RE: The Buddha Bums

[Marblehead]

Hi Tao99,

 

Good post.

 

I hold to the hypothesis that the universe will eventually stop expanding and then gravity will draw it back onto itself into a Big Crunch and then a new Big Bang.

 

I have no sound reason for holding to this other than it complies with the Taoist concept of cycles in Nature.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

If I want the Scientific view of the universe, its past, and its future (might be amusing, but I can live without it), then I will go to Science and follow the various field experts and what they know from experimentation and surmising and speculating.

What do you mean "go to Science"? Science isn't a philosophy or a religion.

 

Science currently holds the following:

 

"The equations of the expanding universe have three possible solutions, each of which predicts a different eventual fate for the universe as a whole. Which fate will ultimately befall the universe can be determined by measuring how fast the universe expands relative to how much matter the universe contains.

 

The three possible types of expanding universes are called open, flat, and closed universes. If the universe were open, it would expand forever. If the universe were flat, it would also expand forever, but the expansion rate would slow to zero after an infinite amount of time. If the universe were closed, it would eventually stop expanding and recollapse on itself, possibly leading to another big bang. In all three cases, the expansion slows, and the force that causes the slowing is gravity. "

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/uni....asp#properties

We live in an open universe. See: Role of the shape of the universe

 

I believe in the Big Bang because of the evidence uncovered by Science. Not because of the Buddha.

Me too, obviously, but the Buddha's description of phenomena and the nature of existence is so far the only model derived from spirituality that fits the observed empirical evidence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The mainstream scientific community no longer adheres to the original formulation of the Big Bang theory. (the universe beginning in a singularity) The current model is strongly based on quantum mechanics.

 

According to Science, of all the possible futures, the Big Freeze is speculated most likely of the options (see reference):

 

"The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the universe. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "Big Freeze" scenario below.

 

Big Freeze or Heat death

 

Main article: Heat death of the universe

 

The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that is too cold. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. This scenario is currently the most commonly accepted theory within the scientific community. A related scenario is Heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed, and there are no gradients — which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The Heat Death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_Universe

That's what I said, except Big Freeze isn't just likely, it's almost certain with the present data. The next most probable outcome is a Big Rip.

 

We agree on every point. With so much quoted information, I sort of expected a contradiction somewhere. (it's likely I'd made a mistake as I'm running a fever atm )

Edited October 8, 2009 by nac

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I've never read Stephen Hawking, but I wonder what it would look like to compare Buddhist cosmology with the modern theories and views of the Universe of physics and Hawking. I think whoever were to do so would have to be pretty well versed in both.

[Hawksblood]

[nac]

I've never read Stephen Hawking, but I wonder what it would look like to compare Buddhist cosmology with the modern theories and views of the Universe of physics and Hawking. I think whoever were to do so would have to be pretty well versed in both.

You can't compare Buddhist cosmology with modern scientific cosmologies of the physical universe! They describe completely different things. For one thing, Buddhism is much more interested in mental phenomena than physical ones. Dependent Origination is more like the basis of Buddhist metaphysics. Like Advaita philosophy or the binary break-up of the Tao in Taoism and Samkhya. It's probably a part of "Right View".

 

Stephen Hawking's works are highly recommended. They've got nothing to do with Buddhism or spirituality, but he makes science easy for engineering student types like me.

 

No two people can experience the same thing the exact same way.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/...p04/MQ57700.pdf

Edited October 8, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

I haven't been following this thread; probably this has already been said.

It's (obviously) really valuable to learn from traditions X,Y,Z, but

Bottom line is experiential and, once meditation sets in, labels are the first to go.

 

Actually to integrate meditative experience with regular ongoing physical life, one must have the proper context for meditative experience, otherwise one is just escaping through meditation.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dependent Origination understood, actually grounds a persons experience and shows that there is no transcendent, that there only is this, the ongoing experience. If you are in a position to meditate and escape out of your crown chakra into another realm, then that is part of your, "is". Otherwise, one is just escaping. Meditation and Dependent Origination helps in understanding how all levels of experiences happen, those experiences that are "other worldly" while your body is still here breathing and those experiences where you are doing things here on planet earth. Which yes, is an impermanent experience and meditation helps contextualize the cycling of life and death. But, only in order to be more fully present in whatever experience one is having, yes of course, meditative experience as well and not absoluting some level of beyond thought, non-concept, which is considered a concept in Buddhism. Formless states are still just infinite non-formed concepts and arise dependently and are not inherent, according to Buddhism.

