Originally posted by sinweiy:i do wonder that only Buddha is all knowing. that by seeing a person He can see his/her past karma/affinities for countless life time, even more than an arhat of 500 past lifes and know what he/she will happen in the future. like how He predicted eventually in the future, the Buddha name of the arahats in Lotus sutra. or the coming of the next Buddha or the ending of earth, generally. there's also a story that during a alm round, Buddha only ask one of his disciple to enter a house. as the owner only have affinity with his disciple. etc.
/\
Don't know if this answer fits your question:-
The four imponderables are:
"Your predictions belies the need for everthing being a constant,everything contained within, but the universe as a whole is infinite, and is not contained within, except as concept taken as one whole. What you have manage to grasp and envisaged it to be and then some more,and then some more..."
I did mention about closed systems.... No need to predict end of the world or how/ when the world ends. The next phase would be another closed system, where select few may have a glimpse over here....
"Even as we has the ability to discover a particle smaller than the previous one, you will also correspondingly find a bigger universe when technology allows."
Pardon me... I don't see the relevance....
"It is possible that everything comes into a cycle in due course, but on what time scale?The Sun, seen in context with the human lifespan or even the human race's lifespan will seem infinite, but not so, it too eventuallly will go extinct. As the did the dinosaurs, extinct. And that they grew so big due to one huge land mass that they grew to massive proportions. Will they ever come back, or be they huge as they were before? Not likely. Conditions not there."
Cycles will go on as long as there's equilibrium. When the limits of equilibrium is breached, a new cycle forms.... Not about hypothetical conditions.
"I put my hand in a moving stream,the constant sensation of coldness reaches my hand, but why is it cold? It appears to be same the river, but is it the same water (molecules) brushing pass my hands? So now, is it the same river?"
Your hands feels cold at the touch just because the skin is at a higher temperature. As long as river flows, its still the same river.
"I am not even the same person I was. Part of me used to be the chicken I ate yesterday, part of me is going to be the shit I excrete. I just believe that I am the same person. And I am going to be old and feeble a decade later, maybe not, not if I die before that or I change a better lifestyle. Yes. death is a certainty, but when? Also a mundane event taking place at different time or location, it is really the same thing. That I eating rice today and tomorrow, is it the same? Or similar actions?"
No two things are exactly the same.... at different times. There are signs when one is dead.
"We believe them to be same even though they are not, but the only constant is the process, conditions in place. So our perception is actually flawed. The so called cycle is the process."
I see you misunderstood... Things mundane flows in one direction... cycles are actually reversible. I'm still me yesterday. I'd be different tomorrow.
[ "Even as we has the ability to discover a particle smaller than the previous one, you will also correspondingly find a bigger universe when technology allows."
Pardon me... I don't see the relevance....]
Finite and infinite, one is finite interaction of factors, the other is the inifinite possibilities of interaction.
["I put my hand in a moving stream,the constant sensation of coldness reaches my hand, but why is it cold? It appears to be same the river, but is it the same water (molecules) brushing pass my hands? So now, is it the same river?"
Your hands feels cold at the touch just because the skin is at a higher temperature. As long as river flows, its still the same river.]
What constitutes a river? Water, or a stream of water coursing through the land, is it the same water you are seeing now(at the same location a moment ago) , The form percieved as "river" exists a concept in our mind. Functionality of the river is the same, understanding it as the aggregate of different factors is not the same. If I were to scoop a small bowl of river water and put my hand in it, the water will slowly warm to the temperature of my reaching equilibrium, eventually I do not feel cold. Because I come to contact to different water of the river, the is a constant sensation of coldness until my hands numbs.["I am not even the same person I was. Part of me used to be the chicken I ate yesterday, part of me is going to be the shit I excrete. I just believe that I am the same person. And I am going to be old and feeble a decade later, maybe not, not if I die before that or I change a better lifestyle. Yes. death is a certainty, but when? Also a mundane event taking place at different time or location, it is really the same thing. That I eating rice today and tomorrow, is it the same? Or similar actions?"
No two things are exactly the same.... at different times. There are signs when one is dead.]
Why do we only realise we are not permanent only when somethings dies, because we see the difference is activity and non activity. When one is alive one take in things to incorporate into the activity called living thing. When something dies, it is not longer taking in things, instead other processes of other factors take over.
