions.  That is, we could say 1 = 1 and 2 = 2 but once we start saying 2 = 1 and 1  = 2 to get "completeness" then we have contradiction (non-consistency)
Likewise, if we want to have consistency (1 = 1 and 2 = 2 and 5 = 5 and 4-3 = 1) we cannot have completeness guaranteed, because we omit terms and therefore don't know if there is a true term we have not yet discovered.
So the basic idea of Gödel's incompleteness and completeness theorems are that mathematics cannot be both consistent (or coherent) and complete which means that mathematics, is in fact, empty.
Any postulate is empty of its own being because it is necessarily dependent on other terms to relatively define its value/position/significance.
Any postulate is also empty of an absolutely true nature because there is no way to have absolutely true consistency, for that would require completeness, and Gödel showed that you can only have one or the other, like a scrambled egg or an unbroken egg, you cannot have both unless you sacrifice consistency (the egg is both unbroken and scrambled?) or completeness (just one or the other).
So in short, all mathematical systems must abide as either incomplete or inconsistent which is [another reason] why mathematics in itself is not graspable and not inherent.
This, however, is a long way to arrive at the basic truth that all phenomena are empty of their own being (they have inter-being as Thich Naht Hanh says).

Love the post, I'd add Tarski's undefinability theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem to Gödel's incompleteness one too - may be a bit simpler for non math heads as well! :)

@IlyaGrushevskiy "math cannot prove math" is a recent realization!  how splendid Tarski figured it out (infigured it?) in 1936!

What is emptiness? just other concept of empti-less.Do you agree with me.yes yes think deep in to emptiness and you will see empti-less.

One does not really exist, changes, falles appart. How illusionary that 3+5=8 and to play with it, as if it would be something real.
May one be able to show my person a single thing, one thing?

"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
SN 22.95

And now even play further:

"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

Can one provide a number for Sūnyatā?
Mathematic like philosopy is just the undertaking to manage around as possible needed till the error is either no more seen or falls into an allowed agreed spectrum of tolerance = convention.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

2+3=5 is only a mental construct.
In practice, depending on the situation, the numbers are represented by degree of accuracy.eg 2.000001+3.000001
Einstein has also proven in a black hole, time stops. Physics cannot apply.
Until it can be disproved. everything is empty..

Is mathematics empty?

Everything that is not Nibbana, thereby belonging to Conditioned Reality, is empty of any inherent existence.

It seems that there are certain relationships among forms and phenomena that we call "mathematical" relationships. These relationships can be seen to be consistent and without any need for axioms to support them, they are tautologies and ontological. Axiomatic systems fail at some point due to their eventual self referential nature and containing axioms that cannot be proved within the given system. The relationships that are referred to above existed long before any human mind appeared on the scene to discover them and give them a rational form...
Regards,
B.W.

Welcome to Buddhism SE! How does your answer relate to Buddhist theory?


text:
Did the Buddha teach the Mahayana
I understand that according to some "schools" at least historical ones that the historical Buddha didn't teach the Mayanaha.
Is that true?

According to the academics or according to Mahayana doctrine, or according to non-Mahayana doctrine? The various camps have predictable answers, the academics put the writing of the Mahayana Sutras hundreds of years after the passing of the Buddha.

what is meant by "historical school" (and what is a "non-historical" one?)?

At the time of the Buddha there were no schools, only one "type" of Buddhism was known: The teachings of the Buddha, the discourses and verses spoken by him.
Buddha taught the Dhamma-Vinaya, he did not teach Theravada, Mahayana or Zen.
After the Buddha passed away to PariNibbana, the monks got together in councils to unify and register the teachings of the master, they put together the suttas, the Vinaya, the verses (Dhammapada), Jakata stories etc.
After many decades there was a split in the Sangha due to different interpretations of the teachings and that was when this discussion of Mahayana and Theravada began. As Buddhism reached different countries, different versions of the religion appeared addapting Buddhism to the culture and older religions of the country. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example, it still has traces of Astrology and Shamanism in some of its schools (this is not criticism, I'm not claiming this or that school is right or wrong, I tried not to take any side on this answer and respect all views)

Yes, some schools say that, but according to Tibetan Buddhism the teachings of Mahayana were actually given by Buddha, during the second turning of the wheel, at the Vultures Peak.  The emphasis is in the concept of emptiness and boddhichita or universal compassion.
In the third turning of the wheel, there is not a specific place mentioned.  They deal specially with the Buddha Nature that all sentient beings possess.

