RE: The Buddha Bums

[Marblehead]

Just because you lack experience doesn't make the experience impossible. Being so intelligent, you should hold a view that is more open to infinite possibility, no? Instead of limiting everyone to your thus far experienced limits, you could say... we'll, I doubt... but there's room to doubt my doubts as well. Let's see.

 

You don't think that would be a wiser place to be?

 

Darned if you don't come up with some sound words of wisdon on occasion.

 

Happy Trails!

[Tao99]

Being so intelligent, you should hold a view that is more open to infinite possibility, no? Instead of limiting everyone to your thus far experienced limits, you could say... we'll, I doubt... but there's room to doubt my doubts as well. Let's see.

 

You don't think that would be a wiser place to be?

Yes that's a very good point and I completely agree. But of course what everyone is wondering is does that apply to Tibetan Buddhism and you as well? Is there room to doubt your doubts about the completeness, superiority, damnation power, High Truth capacity, etc about Tibetan Buddhism? Can we see? Then we would all be on the same page as you so wisely advise above.

[ralis]

Vajra,

 

You have no knowledge as to what my views and experiences are. I am only critiquing your arguments and your absolute devotion to a man who died 2500 years ago. It seems to me that Buddhist devotees see the Buddha as some absolute parent figure. Do you not question your own assumptions?

 

I have found that Buddhists preach about emptiness all their lives and never are able to provide a reasonable explanation. Empty of what? Dependent on what? Dependent on your point of view?

 

Please explain if you can, which part of Einstein's theories you are so intent about. General or special? In general, very few people completely understand Einstein's work! So far you have failed to answer this question.

 

If you are so intent on following the Buddhas's teachings, then why are you not a celibate monk?

 

ralis

Edited August 29, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra,

 

You have no knowledge as to what my views and experiences are. I am only critiquing your arguments and your absolute devotion to a man who died 2500 years ago. It seems to me that Buddhist devotees see the Buddha as some absolute parent figure. Do you not question your own assumptions?

 

Of course, and they are not assumptions for me. I don't know how much meditative experience and insight you have... no. From what you say though I can only assume.

 

The Buddha is a representative of human potential and human realization. We don't worship him like some supreme being, but rather just wish to realize his state of perception, relative to our own personal circumstances.

 

I have found that Buddhists preach about emptiness all their lives and never are able to provide a reasonable explanation. Empty of what? Dependent on what? Dependent on your point of view?

Infinite dependency, infinite regress. Like a chair is dependent upon the wood, the worker, the nails, and the wood is dependent upon a tree, the soil, dependent upon the rain, the water is dependent upon, etc. The worker is dependent upon parenting, conditions... add infinitum. There's no source in Buddhism, no true essential nature, just infinite relativity. Things are empty of inherent nature, meaning we are not merely what we appear to be as this moment is dependent upon the things of the previous moment. Our perception is dependent upon interpretations of experiences, which are based upon previous interpretations of experiences, environmental conditions. It's on and on and on. There is no ultimate emptiness that is the end all be all, emptiness is relative to dependent origination, and all things are relative, including perceptions. In Buddhism, enlightenment is the seeing of all interconnectivity, making no assumptions, being totally objective. This includes seeing past certain popular limits in perception and goes into the so called "supernatural" which is really just multi-dimensional viewing.

 

Emptiness in Buddhism merely means "not without cause". Emptiness merely means "not inherently self existing" but... "dependently existing" add infinitum.

 

Please explain if you can, which part of Einstein's theories you are so intent about. General or special? In general, very few people completely understand Einstein's work! So far you have failed to answer this question.

 

I've mostly just quoted what Einstein said. I don't pretend to be a physicist.

 

These quotes are attributed to him...

 

 

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

 

and:

 

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

 

As far as Einsteins theory of relativity. It's general and special. It's just that things and perceptions are relative. I'm not talking about the math and the exact methodology because the methods of physics and meditation are different. But, that things are relative is my point, not that the exact nuances of Einsteins theory are quoted by the Buddha. Talking about inertial frames of reference, where it's the mind that's always in motion and see's relatively and thus outcomes of the individuals inner experience of any one given situation is different from person to person. It also talks about natural laws and how this is based on that, the pull of our gravity is based upon the pull of the suns gravity and the moon's effects and the other planets, it's all inter-effected. Even the relativity of simultaneity is understood in a Buddhist manor. We understand the relativity of the experience of events separated by space and time. Buddhism shows that there is no absolute truth that stands on it's own, without any dependency. The only absolute Truth in Buddhism is that all things are relative and empty of any inherent substance, as in, nothing stands on it's own. It's just a vast cosmic display of inter-relative things. Even this universe is based on a previous one. Plus all this new talk about multiple universes is actually covered in Buddhism and Hinduism for that matter.... loooong ago.

