The Chicken or the Egg?

[Smile]

I wasn't sure about the answer so I had sex with a chicken last night. Turns out the chicken came first.

[h.uriahr]

I wasn't sure about the answer so I had sex with a chicken last night. Turns out the chicken came first.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

Perhaps I should but I won't. Hehehe. But what you said, IMO, has merit. I would question though, that Buddha talked about the 'big bang' as the term was not defined back during his life-time.

 

 

No, not the exact term but the meaning was used back then but in sanskrit it's "Pralaya" and "spanda" and "kalpa"... all talking about periods of activities and their endings of activity and the re-manifesting, on and on in a cyclical fashion. Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch. This indeed was part of Vedic cosmology even before the coming of the Buddha. Except for Vedic people it's run by a vast and infinite consciousness that everything is one with, while in Buddhism it's just the cycling of causation without any person or supreme consciousness behind it all.

 

I do hold to the concept that life is cyclical. All life! Including the universe. I hold to the understanding that at some point in time the universe will stop expanding and begin its reversion back toward nothingness (Unity, the One).

 

A Buddha can manifest a realm or pure land that lasts past these coming's and going's.

 

I do not hold to the concept of reincarnation. That is a Buudhist concept and not a Taoist concept. Taoism has a concept I call transmutation. That is, everything that is, is, always has been and always will be. It is just that things take different form over time.

 

That's physically and even on subtle spiritual planes as well. But the consciousness which transcends physicality and grasps onto itself continues to re-manifest itself even after the body dies into different types of bodies, refined, dense of physical and even formless. I'm not sure all Taoists don't believe in re-birth.

 

I do not hold to the concept of a universal consciousness nor of a consciousness of Tao. Therefore, IMO, all consciousness would be lost in the state of Oneness. (Actually, that is what happens in deep meditation.)

 

That' happens in the Jhana of infinite nothingness which is merely a state of focus that delves deep into what seems to be the unconscious, but consciousness is subtler than that as well. There are deeper dimensions of meditation as the texts say and as I have directly experienced.

So, getting back to the chicken and egg, Tao is the egg, the Manifest (things) is the chicken. The egg has always been, the chicken (things) manifested from the egg.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, that's fine as a Taoist view. Ok... I as a Buddhist don't agree though.

 

I am well, thanks so much. I'm sure you are as well!!

 

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHA! Brilliant!

 

I started the thread after talking about dependent origination and emptiness with my father. The conversation went something like this,

 

Me: "All things are inherently empty and made from dependently originated conditions!"

Pops: "Yes, but who understands/thinks/preaches emptiness"?

Me: "No, no, emptiness is not a concept, it's how the world is"

Pops: "Yes, and whose idea is that?"

Me: "Well, mine...? No but I'm just a mix of dependently originated causes and manifestations!"

Pops: "Yes and who realizes that?"

 

At this point, I realized the very folly of grasping onto the idea of emptiness, self, or any sort of assertion that declares the world to be in such and such a way. Why? Because one would inevitably fall into the trap of the mind/ego declaring an idea!

 

I say chicken, and it will be the egg. And I say egg, and it will be the chicken. I say both, and it'll be two. i say two, and it'll be one. And so on and so on....

 

Biology wise, pie guy is probably right. Simultaneous coming into being as chicken and the egg. But what exactly is spontaneity, but a manifestation of a timeless event? Would that be an event...?

 

Hahaha...and here goes another chicken and the egg...on and on...

 

So in the end, I just sat down and shut up, be it chicken or the egg.

 

Nice contemplation! But indeed, even the realizer of dependent origination is dependently originated thus the realization is also dependently originated and inherently empty. So, no grasping to the realizer, realization or the realized at all. Yes, in the end of course the concept of dependent origination is completely emptied. LOL!! Oh the circle of logic and words...

[Marblehead]

Nice exchange Vajrahridaya.

 

Yes, that's fine as a Taoist view. Ok... I as a Buddhist don't agree though.

 

Hehehe. Oh, I'm sure we will disagree on a number of concepts. But I'll bet that we will agree much more often than we disagree.

 

 

I'm not sure all Taoists don't believe in re-birth.

 

I would even suggest that there are many who do believe in reincarnation, especially the religious ones. Even a couple places in Chuang Tzu one could infer that he was talking about reincarnation.

 

That' happens in the Jhana of infinite nothingness which is merely a state of focus that delves deep into what seems to be the unconscious, but consciousness is subtler than that as well. There are deeper dimensions of meditation as the texts say and as I have directly experienced.