[Seth Ananda]

I Love how anyone not believing the Buddhist Dogma is automatically 'clinging' to a Self.

I haven't heard such Absolutist Fanatical Rubbish since the church I grew up in.

Seriously Vaj, Nac and Mick you put those Guys to shame.

 

I can see from Vajrahridaya's pic he is just a sweet but unintergrated intellectual with very little understanding of what he is talking about... despite his claims for having attained the Tao and grown beyond it...

 

But Nac, how old are you? do you really believe you have any Real understanding - outside of the Ideas you borrowed from others - of the way anything in this amazing universe works?

You said about NDE's :

"Woah, you have no idea! "

Well, please enlighten me what I have no Idea on...

Do you have any actual experience to draw on...?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I can see from Vajrahridaya's pic he is just a sweet but unintergrated intellectual with very little understanding of what he is talking about... despite his claims for having attained the Tao and grown beyond it...

 

But Nac, how old are you? do you really believe you have any Real understanding - outside of the Ideas you borrowed from others - of the way anything in this amazing universe works?

You said about NDE's :

"Woah, you have no idea! "

Well, please enlighten me what I have no Idea on...

Do you have any actual experience to draw on...?

 

Your reaction shows a clinging to a self.

 

I wish you the best.

 

p.s. of course you cling to a self because you believe that the universe is an intelligent creation of a single entity. That's exactly what Buddhists consider clinging to a self. It's a dogma of the Buddha that is meant to guide people to the right view.

 

Your dogma is that there is an ultimate Self of all.

[ralis]

You can't compare Buddhist cosmology with modern scientific cosmologies of the physical universe! They describe completely different things. For one thing, Buddhism is much more interested in mental phenomena than physical ones. Dependent Origination is more like the basis of Buddhist metaphysics. Like Advaita philosophy or the binary break-up of the Tao in Taoism and Samkhya. It's probably a part of "Right View".

 

Stephen Hawking's works are highly recommended. They've got nothing to do with Buddhism or spirituality, but he makes science easy for engineering student types like me.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/...p04/MQ57700.pdf

 

Vajraji claims to understand Einstein's theories and cites Einstein's work to prove his Buddhist theories are correct. Yet, when I have asked him which part of Einstein's theory (general or special) proves his theories correct, he provides no answer. He obviously has very little knowledge of the "Theory of Relativity".

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji claims to understand Einstein's theories and cites Einstein's work to prove his Buddhist theories are correct. Yet, when I have asked him which part of Einstein's theory (general or special) proves his theories correct, he provides no answer. He obviously has very little knowledge of the "Theory of Relativity".

 

ralis

 

ralis, you keep self righteously touting this reply in error, when I said both and gave examples in a long post. Why are you too lazy to do research of historical posts?

 

I talked about how the theory of relative perception of time is showing subjective view originating dependent upon various local conditions as a primary cause.

 

Anyway...

 

You keep making the same assumptions based upon not even really reading my posts. Just... glossing over them with your subjective relativity.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

Your reaction shows a clinging to a self.

 

I wish you the best.

 

p.s. of course you cling to a self because you believe that the universe is an intelligent creation of a single entity. That's exactly what Buddhists consider clinging to a self. It's a dogma of the Buddha that is meant to guide people to the right view.

 

Your dogma is that there is an ultimate Self of all.

I have Zero interest in belief, thus I feel that I can not be clinging to the Idea of a Self.

I don't need the universe to be a certain way, and feel completely emotionally un-invested in wanting the world to be a certain way, as all I am interested in is discovering the Truth.

Over and over again I bump up against the fact (for me) that my continued experience of the Universe is as an Intelligent and Interactive Being. That's why I like some of the traditions that relate with the universe in this way.

 

I Find it interesting to hear what other explorers have found for them selves but in no way do I give them any authority over my own perception.

 

I am willing completely to be challenged to question, Ask me to look at anything I take for granted or claim to experience in a way I haven't or in some new light, and I will straight away.

