To be or not to be or both or neither or none of the before

[samabudhi]

What's the difference between creation and reaction?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

What's the difference between creation and reaction?

perception and/or perspective

creation--set process in motion
reaction--reciprocate or alter process or motion

[earl]

Well the title of the thread certainly seems to invoke Nagarjuna. Perhaps Vajradhara would like to elaborate. I'm too lazy to say more...or maybe that's a "Zen thing" re not saying more But as to the creation-reaction dynamic, as with so much of the Buddhhist slant on process, I'd say it is not entirely distinct and perhaps more acurate to simply speak of action as creation-reaction seem to imply distinct beginnig & end points among other things. Yet some event or thing engenders a response from me which in turn engenders a response from another part of this thing we call Life. Where did it begin? Where does it end? Have a good one, Earl

[jiii]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by creation and reaction in this context. Though, I think that creation as an 'occurence', so to speak, is any state of affairs observed in its most fundamental spontaneity. 'Observed' is the key word, really, because that which can arguably be called 'creation' in the variety of ways this word functions differs and varies considerably between places, and between societies and indivduals and experiences.

That is to say, 'creation' can mean many things depending on your point of view. To a Christian, for instance, creation hearkens directly to biblical allusion and symbolism. This is only the most literal example, however. Creation occurs as the artist paints and the musician plays, and it occurs in a way that we can very easily discern. Creation is observed in some very unlikely places, too. The Norsemen made their home in a sub-arctic and volcanically-active region of the world. For them, the destructive tendencies and sharp contrasts of nature represented the most holy vestige of creative forces, and their idea of creation might sometimes appear much closer to what is often differentiated as destruction. Thus, creation is not totally antithetical to destruction, even though in many cases it appears as such. Even this, though, is creation observed in an indirect light. In fact, creation is always occurring, as even the most average person is a walking creation in and of themselves, always occurring...after all, you never do KNOW what anybody will do next, though we tend to believe that we do, at times. We are all truly creations in this way, though habitual lifestyles and learned thinking patterns typically obscure this from our day to day attention.

Reaction, which for the West was originally defined technically by Isaac Newton, is action as 'caused' by another preceding action or series of actions. Much of this relies on a few simple principles. Here's the first law: "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them." The third of Newton's laws states that: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This viewpoint of reaction sees all action as an infinitely-expansive, interconnected field of reactions caused by other reactions. This differs from the creative viewpoint that tends to observe things as spontaneously-occurring. Creation is more-so the viewpoint of objet truve, of seeing in things the inherent mirror that reflects the structure of the entire mysterious cosmos, in the same way that every complex portion of our body reflects the minute detail of a single genetic code.

Thus, creation is a state observed as occurring of itself, as happening not by a means so much as by an indefinable and irreducible presence. Reaction is a phenomenon that is observed when actions are understood as resulting from, being created BY, other actions, which are in turn brought about by earilier reactions to other reactions and so on, ad infinitum.

Interestingly, a viewpoint of the Universe from the standpoint of reaction and Newtownian physics might be called 're-creation'. That is, Newtonian physics suggests action occurs only in reaction to other actions. The creative or spontaneous arising of this motion, however, remains unaddressed, merely denied. Thus, Newtownian Laws crystallized in much of the world a conceptual basis for creation that begged for tangible and conceptual completion. Even today, we attempt to grab hold, conceptually-define, perhaps 'recreate', ourselves psychologically, technologically, mathematically, and scientifically, photographically, bionically, genetically, and robotically. From the standpint of reaction, one seeks to 'recognize' creative potential, so that we might say," This is it, here is creation!" But the leads this process yields are always subject to error, and this sometimes comes at the cost of one's 'cognizance' of such creation.

However, reaction is not necessarily mutually-exclusive from creation, as all reactions are creations observed as being brought about by things or events that occurred earlier. Newtownian laws do not entirely address spontaneous creation, though they do deny that action occurs without being caused by another action. Reaction and creation are two, sometimes overlapping ways of looking at things, really.

