Why Is There Anything At All?

[cappuccino]

He wouldn't have understood that the self is dependently originated.

this is flawed because it believes in the self

[dicsoncandra]

He wouldn't have understood that the self is dependently originated.

this is flawed because it believes in the self

again, Vacchagotta's view is black and white and he wouldn't have understood dependent origination. what you said is exactly why the self is flawed: it believes in its own independence but that is not the case.

edit: how was 'atta' defined by the brahmanic religion? it is the self that is permanent, unchanging and uncaused

the Buddha taught dependent origination and that is enough said

[cappuccino]

the self is flawed. it believes in its own independence but that is not the case.

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'


Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

[dicsoncandra]

the self is flawed. it believes in its own independence but that is not the case.

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'


Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

so you're agreeing to my point now?

[cappuccino]

so you're agreeing to my point now?

not exactly


however it is difficult to clarify

[Dweller]

People are holding a coin called self view and staring at one side of it where it says: there is a self.

Buddha says throw the coin away, but many just turn it around and stare at the other side of it were it says: there is no self.

[cappuccino]

People are holding a coin called self view and staring at one side of it where it says: there is a self.

Buddha says throw the coin away, but many just turn it around and stare at the other side of it were it says: there is no self.

[dicsoncandra]

so you're agreeing to my point now?

not exactly


however it is difficult to clarify

well then, let's step up our understanding of the Buddha Dhamma. I too have more readings to do in regard to the six-sense bases and dependent origination since i have not fully understood it just yet. you can let me know if you have any further questions

[dicsoncandra]

People are holding a coin called self view and staring at one side of it where it says: there is a self.

Buddha says throw the coin away, but many just turn it around and stare at the other side of it were it says: there is no self.

agree, those are the annihilationists or those who deny rebirth

[cappuccino]

I too have more readings to do in regard to … dependent origination since I have not fully understood it just yet.

kitchen sink

[dicsoncandra]

I too have more readings to do in regard to … dependent origination since I have not fully understood it just yet.

kitchen sink

[dicsoncandra]

[Bundokji]

The article emphasizes the issue of "precedence" on several occasions:

"phenomena precedes existence"
"appearance precedes existence"
"existence precedes essence"
"life precedes life’s meaning"
"existence is assumed to precede appearance"
"this is beside the point and is a misconception based on the assumption that ‘time’ takes precedence over ‘experience’, whilst in reality ‘experience’ is that which comes first."

When one reads the article, one gets the impression that the opening question (the fundamental question of metaphysics!) is not "why is there anything rather than nothing", but rather ""which came first: the chicken or the egg?". Then we engage with mental gymnastics to determine which one precedes the other in order to designate assumptions from the primordial, then voilà!

[dicsoncandra]

The article emphasizes the issue of "precedence" on several occasions:

"phenomena precedes existence"
"appearance precedes existence"
"existence precedes essence"
"life precedes life’s meaning"
"existence is assumed to precede appearance"
"this is beside the point and is a misconception based on the assumption that ‘time’ takes precedence over ‘experience’, whilst in reality ‘experience’ is that which comes first."

When one reads the article, one gets the impression that the opening question (the fundamental question of metaphysics!) is not "why is there anything rather than nothing", but rather ""which came first: the chicken or the egg?". Then we engage with mental gymnastics to determine which one precedes the other in order to designate assumptions from the primordial, then voilà!

if you have read on existentialism their primary concern is on existence, to which they can't find any explanation on and then made the assumption that this being with consciousness must be that which comes first. at the end of it, the Buddha showed how to get over that roadblock by examining the nature of all phenomena in the general - aligning one's view to the experience of anicca, dukkha, anatta. voilà!

edit: the answer is there, which is the presence (of phenomena) just is - positive, affirmative, undoubtable, unquestionable. though may be unsatisfactory but nevertheless real. it's almost like the brute fact approach but explaining the logic from the ground up (via experience)

[Bundokji]

if you have read on existentialism their primary concern is on existence, to which they can't find any explanation on and then made the assumption that this being with consciousness must be that which comes first. at the end of it, the Buddha showed how to get over that roadblock by examining the nature of all phenomena in the general - aligning one's view to the experience of anicca, dukkha, anatta. voilà!

Knowing anicca dukkha anatta requires prior knowledge of the primary concern of the existentialists?

How about explaining "why is there anything at all" through evolutionary theory? that at some point in our evolution, we appear to have developed a higher degree of reflexivity than other animals. I do not see the dhammic value of introducing the existentialists/phenomenologist view than the evolutionary one. Who knows, maybe we have not aligned our experience with Darwinism enough to experience anicca, dukkha, anatta