But you seem unwilling to engage in actual conversation as you go straight to a fanatics stance and just start cramming your dogma.

 

Or you use the snide escape saying "Get some more transmission from good teachers" which is basically saying be a Buddhist. What kind of conversation/argument is that? And bye the way I have had transmission from numbers of Buddhist teachers, Namkhai Norbu included and am doing the SMS base course at the moment with his organization.

 

I Love Buddhism but feel it is only one lens to view the universe through. You Can apply Emptiness and Dependent Origination to Everything but that is only using one Lens.

Its like the Quantum particle/wave debate.

 

Through one set of equipment and with one set of observation parameters quantum substance 'Is' a particle.

But with another set of gear and some different guide lines, the Stuff 'Is' a wave.

Buddhism is only one Lens and will only show you things that that perception/ system of thought can show.

But other Lenses will show the same thing in very different ways making it appear very different.

 

Do you have the Guts to look at some of the alternate ways the nature of the universe can be experienced or will you keep quoting flakes like Thussness and claiming that you somehow have the complete comprehensive knowledge of all traditions which you have already out grown?

Are you even close to approximating a Christ or any of the great teachers from any number of non Buddhist traditions? I don't think so. Be Honest. I know you think you transcended the Tao, but If Lao Tzu was sitting here and you claimed that, he would laugh in your ignorant face. what wise words would you babble then?

 

You are clinging to the Idea of Emptiness as you are afraid to simply open up and really explore and experience the nature of the universe for your self, with out the crutch of other peoples Ideas.

Keep eating the Menu my friend and one day maybe you will have the guts to throw it aside and Eat a meal.

 

What ever, Live in blinkers if you want to... "I will Only EVER use a particle accelerator to view the universe, everything else makes life a little too confusing and messy for me, I Need it all neat and Ordered, I Need to feel Really Really secure in my belief's so I can make this scary world conform to Something that I can understand. It feels so Good knowing absolute truth! Now I can't even be challenged, Hooray! I am Safe! Hooray for me! I transcended everybody else!!! Yay! I know more that all of you!!! It feels so good! Hang on, what stinks? Oh my God? what is this? oh my god, its Shit! I am surrounded by Shit! Oh it stinks! It's a wall of My own Shit!!!! ...WOW I am really safe behind this shit! Awesome, no one will come near me, Oohh I better add some more, pflflflfrrrp! Ahh... there I go, ill just pile that up here...

[Marblehead]

Hi BuddhaBums! Y'all doing okay?

 

Best Wishes!

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

 

I talked about how the theory of relative perception of time is showing subjective view originating dependent upon various local conditions as a primary cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were in a college level physics class, your statement would have red marks in several places. Your arguments are always incomplete, are not well thought and usually contain grammatical errors. If you believe that insulting the intelligence of your audience in this forum makes you intellectually superior, then you are greatly mistaken.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I have Zero interest in belief, thus I feel that I can not be clinging to the Idea of a Self.

 

 

Your entire post is a reaction based on clinging and not seeing emptiness or dependent origination.

 

It's not that everything isn't interactive, it's just understanding how and that D.O./Emptiness helps provide.

 

The Buddha said, "D.O. is the Dharma and to see D.O. you will see the Dharma."

 

If your doing base in SMS, then you've read the Precious Vase. ChNNR is very Buddhist and his teachings are very much in line with D.O./Emptiness and say's many times that one should understand emptiness according to Nagarjuna.

 

So, you might like to study Nagarjuna and understand your experience through this clarity.

 

Take Care.

 

 

 

Do you have the Guts to look at some of the alternate ways the nature of the universe can be experienced

 

Yes, I've read on all the major traditions and grew up practicing Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism/Trika. I was a heavy Bhakti and still am, just thinking of Padmasambhava and ChNNR put me in a rapturous condition.

 

It took lots of guts to see through my experiences with the de-clinger of D.O. It was a very difficult process.

 

Take care.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi BuddhaBums! Y'all doing okay?

 

Best Wishes!

 

Peace & Love!

