The Chicken or the Egg?

[Vajrahridaya]

You just won't get it. How can you prove something is dependently originated when it doesn't have an origin?

 

Exactly you keep mis-cognizing the experience of objectless consciousness because of the way you interpret the experience. The experience is dependently originated. The experience originates in the mind-stream dependent upon causes and conditions related to meditation, focus or contemplation, or selfless action.

 

The potentiality is always there simply because of infinite regress and infinite openness of dependent origination/emptiness, but the experience is not inherent, only the potentiality of the experience is inherent.

 

Plus you grasp it as a Self, thus when objects fall away at the end of a cosmic eon, unless you've realized a Buddharealm through genuine wisdom through the bodhisattva path of selfless offering in reference to a genuine understanding of dependent origination, you will re-absorb into a formless bliss consciousness state for an untold period of time because you consider that as a self of all.

 

Your the one not getting it. But you probably won't in this lifetime because your very hard lined identified with being a Hindu Brahmin with a long lineage of Swami's and Brahmin's of high realization and it would cause a lot of pain to empty out your current philosophical structure of top down view, of which objectless consciousness is the rooftop. Your ego would fight tooth and nail.

 

p.s. It would take a direct experience of dependent origination that is deeply transcendent to convince your subconscious mind. That's what it took me and I had already experienced formless samadhi's and heaven realms spoken of in Vedic cosmology. You can't imagine how hard it was to humble myself to a subtler view, because you haven't gone deep enough in your own path it might be easier. But, at the same time, you have family lineage and by birth right your a Hindu Brahmin, so... I don't know?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Exactly you keep mis-cognizing the experience of objectless consciousness because of the way you interpret the experience. The experience is dependently originated. The experience originates in the mind-stream dependent upon causes and conditions related to meditation, focus or contemplation, or selfless action.

 

The potentiality is always there simply because of infinite regress and infinite openness of dependent origination/emptiness, but the experience is not inherent, only the potentiality of the experience is inherent.

 

Plus you grasp it as a Self, thus when objects fall away at the end of a cosmic eon, unless you've realized a Buddharealm through genuine wisdom through the bodhisattva path of selfless offering in reference to a genuine understanding of dependent origination, you will re-absorb into a formless bliss consciousness state for an untold period of time because you consider that as a self of all.

 

Your the one not getting it. But you probably won't in this lifetime because your very hard lined identified with being a Hindu Brahmin with a long lineage of Swami's and Brahmin's of high realization and it would cause a lot of pain to empty out your current philosophical structure of top down view, of which objectless consciousness is the rooftop. Your ego would fight tooth and nail.

 

p.s. It would take a direct experience of dependent origination that is deeply transcendent to convince your subconscious mind. That's what it took me and I had already experienced formless samadhi's and heaven realms spoken of in Vedic cosmology. You can't imagine how hard it was to humble myself to a subtler view, because you haven't gone deep enough in your own path it might be easier. But, at the same time, you have family lineage and by birth right your a Hindu Brahmin, so... I don't know?

 

What can I say? You don't understand the difference between subject and predicate and mistake the predicate as the subject. That which is not a phenomenon does not have a beginning or an end. I am is not a phenomenon and it has no beginning and end...in both the ontological sense as well as epistemic sense. You have to spend some "extra" time in thinking about it, that's all...even you will get it.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The Chicken...no, I mean the Egg...yes, yes, the Egg, most definitely... unless.. it was the Chicken, of course..

but then, the Egg has such appeal... so smooth and white, like in eggshell white, neutral tone,...yup, the Egg, I'm going with the Egg... but who laid the Egg? hadda be the Chicken, y'know? OK, the Chicken, the Chicken...what? Final Answer?? ..............uh, can I use a lifeline?

[tianshixian]

As the yin and yang are inseparable, clearly the ultimate answer is they arrived at the same time.

If one observes the nature of Time which is non-existent without observation, then the whole point of the "what came first" disappears and all that's left is the "egg" and "chicken".

