The Chicken or the Egg?

[Marblehead]

So, has anyone killed the chicken yet so we can eat supper tonight?

 

Be well!

[Josh Young]

Now this is more like it!

Mind is the world. Mind is the Self indeed. Mind is Brahman. Meditate on the Mind.

Ok that is from your quote

and here is the Buddha:

1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

or if that translation does not suit you:

Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox.

 

Mind is the forerunner of (all good) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, AFFECTION follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves.

 

Or from another book:

The activities of mind have no limit, they form the surroundings of life...

 

just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind....

there is nothing un the world that is not mind-created...

if we learn that there is no world of delusion outside the mind, the bewildered mind becomes clear; and because we cease to create impure surroundings, we attain enlightenment...

 

therefore, all things are primarily controlled and ruled by the mind, and are created by the mind. As the wheels follow the ox that draws the cart, so dies suffering follow the person who speaks and acts with an impure mind.

 

And more from your quote

Mind is the world. Mind is the Self indeed. Mind is Brahman...

 

Brahman is the cause of this world

 

Well, you asked me the following:

Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all resemble the Dharma of the Buddha?

Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all not resemble the Dharma of the Buddha?

 

Insult what you will, you do not know me or how open or closed my mind is. We can play your childish game of "my religion can beat up yor religion" or actually consider things and have a real discussion.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Josh Young

[Lucky7Strikes]

So, has anyone killed the chicken yet so we can eat supper tonight?

 

Be well!

 

 

I'll have eggs sunny side up with that!

 

I think the trouble here is semantics. Brahman can easily be misinterpreted as an "outside" agent. This becomes tricky when one begins to identify with that "outside" agent as him/her Self. To declare a "void" or a non-existent background as something to merge into is where Buddhists see a problem. When ALL is of the mind, Brahman too is an illusion. Its approach in the end is very much affirmative.

 

Buddhism has no such agents. Its approach is negation as a sort of affirmation. Hence it even denies noting "emptiness" as a term to bound oneself to.

 

2cents...

[dwai]

nice response as always.

 

It was pointless discussing this with someone who has tied himself up with the convolutions of his mind/(il)logic..

I was laughing at the irony of it all... you won't get the joke I'm afraid.

;P

[dwai]

 

I'll have eggs sunny side up with that!

 

I think the trouble here is semantics. Brahman can easily be misinterpreted as an "outside" agent. This becomes tricky when one begins to identify with that "outside" agent as him/her Self. To declare a "void" or a non-existent background as something to merge into is where Buddhists see a problem. When ALL is of the mind, Brahman too is an illusion. Its approach in the end is very much affirmative.

 

Buddhism has no such agents. Its approach is negation as a sort of affirmation. Hence it even denies noting "emptiness" as a term to bound oneself to.

 

2cents...

 

 

Indeed the differences are not just in semantics, but in what the Buddhists want to interpret certain words as. They consider the "Self" to be the personal self, the egoic entity that is the mundane self. Advaita and Tantra consider this self to be impersonal and the only self. That is the difference.

 

The only think unfortunately that is certain in this reality is the fact that "I am". The whole process of denying the "Self" falls apart because the exercise is irreconcilably coupled with the "I am".

 

 

The Atman -- The Real Self, not the complex of antahkarana (or the five skandhas as per Buddhist tradition) is self-illuminated. It is Pure Knowing, self-aware. See, Advaita Vedanta or Tantra don't actually say "Merge" into Brahman (or Shiva). They say Become Brahman.

 

To know Brahman is to become Brahman. How do you do it? Peel off the layers of ignorance that cover the true self (the Atman). Once only the Atman remains, the Brahman stands forth. Because Atman is Brahman.

 

The problem is that Buddhists allude a personification of Nirguna Brahman (Void Brahman) when actually none is insinuated. That which is personified is Saguna Brahman and that is the God, Allah, your deity of choice. It is a construct of refined Egoic self, which is a result of it's background, categorical framework based on which it perceives and conceives reality.

 

Okay...I bow out of this discussion now.

 

Regards,

 

Dwai

[Sloppy Zhang]

Guys, you're not asking the right questions....

 

It's not what came first...