[samabudhi]

My agenda is to free myself from reactions. I want a happiness not based on external conditions. Whether I am hot or cold, surrounded by filth or beauty, I would not have reaction to anything. My actions, through body, speech and mind, should be as you say, spontaneous. A natural creation free from all such fabrications as you have listed.

We don't talk about it much on this forum, but there are some really profound methods for achieving such a state. They involve much fabrication from the beginning, which is why they are chided by many Buddhists who have not experienced their efficacy. For instance, one would visualise oneself as the embodiment of compassion, and to the novice, this might seem like a fabrication. But really, the fabrication is probably closer to the reality, while our present state, to a fabrication.

The difference between creating the visualisation and reacting to causes and conditions which result in one experiencing the visualistion is based on motivation. This is what naive ascetic practices miss. Adherents attempt to starve the body, or the mind, thinking this is cutting the chain of cause and effect and freeing them from the cycle of karma. The same with vegetarians. They have not found the root of action, which is intention. However, the intention needs to be based on a correct view, otherwise it is not only ineffectual, but counterproductive. (Wrong views being considered the greatest sin in certain Buddhist traditions) So, visualising oneself as the embodiment of compassion is fine, since this is the highest view.

In a similar vein, one can be inspired by posts on comparative-religion, or one can react to them blindly. I think it fair to say that reaction is ignorant/unintentional, whereas the creation of a reply is based on your choice/intention to do so. Yummy.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

it has been a good discussion thus far.

Samabudhi, i would offer that the only difference between these two terms is based on perception that said two terms are indicative of some sort of reality which is independent of the experiencer.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

it has been a good discussion thus far.

Samabudhi, i would offer that the only difference between these two terms is based on perception that said two terms are indicative of some sort of reality which is independent of the experiencer.

metta,

~v

Known and Unknown. Self and Other. I guess that this is where the expression, "know thyself" is applied.
It's interesting how the visualizations Samabudhi mentioned fit in with this.

[earl]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

My agenda is to free myself from reactions. I want a happiness not based on external conditions. Whether I am hot or cold, surrounded by filth or beauty, I would not have reaction to anything. My actions, through body, speech and mind, should be as you say, spontaneous. A natural creation free from all such fabrications as you have listed.

We don't talk about it much on this forum, but there are some really profound methods for achieving such a state. They involve much fabrication from the beginning, which is why they are chided by many Buddhists who have not experienced their efficacy. For instance, one would visualise oneself as the embodiment of compassion, and to the novice, this might seem like a fabrication. But really, the fabrication is probably closer to the reality, while our present state, to a fabrication.

The difference between creating the visualisation and reacting to causes and conditions which result in one experiencing the visualistion is based on motivation. This is what naive ascetic practices miss. Adherents attempt to starve the body, or the mind, thinking this is cutting the chain of cause and effect and freeing them from the cycle of karma. The same with vegetarians. They have not found the root of action, which is intention. However, the intention needs to be based on a correct view, otherwise it is not only ineffectual, but counterproductive. (Wrong views being considered the greatest sin in certain Buddhist traditions) So, visualising oneself as the embodiment of compassion is fine, since this is the highest view.

In a similar vein, one can be inspired by posts on comparative-religion, or one can react to them blindly. I think it fair to say that reaction is ignorant/unintentional, whereas the creation of a reply is based on your choice/intention to do so. Yummy.

OK, now I understand what you meant by your first post. Sure, truly "creating"/choosing implies an intentional, aware, informed (on-the-road-to- enlightenment), act. The trick in Buddhism, of course, is making "good" choices without being a "chooser." Have a good one, earl

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Known and Unknown. Self and Other.

both of these points of view are from the presumed existence of "I" and "other" of "me" and "them". such a view is unfounded and is predicated upon a function of the ego which, ultimately, is also non-existent in any independent sense.

I guess that this is where the expression, "know thyself" is applied.

i'm not really sure how this would be applicable here... could you elaborate a bit?

It's interesting how the visualizations Samabudhi mentioned fit in with this.

indeed, the Vajrayana has a whole host of progressively adavanced visualization methods which, if engaged in, will produce the desired fruit. the real differece here is one of approach more than anything else.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

both of these points of view are from the presumed existence of "I" and "other" of "me" and "them". such a view is unfounded and is predicated upon a function of the ego which, ultimately, is also non-existent in any independent sense.

