What makes Buddhism different?

[xabir2005]

I'll probably catch some flack for this... but hey!!

 

One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...

 

We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.

 

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.

 

This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.

 

Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!

 

p.s. Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.

 

Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri: A symbol in Dzogchen which depicts in physical form the union of wisdom and method or realization and phenomena.

Thanks for the well written article

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for the well written article

 

Thank you for educating me with your articles!

 

I think it is one of the only religions or schools of thought that claims to be in existence in multiple "world systems" or galaxies and solar systems. At least in my knowledge that is.

 

To my knowledge as well. Though Vasistha's Yoga talks about other world systems, it doesn't really get into what traditions of spirituality exist in them.

[Stigweard]

[xabir2005]

Edited September 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

 

My point, once again, is that in trying to compare Buddhism with Taoism in an effort to establish the superiority of Buddhism you are in fact missing the whole point of Taoism.

 

I just wanted to repeat this. But this goes for anyone. To prove which of two things, which themselves cannot be proved, is superior is like pissing in the wind.

 

Happy Trails!

 

BTW: Tao Rules!

[Sunya]

[Vajrahridaya]

[Sunya]

It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

love it. I'm going to "borrow" it, if you don't mind

[Vajrahridaya]

love it. I'm going to "borrow" it, if you don't mind

 

LOL! That's fine, just site me though... you know, my real name. As... If I use it later in school, I don't want to be considered a plagiarist as you could become a famous Buddhist teacher in the future.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't think so... that is saying a lot. If there is one at the beginning, then comes 2... etc.

 

The realization is different. Buddhism is not a piece that comes under it. As the Buddha said, during his time on Earth, there was no other with the same realization. Which is why he is considered a wheel turning Buddha that starts the wheel of the Dharma going because it had died and was non-existent at the time of such a Buddhas coming to the Earth.

 

HAHA,

 

Will a Buddhist not even accept that 1 + 1 is 2 for conventions sakes? .

 

You do not know that the realization is different. So why speak about it. How many Taoist immortals have you encountered? Which lineages have you studied under? How many "scriptures" have you read? How much of its history do you know?

 

You had absolute right to speak about Hindu realization because you had extensive experience with it. But the art of Taoism is in its mystery. There are no set guidelines along the Path as it is with Buddhism. There is constant invention, experiment, reinvention. The direction you take along the Path is completely free in terms of exploration. Throughout its history so much has been integrated within it. And yes, Buddhism goes under this too, at least historically. Schools like Quanzhen combine Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist philosophies and methods.

 

This is one of the main reasons why I find this forum much more enjoyable than places like e-sangha.

[Sunya]

LOL! That's fine, just site me though... you know, my real name. As... If I use it later in school, I don't want to be considered a plagiarist as you could become a famous Buddhist teacher in the future.

 

lol it's just a post on my discussion forum for my Phil class, not an actual paper. it's cool now that most classes use "black board" which is a site where you can upload assignments and communicate. it's really useful for philosophy classes and our Prof is really trying to promote some good discussion there. i'm going to post this and see what transpires !

[Stigweard]

[ralis]

 

The Buddha was the first to claim a superior doctrine, so he's either wrong or right. I find him to be right. Other people want to accept certain things he said and dismiss others instead of seeing the entire teaching as a whole and congruent meaningful unity.

 

Vajraji,

 

A so called superior doctrine is a conceptual view. Yet, you insist on framing the conceptual into a non conceptual point of view. Your argument does not follow (non sequitur). You also insist on some elusive subtlety beyond what anyone but an enlightened Buddha can perceive. Subtle is still a concept!

 

 

ralis

[Sunya]

[ralis]

 

 

it's been said over and over what 'reify' means, in this context, its different than whatever meaning you found in your dictionary. to be Real is to exist independent of conditions, that is what reify means. This is seen as a problem for Buddhists because when you say something is real and independent of causes and conditions then you are giving it essence and this leads to grasping. 'material existence' is just the gross part, on a more subtle level there can be existence as something pure and intangible, a non-conceptual reality, that is reifying.

 

I assume you are using a Buddhist dictionary that is somehow different from what us mere mortals use?

 

ralis

[Sunya]

I assume you are using a Buddhist dictionary that is somehow different from what us mere mortals use?

 

ralis

 

no, but since Buddhism is alien to Western languages unlike Sanskrit or Tibetan... it's difficult to find proper words and usages... gotta do the best we can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

 

"Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified."

 

what Vajrahridaya is saying about reification is not simply making an abstract idea into a reality.. but rather taking that definition one step further. because in Buddhism, ideas make up your reality. they are a filter. therefore having an abstract idea about reality will interpret your experience according to that abstraction and thus make that abstraction concrete and real. The abstraction and conceptualization pertaining to the nature of things is seen as an error in Buddhism specifically due to this point.