It's impossible to know what the Buddha taught, as even the earliest known writings were written long after he passed on.  However, many schools claim they were the original words of the Buddha, either as a bid for credibility or as part of sectarian disputes.
Don't take any such claims seriously.


text:
What is "stillness" or samatha?
Is a "still" mind: a mind without any thoughts; or a mind without a certain style of thoughts; or a mind which has lost a certain way of connecting to thoughts?
I assumed it was a lessening of conscious habit rather than thought per se.

All thought is movement and a still mind is one that has no movement in it except when required.
When you need to use the memory - "what's 1+1" or "where's my car keys" - the mind provides the answer. It's only the innecessary thinking that stops. Innecessary thinking is thinking that isn't required by the immediate situation.
This also means thoughts don't have the same energy anymore - the energy to make you feel emotional for example.
99.9% of thoughts in a normal undisciplined mind are created by habit, circumstances and old emotional pains.


text:
Metaphors in and out Buddhism
One of the questions / answers recently posted here was about "storing" mental states for later.
Of course this isn't Buddhist, in the sense that it does not literally describe a selfless person.
But it could be metaphorical, couldn't it? The idea that the mind is like a computer, even though there are dis-analogous elements to that term, there are overlaps - like the way that persons have access to the past in memory, as if they were "stored".
So my question is: are any of the Buddhas actual teachings only metaphorical?

Yes.  There are 2 truths; the relative and the ultimate.  Thus, some are explicitly metaphorical or practical, and some "point out" the nature of mind.

This city (body) is built of bones, plastered with flesh and blood;
  within are decay and death, pride and jealousy. - [Dhp. 150]

The Dhammapada is full of metaphors, similes and comparisons. It is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures. Here's a good article on that.

From the Dhammapada verses 153-154:

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to
  attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would
  enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in
  samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!
Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me)
  again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My
  mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving
  (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.

Who is the house builder? Does that refer to God? Click the link above to find out.


text:
Unique particulars
Following on from this question...
Is everything (according to Buddhism etc etc) that is empirically adequate a "unique particular".
If we found something "empirically adequate" that could not be expressed in those terms, then would it make Buddhism pure myth etc.?
And if not, we can pick and choose doctrine or at least not always take it on face value, how would you reconcile it with Buddhist doctrine.
I'm not asking about practice, but philosophy :) Thanks !

I've never previously heard the expression "unique particular". Google suggests it's a term Svalakṣaṇa used/defined by Dharmakīrti et. al.

yeah pretty sure i meant it that way. but, it's not unique to that school, the concept I THINK, even if the expression was his coinage

You should never take doctrine on face value.

i'm a bit disappointed / confused as to why this has so many down votes, it totally makes sense

The problem as I understand it.
This is a question is ultimately about substantiation.
In using the term unique particular, you seem to be referring to the notion that there may be some sort of irreducible particle, a particle that would give objects and phenomena (dharmas) true substance, or something that would be conceptually equivalent to a true ... say "atom" that allows us to build a "true" chair. The issue at hand being, of course, that since objects all are found to be empty upon final examination, that we still have to contend with where apparent "chariness" comes from, and therefore also all such-ness, "that"-ness, and ultimately the phenomenological experience of the apparent self. The existence of such a particular would have far reaching implications and consequences.
This style of inquiry is a search for svabhava, true self-substance. It is looking for the thing that exists from it's own side, a truly independent phenomena, the source of substance in the world. It is equivalent to the search for a substantive true self, and to the search for the god particle. It's hunting the Unicorn. Since we cannot find such a thing in the macroscopic reality, or simply the everyday world of objects and events, the notion that there is a fundamental, unique, and "bare" particular underneath it all, acting as the building block, would seem to solve the dilemma of the inherent uneasiness found in coming to terms with an "appearance only" based reality, particularly for the realists. Here is where the Buddhist "atomists" come from, and consequentially all fundamental materialists.
The logical conclusion of that solution to the problem...
The problem is that such a unique, or bare particular would still be an individual in possession of the characteristics of bareness, uniqueness, and particular-ness as its intrinsic nature, and to find the true individual behind the characteristics, or to find the individual holding that nature, it would have to be stripped back down beyond said qualities that it therefore has, requiring another bare/unique particular behind it to give it substance. We have to follow this chain of inquiry back infinity, never finding a termination point.
This issue is very skillfully dissected in Jan Westerhoff's Nāgārjuna‘s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction, published by Oxford Press.

