A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

No, it's a break through. His revelation of inter-dependent origination/emptiness did not exist before him in this era. He didn't cling to a universal self existence that underlies everything. He did say these things in no uncertain terms.

 

 

It was a long time ago I read it, but I'm fairly sure the Upanishads talks about this. It doesn't use those terms, but seemed to be saying the same thing if you ask me. But...it was a long time ago

[Sunya]

It was a long time ago I read it, but I'm fairly sure the Upanishads talks about this. It doesn't use those terms, but seemed to be saying the same thing if you ask me. But...it was a long time ago

 

If you could please find the direct quote... I would greatly appreciate it I've personally never found that.

[RongzomFan]

 

Oops Samkhya is from 1500 BCE and kicks the ass of Buddhism!

 

 

 

 

OOps, Samkhya is post-buddhism

 

The only element of "Hinduism" that predates buddhism is vedic fire ritual. Thats it. Not even the upanishads.

Edited June 29, 2010 by alwayson

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

If you could please find the direct quote... I would greatly appreciate it I've personally never found that.

 

Oh, I have no direct quote, but I can tell you from memory where I get that idea from. It was based on one passage that essentially said the stars that are seen by humans on Earth are the atoms and molecules of the 'grand man'(can't remember if that term was used), and that we live within this man, our suns and planets being molecules and atoms in their orbits. The man also sees stars, and these are also the molecules and atoms of another man and so on and on....

 

This is where I get the idea of interdependent origin. I may have my terms mixed up though. I've found some of these Buddhist terms seem to have a meaning that doesn't quite mean what it looks like it should mean

 

That version of the Upanishads was from around the 1920's or 30's. As far as memory serves me correctly at least.

[3bob]

I gotta go fix my Chevy and it's only from 1996 AD...

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

It was a long time ago I read it, but I'm fairly sure the Upanishads talks about this. It doesn't use those terms, but seemed to be saying the same thing if you ask me. But...it was a long time ago

 

Ninpo,

 

The Upanishads do not at all talk about interdependent origination. They talk about creationism, that all things proceed from a primal cause that everything is one with. That all things are the modifications of a primary substance, somewhat like what the TTC says. The Upanishads also say that everything is God's will. All these assumptions are not in cahoots with the Buddhadharma. Also there are only two Upanishads that might pre-date the Buddhas birth. They are the Chandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. But regardless, the Upanishads teach a different cosmology than Buddhas insight.

 

 

 

You should read the Upanishads again to find clarity in this truth.

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh, I have no direct quote, but I can tell you from memory where I get that idea from. It was based on one passage that essentially said the stars that are seen by humans on Earth are the atoms and molecules of the 'grand man'(can't remember if that term was used), and that we live within this man, our suns and planets being molecules and atoms in their orbits. The man also sees stars, and these are also the molecules and atoms of another man and so on and on....

the Grand Man is considered Brahma. That Brahma created everything from his own being. This is not in conjunction with Buddhist realization. Buddhism sees that all things that are now come from things previously, and so on and so forth endlessly since beginningless time. There is no primal cause, or primal origin to anything, thus emptiness and the teaching of anatman rather than atman and the teachings that everything is Brahman.

 

The Upanishads think that the universe has a definitive beginning. Buddhist cosmology says that they do not. That phenomena have been cycling since beginningless time due to causes and conditions, in the plural. Not that all things arise from an Alpha that is also the Omega as the Upanishads and the Vedas put it. This is why the Buddha subverts the teachings of the Vedas says that they should not be taken refuge in.

 

This is where I get the idea of interdependent origin. I may have my terms mixed up though. I've found some of these Buddhist terms seem to have a meaning that doesn't quite mean what it looks like it should mean

 

Inter-dependent origination means that this phenomena arises due to that and that arises due to this so on and so forth. The Upanishads is a reductionist metaphysical idealization where all things are subsumed by a primary subject. Thus, it's a subjective idealization whereby one thinks ones deeply subtle experience of consciousness is the source of all being. The Buddha doesn't make this assumption.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

Ninpo,

 

The Upanishads do not at all talk about interdependent origination. They talk about creationism, that all things proceed from a primal cause that everything is one with. That all things are the modifications of a primary substance, somewhat like what the TTC says. The Upanishads also say that everything is God's will. All these assumptions are not in cahoots with the Buddhadharma. Also there are only two Upanishads that might pre-date the Buddhas birth. They are the Chandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. But regardless, the Upanishads teach a different cosmology than Buddhas insight.