 

If you are so intent on following the Buddhas's teachings, then why are you not a celibate monk?

 

ralis

 

Because that's not required to be a Buddha. It's all relative. You need an education in the depth of complexity of Buddhism before you can know what your talking about when it comes to what Buddhists believe.

 

The Buddha gave lay teachings and monastic teachings. Though the tenets are different from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana, this is the same in all systems, that there are lay practitioners and monastic and both have equal opportunity for attaining Buddhahood relative to their own personal causes and conditions.

 

Take care.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Of course, and they are not assumptions for me. I don't know how much meditative experience and insight you have... no. From what you say though I can only assume

The Buddha is a representative of human potential and human realization. We don't worship him like some supreme being, but rather just wish to realize his state of perception, relative to our own personal circumstances.

Infinite dependency, infinite regress. Like a chair is dependent upon the wood, the worker, the nails, and the wood is dependent upon a tree, the soil, dependent upon the rain, the water is dependent upon, etc. The worker is dependent upon parenting, conditions... add infinitum. There's no source in Buddhism, no true essential nature, just infinite relativity. Things are empty of inherent nature, meaning we are not merely what we appear to be as this moment is dependent upon the things of the previous moment. Our perception is dependent upon interpretations of experiences, which are based upon previous interpretations of experiences, environmental conditions. It's on and on and on. There is no ultimate emptiness that is the end all be all, emptiness is relative to dependent origination, and all things are relative, including perceptions. In Buddhism, enlightenment is the seeing of all interconnectivity, making no assumptions, being totally objective. This includes seeing past certain popular limits in perception and goes into the so called "supernatural" which is really just multi-dimensional viewing.

 

Emptiness in Buddhism merely means "not without cause". Emptiness merely means "not inherently self existing" but... "dependently existing" add infinitum.

I've mostly just quoted what Einstein said. I don't pretend to be a physicist.

 

These quotes are attributed to him...

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

 

and:

 

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

 

As far as Einsteins theory of relativity. It's general and special. It's just that things and perceptions are relative. I'm not talking about the math and the exact methodology because the methods of physics and meditation are different. But, that things are relative is my point, not that the exact nuances of Einsteins theory are quoted by the Buddha. Talking about inertial frames of reference, where it's the mind that's always in motion and see's relatively and thus outcomes of the individuals inner experience of any one given situation is different from person to person. It also talks about natural laws and how this is based on that, the pull of our gravity is based upon the pull of the suns gravity and the moon's effects and the other planets, it's all inter-effected. Even the relativity of simultaneity is understood in a Buddhist manor. We understand the relativity of the experience of events separated by space and time. Buddhism shows that there is no absolute truth that stands on it's own, without any dependency. The only absolute Truth in Buddhism is that all things are relative and empty of any inherent substance, as in, nothing stands on it's own. It's just a vast cosmic display of inter-relative things. Even this universe is based on a previous one. Plus all this new talk about multiple universes is actually covered in Buddhism and Hinduism for that matter.... loooong ago.

Because that's not required to be a Buddha. It's all relative. You need an education in the depth of complexity of Buddhism before you can know what your talking about when it comes to what Buddhists believe.

 

The Buddha gave lay teachings and monastic teachings. Though the tenets are different from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana, this is the same in all systems, that there are lay practitioners and monastic and both have equal opportunity for attaining Buddhahood relative to their own personal causes and conditions.

 

Take care.

Edited August 29, 2009 by ralis

[ralis]

Ask questions instead of proceeding from assumptions. That would be appreciated!

 

Einstein's opinion in regards to how he felt about Buddhism is just his opinion! He mentions nothing in his theories about Buddhism! If you wish to quote him, I would suggest proper footnotes with sources. I believe the book is "Out of My Later Years". http://www.amazon.com/Out-my-later-years-E...1545&sr=8-3

 

ralis

 

This is a little off topic. I keep coming up with a blank quote box with the quote outside of it. Any help would be appreciated.

Edited August 29, 2009 by ralis

[rene]

Any help would be appreciated.

PM sent.