When you make the distiction between "creation" and "reaction," are you not separating the interactive elements? Wouldn't this perspective naturally lead to the identification of these interactive elements into such classes as "known and unknown," "action and reaction," and "self-controlled and other-controlled?"

• "Creation" implies "will," which suggests an expansion of "will-consciousness-intention" onto areas where this specific application of "will-consciousness-intention" did not formerly occupy.
• "Reaction" implies a separation of phenomena, into the classes of "not actively controlled" {cause of reaction, or action}and "actively controlled" {reaction.}

Without the concept of "self," {or sphere of active conscious influence} doesn't the concept of creation/reaction become meaningless?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm not really sure how this would be applicable here... could you elaborate a bit?

Again, if you wish to preserve the concept of creation/reaction, along with the classification of the interactive elements listed above, wouldn't mindfulness of the extent of your influence and knowledge of the consequences of your actions in the skillful application of your intentions constitute "knowing yourself?" {especially in the areas where the consequences will reach that are outside of your ability to continually observe or contact.}

Wouldn't the practice illustrated by samabudhi above qualify as "redefining oneself?" From my perspective, it seems like its essentially a matter of semantics, or linguistic constructions. JMHO.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

When you make the distiction between "creation" and "reaction," are you not separating the interactive elements?

that is a fair point. this is not an activity which i typically engage in. i do not really have a good understanding of "creation" and what it entails other than that active aspect of human consciousness which fashions tools and so forth.

it is my view that sperating the "action from the re-action" is mistaken. in the same sort of way that there is no experience without an experiencer and no experiencer without the experience. the two arise in mutual dependence upon each other.

Wouldn't this perspective naturally lead to the identification of these interactive elements into such classes as "known and unknown," "action and reaction," and "self-controlled and other-controlled?"

whilst that may be so, that seems to be a mistake point of view to take with regard to such things as it presents only bivalent options where as the reality we are currently experiencing is multivalent. by way of example, something is not either "known Or unknown" it is, by contrast, that some properties of an object are known and others are not. i.e. the water is not either "cold" or "hot" it can also be "warm" or "cool".

reality seems to have a slippery quality to it that makes it difficult for us human types to get a hold of.

"Creation" implies "will," which suggests an expansion of "will-consciousness-intention" onto areas where this specific application of "will-consciousness-intention" did not formerly occupy.

why does the term "creation" imply "will"? by the term "will" do you mean desire?

"Reaction" implies a separation of phenomena, into the classes of "not actively controlled" {cause of reaction, or action}and "actively controlled" {reaction.}
Without the concept of "self," {or sphere of active conscious influence} doesn't the concept of creation/reaction become meaningless?

reaction, at least in a Newtonian sense, implies that all phenomena are interacting with each other on various levels and that nothing is independent of its surroundings. from a Buddhist point of view, this is Interdependent Co-Arising and, in this view, there is little point in talking about "creation" or "reaction" as any sort of discrete entities.

Again, if you wish to preserve the concept of creation/reaction,

this is not a conception which i feel is valid. as such, i have little interest in preserving it, per se

along with the classification of the interactive elements listed above, wouldn't mindfulness of the extent of your influence and knowledge of the consequences of your actions in the skillful application of your intentions constitute "knowing yourself?" {especially in the areas where the consequences will reach that are outside of your ability to continually observe or contact.}

what is being identified as "oneself" in your example above? is it the intention behind the actions or the actions or something else?