 

It's what you have with you at the time, which determines what you eat.

 

Will you eat an omelet?

 

Or will you eat a chicken sandwich?

 

To that extent, what about a lazy student on summer break who sleeps in 'till lunchtime, he eats the chicken sandwich first, then has eggs for dinner, even though for everyone else they have eggs for breakfast (hence it comes first for them), followed by the chicken.

 

What your next meal is going to be is a bit more practical than some abstract discussion about whether or not there's a chicken in front of you to begin with

[Sunya]

Now this is more like it!

 

Ok that is from your quote

and here is the Buddha:

 

or if that translation does not suit you:

Or from another book:

And more from your quote

Well, you asked me the following:

Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all resemble the Dharma of the Buddha?

Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all not resemble the Dharma of the Buddha?

 

Insult what you will, you do not know me or how open or closed my mind is. We can play your childish game of "my religion can beat up yor religion" or actually consider things and have a real discussion.

 

are you purposefully not thinking deeper into this?

after you're doing having a temper tantrum...try to reconcile these with any Buddhist teaching, since you seemed to skip over what is truly essential to the point i'm making and only focused on a superficial element.

 

"Mind is Brahman" and "Brahman is the immortal Soul, the one warp of the world and the individual souls, the self-luminous light of the worlds, full of bliss, omnipresent. It is in front, behind, above, below, to the right and to the left, and shines with all splendour in the heart of all." and can't forget about "Brahman is the cause of this world."

 

can you find any Buddhist teaching, of the original Nikaya suttas of the physical Buddha, or the later 'warped and dogmatic' schools (as you like to say) that in any way, shape, or form point to the individuals mind being equal to the fundamental essence the permeates all of reality and being the cause of the world

Edited July 25, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

 

I'll have eggs sunny side up with that!

 

I think the trouble here is semantics. Brahman can easily be misinterpreted as an "outside" agent. This becomes tricky when one begins to identify with that "outside" agent as him/her Self. To declare a "void" or a non-existent background as something to merge into is where Buddhists see a problem. When ALL is of the mind, Brahman too is an illusion. Its approach in the end is very much affirmative.

 

Buddhism has no such agents. Its approach is negation as a sort of affirmation. Hence it even denies noting "emptiness" as a term to bound oneself to.

 

2cents...

 

 

Indeed. all is of the mind because all concepts are bound by minds limitations. therefore using terms such as Self to describe ultimate reality is a horrible idea. thats why all the teachings of emptiness barely give the mind any clue what the true nature of things are, apart from interdependence and negation of self-nature. true non-conceptual insight is beyond mind thats why having concepts is disastrous. its impossible to have true experience and recognition of non-duality if the mind is steeped in concepts

Edited July 25, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Indeed the differences are not just in semantics, but in what the Buddhists want to interpret certain words as. They consider the "Self" to be the personal self, the egoic entity that is the mundane self. Advaita and Tantra consider this self to be impersonal and the only self. That is the difference.

 

The Buddha is very clear in the Pali Suttas that even a universal Self, a cosmic Self of all is merely a state of mis-understanding meditative absorption or the stages of Jhana. There is not even a cosmic Self in Buddhism. So, there is also no interpersonal-impersonal Self. That also constitutes grasping at an identity. It's kind of a non-conceptual concept paradox thingy which Hinduism loves. Buddhism utilizes paradox but much less so than Hinduism and it also subverts all paradox. Personal/Impersonal, Macrocosm/Microcosm... etc. We utilize them, but we don't reify them.

The only think unfortunately that is certain in this reality is the fact that "I am". The whole process of denying the "Self" falls apart because the exercise is irreconcilably coupled with the "I am".

 

 

Proper understanding and then experiential intuition of dependent origination/emptiness is the cure for that disease. There's no grasping when one truly understands how the beginningless cycle of the 12 links works personally, interpersonally and with meditative experiences and kalpas, pralayas... etc. There are also positive pratitsamutpada links mentioned in the Pali Suttas. It's all for understanding what dependent origination/emptiness means on a wholistic experiential level.