 

Yet, speaking literally in one time frame and one iteration of things aka "Earth" if one could have followe dhte whole thing, it would be clear they again arrieved simultanesouly because only when they appeared like chickens and chicken eggs did they exist at all. Of course, the gametes and such existed all the way back before the "chicken" but if no one named them, they had no form, so they really didn't exist either.

 

As for how it happened, I don't know the range of the original chickens before they were domesticated, but if they didn't coincide with people, (which given the existence of this question I find it possible), then at some point a hunter observed a walking or flying chicken, followed it home and found eggs. So for Man, he probably discovered chickens and named them first, but finding the eggs already in the nest, again: they arrived at the same moment.

 

Either way you slice it: philosophically/spiritually, biologically, or historically, they appear to have arrived at the same time.

 

Aside from that, it's pointless since there's no origin of anything. Origin, too, is a mind-trick of the ego.

[Vajrahridaya]

What can I say? You don't understand the difference between subject and predicate and mistake the predicate as the subject. That which is not a phenomenon does not have a beginning or an end. I am is not a phenomenon and it has no beginning and end...in both the ontological sense as well as epistemic sense. You have to spend some "extra" time in thinking about it, that's all...even you will get it.

 

Sure it is... you consider the I AM as the ultimate subject of all. Pure being, Pure is-ness. Exactly what the Buddha taught to empty attachment to. It's the cause of recycling.

 

I already had come to understand the basis for Vedanta long ago and used to uphold that view with endless quotes against Buddhist view. Telling Buddhists that they misunderstood the Buddha and Nagarjuna. Then, I realized through study and spontaneous experience through intense contemplation and objectivity. I thought to myself... I don't care if I was raised a Hindu and my mothers a Hindu. I really want to know the truth of experience and what truly liberates. I really had to fight my deeply entrenched in blissful high up I AM level experience to even say that to myself, I had to fight on a subtle energetic level in my being. I still do... I still have Hindu and Vedantic dreams and meditation experiences that aim at reification of a divine source of existence, one that has no center but circumference everywhere. But, I understand through direct experience that I cannot deny the power of, plus an intellectual conscious comprehension that I cannot deny gained through actually studying the Buddhas teachings within context. This subtle supreme identity as Truth, even if it's incredible bliss and leads to yogic powers and divine visions, OBE's, interdimensional traveling, great kundalini rushes, it is not the right view. The Buddhist view is subtler. It's the first part of the 8 fold path, the first thing to establish, "Right View". You just won't allow yourself the objective space in your mind stream to really let go for a moment and see from an entirely different way of viewing the experience of clear light consciousness.

 

Buddha nature is infinite potentiality without inherent existence, it is not the same as Brahman.

[tianshixian]

Exactly you keep mis-cognizing the experience of objectless consciousness because of the way you interpret the experience. The experience is dependently originated. The experience originates in the mind-stream dependent upon causes and conditions related to meditation, focus or contemplation, or selfless action.

 

.....

 

Your the one not getting it. But you probably won't in this lifetime because your very hard lined identified with being a Hindu Brahmin with a long lineage of Swami's and Brahmin's of high realization and it would cause a lot of pain to empty out your current philosophical structure of top down view, of which objectless consciousness is the rooftop. Your ego would fight tooth and nail.

 

p.s. It would take a direct experience of dependent origination that is deeply transcendent to convince your subconscious mind. That's what it took me and I had already experienced formless samadhi's and heaven realms spoken of in Vedic cosmology. You can't imagine how hard it was to humble myself to a subtler view, because you haven't gone deep enough in your own path it might be easier. But, at the same time, you have family lineage and by birth right your a Hindu Brahmin, so... I don't know?

 

well, I must say this is the first time I've seen a metaphysical bashing on a forum.

 

I wonder if that hurt in the ether? Did it?