Wouldn't the practice illustrated by samabudhi above qualify as "redefining oneself?" From my perspective, it seems like its essentially a matter of semantics, or linguistic constructions. JMHO.

well... not really. when we get down to the brass tacks, as they say, there is no "oneself" which is defined or re-defined through the process of Vajrayana visualizations, however, this is only brought into clear relief when a being engages in the process of analysis as described in the Buddhsit canon.

the interesting thing is, in my view, whilst it certainly is a lingusitic or semantic difference, lingusitic methods are what we have available to communicate with. as such, many of the methods that Buddhism employs to convey the Dharma are based on a proper lingusitic understanding of the terms. given that Sanskrit is a very robust language, many of the same instances of a word have different meanings depending on the context and suffix/prefix associated with the words themselves.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

that is a fair point. this is not an activity which i typically engage in. i do not really have a good understanding of "creation" and what it entails other than that active aspect of human consciousness which fashions tools and so forth.

it is my view that sperating the "action from the re-action" is mistaken. in the same sort of way that there is no experience without an experiencer and no experiencer without the experience. the two arise in mutual dependence upon each other.

whilst that may be so, that seems to be a mistake point of view to take with regard to such things as it presents only bivalent options where as the reality we are currently experiencing is multivalent. by way of example, something is not either "known Or unknown" it is, by contrast, that some properties of an object are known and others are not. i.e. the water is not either "cold" or "hot" it can also be "warm" or "cool".

reality seems to have a slippery quality to it that makes it difficult for us human types to get a hold of.

Very true!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

why does the term "creation" imply "will"? by the term "will" do you mean desire?

You're right! *slaps forehead* Not all creations/consequences are intentional! Some things are set into motion through {or are caused by, or created by}
processes we are ignorant or unconscious of. {Hence the term, unintentional consequences.}

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

reaction, at least in a Newtonian sense, implies that all phenomena are interacting with each other on various levels and that nothing is independent of its surroundings. from a Buddhist point of view, this is Interdependent Co-Arising and, in this view, there is little point in talking about "creation" or "reaction" as any sort of discrete entities.

this is not a conception which i feel is valid. as such, i have little interest in preserving it, per se

Fair enough

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what is being identified as "oneself" in your example above? is it the intention behind the actions or the actions or something else?

The sphere of your influence, especially the portion you can be continually mindful of.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

well... not really. when we get down to the brass tacks, as they say, there is no "oneself" which is defined or re-defined through the process of Vajrayana visualizations, however, this is only brought into clear relief when a being engages in the process of analysis as described in the Buddhsit canon.

the interesting thing is, in my view, whilst it certainly is a lingusitic or semantic difference, lingusitic methods are what we have available to communicate with. as such, many of the methods that Buddhism employs to convey the Dharma are based on a proper lingusitic understanding of the terms. given that Sanskrit is a very robust language, many of the same instances of a word have different meanings depending on the context and suffix/prefix associated with the words themselves.

metta,

~v

Agreed. Language and theory are bound together, and I have a different vocabulary than is contained in the Buddhist theory/tradition. However, practice is not bound by language as much as theory, and the fruits of one's practice can be recognized even by those outside of one's theory/tradition--the fruits of compassion are universally recognized as valuable.

[samabudhi]

You're right! *slaps forehead* Not all creations/consequences are intentional! Some things are set into motion through {or are caused by, or created by}
processes we are ignorant or unconscious of. {Hence the term, unintentional consequences.}

That's sort of what I was driving at, that creation IS intentional whilst reaction is not.
As an aside, there is nothing that was not at one stage intentional. We simply choose to ignore its consequences, and thus, they keep coming up again and again.

They say life is a series of lessons. Unless you learn a lesson and move on, it keeps on coming up. Opportunities are the opposite - they come once...this precious human birth.

So everything that happens to us is a result of choices we have made, whether virtuous, non-virtuous, or neutral. The clothes we wear, the occupation of Tibet, even the sun in the morning. If we experience these things, it is because we chose to.

The sphere of your influence, especially the portion you can be continually mindful of.

In that case, there is nothing which isn't oneself. Is a madman not his thoughts? He has no control over them. I offer that it is the karma you cling to which is "oneself".

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

In that case, there is nothing which isn't oneself. Is a madman not his thoughts? He has no control over them.

Hence the expression, "he's not acting like himself?"

I offer that it is the karma you cling to which is "oneself".

We create ourselves? {or would that be our selves?}

[samabudhi]

There are two selves. The conventional and the ultimate. You choose to recognize a portion of the truth, the ultimate self. This results in the conventional self, the fabrication.