GOVERNMENT (Category 2)

DESTINATION AND COMING

Product 2

Everything in the world is supposed to be real, because there is the arising and functioning.

In the "Causality of Causality", the Nagarjuna Bodhisattva helps us to realize that there are no generals who exist, so that real existence arises as we think. In this product, He will use the logic to help us see the operation of the law is only a product of the mind, not real or not real.

Take the walk and come to represent the operation of the dhamma.

Went no go

No go no go

Besides have not gone yet

Going away also  (1)

. Go away, no more events, so do not go.

. Not going, the event has not happened, nor go.

. In addition to and not out, are going also do not go.

Q :

Movement has to go

There is going

Not gone yet

But are going there  (2)

When a person is moving - ie walking - there is an event. Because of the movement, we know that there is time to go.

 "Went" then the movement was gone. "No go", there is no movement. But "going" because of the movement, so going is going.

We must first verify the word "Yes". To do this, we look at three examples:

Example 1: When saying "on disk  with  orange":

1 / The orange must be found on the plate.

2. Orange and disk are two different entities. Separated, they still exist.

Example 2: If you say "There is a black ball in the ball":

1 / There must be a complete black ball in the ball. If only the marbles were found to be mixed with other colors, the affirmation was not valid.

2 / The black ball can be separated from the ball. It still exists when standing alone.

(3) The existence of black balls is independent, independent of the number and color of other marbles.

Example 3: If the statement "In solution A has salt":

1 / We can separate salt from solution A.

(2) The existence of salt is independent, independent of other substances present in solution A.

If we just base salinity on the existence of salt, there is absolutely no way to separate salt from solution A, the conclusion contained many mistakes. Based on the salty taste to conclude there is salt, we have accepted at the same time two premises:

. All salty solutions have salts.

. And all salty solution does not have salt.

Obviously, the two premises are not sufficiently credible for us to use it in practice.

From the examples above, we summarize: Can only be affirmed as "Yes A"  when:

1 / Can separate A from non-A.

2 / The existence of A is independent. A can exist alone.

3 / A must have a particular characteristic, so that we recognize it, distinguish it from the other.

Q : When saying "go go" is to emphasize the "go" really exists. If the analysis of the "Yes" to the latter, even if the logic is accurate, is based only on the language that explains, does not explain the meaning of the person wanting to ask. If you do not say "Going is going" but saying "Going is real" then where do you get the words Yes to analyze the explanation?

Answer : Do not understand the new problem so. When analyzing the letter, there is no other than the existence of the truth. When we say "dhamma" we have accepted that dharma really exists.Just as when we see true dharmas, we say dhammas are. If the law actually exists, then it must be identified. The above three examples only confuse the problem. To find the above results, we can also use the inference method as follows:

In fact, we rely on our own characteristics to verify a dharma. In order to have the characteristics of a dharma, we must separate the dharma for study. So we have  accepted that it can exist independently , and that it can find its own characteristics.

A :

Answer the question "go go have" asked on.

How to say is going

There are events going on

If you leave the event

Going away can not be  (3)

If you're going

Saying so is wrong

Go away going

Traveling alone  (4)

Back to our "going away" issue. To say "go away" is that we have accepted the "going on" that exists independently outside "going".Going and going events are two independent events, separated as fruit on the plate, black ball in the ball ... This leads to the following mistakes:

. Mistake 1:

The present moment denoted by "being" has no meaning at all, as it is completely unsettled. In the present time, if one observes, we have "going". Watching a person standing, we have "standing" ... going, standing is the present time associated with the event, standing event. In these cases, the new time has a meaning to be used.

Broke away  any events  they  're  not there. If the separation of the event away is still there, then sitting is standing ... also separated from the event, why not call sitting, standing ... is going? (Part 3)

. Mistake 2:

If you are going there

There are two things to go

One is what goes on

Two, go's going  (5)

If there are two passes

Two people went

For leaving you go out

The impossible can be  (6)

To say "go go" is that we have accepted the "travel event" which existed simultaneously and independently apart from "going". So we have accepted there are two things, one is "what is going", two is the one that goes another way. We all know that every event or action must be associated with the subject that creates it. Here, with two independent events, "going" and "going", there must also be two actors who are two.

Thus, from the movement of a person, which we call the departure, by affirming "going out" that leads to two travels by two people. This is absurd, so "going" can not "go".

Q : If there is no trip in three days, will the person go?

A :

If you leave, go out

It's not possible

Because no events go

Do not go there  (7)

Walking and walking are two events that can not be separated from one another. If you do not find a trip in three, you can not find someone in three.

Q : There is no trip in three days, but must find a place to go?

A :

You do not go

Do not go do not go

Take away, do not go

No third person  (8)

To find events go where people go, we have only two cases to find: Where he does not go and where he goes. Also no third case.

. Where people do not go can not find "Yes," because go and do not go together.

. Where people also do not find "Yes" because:

If you say go go

How does this mean?

If you leave the event

Walkers can not be  (9)

If the "go goes," then the travel event is independent of Him. In this case the person can not exist. Separated from the go, only left him. This person can stand, not sit well. So where no go also found.