 

*sigh* you are wasting virtual space. LOL

 

As the yin and yang are inseparable, clearly the ultimate answer is they arrived at the same time.

If one observes the nature of Time which is non-existent without observation, then the whole point of the "what came first" disappears and all that's left is the "egg" and "chicken".

 

Yet, speaking literally in one time frame and one iteration of things aka "Earth" if one could have followe dhte whole thing, it would be clear they again arrieved simultanesouly because only when they appeared like chickens and chicken eggs did they exist at all. Of course, the gametes and such existed all the way back before the "chicken" but if no one named them, they had no form, so they really didn't exist either.

 

As for how it happened, I don't know the range of the original chickens before they were domesticated, but if they didn't coincide with people, (which given the existence of this question I find it possible), then at some point a hunter observed a walking or flying chicken, followed it home and found eggs. So for Man, he probably discovered chickens and named them first, but finding the eggs already in the nest, again: they arrived at the same moment.

 

Either way you slice it: philosophically/spiritually, biologically, or historically, they appear to have arrived at the same time.

 

Aside from that, it's pointless since there's no origin of anything. Origin, too, is a mind-trick of the ego.

Edited July 31, 2009 by tianshixian

[Vajrahridaya]

well, I must say this is the first time I've seen a metaphysical bashing on a forum.

 

I wonder if that hurt in the ether? Did it?

 

*sigh* you are wasting virtual space. LOL

 

I thank my teacher for bashing me. Mostly I think this is for other people to read though, not Dwai. It's easier for people to be objective about something that's not happening to them.

 

About wasting virtual space? We'll this is a very ancient debate that started between Buddha and Brahmin's in around 600 B.C. Brahmin's should have their minds changed, through debate, not violence.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[tianshixian]

I thank my teacher for bashing me. Mostly I think this is for other people to read though, not Dwai. It's easier for people to be objective about something that's not happening to them.

 

About wasting virtual space? We'll this is a very ancient debate that started between Buddha and Brahmin's in around 600 B.C. Brahmin's should have their minds changed, through debate, not violence.

 

well buddha, pardon me for asking you to take your debate outside the temple walls, it's disturbing the wa of the thread with mind-violence.

[Vajrahridaya]

well buddha, pardon me for asking you to take your debate outside the temple walls, it's disturbing the wa of the thread with mind-violence.

 

That's merely your subjective opinion. Take care!

 

The debate is still about there being a beginning or not to manifestation. Vedanta thinks so, Buddha does not.

[xabir2005]

You just won't get it. How can you prove something is dependently originated when it doesn't have an origin?

As I said before, in Buddhism nothing has an origin. Everything dependently originates, it is not the same as awareness having an origin or birth/creation. Hence in Buddhism Nothing is created, everything is unborn. They dependently originates, and there is no creation of anything. Non buddhists reify a source that is non-created and only the source is not created. But in Buddhism, there is no origination and no 'The Source' (all manifestation is source). Awareness has no monopoly.

 

A good way to talk about this is the Conventional and Ultimate nature of Awareness. When we stop gross conceptualizing and identification with gross experiences, we experience the conventional nature of awareness. Feels like an oceanic vast space-like formless yet aware presence. As we progress we realise this vast spacious awareness is totally inseperable from all forms. And yet, we need one more step: realising the ultimate nature of mind, which is empty (not the formlessness which is the conventional nature of awareness -- but the non-independent, groundless, dependently originated nature of awareness). The conventional and ultimate nature does not cancel out each other.

 

A very good talk would by Realizing the Nature of Mind by Rob Burbea which my friend Thusness thought was amazingly clear:

 

2009-05-21 Realizing the nature of mind 65:00 Download Stream Order

 

Through practice we can glimpse a sense of the nature of awareness as something ever present and awesomely vast, and this sense can be cultivated as a profound resource for freedom and peace in our lives. But eventually we must see even beyond this to know the ultimate nature of the mind - empty, completely groundless, and dependently-arisen - a seeing which brings an even deeper freedom. This talk explores some of the ways this realization might be encouraged and developed in meditation.