[ralis]

[/b]Of course, and they are not assumptions for me. I don't know how much meditative experience and insight you have... no. From what you say though I can only assume.

The Buddha is a representative of human potential and human realization. We don't worship him like some supreme being, but rather just wish to realize his state of perception, relative to our own personal circumstances.

Infinite dependency, infinite regress. Like a chair is dependent upon the wood, the worker, the nails, and the wood is dependent upon a tree, the soil, dependent upon the rain, the water is dependent upon, etc. The worker is dependent upon parenting, conditions... add infinitum. There's no source in Buddhism, no true essential nature, just infinite relativity. Things are empty of inherent nature, meaning we are not merely what we appear to be as this moment is dependent upon the things of the previous moment. Our perception is dependent upon interpretations of experiences, which are based upon previous interpretations of experiences, environmental conditions. It's on and on and on. There is no ultimate emptiness that is the end all be all, emptiness is relative to dependent origination, and all things are relative, including perceptions. In Buddhism, enlightenment is the seeing of all interconnectivity, making no assumptions, being totally objective. This includes seeing past certain popular limits in perception and goes into the so called "supernatural" which is really just multi-dimensional viewing.

 

Emptiness in Buddhism merely means "not without cause". Emptiness merely means "not inherently self existing" but... "dependently existing" add infinitum.

I've mostly just quoted what Einstein said. I don't pretend to be a physicist.

 

These quotes are attributed to him...

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

 

and:

 

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

 

As far as Einsteins theory of relativity. It's general and special. It's just that things and perceptions are relative. I'm not talking about the math and the exact methodology because the methods of physics and meditation are different. But, that things are relative is my point, not that the exact nuances of Einsteins theory are quoted by the Buddha. Talking about inertial frames of reference, where it's the mind that's always in motion and see's relatively and thus outcomes of the individuals inner experience of any one given situation is different from person to person. It also talks about natural laws and how this is based on that, the pull of our gravity is based upon the pull of the suns gravity and the moon's effects and the other planets, it's all inter-effected. Even the relativity of simultaneity is understood in a Buddhist manor. We understand the relativity of the experience of events separated by space and time. Buddhism shows that there is no absolute truth that stands on it's own, without any dependency. The only absolute Truth in Buddhism is that all things are relative and empty of any inherent substance, as in, nothing stands on it's own. It's just a vast cosmic display of inter-relative things. Even this universe is based on a previous one. Plus all this new talk about multiple universes is actually covered in Buddhism and Hinduism for that matter.... loooong ago.

Because that's not required to be a Buddha. It's all relative. You need an education in the depth of complexity of Buddhism before you can know what your talking about when it comes to what Buddhists believe.

 

The Buddha gave lay teachings and monastic teachings. Though the tenets are different from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana, this is the same in all systems, that there are lay practitioners and monastic and both have equal opportunity for attaining Buddhahood relative to their own personal causes and conditions.

 

Take care.

[Sunya]

each quote (with [ brackets) has to be closed with /quote (with [ brackets)

you have too many quotes that aren't closed

 

you have an extra "quote" after " From what you say though I can only assume." and before "The Buddha is a representative of", get rid of that and that whole thing will show up as a quote. if you want to split it up then do "/quote" "write some stuff" and then begin again with "quote"

 

if you open you must close

Edited August 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

If you read Buddhism, he actually does. These phenomena are explained in Buddhist texts long before science made any such claims.

What are you talking about?? Aliens? UFOs? These things are understood rather differently within the context of Buddhism in my personal opinion, as opposed to evidence-based claims by science.

Edited August 30, 2009 by nac

[Encephalon]

[Vajrahridaya]

What are you talking about?? Aliens? UFOs? These things are understood rather differently within the context of Buddhism in my personal opinion, as opposed to evidence-based claims by science.

 

 

In Buddhism there is talk in scripture about life on other planets. They also talk about parallel universes and infinite universes as well.

 

In Dzogchen as well they talk about life on other planets even that specifically Dzogchen has been transmitted to something like 18 world systems in this present universe. They also talk about ships made of sound on subtler dimensions that other beings from other worlds use for travel. These are subtler than our physical dimensions.

 

Take care.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

What are you talking about?? Aliens? UFOs? These things are understood rather differently within the context of Buddhism in my personal opinion, as opposed to evidence-based claims by science.

 

science has evidence for UFOs and aliens?

 

modern science has yet to have evidence but they are open minded about other world systems existing that can support life because statistically speaking, its possible. Buddhism has always posited the existence of other world systems.