 

You should read the Upanishads again to find clarity in this truth.

 

Vaj, Perhaps you should re-read the Upanishads? And since you were once a "Hindu" it seems that you could better paraphrase that the Chandogya and other upanishads teach non-dualism . Btw, the Buddha also taught non-dualism of the 8th Jhana, similar to how his his "Hindu" teachers taught him, which is getting very, very far ahead of the game for most of us!!

 

Om

Edited June 29, 2010 by 3bob

[yuanqi]

I studied Samkhya with real scholars, Sanyasins and meditation masters who see the derivatives of this extending into Advaita Vedanta and Trika philosophy. the Samkhya Karika is from 200 BCE. So, you are wrong and it's highly dualistic as well.

 

Also... not entirely related, but partially so... Advaita Vedanta is a philosophy that is highly influenced by hindu scholars stealing from Nagarjuna. Your information about Samkhya pre-dating the Buddha is quite incorrect.

the classical text Samkhya Karika isnt before the Buddha, but research has led EVERYONE studying it to believe that the philosophy was existent anywhere from centuries to a millenium before the Buddha. And that He studied it. Therefore Drew isnt entirely incorrect.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vaj, Perhaps you should re-read the Upanishads? And since you were once a "Hindu" it seems that you could better paraphrase that the Chandogya and other upanishads teach non-dualism . Btw, the Buddha also taught non-dualism of the 8th Jhana, similar to how his his "Hindu" teachers taught him, which is getting very, very far ahead of the game for most of us!!

 

Om

 

They teach subjective idealism version of non-dualism basing everything on a single essence or primary subject. The Buddha did not teach this type of non-dualism. Thus, it sounds odd, but there are two kinds of non-dualistic teachings. Those basing everything on the conception of God, thereby everything being reducible to a single essence and the teachings of the Buddha where there is neither an inherent 1 or 2. So, Buddhist non-dualism of inter-dependent origination/emptiness is different. Thus the experience of Rigpa is not to be equated with the realization of Brahman as described in the Upanishads.

 

The non-dualism of the 8th Jhana I experienced when I was 14 in Shaktipat. I thought it was the source of all existence the single essence behind all things. I made the mistake of reifying the experience as the end all be all. This mistake which the Buddha warns about. This is not the non-dualism of the realization of dependent origination/emptiness as there is still a knowledge obscuration when taking up an experience of formless consciousness as absolute and real in and of itself, or the source of all things, or primary element of all things.

[Vajrahridaya]

the classical text Samkhya Karika isnt before the Buddha, but research has led EVERYONE studying it to believe that the philosophy was existent anywhere from centuries to a millenium before the Buddha. And that He studied it. Therefore Drew isnt entirely incorrect.

 

Duly noted.

[Sunya]

Vaj, Perhaps you should re-read the Upanishads? And since you were once a "Hindu" it seems that you could better paraphrase that the Chandogya and other upanishads teach non-dualism . Btw, the Buddha also taught non-dualism of the 8th Jhana, similar to how his his "Hindu" teachers taught him, which is getting very, very far ahead of the game for most of us!!

 

Om

 

If there are instances of interdependent origination (emptiness) being expounded within the Upanisads, I'd really love to read them. Seriously. I'm very interested.

 

BTW, interdependent origination is not the same as non-dualism.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mikaelz

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

Fair enough. Duly noted. I couldn't remember where it said it all began.

 

 

I've been boning up on my Buddhism(I should make it clear that means studying, not sure what it may mean in America)and I found this:

 

'When people asked the Buddha about the beginning of the universe, he never answered that question. That was one of the 'four imponderables' which he did not wish to elaborate on.'