 

Insight Meditation Society - Forest Refuge: May 2009 at IMS - Forest Refuge

And here's a quote from the Dalai Lama himself which Rob Burbea himself mentioned a bit somewhere in the talk:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...a-and-mind.html

 

Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

 

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

 

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

 

Of these two aspects, viz. the ultimate true nature of mind and a knowledge of that ultimate true nature, the former is the base, the latter an attribute. Mind (self) is the basis and all its different states are attributes. However, the basis and its attributes have from the first pertained to the same single essence. The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist.

Edited July 31, 2009 by xabir2005

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

That's merely your subjective opinion. Take care!

 

The debate is still about there being a beginning or not to manifestation. Vedanta thinks so, Buddha does not.

 

 

 

CHICKEN!!!!!!>>>>>>

 

 

<<<<<EGG!!!!!!!!

 

The Chicken...no, I mean the Egg...yes, yes, the Egg, most definitely... unless.. it was the Chicken, of course..

but then, the Egg has such appeal... so smooth and white, like in eggshell white, neutral tone,...yup, the Egg, I'm going with the Egg... but who laid the Egg? hadda be the Chicken, y'know? OK, the Chicken, the Chicken...what? Final Answer?? ..............uh, can I use a lifeline?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brinnggg! Bringgggg!

Hello.....?

[Vajrahridaya]

And here's a quote from the Dalai Lama himself which Rob Burbea himself mentioned a bitsomewhere in the talk:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...a-and-mind.html

 

The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist.

 

Yes, but this is an English translation of the Tibetan. If one reads this, which happens so much in the case of English renderings of Buddhism, one thinks he's reifying emptiness as a self existent ultimate.

 

Our English language is based generally on the assumption of a God. Most translators translate through that assumption. Especially really early translations of Tibetan Buddhist poetry and writing. It was all reified in the translations and deified.

 

I see the same thing above. It needs commentary.

 

CHICKEN!!!!!!>>>>>>

<<<<<EGG!!!!!!!!

Brinnggg! Bringgggg!

Hello.....?

 

I'm sorry, my view is neither came first. The chicken's possibility is probably left over from the previous universe just as the earth is a manifestation of latent tendencies within beginningless time within the chain of causation. There have been endless earths and endless chickens and eggs.

 

Now, if you want to talk about on this particular Earth. The 1st chicken was just a deformed form of some species during it's strong evolutionary period for survival and it's deformation as a chicken just survived better.

 

But, that's just within the limitations of this earth during this universe.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

I see the same thing above. It needs commentary.

 

 

Ying vs Yang

 

KFC vs. Egg McMuffin

 

v-jay-hri-day, you sooooo serious! must learn laugh more! Truth got no tooth!

and tianxianshin-o, must remember to get you special gag hand-buzzer for chinese new year present!

Then we ALL have a beer together at the white house! much funs!

plus, I will reveal the Secret of the Golden Egg: Chicken and Egg arrive together, same time,

carry-on luggage only, no checked bags!

[xabir2005]

Yes, but this is an English translation of the Tibetan. If one reads this, which happens so much in the case of English renderings of Buddhism, one thinks he's reifying emptiness as a self existent ultimate.

 

Our English language is based generally on the assumption of a God. Most translators translate through that assumption. Especially really early translations of Tibetan Buddhist poetry and writing. It was all reified in the translations and deified.

 

I see the same thing above. It needs commentary.

I'm sorry, my view is neither came first. The chicken's possibility is probably left over from the previous universe just as the earth is a manifestation of latent tendencies within beginningless time within the chain of causation. There have been endless earths and endless chickens and eggs.

 

Now, if you want to talk about on this particular Earth. The 1st chicken was just a deformed form of some species during it's strong evolutionary period for survival and it's deformation as a chicken just survived better.

 

But, that's just within the limitations of this earth during this universe.