"...if it is a bare particular by svabhāva and being a bare particular is therefore its intrinsic nature ... we can ask what the individual is in which being a bare particular inheres, and then we are well on our way to an infinite regress... we have to assume that the individual has some determinate nature due to which it is a bearer of its properties and the difficulty will just reappear with whatever we take such a nature to be."

So, if we have an individual, and that individual has the property of being a bare, or unique particular, then without that property what ground does that individual stand on? It's the same as saying that a chair cannot exist without its characteristics, and the characteristics do not exist as such without the chair. This is, from a Madhamaka point of view, the fundamental meaning of co-dependent origination, so from such a perspective if such a thing were to be found, that that would stand against the core Buddhist doctrine of sunyata.
Conequence...
The bare particular is landed on when examining an absolute creator, an absolute substance, a true, objective reality, the existence of real time, a true (meaning complete and consistent) axiomatic system, etc...
In the specific case of the bare particular it is shown that such a conceptualization is absurd, since we can conceive of a bare particular, but it falls into a co-dependent relationship with itself via its characteristics, and cannot exist outside of, or independent from mental conceptualization. In other words, it is mind dependent, and because of this, and the fact that this is essentially the only way to get at substance, so is every other level of such-ness, regards to the chair, or the self. You see? Without mind, without conceptualization inferring the existence of substance, of chariness, of self, there is no substance to be found, anywhere, with anything, beyond emptiness via dependent origination.
This is vast emptiness. This is the display of the true power of the mind and delusion. Somewhere, it is building the house, and the house has as its nature impermanence and suffering. The logical consequence, and final legitimate course of action is practice. So theory and practice do inform one another.
Incidentally...
Such a particular would break causality, as a true existent cannot be altered from its nature, and cannot therefore be interacted with. IN order for something to be causally potent, it has to be empty.
Such a particular would also mean that there is inherency in life, absolute positions, a central way and meaning of life, and therefore true hierarchies of values in terms of absolute right and wrong, etc. It would, as an eventual consequence of this, justify all atrocity.
Also, the atom is a great example because it breaks down into these sub-atomic particles that blink in and out of existence, exiting as wave/particle "things"
with only probable substance, and no absolute essence beyond, or apart from, the probable.
Your question
Since empirically adequate simply means that a statement is such "if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true", we have to ask, "what makes a true entity?" If we are going to ask that, we fall back on looking for the bare particular. In co-dependent origination we cannot find any true entities, so it becomes non-codependent non-origination from a certain light. So there is nothing "true" in an absolute sense to observe, just samsara. Because of this, every so called empirically adequate statement we could make about the observable universe would be a relative, conventional truth only. So, no. Empirically adequate does not, indeed cannot equate to unique particular, since it is a referent to conventional reality only, and therefore dependent.
The result of this is that we can regard all dharmas as dreams, and people have spent a great deal of their practice hours studying this approach. It is, as I understand this, the heart of such things as the Diamond Cutter.
TL;DR An empirically adequate statement can only refer to conventional reality, and as such, is a convectional truth and conventional designation itself, dependent on phenomena for existence, and therefore no... it is not a bare particular, or "true existent", or unique particular, or absolute truth as you posit. Such a thing cannot exist to begin with.This is a core fundamental of Buddhist thought, at least beginning with folks like Nagarjuna. We could assume all dharma's to be, in this way, empirically adequate, ultimately empty themselves. This is what makes Buddhist thought so sublime, and keeps the system legitimate. It is, in my understanding, the philosophical perfection in the system, and an important component of what makes it rise above "mere philosophy."

If I understand your last paragraph properly, Buddhism says: "If you are looking for the Truth, you will not find it here!" This is what makes Buddhism worth learning. "If it were not to be laughed at, it would not be sufficient to be The Tao."

I think it is more to the point to say that if you are looking for a final truth, then that truth is emptiness via dependent origination, no matter where you look. It is that empirically adequate statements can only be adequate in terms of conveying conventional truths, not absolute truth. The absolute or final truth about any phenomena is emptiness, or lack of inherent substance. So, contrary to your point, there is truth everywhere, if you know how to you look. Buddhism is more of a dialogue, or an instruction in how to look and see clearly. Also, Tao is Taoism, and is not found in Buddhism.

If only we would teach people this before they begin school, the world would be a better place. There is an idea in science that you can only explain things in terms of what they are not. This makes all knowledge ultimately - not circular - but broken. I know the Tao reference was not exactly on-topic, I was trying to bring in what I thought was a similar concept.

