The Chicken or the Egg?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

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.

 

That's a mis-critic of Alaya Vinjnana as it's personal and not interpersonal. It's the personal storehouse consciousness, not the universal storehouse consciousness. It is also interdependent with all other infinite mind streams but not one with them, it is both momentary as it sprouts from hidden seeds, occurences that reflect primary and secondary causes, and is beyond time as it holds potentiality seeded in through grasping at identity, which do not have the sufficient secondary causes to manifest fully into the dualistic feild of perception as of yet. It's whole cause is grasping at a Self, a true identity to people, places and things. It's static only in that sense. There is no need for a super conscious agent to glue things together as through our grasping at a self we do the gluing. We are the conscious agents that glue everything together both during the pralaya and after when the new cosmic eon comes out of the reserved potentiality collected from the pralaya of the last cosmic eon. The primary cause is not a cosmic consciousness, it's the stiring of a relaxation of focus on a formless state of consciousness by the beings from the previous cosmic eon that leads to a first born that thinks itself a cause and one with infinite formlessness because seemingly from his wish, beings start springing forth from the formless potentiality caused by grasping at a self by infinite beings in the last cosmic cycle, and thus teaches these types of theisms as Advaita Vedanta and the lot.

 

Both the potential for atomic structures and consciousness are simultaneous. Consciousness merely densifies itself dimensionally through the progression from refined non-3-dimensionality into 3 dimensionality by a progression of the re-sprouting of grasping, latent in the alaya-vijnana of infinite mind streams where physicality eminates from the ignorance of infinite beings as we decend from higher realms moving away from the purity and refinement that is the beginning of a cosmic eon. This is not caused by some supreme will that wishes to be dense and suffer within it's own infinite omnipotent being. It happens only due to the fact that it's always happened since beginningless time as dependent origination and emptiness allows for all posobilities, not as a cosmic consciousness, but just that infinite potentiality is all that all is.

 

I'm finding this hard to explain but easy to think about on a level that is not conceptually structured.

 

But yes, because Shankaracharya posits a conscious being that is behind everything which glues everything together, he is completely opposed to emptiness and dependent origination as the Buddha taught it. He feels there is some non-phenomenal entity beyond the concept of entity that makes entity possible. He believes in an uncaused cause that we can take refuge in. The Buddha taught no such thing/non-thing.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

See Shankara makes the assumption that we evolve from a beginning, a primal cause so he has to posit a cause to atoms saying how can atoms make consciousness, thus consciousness has to make atoms in order to house itself, and in one sense he's right. But, Buddha say's we evolve out of the last evolution in an endless chain of interconnecting events on an infinite scale. The Buddha say's that this cosmic eon evolves not out of itself, but out of the ending of the last cosmic eon and what is left over. What is left over from infinite samsarins grasping at a formless self? Nothing more than the potentiality to re-manifest another cosmos. So, the consciousness'(s) have always been there, just many times stored away in a latent potentiality that does not have the secondary causes to manifest until it does. Thus the timelessness between kalpas that are pralayas (between thought and process). Add infinitum.

 

Microcosm/macrocosm

 

I don't think I explained it well enough. This does a much better job of it than I am able to do...

 

The Treasury of Knowledge, Book 1: Book One: Myriad Worlds (Hardcover)

Edited July 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

He feels there is some non-phenomenal entity beyond the concept of entity that makes entity possible. He believes in an uncaused cause.

 

That sounds to me like someone is trying to sneak an Intelligent Designer (God) into the equation. The last sentence would look good in the Tao-Te Ching; just another of his many paradoxes.

 

Be well!

[gendao]

Pretty self explanatory.

 

Did the chicken come first...

 

OR

 

the egg?

 

Edit: This is an incredibly important question. Actually, I think everything comes down to this question.

They both evolved simultaneously.

 

This is like asking, "Which came first...the embryo/fetus/baby or the adult (human)?"

 

 

Next?

[Vajrahridaya]

He feels there is some non-phenomenal entity beyond the concept of entity that makes entity possible. He believes in an uncaused cause.

 

That sounds to me like someone is trying to sneak an Intelligent Designer (God) into the equation. The last sentence would look good in the Tao-Te Ching; just another of his many paradoxes.