As far as the two articles go I think it's pretty clear that Shunyata is not a God like essence or a formless vast awareness, but the non-independent, D.O. nature of Mind. I think they are pretty clear. Of course, this level of clarity is not very common.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ying vs Yang

 

KFC vs. Egg McMuffin

 

v-jay-hri-day, you sooooo serious! must learn laugh more! Truth got no tooth!

and tianxianshin-o, must remember to get you special gag hand-buzzer for chinese new year present!

Then we ALL have a beer together at the white house! much funs!

plus, I will reveal the Secret of the Golden Egg: Chicken and Egg arrive together, same time,

carry-on luggage only, no checked bags!

 

LOL! No dude, I thought your first post was funny. I just laughed to myself.

 

I wasn't understanding why you were writing that comment though to my post. So, yes I wrote something philosophical.

 

I like that... truth got no tooth. I love that in fact. Ok, now I am laughing again. Very good... I'm gona (got get) me a yuengling. Now, which came first? The drunk or the beer? For a yogi, the drunk came first, the beer was just to quench his thirst.

 

 

 

As far as the two articles go I think it's pretty clear that Shunyata is not a God like essence or a formless vast awareness, but the non-independent, D.O. nature of Mind. I think they are pretty clear. Of course, this level of clarity is not very common.

 

Yes, I've heard that in his own language, the Dalai Lama is an incredible wizard with clarity in explanation. I mean, super erudite! I mean, just look at his eyes... the vast depth of experience shatters my ego-librium!

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

New Poll Vote Now

 

 

Who is Cock o' the Walk in Eggychickentown?

 

 

a. V-ajrahridaya-ji

 

b. tianshinxian-o-san

 

c.TheSongso'DistantEarth

 

 

 

Thanks for voting!

 

 

CLICK HERE TO SEE RESULTS>>> []

[Vajrahridaya]

New Poll Vote Now

Who is Cock o' the Walk in Eggychickentown?

a. V-ajrahridaya-ji

 

b. tianshinxian-o-san

 

c.TheSongso'DistantEarth

Thanks for voting!

CLICK HERE TO SEE RESULTS>>> []

 

Must be you... only a Cock would think the Earth is distant, because you know, a Cock is a Chicken who don't know the concept of Earth under his feet from the concept of a flying Mc'Chicken Sandwich through the space of an open mouth.

 

Nah, nah!!

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Mandrake]

Not at all, Quite the opposite: I find the debate informing and invigorating. Thanks dudes!

 

M

 

well buddha, pardon me for asking you to take your debate outside the temple walls, it's disturbing the wa of the thread with mind-violence.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Must be you... only a Cock would think the Earth is distant, because you know, a Cock is a Chicken who don't know the concept of Earth under his feet from the concept of a flying Mc'Chicken Sandwich through the space of an open mouth.

 

Nah, nah!!

 

 

Sir! How dare you!! I am King of the Haiku Chain!! You hear? King!! Nay, the Last Emperor of the H.C.!! I have slain others with only the strength

of my biting wit, my weaponly words.. they don't call me Mighty Cock for nothing!

 

Besides, you don't want me to mess up my robes, else you be having the Wu Tang Clan after yo.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sir! How dare you!! I am King of the Haiku Chain!! You hear? King!! Nay, the Last Emperor of the H.C.!! I have slain others with only the strength

of my biting wit, my weaponly words.. they don't call me Mighty Cock for nothing!

 

Besides, you don't want me to mess up my robes, else you be having the Wu Tang Clan after yo.

 

Ahhh, u pose da mighty Wu Dung... eh? I fling my flang, further than your father flung his sperm up your mothers over sized womb to fling you out her flatulent egg cracker ya slacker!

 

eh? eh?

 

Vajrahridaya...

 

 

 

"Does the top baccoooock walk"

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, both are the same, it is the perspective that causes them to appear different. In the Manifest it is "I" but in the Mystery it is "We".