 

Dandy like a lion in the meadow.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you were in a college level physics class, your statement would have red marks in several places. Your arguments are always incomplete, are not well thought and usually contain grammatical errors. If you believe that insulting the intelligence of your audience in this forum makes you intellectually superior, then you are greatly mistaken.

ralis

 

I unplugged you for a moment, just to tell you. You would gain more from trying to make sense of what I have said without trying to compartmentalize me with your conditioning.

 

But... it's your choice.

 

 

Take care.

[Apech]

Congrats everyone - 9 pages of bickering with no result.

 

Don't you realize there are people on other threads getting on with the hard work of masturbation in the morning, having sex with entities and trying to keep an erection while in bed with a beautiful woman while you lot are arguing about abstract principles.

 

Wake up and smell the semen!

 

[Gerard]

A good way of understanding Buddhism is portrayed in the film: Amongst White Clouds.

 

YouTube trailer:

 

 

At one stage of your lives YOU MUST become a hermit for a period of time in order to "flower."

[Marblehead]

Congrats everyone - 9 pages of bickering with no result.

 

Did you expect a constructive discussion?

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

Did you expect a constructive discussion?

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Expect no, hope for - yes!

[ralis]

I unplugged you for a moment, just to tell you. You would gain more from trying to make sense of what I have said without trying to compartmentalize me with your conditioning.

 

But... it's your choice.

Take care.

 

 

Your statement was just a string of incomplete thoughts with missing conjunctions. Stephen Hawking is easier to understand!

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Expect no, hope for - yes!

 

Hehehe. Yep. There is always hope if reality sucks.

 

Peace & Love!

[JustARandomPanda]

I wanted to add something. I have been thinking things over for many months now. I now realize I have many people I need to thank. Many TaoBummers (not all of whom are regular posters) have taught me many things both about myself and the world in general. Lessons that have been necessary to learn.

 

In keeping with the theme of this thread I will say this. However divisive VH is perceived to be (and he has pulled no punches with me on occasion too) I give him the lion's share of the credit for introducing me to Buddhism. He's not always the "nicest" or even "clearest" person on explaining things but much of what he's written - especially the posts on Dependent Origination - have struck a "this is right" chord with me.

 

One of the hardest things in life I've ever had to learn was how to separate out what a person says from how they say it. In this regard "enemies" are actually a necessary barometer measuring my actual spiritual attainment. It's easy to listen with an open mind and heart to what a friend says. It's even easy to do so to someone you feel neutral about. The real test comes when the message comes from someone who raises your hackles. The more they are raised the more I've learned I really need to hear with my heart what they are saying. The lesson to learn about myself is directly proportional to the ire they inspire. I've been trying to cultivate this realization since I was a child.

 

Though I like the Buddha's and Nagarajuna's messages I can't say they are the ones who inspired this attitude (although they've certainly grounded it and made me realize it's even more important than I formerly thought). The original inspiration for adopting that attitude (ie. separate the message from the messenger) was actually the Scientific Method. When I first learned about it in primary grade school I quickly realized this method could also be applied to discover truths about one's self as much as the world. It's just that it's difficult to actually apply it in my everyday life.

 

It's amazing how many parallels there are between the things the Buddha said and modern science. And no...I don't pretend to know modern physics and so do not wish to use it as examples to support my arguments. But neither do I think metaphysics to be a load of hogwash. If a belief helps me to be a better person - I wonder sometimes does it really matter if what I believe is "silly superstition" ? (I have not yet figured that question out)

 

Jose Ortega y Gassett once said it is the mark of the Masses that they judge everything by their own realm of knowledge and beliefs without ever doing anything but a token bit of effort to identify, challenge and deeply explore why they believe what they believe and why they object as they do. The Mass Man is happy with his observations - the Non-Mass Man doesn't believe everything he thinks just because he thinks it. [bTW - I read in a science magazine once that research has confirmed Ortega's assertion - it appears to be the default setting of all human beings to 'assess' ideas this way. It takes a great deal of energy to NOT be a mass-man 'default setting' thinker.]

 

I am soon going to be studying Taoism as I don't think it's a bad thing to learn about any kind of belief system. I suspect lessons can be learned from any source...so long as the student is ready.

 

Best wishes to all my fellow TaoBummers whether you post or not. I'm sure I'll have many more lessons to learn from you in the future.

 

Cheers!

[Marblehead]

Very nice post Serene.

 

Peace & Love!