"We believe them to be same even though they are not, but the only constant is the process, conditions in place. So our perception is actually flawed. The so called cycle is the process."
I see you misunderstood... Things mundane flows in one direction... cycles are actually reversible. I'm still me yesterday. I'd be different tomorrow.
Cycles perpetuate with neccessary conditions being in place, allowing the cyclic process, a closed loop. Like clockwork, throw a spanner in the works, cyclic process stops.
"Finite and infinite, one is finite interaction of factors, the other is the inifinite possibilities of interaction."
Being finite is only a part of - infinity ~ infinity. Actually there are infinite interactions if you consider quantum mechanisms.... Any action (infinite) can be applied, there can be any (infinite) interactions in any (infinite) cycles. Infinity breaches breed infinity cycle. Finite breach however may produce infinite cycles....
"What constitutes a river? Water, or a stream of water coursing through the land, is it the same water you are seeing now(at the same location a moment ago) , The form percieved as "river" exists a concept in our mind. Functionality of the river is the same, understanding it as the aggregate of different factors is not the same. If I were to scoop a small bowl of river water and put my hand in it, the water will slowly warm to the temperature of my reaching equilibrium, eventually I do not feel cold. Because I come to contact to different water of the river, the is a constant sensation of coldness until my hands numbs."
And the target water is no longer a river... Its a bowl of water. Change of cycles. Conversely, I'd say the skin cools to the temperature of the water which means the feeling of coldness is the temperature difference between the water and the skin. I word it as such simply because one does not control how much heat is given. You do know that its no longer a river if it doesn't flows, right? Or are you diverting to hypothermia?
"Why do we only realise we are not permanent only when somethings dies, because we see the difference is activity and non activity. When one is alive one take in things to incorporate into the activity called living thing. When something dies, it is not longer taking in things, instead other processes of other factors take over. "
I thought I made clear of my stance when I say " I'm still me yesterday. I'd be different tomorrow." ... How assuming....
Btw, decomposition is also a cycle....
"Cycles perpetuate with neccessary conditions being in place, allowing the cyclic process, a closed loop. Like clockwork, throw a spanner in the works, cyclic process stops."
Depends if the spanner breach the limits of equilibrum, if it does another cycle starts. Perhaps I should replace "reversible" as "reverse engineered" to be more clear....
Being finite is only a part of - infinity ~ infinity. Actually there are infinite interactions if you consider quantum mechanisms.... Any action (infinite) can be applied, there can be any (infinite) interactions in any (infinite) cycles. Infinity breaches breed infinity cycle. Finite breach however may produce infinite cycles....
Finite breach will lead to multitudes of finite cycles, not infinite. I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, please enlighten me. Probably our definitions do not concur!
And the target water is no longer a river... Its a bowl of water. Change of cycles. Conversely, I'd say the skin cools to the temperature of the water which means the feeling of coldness is the temperature difference between the water and the skin. I word it as such simply because one does not control how much heat is given. You do know that its no longer a river if it doesn't flows, right? Or are you diverting to hypothermia?
The point I am trying to make is that river is simply the aggregate of all the different factors happening concurrently and in series. The main component is water, without water there can be no rivers! Fresh water lakes drains to the sea and is therefore moving and yet we call them lakes. Most lakes are long as compared to wide seen from above! We are obsessed with appearance of things, aren't we, heh!heh! What if I take that bowl of water taken from the river and call it river water,heh! heh! Heat transfer is achieved by (forced) convection and conduction. Forced convection is the brushing of individual water molecules against our skin that we lose heat. Same appearance, different water! Am I wrong if I called the phenomena of a river a process? What is sustaining it is a cycle which also a process , but the river is still only a process.
I thought I made clear of my stance when I say " I'm still me yesterday. I'd be different tomorrow." ... How assuming....
I must have missed that in our correspondence, I read your stance, but forgive me,I do not understand your implication., therefore have not made any assumptions to that regard! Please elaborate. Especially your "me" part, what is "me"?
Btw, decomposition is also a cycle....
Decomposition is a process, which is only part of a cycle, conditions permitting. If I isolate it from other conditions forming a cycle, it remains just a process.
The point I am trying to make is introduction of new factors into the equilibrium, constituting a breach.
Depends if the spanner breach the limits of equilibrum, if it does another cycle starts. Perhaps I should replace "reversible" as "reverse engineered" to be more clear....