 

Wow. It is true that the wise can sum up all the books and sutras into a single sentence.

 

That was awesome. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

They do not point to the same moon.

 

They do...maybe the length of the fingers are different...

 

They all lead up to the same mountaintop. The world does not hold its Truth because of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. What you call the dharma here may not be presented the way it is in other realms.

 

You yourself wouldn't have understood the depth of Shunyata as you do now if it wasn't for all your experiences studying Vedanta. And it doesn't even have to be understood theoretically. The theories are only based on experiences or else they will just be intellectual musings. A

 

The mind can grasp at all these concepts and ideas but realization comes through various means. You can label emptiness as emptiness and emptiness as self and emptiness as Brahma or whatever. It is the understanding and total grasping of that Truth that is important. Call it what you will. A being can reach the Truth in anyway without the teachings because he himself is a proof, an evidence, of that existence. It doesn't have to be Buddhism in any way whatsoever.

 

I'm sure Buddha didn't just sit there and go.."hmm...what if...(as I do)"

Edited July 31, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

They do...maybe the length of the fingers are different...

 

They all lead up to the same mountaintop. The world does not hold its Truth because of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. What you call the dharma here may not be presented the way it is in other realms.

 

You yourself wouldn't have understood the depth of Shunyata as you do now if it wasn't for all your experiences studying Vedanta. And it doesn't even have to be understood theoretically. The theories are only based on experiences or else they will just be intellectual musings. A

 

The mind can grasp at all these concepts and ideas but realization comes through various means. You can label emptiness as emptiness and emptiness as self and emptiness as Brahma or whatever. It is the understanding and total grasping of that Truth that is important. Call it what you will. A being can reach the Truth in anyway without the teachings because he himself is a proof, an evidence, of that existence. It doesn't have to be Buddhism in any way whatsoever.

 

I'm sure Buddha didn't just sit there and go.."hmm...what if...(as I do)"

 

 

It's true that if you have the proper conditions for realization within yourself, it can happen no matter where you are, or what you do. But, that means your realizing the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path and not reifying a oneness. To be clear, one might as well follow the path that is clear from the very beginning to it's end and that has the most clear methods and philosophy. That is Buddhism.

 

The path's don't all point to the same moon as they are explained to be. They don't all eradicate ignorance at it's root, the craving for existence. They don't all point to how to maintain a refined bliss body through the conscious offering of merit even after one has realized emptiness as an Arhant, which is only the beginning.

 

It's true that if your inner conditions to be a 2 footed man are there, you will be a two footed man, but most paths are a one footed man's path that leads to an unstable realization, resting on a crutch of some sort. Vedanta does rest on an ultimate Self, Christianity rests on a God who's will we must succumb to, and this is interpreted in so many way's both stupidly and deeply in a way that is akin to the subtlest Theism, Hinduism. But still, if Hinduism does not explain the nature of things with total clarity, not even the most subtle Coptic Christians will either. Therefore the philosophies of Theism as you said, that are reflective of experience, are incomplete.

 

More harm has come to the world through a belief in the loaded term God, in whatever language, than good.

 

Buddhism is very clearly the most non-violent and most clearly laid out spiritual tradition. Not all the individuals in it throughout history are Buddhas of course, but the spiritual tradition itself, without being as extreme and eternalistic as Jainism who takes non-violence to such an extreme to be really only conducive to more suffering and attachment, is the only one that completely empties out conceptual and emotional, as well as spiritual craving for existence, because it never posits an established ultimate. Buddhism is indeed so very clearly laid out and completely without attachment to a self, or a reified ultimate, why not spread it's knowledge as far as it can be spread before we blow up our planet or erase the sun from the sky with pollution making it inhabitable to the human species? I hope this doesn't happen though of course!