Teaching interdependence as a core part of a primary education would be great. Instructing our children in how to pay attention to the quality of their relationship with the world, how to listen to themselves and allow themselves to change, as opposed to clinging to self construct and all that feeds it, this would have a profound effect on society. The idea that we define things by what they are not (interdependence) is a complimentary truth, not necessarily implying that all is knowledge broken, just not absolute. We only need to acknowledge the two truths, that conventional truths are empty.

Adding in this as a separate comment, If you are interested in comparing emptiness in Taoism to emptiness in Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor explores this in his "Verses from the Center" which is an exploration of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, which is the book, that Jay Westerhoff was working with in my quote above. I highly recommend exploring it, but strongly suggest doing so with guidance.

In my experience, getting people who are "clinging to self construct and all that feeds it" to stop is impossible, and getting them to stop training their children in the same errors is very dangerous. So, this is why I focus on Self Inquiry and Nonduality (see my proposed SE site): people do not doubt their own experience and conclusions. As one teacher I know said, "We are trying to maneuver the mind in to a position where it disappears." Do that, and most of the obstacles to a worthwhile life fall away. I think thought-forms do not help us toward the goal of awakening and realization.

Wow, lots of thought devoted to an experiential reality. I am tempted to say that you can't think your way to understanding, but I like your question, and the fullness of the answer so far. Good effort.
I recently read a book By Ellen Birx, who is a recognized Buddhist teacher (the book is called Selfless Love). I am not a Buddhist, and not Zen in particular, but I find much accord with my personal experience there. So, in one chapter she talks about "Particularity", which I think is the opposite of what you mean by "unique particular". I would urge you to turn you idea around and see that absolutely all that we experience is unique, arising only once, with nothing whatsoever to back it up or that it springs from, depends on, was born of, dies back in to... There is no "there" there. There is only Experience (and the Void, of course). If you see a unique thing, event, person... it is a particular in the infinite flow of what is. It cannot help but be a unique, singular, once-ever-happening thing, because that is what Reality IS. A flow of this this this this with no organizing principle or framework behind it AT ALL.
Stop looking behind the rainbow to see what it is made of. See it.

I liked in the movie "Lucy" where she said, "We never really die." So beautiful!

From "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav: "If you are a happy person, then that is what you perfectly are—a happy person. If you are an unhappy person, then that is what you perfectly are—an unhappy person. ... That which is is that which is. That which is not is that which is."


text:
Are Aksobhya and Bhaisajyaguru the same buddha?
This page by Venerable Husan Hua says yes; this page by Zhuoge Rinpoche says no.

Apart from both being blue, the iconography of the two Buddha's is completely different - different mudras and implements for example. Their "function" is also different. One represents wisdom (Akṣobhya) and the other compassion (Bhaiṣajyaguru). if they are supposedly the same, then why are they so different?

This post on Dharma Wheel says that, at least in Japan, Aksobhya was venerated the same as the Medicine Buddha (i.e. as the Buddha to appeal to for dealing with this worldly medical problems) until news of Bhaisajyaguru's sutras arrived in Japan.
In any case, Shakyamuni is often described as a doctor and the Dharma as a diagnosis and prescription for what ails us.

Depends on which dimension of reality one talks about. From the mundane dimension, both Bhaisajyaguru and Aksobhya are Buddhas of the Eastern Pure Lands. And according to the Amitabha Sutra, there're countless Eastern Pure Lands Buddhas:

..."Śāriputra, thus do I now praise and extoll the inconceivable merit of Amitābha Buddha. In the East there are also Akṣobhya Buddha, Appearance of Sumeru Buddha, Great Sumeru Buddha, Radiance of Sumeru Buddha, Wondrous Sound Buddha, and thusly as many buddhas as there are sand grains in the Ganges River...

Then from a supramundane dimension, all Buddhas have transcended all wrong views (not-I), all cravings (not-mine), and all conceits (not-myself) ( ~~AN 3.32 ~~ ) and as a result, all notion of sameness or difference no longer applies.


text:
How does cause depend on its effect?
This philosophical treatment of Nagarjuna by Westerhoff talks about how a cause depends on its effect.
I think that this point is a stumbling block for me but in my philosophical interpretations of Buddhism and of life and death per se.
He says:

There are three different ways in which we can make sense of
  Nāgārjuna's assertion that the cause depends existentially on the
  effect.