 

Be well!

 

This is why I find Taoism to be the closest to Buddhism that I am aware of, besides Bon of course, which is indigineous Tibetan Shamanism which already had a cosmology similar to Buddhist Cosmology before Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Supposedly Bon is the left over belief system from the previous Buddha, before Gotama, some 30,000 years ago.

[Marblehead]

They both evolved simultaneously.

 

This is like asking, "Which came first...the embryo/fetus/baby or the adult (human)?"

Next?

 

Good try. Hehehe. Eggs don't evolve, sorry, eggs are laid by the evolved chicken.

 

(Please don't ask me to qualify that statement.)

 

Be well!

[gendao]

Good try. Hehehe. Eggs don't evolve, sorry, eggs are laid by the evolved chicken.

 

(Please don't ask me to qualify that statement.)

 

Be well!

Uh, an egg and a chicken are just 2 phases of the same thing. Therefore, the same thing cannot come before or after itself..

 

At the same time this organism evolved more complex features ("adult chicken"), it also evolved a more sophisticated and complex sexual reproduction strategy that involved genetic recombination and an external incubation unit (egg).

 

But at first, there was probably a time when this organism was a far simpler blob of cells that did not resemble a grown chicken whatsoever nor use eggs in reproduction.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is why I find Taoism to be the closest to Buddhism that I am aware of, besides Bon of course, which is indigineous Tibetan Shamanism which already had a cosmology similar to Buddhist Cosmology before Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Supposedly Bon is the left over belief system from the previous Buddha, before Gotama, some 30,000 years ago.

 

From Robinet's interpretation of Mao-Shan scriptures...

 

Ching = canons, scriptures, warp in weaving, road, path, law.

 

"At the end of an era when heaven and earth disappear, the most important ching return to the superior heavens and escape total destruction. When a new era begins, they will then appear...Present within the vast prelude to the coming into being of the world, ching are at the center of all teaching and at the foundation of life. They manifest the Tao. "It is by leaning upon the Tao that the ching have been constituted; it is by leaning upon the ching that the Tao manifests itself." The Tao is substance and the ching are function.

[Vajrahridaya]

From Robinet's interpretation of Mao-Shan scriptures...

 

Ching = canons, scriptures, warp in weaving, road, path, law.

 

"At the end of an era when heaven and earth disappear, the most important ching return to the superior heavens and escape total destruction. When a new era begins, they will then appear...Present within the vast prelude to the coming into being of the world, ching are at the center of all teaching and at the foundation of life. They manifest the Tao. "It is by leaning upon the Tao that the ching have been constituted; it is by leaning upon the ching that the Tao manifests itself." The Tao is substance and the ching are function.

 

Yeup, that's interesting alright. Thanks for that.

[Marblehead]

Uh, an egg and a chicken are just 2 phases of the same thing. Therefore, the same thing cannot come before or after itself..

 

At the same time this organism evolved more complex features ("adult chicken"), it also evolved a more sophisticated and complex sexual reproduction strategy that involved genetic recombination and an external incubation unit (egg).

 

But at first, there was probably a time when this organism was a far simpler blob of cells that did not resemble a grown chicken whatsoever nor use eggs in reproduction.

 

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!

[Josh Young]

Shankara is not the veda. There can be no go between for truth, no person can lead another to it. There is in effect no spokesperson.

 

Many people in hindu religions cannot see past the symbolism of the deities and do not arrive. However this does not mean that the truth is not there. It is for those who can see it, as it has always been and shall ever be in now.

 

Much in the same way that Shankara is not veda, Buddhism is not the teaching of Buddha, but is instead a dogmatic system that evolved over time from his teachings and various interpretations of them.

 

The same can be said for Tao, for Tao is not Taoism.

[Marblehead]

Fair points Josh.

 

But I'm still a philosophical Taoist, so there!

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Shankara is not the veda. There can be no go between for truth, no person can lead another to it. There is in effect no spokesperson.

 

You should practice and read some official Vedanta before you make up your mind about such things. The Upanishads which are considered the cream of the Vedas also means, Sitting with the Teacher. In Buddhism specifically, the Buddha is indeed the spokesperson as he is a Sammasambuddha. Which is a wheel turning Buddha who teaches the Dharma in an age when it does not exist. According to the Buddha the Vedas are not the Dharma of Buddhahood. They do not teach liberation from Samsara. You should study more. Get a good teacher too.

 

Sammasambuddhas attain buddhahood, then decide to teach others the truth they have discovered. They lead others to awakening by teaching the Dhamma in a time where it has been forgotten.[2] Siddhartha Gautama is considered a sammasambuddha. (See also the List of the 28 Buddhas (all of whom are sammasambuddhas).)

 

Paccekabuddhas, sometimes called 'silent Buddhas' are similar to sammasambuddhas in that they attain nirvana and acquire many of the same powers as a sammasambuddha, but are unable to teach what they have discovered. They are considered second to the sammasambuddhas in spiritual development. They do ordain others; their admonition is only in reference to good and proper conduct (abhisamācārikasikkhā). In some texts, the paccekabuddhas are described as those who understand the Dhamma through their own efforts, but do not obtain mastery over the 'fruits' (phalesu vasībhāvam).[2]

 

Savakabuddhas attain nirvana after hearing the teaching of a sammasambuddha (directly or indirectly). The disciple of a sammasambuddha is called a savaka ("hearer" or "follower") or, once enlightened, an arahant. These terms have slightly varied meanings but can all be used to describe the enlightened disciple. Anubuddha is a rarely used term, but is used by the Buddha in the Khuddakapatha[3] to refer to those who become Buddhas after being given instruction. Enlightened disciples attain nirvana and parinirvana as the two types of Buddha do. Arahant is the term most generally used for them, though it is also applicable to Buddhas.

 

Many people in hindu religions cannot see past the symbolism of the deities and do not arrive. However this does not mean that the truth is not there. It is for those who can see it, as it has always been and shall ever be in now.

 

The abstract metaphors of the Hindu deity symbolism actually means something different than what the Buddha taught. There is still a subtle reification and identity. It's experientially different as the experience of dependent origination/emptiness leads to a different place than that of the doctrine and practice of the Brahmayana, or Brahman vehicle.

 

Much in the same way that Shankara is not veda, Buddhism is not the teaching of Buddha, but is instead a dogmatic system that evolved over time from his teachings and various interpretations of them.

 

That's not all together true, as there have been many Buddhas since then who clarified the teaching. Also, you don't know enough about the initially scripted teachings of the Buddha to know what the Buddha originally taught. As early parts of the Mahayana were written down at the same time as the other versions. He did teach differently to different people, but he most definitely didn't teach Vedanta, Theism, and such.

The same can be said for Tao, for Tao is not Taoism.

 

I used to think much like you, then I got more of an education about the different traditions, read more, practiced more, experienced more deeply what the teachings actually mean on subtler than word levels.

 

I wish you the best...

Edited July 25, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

That's a mis-critic of Alaya Vinjnana as it's personal and not interpersonal. It's the personal storehouse consciousness, not the universal storehouse consciousness. It is also interdependent with all other infinite mind streams but not one with them, it is both momentary as it sprouts from hidden seeds, occurences that reflect primary and secondary causes, and is beyond time as it holds potentiality seeded in through grasping at identity, which do not have the sufficient secondary causes to manifest fully into the dualistic feild of perception as of yet. It's whole cause is grasping at a Self, a true identity to people, places and things. It's static only in that sense. There is no need for a super conscious agent to glue things together as through our grasping at a self we do the gluing. We are the conscious agents that glue everything together both during the pralaya and after when the new cosmic eon comes out of the reserved potentiality collected from the pralaya of the last cosmic eon. The primary cause is not a cosmic consciousness, it's the stiring of a relaxation of focus on a formless state of consciousness by the beings from the previous cosmic eon that leads to a first born that thinks itself a cause and one with infinite formlessness because seemingly from his wish, beings start springing forth from the formless potentiality caused by grasping at a self by infinite beings in the last cosmic cycle, and thus teaches these types of theisms as Advaita Vedanta and the lot.

 

Both the potential for atomic structures and consciousness are simultaneous. Consciousness merely densifies itself dimensionally through the progression from refined non-3-dimensionality into 3 dimensionality by a progression of the re-sprouting of grasping, latent in the alaya-vijnana of infinite mind streams where physicality eminates from the ignorance of infinite beings as we decend from higher realms moving away from the purity and refinement that is the beginning of a cosmic eon. This is not caused by some supreme will that wishes to be dense and suffer within it's own infinite omnipotent being. It happens only due to the fact that it's always happened since beginningless time as dependent origination and emptiness allows for all posobilities, not as a cosmic consciousness, but just that infinite potentiality is all that all is.

 

I'm finding this hard to explain but easy to think about on a level that is not conceptually structured.

 

But yes, because Shankaracharya posits a conscious being that is behind everything which glues everything together, he is completely opposed to emptiness and dependent origination as the Buddha taught it. He feels there is some non-phenomenal entity beyond the concept of entity that makes entity possible. He believes in an uncaused cause that we can take refuge in. The Buddha taught no such thing/non-thing.

 

[Sunya]

 

nice response as always.

 

 

Shankara is not the veda. There can be no go between for truth, no person can lead another to it. There is in effect no spokesperson.

 

Many people in hindu religions cannot see past the symbolism of the deities and do not arrive. However this does not mean that the truth is not there. It is for those who can see it, as it has always been and shall ever be in now.

 

Much in the same way that Shankara is not veda, Buddhism is not the teaching of Buddha, but is instead a dogmatic system that evolved over time from his teachings and various interpretations of them.

 

The same can be said for Tao, for Tao is not Taoism.

 

have you actually read the Upanishads?

 

what do you think 'Self' points to? the word. how can the word Self, which is regularly used to talk about Brahman, possibly point to the same truth as Emptiness, which is the utter lack of Self? one, 'Self', posits an ultimately existing identity, a Godhead, All that Is is One, is Self. While emptiness never ever talks about ultimate reality as an ultimate subject, and never ever identifies the small self with the big Self because of the commonality of a static essence. Non-duality is different here. the Upanishads say that 'I am That' because of the common denominator that is Brahman, that is Self. small self dissapears and Self is. this sort of non-duality is different in Buddhism because the common denominator is not an ultimate essence but rather the condition of all phenomena which is empty of self-nature. this condition cannot be called Self. small self (mindstream) does NOT disappear, it remains 'like' an illusion. nothing changes upon realizing Nirvana, there is just the insight of interdependence and emptiness of all phenomena. very subtle differences. but mountains apart. since some of the Upanishads existed during Buddhas time, he couldve easily embraced them, and taught people to take refuge in the Self, but he didn't.

Edited July 25, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I actually should have said the Alaya Vijnana'(s) of infinite mind streams. I forgot to pluralize. Ooops!

 

But yes, it's all worth a good laugh. I did try! Myriad Worlds does a much better job explaining the Buddha dharma's many approaches to Cosmology. But, only if one is clear about the intention of the words. As English translations are always a bit iffy.

[Sunya]

I actually should have said the Alaya Vijnana'(s) of infinite mind streams. I forgot to pluralize. Ooops!

 

But yes, it's all worth a good laugh. I did try! Myriad Worlds does a much better job explaining the Buddha dharma's many approaches to Cosmology. But, only if one is clear about the intention of the words. As English translations are always a bit iffy.

 

naw, no need to apoligize.

 

translation: I don't know how to respond to that, but I'll respond anyway because this ego needs to feel like he didn't lose this 'battle' that he himself created by not looking deeper into the matter.

[z00se]

Pretty self explanatory.

 

Did the chicken come first...

 

OR

 

the egg?

 

Edit: This is an incredibly important question. Actually, I think everything comes down to this question.

 

Of course the chicken came first... and it was a hemaphrodite chicken with a long dick.... Otherwise if the egg came first...

 

1. when the egg fell out of the sky it would break and so would the baby chicken in the egg

2. if there was no chicken to sit on the egg and keep it warm the baby in the egg would die

3. if there was no mummy chicken how can the baby chicken suck on it's mums tits to get milk

4. how could it learn to fly and swim and what to do to survive if it had no mother!

 

OR..... maybe the space time continum came into play allowing the chicken and egg to simultaniously exist, and since many chickens and eggs were co-existing in serveral different dimensions, then suddenly the continum got warped during the death of the last dinosaur, finally bringing all the chickens into existance and allowed things to continue with life as we know it. This explains why evolution could take a rest with this one.

[Marblehead]

Hey z00se!

 

Have you been smoking again?

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

ROFL!!! The first chicken was a deformed something or other that just survived. LOL! Like I said, evolution and cyclical existence is beginningless.

[Josh Young]

I own a few translations of the Upanishads

I've read them sure.

 

I find that people make up things about them to be able to argue that they are wearing the right funny hat.

 

It is a sort of "my religion can beat up your religion" game that a few here are playing. Like they are 7 again and on the playground.

 

Let the works speak for themselves.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Let the works speak for themselves.

 

LOL! The Religions are different and have different aims. The Buddha debated with Mahavira (starter of the Jains), Shankara debated with dualistic Hindus and Buddhists. Jesus argued with the Jews.

 

Please, get over yourself. You need an education. You are putting more into this than there is, debate is part of process. It's a practice in fact to refine intelligence and understanding.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

I own a few translations of the Upanishads

I've read them sure.

 

I find that people make up things about them to be able to argue that they are wearing the right funny hat.

 

It is a sort of "my religion can beat up your religion" game that a few here are playing. Like they are 7 again and on the playground.

 

Let the works speak for themselves.

 

I see I wasted typing my previous post to you since you didn't even read it or it went through you like water through a filter

[Josh Young]

It simply did not apply.

Nor did I care to attack it as is the normal method people use in this forum.

You are not interested in my thoughts on it, so why share them?

 

Please forgive me, but I will let the works speak for themselves.

Your exegeses means little to me.

Think of the example set here.

 

People disagree and insult each others understandings.

The spiritual level of the participants of the thread is all too apparent.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Josh Young

[Sunya]

It simply did not apply.

Nor did I care to attack it as is the normal method people use in this forum.

You are not interested in my thoughts on it, so why share them?

 

Please forgive me, but I will let the works speak for themselves.

Your exegeses means little to me.

 

 

Yeah. let's do that. Let's let the Upanishads speak for themselves..

 

Whoever sees all beings in the soul and the soul in all beings...

What delusion or sorrow is there for one who sees unity?

It has filled all. It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable...

Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,

It organizes objects throughout eternity.

 

That subtle essence which you do not perceive in a tiny Nyagrodha (banyan) seed

grows into the great Nyagrodha tree.

Similarly, That which is the subtle essence of all,

in That all that exists has its Being.

That is the Truth. That is the Self. That Thou art.

 

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

He who meditates on the Mind as Brahman becomes independent as far as the Mind reaches.

He who meditates on Will as Brahman, he being himself permanent, firm and undistressed, obtains the permanent, renowned and undistressed worlds appointed for him. He is independent as far as Will reaches.

 

Just as a spider projects the web out of its body and then again withdraws it into itself, so also Brahman projects this world and then withdraws it into itself.

 

Brahman is a target to be penetrated by meditation on Om.

 

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.

 

Brahman is the cause of this world. By attaining the knowledge of Brahman, the effect, the world, is comprehended.

 

As a spider sends forth and draws in its web, as herbs grow from the earth, as hair grows from living man, so this universe proceeds from the immortal (Brahman).

 

Creation is not a real transformation (Parinama) but only a projection of a certain inscrutable, illusory power of Brahman.

 

Just as seeds remain latent underground in winter and burst forth into herbs and plants in the rainy season, so also the Jivas remain latent in Pralaya with their different Karmas as their seeds, and come out at the time of creation as trees of different kinds, but with their roots always in Brahman.

 

 

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

 

of course my 'exegeses' mean nothing to you. it's very comfortable sitting and not questioning your beliefs.

 

ohhh yes.. all religions are the same, whatever you say is blah blah blah to me, as I sip on this fine nectar smoothie of ignorance. tra la la

 

People disagree and insult each others understandings.

The spiritual level of the participants of the thread is all too apparent.

 

heh, i'm just insulting your unwillingness to probe deeper and in a joking manner really. You're one of those serious self-absorbed folks. I can tell.

Edited July 25, 2009 by mikaelz