The Atman -- The Real Self, not the complex of antahkarana (or the five skandhas as per Buddhist tradition) is self-illuminated. It is Pure Knowing, self-aware. See, Advaita Vedanta or Tantra don't actually say "Merge" into Brahman (or Shiva). They say Become Brahman.

 

Same thing, we don't want to become anything, we are in the process of unbecoming, un-conditioning, uncompounding. The subtle ideation of Atman is the super mundane compounder of all. Even on an impersonal cosmic level as the soul of a cosmos that is the will behind all will's, etc. This is just making your ego formless, all pervasive and non-conceptual. It's a state of Jhana, or Samadhi, but not liberation from Samsara.

To know Brahman is to become Brahman. How do you do it? Peel off the layers of ignorance that cover the true self (the Atman). Once only the Atman remains, the Brahman stands forth. Because Atman is Brahman.

 

Alleviate all of mankind's problems please. Now, oh great Brahman, soul of the cosmos. Oh wait, you become Brahman but you don't have omnipotence, do you? In Buddhism there is no omnipotence, there is only omnipresent omniscience. There are no deities that are causes of the cosmos, even as metaphors, just realizers of the true nature of cosmos, or realizers of the true nature of mind/cosmos simultaneously. We become Buddha only in the sense of the same realization of what the Buddha had. That's why he was sure not to call himself a God, god, a supreme Self, a self... etc.

The problem is that Buddhists allude a personification of Nirguna Brahman (Void Brahman) when actually none is insinuated. That which is personified is Saguna Brahman and that is the God, Allah, your deity of choice. It is a construct of refined Egoic self, which is a result of it's background, categorical framework based on which it perceives and conceives reality.

 

Yes, Buddhists feel that, "I am Truth, Consciousness and Bliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva" is a very high mistaken cognition and samsaric view that does not fully liberate. As Nagarjuna said, other paths lead to the edge of Samsara while Buddha dharma leads to the end of Samsara for a person. We don't aim at becoming one with everything, we don't aim at having identity with the entire universe. The aim's are different. Our paths lead to different places. We define liberation differently. But we do both call it bliss. It's just different way's of experiencing Bliss though and our wisdoms are subtly but importantly different, even if our virtues are the same, compassion, altruism, loving kindness, etc. We never get re-absorbed into an all pervasive and omnipotent "Self" because we think of that as merely a formless concept, just as Buddha described in the formless Jhanas and as explained in the higher planes of the 31 plane model. You can see here... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

 

Okay...I bow out of this discussion now.

 

Regards,

 

Dwai

 

Ok Dwai... Have a wonderful day/night brother. Be well!! Om Ah Hum!

 

Indeed. all is of the mind because all concepts are bound by minds limitations. therefore using terms such as Self to describe ultimate reality is a horrible idea. thats why all the teachings of emptiness barely give the mind any clue what the true nature of things are, apart from interdependence and negation of self-nature. true non-conceptual insight is beyond mind thats why having concepts is disastrous. its impossible to have true experience and recognition of non-duality if the mind is steeped in concepts

 

It's more like attached to concepts, even subtle non-conceptual reifications.

 

In Buddhism the Truth of the nature of things, is subtler than merely wiping your mirror clean so that it shimmers clean in the light of the sun

Edited July 25, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[gendao]

Well, your last paragraph is not questionable. I totally agree. The first paragraph I have to let slide, Hehehe.

 

Are you sure about the evolution process stated in paragraph two? Only a couple days ago I saw the 'real' wild chicken that lives in China and Malaysia. What a majestic bird that is - the Red Jungle Fowl. Seems to me the chicken has devolved.

 

Also, it is now being suggested that the domesticated chicken isn't a pure descendant of the Red of China but it has genes from the Gray Jungle Fowl of India.

 

So apparently there was some cross-breeding some thousands of years ago. The Grays and Reds haven't changed much, if at all, over the thousands of years. It is the half-breeds that have changed.

 

So using this data I arrive at the conclusion that the egg came first.

 

PS Except for remembering the info on TV my info comes from Wikipedia.

 

Be well!

Lol, interesting...but nonetheless irrelevant.

 

It doesn't really matter if the adult organism in question is any other type of bird, or even a reptile...