And then proceeds to argue about them (which I cannot make complete sense of).
Is the idea that a conditioned cause must be conditioned by its effect, in the sense of having it as a part?

Approaching causal and effectual reliance through "times"
Past, Present, and Future are the three times.
Future, Past, and Present equally depend on each other.
If you try and draw a triangle with only one line or two lines, it is impossible.  All three need to be in place for the totality of "time."
In this way, it might be possible to reason more clearly about how causes depend on effects.
Approaching co-emergent phenomena via phor
Your question seems to be "okay causes lead to effects, but why do causes depend on effects?"
Two people high-fiving requires a silent clap from both sides.
The beach (of sand) and the shore-line (of water) depend upon one another.  To say there can be a beach without water is to have a desert.  To have water without a shore-line is not a shore, but an ocean.
Thus, investigating
The nature of where they meet
Noble Nagarjuna, in Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way states

Forms do not meet and they do not part.

Dogen-ji made a statement of similar magnitude by saying "Space has no gaps."
I will stop there, at risk of becoming too philosophical.  The teachings are meant for experiential understanding.  Words will help, but like reading a menu or eating a meal, the actual experience is what counts.
For now, know that the present is dominant and that both future and past must borrow from Now in order to even come into question.

Good question.
I have this magnificent book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are" by Dalai Lama.
And in this book he actually speaks about the question you are asking about - how a cause is dependent on its effect.
Dalai Lama explains it brilliantly in his book so i am going to quote him directly.
Both passages are from "Chapter 20: Notice How everything Depends on Thought, p. 201-203".

"For instance, it is obvious that effects depend upon causes, but causes also, in a subtle sense, depend upon effects. Every cause itself is an effect of its own causes, which preceded it, and therefore arises in dependence upon its respective causes. All Buddhist systems assert that effects arise in dependence upon causes. Here cause and effect are in a temporal sequence, an effect occurring after its cause. This is dependent-arising in the sense of dependent production. Only the highest philosophical perspective within Buddhism contains an additional consideration, that because the designation of something as a “cause” depends upon consideration of its effect, in this sense a cause depends upon its effect. Something is not a cause in and of itself; it is named a “cause” in relation to its effect. Here the effect does not occur before its cause, and its cause does not come into being after its effect; it is in thinking of its future effect that we designate something as a cause. This is dependent-arising in the sense of dependent designation."

He says further;

"As Nagarjuna says in his Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Called “Wisdom”:
  A doer is dependent on a doing, And a doing exists dependent on a doer. Except for dependently arising, we do not see another cause for their establishment. Agent and action depend upon each other. An action is posited in dependence upon an agent, and an agent is posited in dependence upon an action. An action arises in dependence upon an agent, and an agent arises in dependence upon an action. Nevertheless, they are not related in the same way as cause and effect, since the one is not produced before the other. How is it that, in general, things are relative? How is it that a cause is relative to its effect? It is because it is not established in and of itself. If that were the case, a cause would not need to depend on its effect. But there is no self-sufficient cause, which is why we do not find anything in and of itself when we analytically examine a cause, despite its appearance to our everyday mind that each thing has its own self-contained being. Because things are under the influence of something other than themselves, the designation of something as a cause necessarily depends upon consideration of its effect. This is the route through which we come to realize that this more subtle understanding of dependent-arising as dependent designation is correct."

Lanka

If I make your day bad, you're likely to come home to your wife in a rotten mood and she will have a tough time with you. Much like rings in the water. At the center you have X energy and then it fades along the way to 0. Everything is impermanent. However the energy of the process might trigger other similar processes to happen and those you can be hit by, but it is never your own started process. If your process has started two other processes out there, then you get it back in strength depending on how far out the other processes are. Because you're already sensitive to it you will get triggered again. But if you have learned to handle the "trigger", then the processes will have no effect.


text:
Karma instead of God's plan
Hello I wondered if the existence of karma (I believe in it anyway) can take the place of the concept of "God's plan" - which is how some people live with the horrors of Nihilism.
I am not a Christian but it seems to me that God's plan is what we humans are missing (existentially) since He died.

What are you expecting when you say "God's plan"?

It's difficult to understand this question. Are you simply asking, "Are Karma and God's Plan the same thing?"

no i'm asking about nihilism, and how people can live with themselves after the death of God

OK, that's a good question in itself, but how does that belong on Buddhism.SE?

i don't know, it seems to be about karma anyway

This is an interesting question. How can people live with themselves after the death of God. And it's not nihilistic but simply atheistic. This question probably belongs on Philosophy SE.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this belongs on philosophy.stackexchange.com

@Anthony not sure I agree, it has philosophical elements (e.g. death of god as nihilism) but it IS about Buddhist doctrine :)

OK I think I see where you are coming from. The question wording needs to be fixed; I will try to do it shortly.