If people go there

There are two ways

One is the go

The second is the go  (10)

If you say go go

He is wrong

Take away someone

Tell people to go  (11)

If you still think "go away", there are two different things to go: go and go.

We see the case of "go" first: We understand that the person is an entity that is available, when the user goes to France, we will have people go.

Likewise, when we say " the goat"  , we have admitted that "goat" is an available entity, so it can be used to go away.

In fact, if leaving the go out can not have. Since people can not go there, there are no people to use the French, so the saying go is not reasonable.

I have not walked away

I have not walked away

Walking away

Save time  (12)

Again, if the walk is real then one must find its beginning. The event is only determined to be Yes, from the time of beginning to later. However, in the third time, we can not find the beginning because:

. Traveled: The event has happened so can not be found again.

. Going: The event is on-going and so can not be found.

. Not going: Because the event has not happened so can not find the beginning.

Here, reasoning is not quibble, not puns. We can get scientific facts to prove the beginning of the journey.

Obviously, the timing of the departure or departure must not be too soon (before the event has not gone yet), nor too late (the event has occurred).

From a normal perspective, when we look at a person from a place that has not gone to the state of affairs, we assume that it is easy to determine the starting point. The reality is not so. Like when a person just lifts his feet to go, then lifting his feet 10 cm above the ground is the beginning? Or 1/10 cm is the beginning .....? Can we identify? Suppose as when the foot is lying on the ground the distance is 0.0000 ..... 1, then how many zero in the middle so that we can determine exactly at the beginning of the footsteps to go? Similar to time, too, it is impossible to accurately determine the starting time of a takeoff.

Looking at the problem in terms of the theory of relativity, event travel is an event in "space-time." To properly understand the event, it should be examined in a four-dimensional "space-time" coordinate system. In this case, the question "Can you find the beginning of the event?" Will be a meaningless question because:

. The beginning is determined in space or time. In the case of relativity, space and time can not be separated, so we have no basis for determining the beginning.

. If an initial observer is identified outside the event, it depends on the position of the observer, so it is impossible to confirm anything.(see more at the end).

In short, perceiving things in the usual way: Divide time and space into two separate entities, or look at the problem of relativity, we can not determine the beginning of the walk - Nagarjuna said.

Do not step away do not go

Well no has gone

They should be kept

No way to go          (13)

Not gone yet

Well not going

All not taking steps

Why distinguish  (14)

Can not find the start of the go, then can not have gone and go.With no travel, the event has not happened so should not. If it is not possible to determine the trip in three, what is the basis for confirming the trip?

At the present level of science, we understand that time is a relative event. An event for this system is current, the other system is past or may be future. In the above systems, there is no such thing as the system is correct, the other system is wrong.They are equal. Thus all phenomena recorded from reality, are only relative values: It can fit into this system that does not fit the other system. Thus a positive attitude about a result, as recorded in a certain system, is subjective and one-sided, as it results in negation of the results recorded in other systems.

The logic in this essay is very tight and sharp. As the argument leads to conclusions that are contrary to accepted stereotypes, it seems unbelievable. Let us use some of the achievements of motion in Modern Physics to demonstrate the correctness of these arguments.

The event is interpreted as movement. The theory of motion shows that: Motion is a relative phenomenon. It depends on the position of the observer (generally speaking it depends on the frame of reference used to observe the motion) and the object of observation.

With a man standing on the shore, saw the boat on the river. With a person sitting on the boat, the boat did not go but the people on the shore backward. In the boat whether it goes or not, it does not move with itself.

In this product, the reference system is chosen as the goer (who is consistent with the action) to examine the movement of the person himself. In this case, we can not find any. If you still think that "go away" then this must be created by a second law. This is totally unreasonable. For the same step, with the reference system "go," we can not find any steps. (section 8).

Q : If there is no travel can I find the stand?

A :

He does not stand

He does not stand

Beyond the go does not go

The third person standing  (15)

If you are standing

How does this mean?

If you leave the event

He can not go  (16)

Stand here just for the stop by.

Standing events are also found only in two cases: Where people go and where they do not go.

. Where people do not go can not be considered as standing events. Because of the nail, it is called standing. Without going there is no basis for concluding that there is standing in this case.In fact, the relative capital movement can not be confirmed as going or standing because it depends on the reference system.

. Wherever he goes, he can not find standing, for he can not leave his own way. If a person is standing, then walking and standing are two opposite events, in the same place. This is not reasonable.

Summary…

Have not walked yet

Going also not standing

Every action variable

The same meaning go  (17)

. Not to go, the event has not come out to say can not stand.

. Went to the still not find, let alone stand.

. Going on, the action is going on and not standing.

In short, the three can not find standing.

The same logic applies to all the actions and suspensions in this world.

Q : Walking and walking are two events that can not be separated from each other in order to exist, but they still exist because of the combination of the two to co-exist.

A :

Walking away

That's not right

Another trip

That is not true.  (18)

If you say the event goes

Well, that is people go

Author and work

It is one  (19)

If you say the event goes

Is different from the go

Leaving the go away

Away with someone  (20)

To conclude that by combining the two events of walking and walking, let us consider these two combinations in which one fits together.