 

In fact, you could just as easily ask which came first - the pre-pubescent girl or the post-pubescent girl, right? One is hairless and flat as a board, and the other got some bumps and tufts...

 

Edited July 25, 2009 by vortex

[Marblehead]

Boy! I'm glad we Taoists don't have all these delusional problems. We exist! And so does the chicken and so does the egg.

 

I, the chicken nor the egg are a figment of somebody's imagination.

 

And BTW, "I" have "eggs" in the fridge and "chicken" in the freezer. They really are there folks!

 

I think that to suggest that we really don't exist is going just a bit too far, regardless of one's philosophy or religion.

 

Be well!

 

 

Hey Vortex! I'm not going to touch that last post of yours. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

I think that to suggest that we really don't exist is going just a bit too far, regardless of one's philosophy or religion.

 

to say that you exist is an extreme, to say that you don't exist is another extreme. both are concepts that you cannot prove. how can you prove your exist? where are you? what makes up 'you' ?

[Marblehead]

to say that you exist is an extreme, to say that you don't exist is another extreme. both are concepts that you cannot prove. how can you prove your exist? where are you? what makes up 'you' ?

 

Hehehe. I figured some Buddhist would come along and do that to me.

 

'I' assure 'you' that if 'you' were within the reach of 'my' hand and 'I' slapped 'you' aside 'your' head to get 'your' attention (as the Zen Masters do) 'you' would know that not only do 'I' exist but that 'you' too exist.

 

To your other two questions, I am somewhere beyond the distance of your head therefore you have not felt my hand against your head. Oh, there are so many things that make me me - much too numerous to list.

 

But I am none-the-less a little piece of everything, just as all thing of the universe are.

 

Be well!

Edited July 26, 2009 by Marblehead

[Josh Young]

can you find any Buddhist teaching, of the original Nikaya suttas of the physical Buddha, or the later 'warped and dogmatic' schools (as you like to say) that in any way, shape, or form point to the individuals mind being equal to the fundamental essence the permeates all of reality and being the cause of the world

 

I already have.

just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind....

there is nothing in the world that is not mind-created...

if we learn that there is no world of delusion outside the mind, the bewildered mind becomes clear; and because we cease to create impure surroundings, we attain enlightenment...

 

Mikaelz, why are you so bitter and hateful?

[Sunya]

I already have.

just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind....

there is nothing in the world that is not mind-created...

if we learn that there is no world of delusion outside the mind, the bewildered mind becomes clear; and because we cease to create impure surroundings, we attain enlightenment...

 

that is not equivalent.

 

Mikaelz, why are you so bitter and hateful?

 

lighten up

[Sloppy Zhang]

And BTW, "I" have "eggs" in the fridge and "chicken" in the freezer. They really are there folks!

 

Be well!

 

Now, is the freezer on top of the refrigerator? Is it side by side? Below? Is the freezer a separate unit from the fridge?

 

Each answer only leads to new questions

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. I figured some Buddhist would come along and do that to me.

 

'I' assure 'you' that if 'you' were within the reach of 'my' hand and 'I' slapped 'you' aside 'your' head to get 'your' attention (as the Zen Masters do) 'you' would know that not only do 'I' exist but that 'you' too exist.

 

To your other two questions, I am somewhere beyond the distance of your head therefore you have not felt my hand against your head. Oh, there are so many things that make me me - much too numerous to list.

 

But I am none-the-less a little piece of everything, just as all thing of the universe are.

 

Be well!

 

LOL! It's not that you don't exist. It's that you don't inherently exist in and of yourself. Your existence is mutually dependent upon all causes and conditions throughout the cosmos. You and your consciousness are not singular, separate entities, but neither are you one with everything, you are merely connected with everything and so are your thoughts influenced by other things and your thoughts influence other things. So your existence is, but it's relative, interdependently originated and not self contained, so inherently empty of self essence. Not, non-existent.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

LOL! It's not that you don't exist. It's that you don't inherently exist in and of yourself. Your existence is mutually dependent upon all causes and conditions throughout the cosmos. You and your consciousness are not singular, separate entities, but neither are you one with everything, you are merely connected with everything and so are your thoughts influenced by other things and your thoughts influence other things. So your existence is, but it's relative, interdependently originated and not self contained, so inherently empty of self essence. Not, non-existent.