 

I remain flexible regarding this subject. I do not have enough facts yet to form a fixed opinion. (And then, I have been known to change my mind at a moment's notice. Hehehe.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Nice exchange Vajrahridaya.

 

Indeed, thanks for the convo!

 

(And then, I have been known to change my mind at a moment's notice. Hehehe.)

 

LOL! That's cute.

 

Be well!

 

But of course! I'm in sunny Florida!

[Marblehead]

I'm in sunny Florida!

 

Me too!

[Vajrahridaya]

Me too!

 

LOL! Trip. I'm in St. Pete.

[Josh Young]

From my own point of view the question has 2 primary flaws.

First is linear time, something I don't believe exists.

The second is independent particles, again they don't exist.

 

Except for Vedic people it's run by a vast and infinite consciousness that everything is one with, while in Buddhism it's just the cycling of causation without any person or supreme consciousness behind it all.

This difference is not one I can find. The so called vast and so called infinite consciousness is neither vast, infinite or conscious, like the veda says, it is without property or aspect. This lack of origin and aspect is the same as can be found in Tao. It can also be realized independently of any system or teaching by insight and examination.

 

Within the concept of Darwin's theory of evolution, how does an egg evolve?

It cannot, Darwins theory states only the following:

Organisms live and die and reproduce.

Traits are passed on from one generation to the next, those traits that are no passed on cannot end up in the next generation.

That is it, if you believe in the above you believe Darwin.

Evolution can only take place over generations, no organism or entity is capable of Darwinian evolution, nor does evolution postulate the origin of life or make any claims about it. It is not a theory of the origin of life itself, just a theory of the origin of species, where in the terms of the time the book was written pertains to the inclusive definition of a specie in general, thus a difference or uniqueness, be it of a trait or of an organism is a specie or type. Darwin postulated that this origination was to be accounted for by heredity and the accountability of an organism to nature itself, ergo traits relate to function in a non-goal oriented manner.

[Vajrahridaya]

'Josh Young'

This difference is not one I can find. The so called vast and so called infinite consciousness is neither vast, infinite or conscious, like the veda says, it is without property or aspect. This lack of origin and aspect is the same as can be found in Tao. It can also be realized independently of any system or teaching by insight and examination.

 

You don't understand the difference because you don't follow the question, does the cosmos inherently exist or not? Vedic theology still posits an existent that is beyond concept which shines from it's own side which everything is "one" with. Buddhism does not. Vedic thought still posits a real absolute truth behind, through and is everything that is beyond aspect and property but all aspects and properties, which subtly reinforces an identity deep within the formless states of consciousness. You may not be able to see the difference but both Buddha and Shankaracharya were able to see that they indeed were different interpretations of cosmic functioning and thus realization.

 

So, if the Masters and exemplifiers of both systems found difference, then there is some subtle truth that you are not considering in your contemplation.

 

If you don't believe in independency, then you cannot believe in Vedic interpretation of spirituality all the way to the end game.

[Sunya]

 

 

Edited July 24, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

LOL! Trip. I'm in St. Pete.

 

I'm in the First Coast area.

 

Hi Josh,

 

It cannot, Darwins theory states only the following:

Organisms live and die and reproduce.

Traits are passed on from one generation to the next, those traits that are no passed on cannot end up in the next generation.

That is it, if you believe in the above you believe Darwin.

 

That was the point to my question. Evolution takes time - lots of time. (Well, generally speaking, the shorter the life span of the species the faster the evolution may be.)

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

aww you guys live so close, you should make a play date

[dwai]

'Josh Young'

You don't understand the difference because you don't follow the question, does the cosmos inherently exist or not? Vedic theology still posits an existent that is beyond concept which shines from it's own side which everything is "one" with. Buddhism does not. Vedic thought still posits a real absolute truth behind, through and is everything that is beyond aspect and property but all aspects and properties, which subtly reinforces an identity deep within the formless states of consciousness. You may not be able to see the difference but both Buddha and Shankaracharya were able to see that they indeed were different interpretations of cosmic functioning and thus realization.

 

So, if the Masters and exemplifiers of both systems found difference, then there is some subtle truth that you are not considering in your contemplation.

 

If you don't believe in independency, then you cannot believe in Vedic interpretation of spirituality all the way to the end game.

