Philosophy by Mudjadjii
Today i want travel with you in the journey that starts in ignorance and ends in the knowledge.
The Quest for the Truth.
And today i will Reveal the nature of reality according to the great school of philosophy: Buddhism.
It is with a great pleasure that i want to share with you, no other, but the great school of light.
According to this school;
There are two ways in which a statement may be true; a) conventional and b) Ultimately.
To say of a statement that it is conventionally true is to say that action base on its acceptance reliably leads to successful practice: Our commonsense convictions concerning ourselves and the world. Conventions that have been found to be useful in everyday practice.
Corresponds to the nature of reality and neither asserts nor presupposes the existence of any mere conceptual fiction.
Something that was thought to exist only because of facts about us concept - users and concepts that we happens to employ.
There are four possible ways in which in which existents might be thought to happen.
All four way are rejected by the school of Buddhism.
" not from itself, not from another, not from both, nor without cause"
Not from itself.
When an effect seems to arise, it does because it was already in some sense present is its cause; its appearance is really the manifestation of something that already existed.
That if that out of which the existent arose were really existent itself, then it should have the intrinsic nature of the existent.
Not from Another.
Cause and effect are distinct entities.
This would mean that the the existent must borrow its nature from its cause, thus making its nature something that is extrinsic; in the absence of the intrinsic nature of the existent in question, its extrinsic nature is likewise not to be found.
Not from Both.
The cause and effect may be said to be identical and distinct.
Since there are no causes an originating thing could not be said to originate neither from itself or from something distinct.
Next Buddhism explain why the Sense Organs and it objects and the Mind and its objects cannot be the Ultimately Reality:
" vision, hearing, taste, smell,touch and the mind are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields.
In no way does the vision see itself.
If vision does not see itself, how will see what is other?
When there is no vision whatsoever in the absence of seeing, how can it be right to say vision see?
Vision does not see, nor does vision see.
one should understand that the seer is explained in the same way as vision.
There is no seer with the vision or without.
If the seer is nonexistent, how will there be what is to be seen and vision.
An entity cannot operate on itself: Vision does not see things other than itself either vision does not see anything at all.
The scent of Jasmine first pervade the flower and then pervades what comes in contact with the flower.
A property of something can come to pervade something else only if the property pervade the thing itself.
For an object to be seen is for it to be pervade by the property of being seen.
If seeing is the intrinsic nature of vision must manifest this intrinsic nature independently of the other things.
This means that vision should be able to see even in the absence of any visible object.
If vision were ultimately real its intrinsic nature would be seeing.
Corporeal objects or Physical, Feeling, Perception, Volition and Consciousness cannot be Ultimately Real either.
" Objects are not found separate from the cause of the objects.
Nor is the cause of the objects seen without objects.
If objects were separate from the cause of the objects, then it would follow that objects are uncaused; but no object whatsoever is without cause.
Moreover, if the cause of the objects were separate from objects the cause would be without effect; but there is no cause that is without effect."
According to the Buddhist Philosophy Objects have as their cause the four elements (earth, water, fire and air).
If the objects were distinct from the elements, then would be possible objects exist separately from the elements.
To be Ultimately Real is to have intrinsic nature; just to the extent that its being what it does not depend on the nature of the other things.
" It is not correct to say that intrinsic nature is produced by means of cause and conditions.
An intrinsic nature that was produced by causes and conditions would be a product.
But how could there ever be an intrinsic nature that is a product?
For intrinsic nature is not adventitious, nor is it dependent on something else.
Given the nonexistent of intrinsic nature, how will there be extrinsic nature?
For extrinsic nature is said to be intrinsic nature of another existent.
Further, without intrinsic nature and extrinsic nature how can there be an existent?
For an existent is established given the existence of either intrinsic nature or extrinsic nature.
If existent is unestablished , the n the non existent too is not established.
For people proclaim the nonexistent to be the alteration of the existent."
The intrinsic nature of newly arisen thing cannot have already been in the causes and conditions that produced that thing; it is pointless; If there is heat in the fuel how bother to start fire.
Intrinsic nature of an existent could not be something that depends on its components parts and their natures.
Extrinsic nature is nature that is borrowed from something distinct such as the heat of the water or the shape of the chariot.
Something can be called an existent only if it has some nature, either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Spiritual Seaker And Devoted Philosophy Student
Comment, Like, Share, Subscribe my email list to have more contents