Edited September 22, 2009 by mikaelz

[vsaluki]

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

LOL. Well, that's a nice way to deal with the problem of other minds. But I see no evidence and I see no logic. Just a hacked together set of words that seem to have meaning, but don't.

[vsaluki]

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited September 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[vsaluki]

But rather just an endless and beginning-less matrix of causation based on infinite sentient beings.

 

What is the source of the infinite sentient beings? Oh, they are beginningless and endless. Well, so is the unitive source. This is really a silly language game.

Edited September 22, 2009 by vsaluki

[Vajrahridaya]

I think that you are simply moving the magic. Now you are giving the power to create reality to all of the subunits of this so called co-dependent matrix. But it's still a source of reality and you can still ask where the subunits get the power to generate reality. And since you are claiming that a unitive creator has a problem because the issue of creation can lead to infinite regression, then your solution still has the same problem.

 

Don't think of the co-creative matrix as a whole, but merely parts with resource with no beginning as in beginningless causation. If you can think beyond beginning. As in the big bang that caused this was caused by the end of the last, and the last was caused by the beginning of the last caused by the end of before that... on and on. Then you have a slight intellectual grasp of dependent origination. No beginning. And no... infinite regression is the answer, not the problem.

 

That's just an assertion.

 

To you, not to me.

 

As Wittgenstein said, all problems of philosophy are problems of language. Your game is a philosophy game, and you've created new terms that are phenomena with no more reality than any other phenomena.

 

Ah... dependent origination/emptiness at work again... eh? If you could apply that to everything on an experiential level endlessly?

Try your chair example. You say that it is composed of pieces like legs, etc. and what are the pieces composed of and where did they come from. You can say molecules. What are the molecules composed of and where did they come from. You say atom. And what are the atoms composed of and where did they come from. You say subatomic particles. And what are the subatomic particles composed of and where do they come from. Maybe you say strings. Etc. etc. etc. The co-dependent matrix for the chair fades of into infinity, and you have simply pushed the problem off to a word that has no meaning. Because conceptually, infinity is nothing but a symbol. It has no mental corrolation.

 

It has experiential correlation. Go sit on a cushion for a while and get some realization of emptiness. Sheesh!! Don't expect words to do all the work for you!! Goodness!

Edited September 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Stig, you're biased towards Taoism and haven't studied Buddhism and are unwilling to listen to the views of others and have a present agenda to prove that your view and your way is in somehow superior to others.

LOL my friend ... the thing is though I am not trying to argue that Taoism is superior in anyway shape or form. Yes Taoism is my chosen path, I am happy with it and am content with the benefits it continuously yields to my life. I am not trying to criticize another person's path. I am not trying to outdo someone else.

 

My issue, as demonstrated by my continuous emphasis, is that if you are going to make a comparative analysis then you best make sure you have given equal attention to both paths and are not attached to one or the other. You should actually know both paths on their own terms.

 

Like I said, I am not trying to make this comparison, Vajrahridaya is and by symbiosis so are you. As such the onus is on yourselves to respectfully give due attention to Taoism in your analysis. By obtusely ignoring the statements by people who have actually given Taoism it's due study you have thus far failed dismally to demonstrate this respect.

 

except we are willing to listen as this is a discussion forum and there should be no bias or agenda.

Please tell me you are joking over this right? Seriously? Can you really be so blind to the one-eyed campaign that the Buddhist contingent have been waging in this forum?

 

why do you keep saying that's not what reify means and arguing definitions? that isn't discussion, that's arguing. It's been said over and over what 'reify' means, in this context, its different than whatever meaning you found in your dictionary. to be Real is to exist independent of conditions, that is what reify means.

I keep saying it my friend because you (being the collective) have got the definition wrong. Are you honestly trying to tell me that we should take liberty with the meanings of the words in our language? Just because you guys are jumping up and down saying that reification means xyz doesn't mean it does.

 

Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

 

reify: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify

 

reification: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing: to reify a concept. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification?jss=1

 

reify: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reify

 

I have been diligent in this discussion to provide clear evidence to support my statements and all I get in return is your opinions that Buddhism defines "reification" as something other than is agreed upon by every credible source of the English language across the world. So until you provide credible support for your claims that reification means "to exist independent of conditions" then I will continue to repeat my statements. In trying to authoritatively state that "Taoists reify Tao" you (again the collective) are stating an unadulterated lie and an untruth and I find it unacceptable for such lies to be perpetuated especially in a forum that is predominantly about Taoism.

[Vajrahridaya]

What is the source of the infinite sentient beings? Oh, they are beginningless and endless. Well, so is the unitive source. This is really a silly language game.

 

No your just not understanding the meaning of the words as they apply contextually. There is no source. Think sideways... not top down. Not Alpha and Omega. That's a top down view. Or back to front, or start to end.