 

Shankara's critique of Buddhism was limited to certain "sects" and certain aspects of Madhyamika teachings. He never stated that Buddhism is diametrically opposite to Advaita Vedanta.

 

One point of contention between Buddhists and Vedantins (or for that matter Non-Dual Tantra) is that of Self or No-Self. But in reality, this is not a difference at all because Vedanta and Tantra also states that all those things that Buddhism calls Non-self are indeed non-self. The "True" Self is the only non-dual reality which is beyond perceptions and conceptions, non-rational (not the same as irrational) and non-phenomenal. It is self illuminating because it is knowledge/knowing itself. It is self-existent because there can be no dependent origination for, neither epistemologically, nor ontologically.

 

You get caught into misinterpreting what this entails because of your doctrinal conditioning, that's all. Those who see the truth, see through these illusory differences and see the unity. Those who want to feel good about being different or superior will want to deny the unity...it's as simple as that.

 

When someone makes a statement "There is no self", the logic is self-contradictory. Because in order to say there is no self, you have to first accept that there IS a self.

Edited July 24, 2009 by dwai

[Marblehead]

aww you guys live so close, you should make a play date

 

Maybe it will happen one day. We'll see.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Be well!

 

 

When someone makes a statement "There is no self", the logic is self-contradictory. Because in order to say there is no self, you have to first accept that there IS a self.

 

And besides, who is it that is saying there is no self?

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Be well!

And besides, who is it that is saying there is no self?

 

Be well!

 

Oh boy... the subtlety is lost. I'll speak on Dwai's post later. There is neither no self- or is there a Self. Which is what shunyata (emptiness) means in Buddhism. Of course relatively there is a self. Just not ultimately, unless one has the ultimate realization that there is no ultimate than one has the ultimate realization that all is interconnected but not uniform so has realized the true sacrifice that is the true bliss. Complete self offering to the endless cycling of samsaric beings while being free from clinging to all aspects, no-self, self, etc. Then one has an eternal self purpose, but it's free from an substantialization. One does not consider that all phenomena is one non-phenomenaly. Even that one is considered a phenomena and a clinging to view, thus samsaric in Buddhism.

 

The difference is so subtle that it's beyond the semantics. It really is.

 

Hindu cosmology still see's the beginning of a cosmic eon as being caused by an identifiable, a creative source that is beyond concept, but still existent. This re-absorbs the believers of this into a blissful oneness that is merely the potentiality for the next cosmic eon. Thus is not liberation from re-cycling.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Josh Young]

Vedic theology still posits an existent that is beyond concept which shines from it's own side which everything is "one" with.

 

according to you.

 

The Veda speaks for itself much better than you speak for it.

 

 

does the cosmos inherently exist or not?

Perhaps it is you who does not understand the question?

It is an oversimplification.

 

If it( the cosmos) exists and is without property, then dual to it existing is it not existing. This is as the veda says. So according to veda if it does exist inherently then it does not, and the reverse is also true This is why it is called Maya, the illusion.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Josh Young

[Vajrahridaya]

Shankara's critique of Buddhism was limited to certain "sects" and certain aspects of Madhyamika teachings. He never stated that Buddhism is diametrically opposite to Advaita Vedanta.

 

Yes, he vehementaly denied emptiness as it exposes the complete lack of an ultimate concept. An ultimate non-concept or concept are both subverted by pratitsamutpada.

 

One point of contention between Buddhists and Vedantins (or for that matter Non-Dual Tantra) is that of Self or No-Self. But in reality, this is not a difference at all because Vedanta and Tantra also states that all those things that Buddhism calls Non-self are indeed non-self. The "True" Self is the only non-dual reality which is beyond perceptions and conceptions, non-rational (not the same as irrational) and non-phenomenal. It is self illuminating because it is knowledge/knowing itself. It is self-existent because there can be no dependent origination for, neither epistemologically, nor ontologically.

 

There is no true identity that is all things uniformly in Buddhism, epistemologically as beyond the limits of knowledge or ontologically within the realm of discussion. Emptiness is never established at all, intuitively or conceptually. There is complete liberation from grasping both dualistically on a conscious level that expresses thought, and deep within the formless consciousness, it does not grasp at it's own shinning and establish a kingdom of "I" there, only relatively does it. Only ultimately when it's seen through it's own ultimacy as I explained above to marblehead. One has ultimate eternal function omnisciently as a realized being who has made the ultimate sacrifice to serve the seeming cosmos for seeming eternity.