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard really good things about Buddhism without Beliefs. I need to check it out.

Edited August 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Buddhist brethren, please, ground thyselves. Our Taoist cousins can show us how.

 

Yantra Yoga does that just fine, thanks though.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

In Buddhism there is talk in scripture about life on other planets. They also talk about parallel universes and infinite universes as well.

 

Where is that stated?

 

 

ralis

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[Tao99]

never mind you fixed it. use [/b] at end, at front just the b to make Where is that stated? bold.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Where is that stated?

 

 

In various Mahayana texts, in so many texts both Hindu Shaivite Tantra and Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana.

 

So, so many texts. Where to start?

 

I personally was impressed with the reading of the Vasisthas Yoga which is a Hindu text, but it pulls lots from Mahayana Buddhism without the same clarity. As far as an old book of antiquity that talks a lot about multiple universes and other dimensions, it's good though. That's a huge 1,000 page book in abridged English translation in tiny lettering. It still makes the wrong final assumption of an ultimate universal cosmic consciousness that is considered the source of all things, then from there makes assumptions that Buddhism would not agree with, but up to that point it's pretty right on.

 

There are so many Mahayana texts that talk about Multiple universes that I don't know where to start. But, Myriad Worlds is a good place to start.

 

Take care.

[ralis]

never mind you fixed it...

 

I think I figured it out.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Vajraji,

 

If you want to really understand Einstein's work, read this. So far you have not answered my question. Are you referring to general or special?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stubbornly-Persisten...030&sr=8-11

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[Sunya]

who cares about Einstein? he was a smart physicist, but he didn't know everything. he certainly didn't know how to end suffering and see reality the way it truly is.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think I figured it out.

 

Thanks

Vajraji,

 

If you want to really understand Einstein's work, read this. So far you have not answered my question. Are you referring to general or special?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stubbornly-Persisten...030&sr=8-11

 

I did, I said general and special and I even explained a bit... just a little bit. But, Michaelz has a point. I really don't care much about Einstein other than I like the guy and some of the things he said, that's about it. I'm not too into physics as it's not the best method to end psychological suffering. Buddhism is.

 

But yes... Buddhism talks about the relativity that Einstein talked about, but through a different form of methodology and explanation.

 

That's my point. My good friend read a lot about Einstein and really liked the guy. But, saw where he falls short in grounding knowledge into a workable meditative state of realization while in the body that shows the signs of freedom from psychological suffering. These are realizations of Buddhas throughout the ages, not physicists.

[nac]

In Dzogchen as well they talk about life on other planets even that specifically Dzogchen has been transmitted to something like 18 world systems in this present universe. They also talk about ships made of sound on subtler dimensions that other beings from other worlds use for travel. These are subtler than our physical dimensions.

 

science has evidence for UFOs and aliens?

Yes, evidence that such things are possible. If our universe was geocentric and bounded by a shell of fixed stars, it would've been considerably harder to entertain the idea that UFOs and aliens exist.

 

Buddhist brethren, please, ground thyselves. Our Taoist cousins can show us how. Turn down the volume on the ego so we can listen. But please, stop dressing up egocentrism as ancient wisdom.

Once again, I'm very sorry if that's what I did.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Well, once you start traveling around through sound in meditative states, it'll be more of a blissful laughter of recognition.

[nac]

Well, once you start traveling around through sound in meditative states, it'll be more of a blissful laughter of recognition.

I'd take meditative insight with a grain of salt if I were you. After all, isn't that what the Buddha did?

[Vajrahridaya]

I'd take meditative insight with a grain of salt if I were you. After all, isn't that what the Buddha did?

 

Of course, but he also saw and went to other dimensions and traveled to other worlds. He just saw them as well as illusory as this world... just other types of illusions that help break from this illusion, an expansion of the view of the grand illusion. Though of course if we're going to toss the word "illusion" around, that does need some context, as there really is no illusion, just limited viewing. So take your experiences of the 5 senses and seeming Earth boundedness with a grain of salt as well Nac, as that's what the Buddha did. Thus yes, there are in fact other worlds and other dimensions of experience, both refined and denser. Your consciousness is not limited to and by body consciousness.

 

You can in fact pass your consciousness through a black hole and experience something on a conscious level that a physicist will not be able to, being so caught up in tangible 3 dimensional evidence.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Of course, but he also saw and went to other dimensions and traveled to other worlds.

"Worlds", yeah. We sentient beings do that all the time without realizing it.