Meditate my sons

Meditate my sons

Attached: 1557123880018.png (490x627, 101K)

Don't rank and file buddhists just pray to buddha?

The future doesnt exist.
The past doesnt exist.
They would have to exist in the present which is impossible.

The present doesnt exist. It would have to exist between the future and past, which have been shown not to exist.

Are the present and the future dependent on the past or not?
If they are dependent on the past they must some how exist in the past. This is not tenable.
If independent of the past, they do not need the past to happen to arise, and can thus arise during the past. This is not tenable.

Time therefore does not exist objectively

Perception (the sight) does not exist separately from the Perceiver (the seeing eye) and the Perceived (the seen stone).

The Perceiver (the seeing eye) does not exist separately from the Perception (the sight) and the Perceived (the seen stone)

The Perceied (the seen stone) does not exist separately from the Perception (the sight) and the Perceiver (the seeing eye).

If there were perception without perceiver and perceived. It would be a perception of what? and by whom?

If there were a perceiver without perception and perceived. It simply would not be a perceiver. If the seeing eye could see without an object of vision - it would see itself - but doesn't.

If there were a perceived without perception and perceiver. It simply would not be a perceived thing. . If the seen stone could be seen without an subject viewer - it would be seen by itself - but it isn't.

Thus outside of these relationally derived imputations of perception...., there is nothing to be perceived, nothing to perceive and nothing which is perception.

I don’t want to be a plant

there is no self.
they say the self is the sum of the body, the thoughts, senses, feelings and the bodily functions (heart beating etc).

but where in any of these individually can you find the self? Is the self in the body which goes from baby to adult, which sees hair grow and fall out?
is the self in the thoughts that constantly come and go, imagined anew and freshly forgotten?
is the self in the sensual perceptions? in the new sights, smells, touching feelings? this would mean the self would be constantly changing with new information.
is the self in the feelings? are you yourself when you are happy? or isit when you are sad? do you stop being yourself with the change of mood?
is the self in the bodily functions of living? as long as your heart beats and your gut digests and your neurons fire is that you as a self - then you are no more a beating heart.

none of these are self. taken together they cannot be self since they are all shown to be in constant flux.

does the self exist separately from these things? then what sense would it be to even mention your body or thoughts or feelings ... in relation to self?

there is no self outside of the illusion of self

Does a bundle of sticks share the quality of oneness with a single stick?

Or is oneness not an objective reality (ie numbers and the relations between them lacking essence) but instead an imputation onto reality to make sense of it?

There are no real underlying objects in dreams or phantasms - yet the perceptions in these seems to gift you seemingly real objects.

Why does the same not hold for waking moments? Does substantial reality rely on the 2/3rds of the day you are awake and not dreaming and in the 1/3rd of the day non-substantial reality arises?

why would that be the case?
there needn't be an objective substantial reality for things to seem real

the only reason things are as they are is.
is because of the regularity of which an imputation that is imposed on it.

the glyph '1' only represents the number or concept 'one' because of conventions and the regularity of its application. it is not inherently one.

however even the number or concept 'one' only exists because of conventions and the regularity of its application, not because it actually exists.

if there were a different number say denoted by this glyph } that had a bunch of properties that defied conventional mathematics and was completely unobservable in nature, objectively speaking it would be no more or less existent than the established 'one' - however of course in convention and regularity of its application it would be totally non-existent.

Why is a made up impossible number that is so impossibly illogical that our minds cannot even comprehend it, on the same objective level as 'one' which seems so self-evidently true? because neither are really real, both are just conventions - '1' is just a more convenient and regular convention than the number '}'

all mental and perceptual conceptions lack essential nature and all is dependent on conditions, usefulness alone determines how 'real' they seem.

I dont think their worship is the same as praying to jeebus.

Technically they are only paying respects to him. The buddha isnt real, nothing is