 

In Hindu cosmology even the long lived gods have life spans, don't last eternally, because they all believe in a formless non-conceptual ground of being that is static, beyond time that is the same for all beings simultaneously. Which is a mistaken interpretation of deep meditative states which is why the Buddha said none of the meditative absorptions were ultimate realization, even infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space, infinite beyond perception and non-perception which is where the Vedantin's think is the ultimate Truth, that meditative absorption of beyond perception and non-perception. But the Buddha said that even this is dependently originated and inherently empty, even timeless, even non-phenomena is experientially emptied of being established as an ultimate.

 

Thus in Buddhism there are infinite mind streams and not one mind stream.

 

You get caught into misinterpreting what this entails because of your doctrinal conditioning, that's all. Those who see the truth, see through these illusory differences and see the unity. Those who want to feel good about being different or superior will want to deny the unity...it's as simple as that.

 

No, you are misinterpreting because of your doctrinal conditioning. I was raised through Hindu Tantra and had full blown kundalini awakening at the age of 13/14, before that I had experiences such as having visions that all being came from one being at the age of 6/7. At 10 I sat at the feet of a master and she played with the crown of my head for an hour and I disapeared for that hour. All these experiences, including the shaktipat at 14 which was a meditative absorption into a formless jhana which resulted in an amazing sense of bliss, freedom, perfection in identity, a love and compassion for everyone, and a bewilderment that if all being was this freedom, how come people suffer? All I wanted to do was serve. Then I left the ashram and forgot the experience even happened for 7 years. After I remembered the experience at 20... I followed Shaiva Tantra with intensity and had many experiences that reinforced this subtle grasping at a subtle beyond phenomena identity. Only about 6 years ago did I start having experiences that revealed the Truth of Buddha's teaching, and it was experiences that are not contained by books, or doctrine though explained by books and doctrine.

 

These Gods that teach of a primordial cause of being are merely first borns out of the potentiality left from the previous cosmic eon. They awake from the potentiality and think they have opened their eyes to manifest the cosmos but they don't remember the previous cosmic cycle.

 

The Buddha was the first one to talk about remembering lives from previous cosmic cycles.

 

Until the alaya vinjnana or storehouse consciousness that may appear as a blue bindu, that all being eminates from and subsides into is emptied of any Self, then one's experience is going to be that of the cycling of existence. I eminate from thee and I subside in thee, in the beginning love, and in the end love, but in the middle service to an alpha that is also the omega. All these concepts reifying a beyond knowledge and beyond conceptual Truth of all things that is established ontologically and epistimologically as it is in Vedanta is subverted by pratitsamutpada and because of what pratitsamutpada means, also dependent origination is not established at all either.

 

To someone who for endless cycles has identified with a God, or a vast source of all being that is omnipotent. They are going to see this missing space as nihilism. But really, it's not nihilism, it's just the opposite of both nihilism and eternalism. It's just the flow without location, identity and established function other than flowing.

 

Buddhism is liberated from a God's will. This is very subtle and changes the way one practices and see's the cosmos. It can be very hard for a born and raised Theist to get this. I know.

 

All the best.

When someone makes a statement "There is no self", the logic is self-contradictory. Because in order to say there is no self, you have to first accept that there IS a self.

 

We do except that there is a self, just not a universal cosmic self that is beyond phenomena.

 

according to you.

 

The Veda speaks for itself much better than you speak for it.

 

The Buddha was quite well versed in the Veda and yet denied it's supremecy. He showed through his teachings where the Vedic interpretation is not all together wrong, but does not teach liberation from Samsara. Thus did not teach refuge in it.

 

Perhaps it is you who does not understand the question?

It is an oversimplification.

 

I do agree. But, I was trying that approach there.

 

If it( the cosmos) exists and is without property, then dual to it existing is it not existing. This is as the veda says. So according to veda if it does exist inherently then it does not, and the reverse is also true This is why it is called Maya, the illusion.

 

Yes, but it still posits some Truth beyond Maya that is the ultimate place of all Mayic functioning. This is why Buddhism doesn't talk about Maya. Because there is no illusion, there is only mis-cognition. Shankara say's, there is no illusion as all is Shiva, ultimately, so he also say's the experience of Maya is a mis-aprehension of the true identity of all things. But, Buddhism does not even say that things have an ultimate and established uniform identity.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

This is why Buddhism doesn't talk about a God, or reify it's deities, buddhas and bodhisattvas with the idea of being a form representation of a supreme cause. Because for Buddhism, there is no supreme cause both epistimologically and ontologically. But, because the entirety is dependently originated and inherently empty and nothing can be established, thus anything can be established and experientially reified to incredible levels of subtlety, without actually inherently being.