Reverse engineer a cycle is possible, but what about reverse engineering an organic decomposition cycle?
"Finite breach will lead to multitudes of finite cycles, not infinite. I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, please enlighten me. Probably our definitions do not concur!"
To be sexist, a breach of virginity will lead to infinite cycles, as its not stopping people from procreating. I'm not familiar too, I just found out nothing is nothing...
I think I know the point, you are trying to make... Process runs cycles. Like the sun runs the water cycle. One question: what are your views on "free" will?
As oppose to decomposition, i think anything that's growing (organic/ inorganic).
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Finite breach will lead to multitudes of finite cycles, not infinite. I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, please enlighten me. Probably our definitions do not concur!"
To be sexist, a breach of virginity will lead to infinite cycles, as its not stopping people from procreating. I'm not familiar too, I just found out nothing is nothing...
I think I know the point, you are trying to make... Process runs cycles. Like the sun runs the water cycle. One question: what are your views on "free" will?
As oppose to decomposition, i think anything that's growing (organic/ inorganic).
To be sexist, a breach of virginity will lead to infinite cycles, as its not stopping people from procreating. I'm not familiar too, I just found out nothing is nothing...
I think I know the point, you are trying to make... Process runs cycles. Like the sun runs the water cycle. One question: what are your views on "free" will?
Neither absolute determinism nor freewill,I am trying to refine my views and understanding through this discourse. I am leaning towards the Buddhist view. I find that actions one takes is very much determined by our circumstances, and our rational and emotional needs.
Did a search: -
Buddhism accepts both freedom and determinism (or something similar to it), but rejects the idea of an agent, and thus the idea that freedom is a free will belonging to an agent.[85] According to the Buddha, "There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out from one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements."[85] Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. It preaches a middle doctrine, named pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit, which is often translated as "inter-dependent arising". It is part of the theory ofkarma in Buddhism. The concept of karma in Buddhism is different from the notion of karma in Hinduism. In Buddhism, the idea of karma is much less deterministic. The Buddhist notion of karma is primarily focused on the cause and effect of moral actions in this life, while in Hinduism the concept of karma is more often connected with determining one's destiny in future lives.
In Buddhism it is taught that the idea of absolute freedom of choice (i.e. that any human being could be completely free to make any choice) is foolish, because it denies the reality of one's physical needs and circumstances. Equally incorrect is the idea that we have no choice in life or that our lives are pre-determined. To deny freedom would be to deny the efforts of Buddhists to make moral progress (through our capacity to freely choose compassionate action). Pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous actions, is considered a wrong view according to Buddhist doctrines. Because Buddhists also reject agenthood, the traditional compatibilist strategies are closed to them as well. Instead, the Buddhist philosophical strategy is to examine the metaphysics of causality. Ancient India had many heated arguments about the nature of causality with Jains, Nyayists, Samkhyists, C�rv�kans, and Buddhists all taking slightly different lines. In many ways, the Buddhist position is closer to a theory of "conditionality" than a theory of "causality", especially as it is expounded by Nagarjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakak�rik�.[85]
As oppose to decomposition, i think anything that's growing (organic/ inorganic).
General usage of composition yes, however there is also chemical decomposition.
It is probably more easy to reverse engineer chemical decomposition.
"Ha! Ha! Not keeping count does'nt mean infinite, just means lost count!"
I actually mean to say people will still f*** around as long as they are around. XD
"Neither absolute determinism nor freewill,I am trying to refine my views and understanding through this discourse. I am leaning towards the Buddhist view. I find that actions one takes is very much determined by our circumstances, and our rational and emotional needs. "
The action anyone takes is confined or subjected by what you mentioned or more. By this alone, I found peace in accepting people don't have a choice in doing the things they do, however stupid or... intolerable. (Evil is another subject)
Free will is a believe originating from self, so I thought perhaps practioners of the Buddhist path would reject it. As for determinism... its disputable.
"It is probably more easy to reverse engineer chemical decomposition."
My handphone needs charging...
Originally posted by Weychin:Don't know if this answer fits your question:-
The four imponderables are:
- The range of Buddhas' powers
- The range of powers through jhana
- The results of kamma
- The ultimate nature or size of the universe
ya,
There are only four inponderables in Buddhism -
§ 22. "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four? The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]... The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]... The results of kamma... Speculation about [the first moment, purpose, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation."
/\