 

Buddhism is sideways... or no way's. Always here and now. Not from there to here, to over there. Or, not from this to that.

 

Buddhist philosophy is basically saying that all that is here now is based on endless causation without a source. No source!

 

Unless you want to contextualize the source as your consciousness, then that's your source, but that also has endless causation linked with everything else. Thus emptiness... meaning nothing stands on it's own. Not even the cosmos. There is no eternal Tao, unless one wants to define that as endless change. But, that would negate some of the Tao De Ching quotes. Unless it's merely a language barrier?

 

But saying something exists beyond the beginning, beyond concept, that is whole and complete that is the mother of all things, is saying that it's the reality of all things.

 

Thus... reifying one thing, and not seeing infinite regress.

[vsaluki]

as in beginningless causation.

 

Again, same magic, different words. Why not call beginningless causation god. The only difference is that you have broken it into subunits. But all of your subunits have all of the same problems that you claim for a unitive god.

 

If you can think beyond beginning.

 

I can't, and neither can you. It's simply words.

 

As in the big bang that caused this was caused by the end of the last, and the last was caused by the beginning of the last caused by the end of before that... on and on. Then you have a slight intellectual grasp of dependent origination.

 

Not really. Because regardless of how far you go back, you have to start out with something to bang. By calling it beginningless you are simply pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I can also call a unitive god beginningless and avoid your problem of infinite regression. Both conceptualizations have the problem of infinite regression and you are permitting yourself a solution through words that have no meaning, but you won't let others use the same out.

 

It has experiential correlation. Go sit on a cushion for a while and get some realization of emptiness.

 

Ah, but that's just a phenomena, exactly the same as what you claim that the uniative people are experiencing.

 

The problem of other minds has always been a dead end in mysticism. Nobody wants to be a solipsist. What the Buddha did is simply to punt. Another concoction that hopes to make the problem disappear through the use of linguistic abstractions that mean absolutely nothing. I hate to take sides in an arguement that is no better than how many angles can fit on the head of a pin, but at least Lao Tze didn't pretend that he could solve a problem that he couldn't solve by making up a bunch of absurd mumbo jumbo.

Edited September 22, 2009 by vsaluki

[Vajrahridaya]

Again, same magic, different words. Why not call beginningless causation god. The only difference is that you have broken it into subunits. But all of your subunits have all of the same problems that you claim for a unitive god.

 

Sure, as a metaphor. We are all the God of all gods! But, God refers to one thing, definably. Look it up! God is considered a will behind all experiential phenomena. Buddhism says that all experiences are based on passed experiences and interpretations conditioned by experiences endlessly. Thus nothing stands on it's own, thus... emptiness. No source that is true and stable. Other than, that all beings that exist, exist now, infinitely. But, none of them have any stable essence. Thus only endless change. There is no subunit of a single unit. You are thinking that all is one, but no... it's many.

 

I can't, and neither can you. It's simply words.

 

I actually can.

 

Not really. Because regardless of how far you go back, you have to start out with something to bang.

 

That something to bang is the end of the last crunch. Just potentiality based on how the last causation played out. Please read some Myriad Worlds

 

Get an idea of what your trying to debate against. Because it feels like I'm trying to train someone in Elementary school.

 

By calling it beginningless you are simply pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I can also call a unitive god beginningless and avoid your problem of infinite regression.

 

No, that's stating that there is one thing, that all things come from. When I'm stating that Buddhism states, that all things come from all things. Not one thing.

Both conceptualizations have the problem of infinite regression and you are permitting yourself a solution through words that have no meaning, but you won't let others use the same out.

 

No, I just think you need to meditate more and study more. Forget concepts for a while and sit on the cushion.

 

Ah, but that's just a phenomena, exactly the same as what you claim that the uniative people are experiencing.

 

No, it's the experiential reference through word form of dependent origination without static essence. These are not just words. They are pointing to an experiential example emplaced/enlodged in the fact that you exist. Meditate on your existence.

 

The problem of other minds has always been a dead end in mysticism. Nobody wants to be a solipsist. What the Buddha did is simply to punt. Another concoction that hopes to make the problem disappear through the use of linguistic abstractions that mean absolutely nothing.

 

I have to ask... how much time have you given to actual meditation without concept?

 

 

I hate to take sides in an arguement that is no better than how many angles can fit on the head of a pin, but at least Lao Tze didn't pretend that he could solve a problem that he couldn't solve by making up a bunch of absurd mumbo jumbo.

 

Because you don't get it doesn't make it not true. See some humility in yourself. I don't lie to myself. I'm ready to admit if I'm wrong if someone can point that out. If so.. I'll admit it. I'm always wrong if it's spoken anyway simply due to the paradox of words.

 

dependent origination/emptiness is non-paradoxical though. It's sideways, not this/that, up'down, mirror/reflection. It's deeper than that. It is experiential, but can illumine your logic bone if you let it.