What are you really asking, though? "Can karma be a source of comfort like God's Plan for Christians?" In that case the question is opinion-based and I would answer by saying "yes, but a practicing Buddhist should not rely on comfort."

I don't mean "comfort" as much as: can karma be a reason to suppose moral nihilism is not a fact?

God's plan implies a working towards some goal, or a rhyme or reason at least. Karma implies no such thing; it simply describes an orderliness to the mental aspect of reality, in the same way that physics does for the physical aspect. Karma is in fact to be abandoned, or risen above, in the end, to the extent that one performs neither wholesome nor unwholesome karma as an enlightened being.
Simply put, Buddhism admits of no plan to samsara; it is utterly meaningless and to be risen above or abandoned in the end. Karma simply describes a part of the mechanics of the system and is not in fact all that important to Buddhist practice, in comparison to realization of the nature of reality as impermanent, suffering, and non-self.

God's plan is someone else laying out your fate.Karma is you laying down your own fate.Karma is action done in the present moment.You can choose what you want to do in the present moment but have to live with the consequences.

I don't think that's necessarily the case :) your first statement i mean :)

i don't have to invoke any xtian mysticism to show how your response is a little hot headed. even if God's plan is his and not ours, that doesn't mean we can't choose to "act... in the present but... live with the consequences". not to mention the history of xtians who argued for free will.

Orion you're welcome to add to your answer to make sure it makes sense to me tho :)

hey.. relax..man. lol..just breath in count to three then exhale.trust me Everything is going to be alright. This is an excellent question but i get confused when its unclear, your not a  Christian but your asking about Gods plan to a Buddhist...I think that you will find Christian SE to be more qualified In answering the Christian concept of free will or God's plan .by the way what is xtians?? sounds sci fi- ish. Are you just too lazy to type Christians aww thas cute :" >

No it's about nietzsche my breathing is fine thanks. I'm just trying to understand what you are talking about haha


text:
Natural practice of meditation
Hey I just wondered: I met a high intensity theravadin meditator (who teaches it) and he defined the self enlightened as being meditators that no one had to teach. It came naturally, so to speak.
Is it possible to be practicing this untaught meditation but not be self enlightened?

and not have experienced "kensho" either - i mean !

A question can often be clarified by rephrasing it to include an explicit question mark: or two question marks, i.e. one question mark in the title and another in the text of the question.

A person who attains nirvana without hearing the Dhamma, by his own efforts and trials, is generally called a [characterization-prefix]-Buddha ("self enlightened" is an overdose of ambiguities). It's a long jump from "not being taught nirvana" to "came naturally", specially when there is a long period of striving and a very special kind of dedication in between.

@ThiagoSilva hello I think you are reading the wrong allusion into my term "naturally" I don't mean without effort I mean without the effort to learn it from others

Re. the first paragraph of your question, perhaps the teacher you met was talking about a so-called pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha (it's useful to know the technical word if you want to read more about it, see also e.g. the 'external links' etc. at the end of that article).

I could tell you some pseudo zen wisdom that I have learned to spinoff after reading zen masters from the past. Study Dogen or Shunryu Suzuki. I especially like Zen Mind Beginners Mind the uses the term Beginners Mind in place of enlightenment. Enlightenent sounds like something that strikes like lightning. Beginner's mind is more like a sudden wind that stops you in your tracks, you look around, and nothing is there. But you experienced something without preconception. Maybe a glimpse of beginners mind
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf


text:
Were the Zen Patriarchs reborn?
Was e.g. the 6th patriarch Huineng reborn? Was Dogen reborn?
I would think that Huineng wasn't (it's called the platform sutra for a reason) and Dogen was - though I don't know of anything he said to that effect

You're welcome. If the question is asked in the title, it's easier for users to understand when they see it on the right-hand column.

There are two implications to the question you ask:
If you imply that being reborn so that they can come back to earth to teach again like the Tibetan lamas, the answer is no. That is the path of a bodhisattva. The zen tradition is to gain enlightenment, instantly or gradually.
The second is that, have those patriarch reached enlightenment so that they will never be reborn? If you believe they were enlightened then they will not.