[Marblehead]

Oh boy... the subtlety is lost. I'll speak on Dwai's post later. There is neither no self- or is there a Self. Which is what shunyata (emptiness) means in Buddhism. Of course relatively there is a self. Just not ultimately, unless one has the ultimate realization that there is no ultimate than one has the ultimate realization that all is interconnected but not uniform so has realized the true sacrifice that is the true bliss. Complete self offering to the endless cycling of samsaric beings while being free from clinging to all aspects, no-self, self, etc. Then one has an eternal self purpose, but it's free from an substantialization. One does not consider that all phenomena is one non-phenomenaly. Even that one is considered a phenomena and a clinging to view, thus samsaric in Buddhism.

 

The difference is so subtle that it's beyond the semantics. It really is.

 

Hindu cosmology still see's the beginning of a cosmic eon as being caused by an identifiable, a creative source that is beyond concept, but still existent. This re-absorbs the believers of this into a blissful oneness that is merely the potentiality for the next cosmic eon. Thus is not liberation from re-cycling.

 

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

Would you care to say that again in American English? Hehehe. Just joking.

 

Okay. Let me first state that I have never wasted time pretending that I am a cloud pretending that I am Elvis. I love "my" reality too much to bother with stuff like that.

 

However, in response to your post:

 

You know, I almost agree with you even though you used some funny words for my brain.

 

Your last paragraph is very Taoist. The "indetifiable" in my mind is Tzujan. (Tzujan is a verb, not a noun.)

 

Of course relatively there is a self. Just not ultimately,

 

Agree. All conditions are temporal. Only change is eternal. Not even oneness is eternal because it is constantly manifesting into parts (parts appearing to be separate but they are not because they are parts of the "All").

 

So, for the time being, I am Marblehead but I, just as all else, will return to the Oneness and more than likely be reused in the manifestation of some other "thing".

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

Hi Marblehead. LOL! American English... hmmm.

 

So, for the time being, I am Marblehead but I, just as all else, will return to the Oneness and more than likely be reused in the manifestation of some other "thing".

 

Be well!

 

This Marblehead is exactly the type of unconscious re-birthing or recycling that the Buddha spoke and taught us liberation from.

 

All the best!

[Marblehead]

This Marblehead is exactly the type of unconscious re-birthing or recycling that the Buddha spoke and taught us liberation from.

 

See? I told you we would find many areas of agreement.

 

All the best!

 

Likewise!

[Vajrahridaya]

This Marblehead is exactly the type of unconscious re-birthing or recycling that the Buddha spoke and taught us liberation from.

 

See? I told you we would find many areas of agreement.

 

All the best!

 

Likewise!

 

[dwai]

Yes, he vehementaly denied emptiness as it exposes the complete lack of an ultimate concept. An ultimate non-concept or concept are both subverted by pratitsamutpada.

 

No...his critique was very specific. He was well acquainted with the following three schools of Buddhism:

 

SarvAstivAdins, vijnAnavAdins and mAdhamikas.

 

His critique was of the SarvAstivAdins and specifically of their claim of the momentariness of reality, and that being a flow of discrete momentary realities progressing forward via causality. He only criticizes the Sautantrika version of Nirvana.

 

His other critique is of the NairAtmyavAda as posited by Buddhism. His position is that Buddhism is unable to explain how the "self" is brought together by to be the self-conscious entity it is by chance (of atoms leading to the physical body + the four skandas). In other words, How can a basically non-conscious entity (material atom) lead to a conscious entity without a conscious entity putting these together in the first place?

 

To counter this, Buddhists introduce Alaya vijnAna, to postulate the concept of "Stream of Consciousness". This was posited to be the "glue" that threads the momentariness together. But Shankara's criticism of this is as follows:

 

Alaya can neither be identified with nor distinguished from the particular cognition. Besides, if it is momentary, it cannot be considered a unifying center. If not, it is just the self under another name.

 

His critique of Dependent Origination being posited as sufficient cause for existence (without the action of a conscious agent) is based on the fact that it presupposes "a stream of consciousness" being responsible for the operation of the various conditions (including avidya) that DO claims as being the explanation.

[Lucky7Strikes]

..

Edited July 24, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Man, here we go again with the chicken and the egg...