Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created

Post by bahman »

Let's assume that something that cannot be destroyed can be created. Let's call the process of creation as A. Let's call the reverse process of A as B. We assumed that A is possible. B is possible since it is a process and it is the reverse of A. But B is nothing but the process of destruction. This means that the assumption is wrong. Therefore, Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:55 pm Therefore, Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created.
A thing is known in the exact same instance of knowing.

Knowing can neither be created nor destroyed, without first knowing the concepts, and concepts know nothing of their creation or destruction, because they are insearable from their knowing.

How can this ONE knowing which is always NOW...be created or destroyed?
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created

Post by Dimebag »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:35 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:55 pm Therefore, Something that cannot be destroyed cannot be created.
A thing is known in the exact same instance of knowing.

Knowing can neither be created nor destroyed, without first knowing the concepts, and concepts know nothing of their creation or destruction, because they are insearable from their knowing.

How can this ONE knowing which is always NOW...be created or destroyed?
If this One knowing, which knows itself as no thing, is deemed to be without any dependent origination, it is without a cause, and therefore was not created nor could be destroyed, some might call that the “turia” or the fourth state of consciousness. Zen or Buddhist schools might call it unborn, or emptiness and describe it as self luminous.

It is curious, when I look back at the moment I realised the sakshi or “witness” there were many insights which cam along with it, but one was that, although I hadn’t realised it until that moment, I also realised it was always there.

Yet I wonder, was it always there before I was born? And who am I, the one claiming to have been born, sure this one is different to the witness, and probably different still to the unborn emptiness and turia. Yet, if all is that, there is no difference.

All are dependently arisen within the unborn, or turia.

Like waves in water. The ground is without any substance. Yet all substance arises from it.
Post Reply