 

WoW! Sometimes you Buddhists make perfect sense!

 

Be well!

 

 

Now, is the freezer on top of the refrigerator? Is it side by side? Below? Is the freezer a separate unit from the fridge?

 

Each answer only leads to new questions

 

Ha! They both are separate, stand-alone units physically spaced at a distance of approximately 16 feet. However, they are none-the-less connected because they both use the same energy source. Hehehe. Just like me and Tao and all else.

 

So you just go ahead and ask all the questions you wish. I have all the answers. Nevermind that most of them are wrong.

 

(Actually, all my answers are right, it is just that most of the time the questions are wrong.)

 

Be well!

Edited July 26, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

WoW! Sometimes you Buddhists make perfect sense!

 

Be well!

Darn and I was trying to criss cross your synaptic fire works, and knot tie your brain waves.

 

Back to the drawing board.

[Marblehead]

Darn and I was trying to criss cross your synaptic fire works, and knot tie your brain waves.

 

Back to the drawing board.

 

Hehehe. I think I will have fish tonight and save the chicken from eternal damnation.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. I think I will have fish tonight and save the chicken from eternal damnation.

 

Be well!

 

LOL! Actually the Nag Hammadi Library which was dug up in the 40's and translated fully by the mid 70's say's in the Gospel of Thomas. Blessed is the beast who is eaten by man, but cursed is the man who eats the beast.

 

So if you can do it selflessly, offering merit to the karma of the beast, it's karmas intermingling with yours on a level of flesh will serve the animal to become human in it's next life, and you being conscious of this will in fact not be cursed but blessed as a self offering.

 

I feel this and believe this not because I've read it, but because it makes metaphysical sense on a certain level that I can intuitively feel.

 

Anyway... have a wonderful dinner and bless your fish, like the native americans blessed their kills!

[Marblehead]

LOL! Actually the Nag Hammadi Library which was dug up in the 40's and translated fully by the mid 70's say's in the Gospel of Thomas. Blessed is the beast who is eaten by man, but cursed is the man who eats the beast.

 

So if you can do it selflessly, offering merit to the karma of the beast, it's karmas intermingling with yours on a level of flesh will serve the animal to become human in it's next life, and you being conscious of this will in fact not be cursed but blessed as a self offering.

 

I feel this and believe this not because I've read it, but because it makes metaphysical sense on a certain level that I can intuitively feel.

 

Anyway... have a wonderful dinner and bless your fish, like the native americans blessed their kills!

 

You wouldn't believe how close to home what you have said is to me. I have touched lightly on Native American spirituality and this is, as you mentioned, very similar, the two. To respect all living creatures, even those one must kill for his own survival. (I don't eat my pet fish that I keep in the pond though.)

 

Be well!

Edited July 27, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

(I don't eat my pet fish that I keep in the pond though.)

 

Be well!

 

LOL! We'll I'm sure that is a blessing in it's own way. As everything is indeed relative. Yes, I grew up most of my youth right near a Navaho and Pueblo reservation, in a pre-dominantly Mexican area that was famous for spiritual occurrences, alien sightings and ghost hauntings.... Rofl, somewhere between Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Espanola (N has an enye above it like nyola)! The nearest store being a Bar, or a Candy store, a half hour walk through all sorts of poor areas down a main dirt road running through many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_(creek) ..'s I some how disabled the ability to post links through a windows prompt that I'm too tired to look into right now. If anyone can help me with this in a simple and straight forward way. I'd really appreciate it, because now I can't open any of the abilities located above this reply.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The link worked. Can't help with the other stuff because I not familiar enough with this board. Maybe someone will come along with some help.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the area you talked of. I have walked a number of Arroyo in 1986 when I was travelling through there pursuing my short-lived rock collecting hobby.

 

I do like that part of the country a lot but the low humidity does a job on my skin and I get electrocuted by almost anything I touch.

 

Be well!

[Josh Young]

Them not being equivalent is merely your opinion.

I have the opposite one.

 

Can you explain why they are not equivalent?