 

People say lighten up? Sure.. it's all a play! But the play works a certain way and Buddhism does explain how it works in so many ways, very clearly.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure Buddha didn't just sit there and go.."hmm...what if...(as I do)"

 

He actually said that he brought a path that was ancient, but not on our earth at the time that was also a different teaching from what ever else was on the earth at the time. He said this in his omniscience.

 

He didn't feel that other traditions lead to the same truth.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's true that if you have the proper conditions for realization within yourself, it can happen no matter where you are, or what you do....

 

He actually said that he brought a path that was ancient, but not on our earth at the time that was also a different teaching from what ever else was on the earth at the time. He said this in his omniscience.

 

He didn't feel that other traditions lead to the same truth.

 

Well,

 

There are countless sects, schools, sub-schools in Buddhism that all interpret the doctrines differently. Buddhism isn't such a clear cut Path and the its philosophies and contradictions are innumerable. And, surprise! there is worship in Buddhism and all the traces of Theist traditions.

 

The most non violent...only compared to few other major religions (statistically maybe?). But that's irrelevant.

 

The refined bliss body through merit...sounds like good old compassion to me.

 

4 Noble Truths and the Eight Noble paths are all good, but as you said, they can be realized personally without a labeled direction. And the interpretations of them are many. I personally believe that self-inquiry and contemplation can get you to the understanding of the Truth (at least conceptually) without a teacher showing up to tell you that there are alternatives.

 

A true questioner wouldn't stop at the source of I Am because it would never explain fully the cause of your existence or a supposed God. Even in Taoism, the very held belief that the human body and the near-world is a miscrocosmic representation of the workings of the Universe can get you there.

 

Perhaps science will get there as well as it is approaching newer concepts of duality, dimensions, interdependence and consciousness these days.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Well,

 

There are countless sects, schools, sub-schools in Buddhism that all interpret the doctrines differently. Buddhism isn't such a clear cut Path and the its philosophies and contradictions are innumerable. And, surprise! there is worship in Buddhism and all the traces of Theist traditions.

 

 

Sure, we worship and use tantric techniques, all expedient means, but we never reify, except some schools, but I don't agree with those schools. I find them fringe and even if established, are just not in touch with the teaching of pratitsamutpada. But, yes it is clear... from the first turning to Dzogchen. If you take the Dzogchen perspective and understand it, it all clarifies for you in your mind stream through Rigpa realization. It just fits... one understands experientially because you see through all the realms literally on a level past thought structure where information is channeled like millions of books worth per second. Get it or not, I'm not here to transmit Rigpa, just intellectual understanding.

 

The most non violent...only compared to few other major religions (statistically maybe?). But that's irrelevant.

 

Sure it's relevant!

 

The refined bliss body through merit...sounds like good old compassion to me.

 

Yes, but how one understands that compassion is more clear in Buddhism. Other paths do it because of a substantialist view of oneness.

 

4 Noble Truths and the Eight Noble paths are all good, but as you said, they can be realized personally without a labeled direction. And the interpretations of them are many. I personally believe that self-inquiry and contemplation can get you to the understanding of the Truth (at least conceptually) without a teacher showing up to tell you that there are alternatives.

 

Ok, go for it. I feel that it's easier to get through a forest with an objective guide who knows the forest oh so well, so do %99 percent of those that have actually realized the nature of things. You might be reading Ramana too much? Most get caught up in blissful pitfalls. There teachings sound good but are not complete.

 

 

A true questioner wouldn't stop at the source of I Am because it would never explain fully the cause of your existence or a supposed God. Even in Taoism, the very held belief that the human body and the near-world is a miscrocosmic representation of the workings of the Universe can get you there.

 

Maybe... maybe not.

 

Perhaps science will get there as well as it is approaching newer concepts of duality, dimensions, interdependence and consciousness these days.

 

Who knows the future of scientific discovery?

 

Buddhism is the clearest representation and to say that statistic non-violence doesn't matter is... not clear thinking to me.

 

But... your going to do what your going to do no matter what anyone says anyway. Keep on keepin' on!

Edited July 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya