Beliefs and Intent

[Pietro]

Buddhism never say's that the universe is not real, or an illusion. Just it's like an illusion because as soon as you have seen it, it has already changed. All current events are based upon previous events so do not inherently exist, but merely exist relative to endless history. Thus, are not solid, but ever changing impermanence.

 

To say, "like an illusion" is not saying it's literally an illusion, that would mean an inherent non-existence. Which of course there is no such things as inherent non-existence. Just, does not inherently exist on it's own with it's own self essence. There is only change, so the illusion is that things are solid when you should know as a scientist mathematician, they are not. The five senses do fool us to a certain extent as my solid oak table is indeed moving and changing as I speak, even though I can't see this minute process physically without some sort of visual aid that focuses my perception into a subtler than 5 sense dimension.

 

Oh, finally we are getting to something.

So there is something out there. Something which is real, and which we are striving to understand. Problem is that it is always changing. But since it is often changing slowly we have the time to attach words to parts of this reality. SInce it is not changing that slowly, sometimes we find ourself that those words fail to describe well the reality.

 

All this seem fair, and acceptable.

 

I am not sure that you can say that "everything" change. I mean, for sure the physical state of the universe is always changing. Ok. But, for example, the tautologies and the theorems that are generated by a set of axioms, those do not change. As such not only there is a reality outside. But there are also law of logic, and maths outside.

 

I will not enter into the laws of phisics because under extreme conditions they too can change. But the rules of mathemathics. The fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, for example. Those Truth do not change.

 

(which is why some mathemathical mystics believed they were contemplating a part of the mind of God. I disagree, I think God, if she exists, must too bow to the laws of mathemathics.)

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh, finally we are getting to something.

So there is something out there. Something which is real, and which we are striving to understand. Problem is that it is always changing. But since it is often changing slowly we have the time to attach words to parts of this reality. SInce it is not changing that slowly, sometimes we find ourself that those words fail to describe well the reality.

 

All this seem fair, and acceptable.

 

I am not sure that you can say that "everything" change. I mean, for sure the physical state of the universe is always changing. Ok. But, for example, the tautologies and the theorems that are generated by a set of axioms, those do not change. As such not only there is a reality outside. But there are also law of logic, and maths outside.

 

I will not enter into the laws of phisics because under extreme conditions they too can change. But the rules of mathemathics. The fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, for example. Those Truth do not change.

 

(which is why some mathemathical mystics believed they were contemplating a part of the mind of God. I disagree, I think God, if she exists, must too bow to the laws of mathemathics.)

 

Yes the dharma, the one law, change, relativity doesn't change.

 

But what is that law without the perciever or phenomena?

 

The physics can't exist when there is no one there to observe it.

 

 

 

 

From the perspective of Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen, you never stop acting in the play, you just either are liberated in it, or bound up in it. There's never a point where one just stops and is some non-conceptual formlessness, unless of course your mind thinks that's the end all be all, then of course that's what you'll get for a while. But, then, back to reality... duh duh. There's also never a point where you become actually non-existent. I mean... of course you are already kind of non-existent in a sense of identifying with what you deem to be yourself right now, because this moment is non-existent when the next arises, even though the next is based on the previous, thus neither truly inherently exist. But you know the yadda... blah, blah.

Buddhas don't experience the big suck. Which in Sanskrit is called, the Pralaya.

 

 

Does that mean the Buddha is immortal because he has directly perceived the change? Has rather become it than be subject to it?

 

And that everyone else really is an immortal too but "dies" because he/she identifies with the object of change?

 

Hmm, a traditional Theravadian (?) would slap you up side the head

[Pietro]

what is 'real' ? and what is 'true' ?

 

When I am using the word truth and real I am taking the simpler and pragmatic meaning of those two words.

 

Something is real if it exists. I claim that you must know what reality is, or you would not be able to remain alive in this word. So if after this you feel you still do not know what something IS real, then I claim that you are dishonest and an intellectual kid playing being a smart-ass.

 

Similarly I am taking the simpler and direct meaning of truth, as a claim that correctly mirrors the state in the world at some time. I will claim that you know what does it mean that something is true. ANd I will claim that if you claim that you do not know, or I do not know, you are being an intellectual and a smart ass.

 

Imagine, you are with a girlfriend, you promised her to be faithful, and then you fucked someone else. She asks you about it, and you deny it. Then when she finds out beyond any form of doubt you deny that that is what you mean by truth, because in buddhism blah blah blah.

She slaps you, and walks away with tears in her eyes thinking how lucky she is to be free from such an asshole.

She is obviously right.

 

for the universe to be not real, there has to be something that is real. real and not real are diametrically opposed ideas. Buddhism does not say that the universe is not real. Buddhism says that the universe is made up of phenomena, all of these phenomena are interdependent and impermanent. the nature of phenomena is beyond 'real' or 'not real', but in your experience the universe appears real. when, in actuality, whatever you experience is conditioned based on past experiences, ideas, conceptions, etc. the mind is very powerful. so what you actually experience is like an illusion. to say that everything IS an illusion would deny the relative experience of the deluded observer. we cannot do that. your experience is real, nobody can deny your experience, but since you are experiencing the world with impure vision, it isn't true. so there is truth in buddhism and truth is seeing the universe free of conceptions. dharma is also truth and these are the ways to get to pure vision.

 

I don't care what the Buddhist concept of Truth and Real is. I don't give a fuck. You guys might speak in secret code for what I care. Here, in english, we use simple words. And truth and reality are direct concepts that every kid over the age of 5 understands. This is how I use the word truth and reality. Take it or leave it.

[Pietro]

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes the dharma, the one law, change, relativity doesn't change.

 

But what is that law without the perciever or phenomena?

 

The physics can't exist when there is no one there to observe it.

Does that mean the Buddha is immortal because he has directly perceived the change? Has rather become it than be subject to it?

 

And that everyone else really is an immortal too but "dies" because he/she identifies with the object of change?

 

Hmm, a traditional Theravadian (?) would slap you up side the head

 

Yes, someone who clings to Theravada does not understand that it intends Mahayana. So, I don't really care what a Theravadin would say about Mahayana because they don't understand how the Pali Suttas lead to Mahayana. The earliest Mahayana sutras were written down at the same time as the early Pali Suttas.

 

Other than that, you can put it the way you put it, in a simple sense... Sure. That's basically it.

 

Very good. I like that. Though, I can see it leading to some sort of mis-understanding if not understood within context.

[Lucky7Strikes]

actually there is. Red is a wavelength. Everything that absorb some wavelength are reflects others will appear as red to anyone. But if there is no one observing it, the light with its wavelength of 650nm circa will still move.

 

Ok so they exist as wavelength according to the eye's perception...

 

But then who perceives the eye for it to exist not as a wavelength or a probability but a definite thing...

 

And who perceives that?

 

The very fact that reality "changes" and is dependent on the observer just messes everything up since the observer is not exempt from the rules of reality.

[Pietro]

Ok so they exist as wavelength according to the eye's perception...

No, according to measurements, taken by machines.

 

But then who perceives the eye for it to exist not as a wavelength or a probability but a definite thing...

 

Sorry, I do not understand this phrase. I just cannot parse it.

 

And who perceives that?

 

ditto

 

The very fact that reality "changes" and is dependent on the observer just messes everything up since the observer is not exempt from the rules of reality.

 

Not really, because:

a) there is a substantial agreement between what we all perceive, and what we perceive from one time and another.

we change slower than the observed particle.

 

Look the fact that your tool for observing is part of reality and as such changes as well is not a good reason to just declare the whole thing as unknowable, throw your arms up in the air, and just have a party. Yeah, things change. Yeah, we know reality through observations, which are inherently subjective. But we agree upon those observations which makes them intersubjective. And gives us a pretty good hint that those observations reflect the state of the reality behind. Another good hint is that people who seriously have their modes of observation change just do not remain alive too long. You know after they tried to fly out of a cliff or similar. SO we have moved from a series of subjective observations, to an intersubjective agreement, to a well rooted in overwhelming observation that all those observations mirrors an external world. So we now can reasonably suppose that (a) there is a world outside. ( although the world changes, it does it slowly enough for us to be understandable, knowable, measurable. Now those intersubjective representations of the world, which are not just intersubjective of one culture, but intersubjective of the whole human experience. And so wide that we have a good guess that also animals perceives them, we call them "objective reality". You want to say that you differentiate yourself from everybody by claiming that those are not true. Fine you can say so, I will just call you a lier, because although you say that you differentiate yourself, you do not really do so. How do I know this? Because to negate reality is to put your life at risk. How? By trying to fly, ingesting poison, or similar.

[xabir2005]

Edited July 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir,

 

Am I on the right track to thinking that even this Awareness, the pure "percept" you speak of is dependently originated by other "universes/mindstreams/Awareness"?

[xabir2005]

Edited July 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

[xabir2005]

AH! I finally see what you are talking about! I was stuck thinking of dependent origination as only in the microcosm of things when the luminosity itself is dependently originated by other's.

Yes, like the net of indra, each one contained in all, and all contained in each one, mutually interdependent.

[Pietro]

Xabir,

your position is inherently dishonest.

 

You speak about

...our common biological and genetic makeup...

but it is only thanks to this biological and genetic commonality that you can speak about genetic in the first place. You can't claim that you have extraniated yourself from your human position, say that the experience of the world is only bound to this commonality, and all this while using the exact same concepts that has (according to you) arisen out of that commonality.

 

As such I state that the problem with your position is not that is false, but that is unprovable. And if you claim that you have proven it you are either being dishonest, or relating the words of other people.

[Vajrahridaya]

Xabir,

your position is inherently dishonest.

 

You speak about

 

but it is only thanks to this biological and genetic commonality that you can speak about genetic in the first place. You can't claim that you have extraniated yourself from your human position, say that the experience of the world is only bound to this commonality, and all this while using the exact same concepts that has (according to you) arisen out of that commonality.

 

As such I state that the problem with your position is not that is false, but that is unprovable. And if you claim that you have proven it you are either being dishonest, or relating the words of other people.

 

What a materialist doesn't understand is that spiritual truths can only be proven to oneself, as these truths lay beyond the grasp of the senses, but are in fact behind, or subtler than the senses. Can you show me your mind, not your brain, but your mind?

 

Through meditation one can actually see the workings of other peoples minds and even the imagery emanating from another's mind. I've proven this to a few people before.

[xabir2005]

but it is only thanks to this biological and genetic commonality that you can speak about genetic in the first place. You can't claim that you have extraniated yourself from your human position,

Sorry, I'm Chinese and my English is not that good. What's extraniated?

 

If you mean removed from my human position, well, there is no separate self that can remove himself from whatever he is experiencing right now. I cannot remove myself from the vision of the red flower because there is no 'I' that is apart from it. I cannot remove myself from my human condition because I am it so to speak, in other words, there is no findable separate 'I', just dependently originated, vivid yet empty phenomena.

say that the experience of the world is only bound to this commonality, and all this while using the exact same concepts that has (according to you) arisen out of that commonality.

 

As such I state that the problem with your position is not that is false, but that is unprovable. And if you claim that you have proven it you are either being dishonest, or relating the words of other people.

Because we function in a human world, it is important to know how to label, recognise things, learn the concepts and names etc.

 

At the same time we learn to see reality -- that what we labeled is in actuality not an independent or fixed entity, just like a 'car' is not an independent entity but is in actuality only removable and interdependent parts where no 'car-essence' can be found in any of the parts nor apart from the parts, and is only labeled as such by mere convention.

 

What we call 'weather' isn't an actual findable entity and is merely a word we use to describe an everchanging flow of interdependently originated phenomena, clouds, rain, lightning, blowing, etc.

 

What we call 'self' is also just like that, a mere convention that is made up of an everchanging stream of interdependently originated five aggregates (form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness) with no findable self-essence. We see clearly that there is nothing to hold on to, and no separate 'me' that can chase after, cling to, or escape from perceived objects mistaken as 'other than me', and thus no longer separating ourselves and things and experiencing everything as a seamless flowing whole. All sufferings is the result of not seeing this.

 

Realising the first emptiness, the emptiness of self, we experience that there is no independent separate self/agent/experiencer, simply these shapes, colours and sounds and thoughts vividly appearing. And yet where are these? Looking at our direct experience is thought residing somewhere or is it an unlocatable appearance? Investigating where and how thought arise, we may realise that thought is without substance and origin just like an illusion.

 

What we perceive as 'red flower' is fine to be labeled as such out of convention -- but we can also experience the dependently originated and empty nature of that vision deeply in our experience. Is the redness an attribute that can be located outside the mind? Or is it inside the mind? Or is it just a mere dependently originated suchness. Looking this way we realise it's unfindable, no essence anywhere, no inside or outside, just D.O. Seemingly, magically, appearing yet not really there.

 

Fully experiencing this we realise the emptiness of all phenomena, objects, the second emptiness.

 

Realising emptiness has nothing to do with being removed from forms, as Heart Sutra states, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Emptiness is not something other than form. Everything is still vividly experienced, but like a mirage, not grasped, objectified or subjectified. Life goes on, now seen as a magical play.

 

By practicing bare mindfulness of our own experience we begin to unravel the true nature of our experience.

 

It can be directly experienced and realised, and I have had passing glimpses and intense experiences of the nondual nature of consciousness. I am not enlightened yet, however.

Edited July 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Pietro]

What a materialist doesn't understand is that spiritual truths can only be proven to oneself, as these truths lay beyond the grasp of the senses, but are in fact behind, or subtler than the senses.

Ok, now you are playing the mystery card.

 

Can you show me your mind, not your brain, but your mind?

 

Through meditation one can actually see the workings of other peoples minds and even the imagery emanating from another's mind. I've proven this to a few people before.

 

And now the experience card!

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, now you are playing the mystery card.

And now the experience card!

 

Indeed, which is why Yogi's are called mystics who jump within, into the mystery of the nature of experience.

 

Scientists go without, through the senses while yogi's go beyond the senses.

 

So yes, we are experienced mystics. Our cards are full of mysterious experiences.

 

I won't apologize for it.

[gendao]

Did that little 6 year old girl (for whom the federal law was passed) who was abducted from her bed at night, beaten, raped and buried alive (she was found in the makeshift grave still clutching her little blue stuffed animal)...did she also cause that crime to occur? I consider 'deserved' a separate issue. I'm not asking whether someone deserved it, just whether they caused it? If I understand the doctrine right - because of Karma - she did. Thus there is no such thing as a true victim. The "victim" is also the ultimate cause every time. That rapist who murdered her was the instrument of karma.

One theory is that her and her attacker's Higher Selves both collaborated to create this situation for them "down" here on Earth as a learning experience for both. So, nothing "happens" to us ("Lower Self") without our (Higher Self's) consent - if not, intent.

 

And "good" or "bad" is all subjective here..."up" there, everything is simply seen as helping one to learn. Even bad karmic "payback" would just be...to allow us to taste our own medicine and see how the other side feels, then.

 

Remember, the devil is in the details. And here, the detail is how you define "you," how many layers there are to that...and how many of those may be normally "veiled."

 

Again, just one theory though...

Edited October 16, 2009 by vortex

[Marblehead]

Hi Vortex,

 

 

Again, just one theory though...

 

No. I don't buy that theory. The guy was a scum bag and that's all there is to it. He deserved to have the same thing done to him except the raping should have been done with a broom handle. It is my opinion that there is no excuse for evil-doing. It was a choice consciously made for the purpose of self-pleasure and intentional harm to others.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 16, 2009 by Marblehead

[Birch]

Hum. Most days I am dealing with a "you say tomatoe, I say tomahto" problem per consensual (as opposed to "absolute") reality - and that one all by itself goes pretty damn far enough.

 

So maybe the whole "Karma" term is suffering from a similar issue? My present understanding of it is that it has NOTHING to do with deserving (moral sense) and is a pretty simple cause/effect - action/reaction thing.

 

Yes we may act (and just how far "act" can get broken into its constituent process is also still up for debate) in ways that are unaware.

 

I disagree that you can expect a small kid to have that level of awareness (which is also learned/trained - aren't many of us here on TTB to do exactly that???) BUT the asshole who did her wrong certainly should have trained it. He likely did not.

 

The dependent origination in that picture is that a definitely evil (and yes, likely through his own suffering) individual (ego) went out and with full disregard for humanity committed an abhorrent act. The "reason" that girl became "the victim" was a) because the guy was a perp and b ) because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't feel that one can reify an evil person out of the act. Yes the act was non-beneficial to both and the emotional reaction is that of an extreme. But, that one act is not the whole of the person who perpetrated the act, just as the "child" is not the whole of the person who is the victim. Both had past lives, both players of this circumstance and the circumstance itself has a history of causation that goes far deeper and more complex than merely perp. and victim. Evil praying on the Good.

 

That would be to reductionist I think.

 

Not excusing the act at all. As Compassion can both dewire the perp's causes for such actions and the victims future pain that could lead to the victim becoming the perp. in the future, lives or whatever.

 

In the cycle of Samsara, the victims become victimizers and the victimizers victims, over and over and over... like a circle.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

"evil (and yes, likely through his own suffering)"

 

Vaj, I conceive of your idea (which sucks IMO) and I understand it and I reckon you've misunderstood what I meant by "evil" - for me it really does mean "through suffering" - although I am wondering if there are maybe some very aware psychopaths out there. THAT would be worse.

 

There's something about attempting to describe karma as something "intentional" or "deserved" which I personally find disagreeable. I understand it to be your perspective, but I need more contemplation.

 

The idea of an ego carried through a continuum of karmic experience is a tough one as well. I'd love for you to stray a little from your beliefs (as I see it) and get me a message that I don't need a doctorate in your religion to understand.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The idea of an ego carried through a continuum of karmic experience is a tough one as well. I'd love for you to stray a little from your beliefs (as I see it) and get me a message that I don't need a doctorate in your religion to understand.

 

I've been understanding re-birth since I was a little kid, before I read a thing about it. I also was not indoctrinated by my Mom who is still a devote Advaitin.

 

I'm not straying from my beliefs, to believe as you do, would be straying from my experience and would be dis-honest to myself.

 

Why not stray from your own set of limited projections that allow for emotional over-reactions and a sense of injustice and the next sense of needing justice!? "Justice must be done to that person!!" I find that type of clinging is only reflective of not understanding the way things are and are reflective of projecting ideals. Your view seems to take up Chaos as reality as if there wasn't a pattern here. If the Dalai Lama thought that way, he would be suffering still the event that took place in Tibet that got him kicked out of his own country. But, he understands karma... so... he is free from suffering this great sense of, "injustice has been done to me." It's not so black and white though, it's subtle, because he still wishes for the conditions of having Tibet back and works for that condition to arise as karma is generated by those that act.

 

Buddha didn't come up with dogmas, he saw things as they are, and they are complicated but can be understood through study of Buddhas and meditation.

 

What you think of as indoctrination is actually insight.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

"What you think of as indoctrination is actually insight"

 

Nope. Although I won't disagree that being around belief can lead to insight.

 

I think you got my emotions all wrong too. Although that's also an assumption on my part. I ought to have been clearer about what I meant. Yes the emotions are all there with it but I don't consider my response "overemotional" given that we are referring to a specific life-space.

 

Certainly, take me way down (or up) to molecular level and we can discuss with dispassion. But until we meet there, I will do my best to appreciate you on this level;-)

[Encephalon]

Vaj

 

I have come out and publicly stated that it was mean-spirited of me to assail your reasoning powers. specifically, I believe I said that I had to concede that I am not informed enough about Nyingma to positively state that your spiritual development along the lines of that tradition is inauthentic.

 

Butt... (and there's one of those heavenly butts)

 

It would appear that I am not alone in voicing a very modest observation that your capacity to make your ideas comprehensible to others seems undeveloped at best. The worst I could say is that there is evidence of conceptual blind spots, which is pretty mild criticism compared to actually being accused of delusional, which I honestly do not believe you are. You have registered some intent on becoming a teacher, or at least taking the plunge into formal academia. I understand that critical thinking and formal logic do not figure prominently in your lineage, but geeeez, if you truly wish to share with others what is so beautiful about your worldview, communication skills really do come in handy.

 

I hope the animus that has characterized my online blatherings in the past has been checked. I'm trying.

 

 

"We may be seeing the beginnings of the reintegration of our culture, a new possibility of the unity of consciousness. if so, it will not be on the basis of any new orthodoxy, either religious or scientific. Such a new integration will be based on the rejection of all univocal understandings of reality, of all identifications of one conception of reality with reality itself. It will recognize the multiplicity of the human spirit, and the necessity to translate constantly between different scientific and imaginative vocabularies. It will recognize the human proclivity to fall comfortably into some single literal interpretation of the world and therefore the necessity to be continuously open to rebirth in a new heaven and a new earth. It will recognize that in both scientific and religious culture all we have finally are symbols, but that there is an enormous difference between the dead letter and the living word."

 

Robert Bellah - "Beyond Belief"

Edited October 17, 2009 by Blasto