1 /  Walking and walking are one  : walking is an act of art, the goer is the creator (the author). The author and the work can not be one.

Again, if the walk and the go are one, then they must be identical.In fact, when the dhamma is not used anymore, the place is completely gone. Wherever you go, you go but you still have people. So walking and walking can not be a good thing. (Part 19)

2 /  The person and the walk is different : If he goes and the departure is different, he leaves the go still go, leaving the go still have people go, but this is not possible. (Part 20)

Summary:

Going away are two

If one is to be

Two dishes failed

How to get there  (21)

Riders and walks are  an  impossible thing, the  other  is impossible. And if so, when and by what combination?

In short, the walk and the walk can not be combined.

Q : If the person walking and walking is not Yes, not by association but. How to explain the two events for a reasonable?

A :

I know people go

Can not use it

There is no go

Should not go away  (22)

I know people go

Can not take another go

Because in one go

No two trips  (23)

The appropriate explanation is:

Knowing who passes : Thanks to the fact that we know who to go ... Why?

If you have not used to go, you can not go. At this point there is absolutely no basis for us to know the person.

Traveling events are  the cause and condition for getting  to know people. The person walking and the coexistence in the causal relationship, so no one is real. If there is a move, it will lead to "one go two go" (proven above). This is not reasonable.

The decision maker has

Do not take three trips

The decision maker does not

Nor three trips  (24)

Determination is not determined

He does not use his father

Let's go

Places to go are not  (25)

. If the decision to go is real, it means that it exists independently even if it does not use three passes (go, go, go). In this case the departure will be completely negative. If the go is negative, no one has gone, not gone, going. There is no basis to know about the go.In other words,  an affirmation will lead to a negation .

. If the person is not real, then the journey is not complete.

. If the decision to go is real, then capital travel exists outside of the go. Impatient people are negative. It is impossible for a person to go away. No author how to take action?

. If people do not go there is no person, because "people know who to go."

From the above four cases, we find that: To be aware of walking and walking in accordance with reality, that awareness must not fall into "Yes - No". In other words, the walk and the walker or all the action variables are in fact facts that are not in the "yes - no" category. Binary distinctions like yes-no, decay, one-other ... do not match reality. In fact, these dharmas do not have a real nature that we can grasp, can distinguish, can be established, as the way we are still dealing with the dhamma. The walker and the walk completely "not nature".

Finish…

There is still a problem here.

Q:  Agree that the walking, the walking, the walking are the events that do not exist individually, only in the causal relationship. But the facts are still there, why? Now, we can determine a motion by its velocity, acceleration, orbit. Thus we distinguish the way to go with France. Distinguish the way to go with other dharma. By identifying the individual characteristics of a walk, the departure is a real event, it is still in the "yes" category.

A:  Actually, factors such as velocity, acceleration, orbit are not the characteristics of motion, because they depend on another condition. That is the coordinate system used to examine the walk.In the same motion, if different coordinates are selected, the velocity, acceleration ... recorded from that motion will be different. Therefore, it is not possible to view these elements as a characteristic of motion.

In fact, there are countless coordinate systems for us to choose.These coordinate systems can be divided into two main categories:

1 / Coordinates have a synchronous movement with the movement of the go.

2 / The coordinate system does not have synchronous movement with the movement of the go.

In case 1: Factors such as velocity, acceleration ... always equal 0, that means no event is recorded.

In case 2: Factors such as velocity, acceleration ... are different 0, that is to say go. With two different coordinate systems, we will note two different moves.

Here we have the following comments:

. If coordinates of type 1 are selected, no departure is recorded. In this case, if we conclude that the trip is not, we negate the results recorded in the coordinate systems of type 2.

. If a coordinate system of type 2 is selected, a departure will be recorded. If we conclude that there is a departure, we have negated the results recorded in the first coordinate systems.

. If we assume that the result recorded in a certain coordinate system is correct, we have assumed that the results from other coordinate systems are false.

Choosing a coordinate system is a completely subjective thing.Denial of results from other coordinate systems is also subjective.

To be objective, we must not give the result in the coordinate system whether or not it is true or false. If our perception falls into the zero, right and wrong, we take one case and leave out countless other cases in reality.

In short, in this case, the perception of walking and walking is only relevant to reality, when they do not fall into assertion or negation (yes - no).

Q:  Why, in fact, can we record more than one result from the same event, without any result being considered yes or no, right or wrong?

A:  Because awareness is present in each of us, only the shadow of reality is recognized.

From a three-dimensional object, when shining on a plane we have a shadow. The properties of the ball will vary depending on the angle of illumination and depending on the position of the plane.Likewise, what we are aware of, is just one aspect of the event.Therefore, depending on the different observation conditions, the recorded results are different. The results are just the shadow of reality, not the real general. (See the section entitled "Prathom Dependent Origination" at the end of the article).END=NAM MO SAKYAMUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=THICH CHAN TANH.THE MIND OF ENLIGHTENMENT.VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=GOLDEN LOTUS MONASTERY=AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.8/3/2018.