 

If this is true it actually begs the question where did this 'interdependent origin' thing come from then?

[Vajrahridaya]

If there are instances of interdependent origination (emptiness) being expounded within the Upanisads, I'd really love to read them. Seriously. I'm very interested.

 

It doesn't exist in the Upanishads.

 

BTW, interdependent origination is not the same as non-dualism.

 

Sure it is. Upon realization that is. Also Nagarjuna explains it in such a way as to show how it self transcends, which is why this teaching reveals Anatman rather than a primary agent or Atman so it's not the non-dualism of the Upanishads.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Fair enough. Duly noted. I couldn't remember where it said it all began.

 

 

I've been boning up on my Buddhism(I should make it clear that means studying, not sure what it may mean in America)and I found this:

 

'When people asked the Buddha about the beginning of the universe, he never answered that question. That was one of the 'four imponderables' which he did not wish to elaborate on.'

 

If this is true it actually begs the question where did this 'interdependent origin' thing come from then?

 

It never did begin. Buddhist cosmology talks of infinite regress, not primal origin. If you keep looking for a beginning, or a primal agent, then you will not understand what emptiness means even intellectually.

 

The Buddha actually does talk of beginninglessness when he talks about the innate purity of the mind. As the mind is empty of inherent existence and originates dependently over and over again, moment to moment, it cannot be inherently defiled, thus is innately pure since time without beginning. This is the first thing he says right after enlightenment even before he teaches the Dharma.

 

According to Buddhist cosmology, this universe did not arise from itself. The Big Bang is not a primal origin, it is all just due to causes and conditions left over from the previous universe and the previous universe is caused by what's left over from the one before that... add infinitum.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

It never did begin. Buddhist cosmology talks of infinite regress, not primal origin. If you keep looking for a beginning, or a primal agent, then you will not understand what emptiness means even intellectually.

 

The Buddha actually does talk of beginninglessness when he talks about the innate purity of the mind. As the mind is empty of inherent existence and originates dependently over and over again, moment to moment, it cannot be inherently defiled, thus is innately pure since time without beginning. This is the first thing he says right after enlightenment even before he teaches the Dharma.

 

So who coined the phrase 'interdependent origin' then? And why can we state what it is if the Buddha didn't even want to?

[Vajrahridaya]

So who coined the phrase 'interdependent origin' then? And why can we state what it is if the Buddha didn't even want to?

 

The phrase is an explanation of the reality of things. Interdependent origination doesn't have a beginning as it's not really a phrase, it's a realization of the nature of the beginningless cycling of universe after universe, both externally and internally. It applies to absolutely everything, both conceptually, materially and spiritually.

 

Interdependent origination is a concept that describes how the cosmos works, so it's really not a concept in the grand sense, thus no one coins it, but rather, you come to understand it through insight.

 

The Buddhas purpose was to teach, he just needed some coaxing. He probably needed a little time for his enlightenment to really unfold it's wisdom as a gradual process. When he first realized the truth of things as inter-dependent and inherently empty, I'm sure he was more in a state of profound awe and thought... "Wow, how profound! How can I teach anyone this truth which is so profound, no one will get it." I'm sure that was merely a mistaken cognition based upon the awe of it all. But, he calmed down and integrated his enlightenment with all that he was supposed to do.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

Sure it is. Upon realization that is. Also Nagarjuna explains it in such a way as to show how it self transcends, which is why this teaching reveals Anatman rather than a primary agent or Atman so it's not the non-dualism of the Upanishads.

 

Non-dualism to mostly everyone is oneness, that's why I said D.O. is not non-dualism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Non-dualism to mostly everyone is oneness, that's why I said D.O. is not non-dualism.

 

Right... I dig it. Buddhist non-dualism is everything is empty, even emptiness does not inherently exist.

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

Interdependent origination is a concept that describes how the cosmos works, so it's really not a concept in the grand sense, thus no one coins it, but rather, you come to understand it through insight.

 

 

That's a bit naughty Vaj, 'no one coins it', I understand no one can 'coin' an ongoing truth, but still, someone did. In the language I mean. So I'm still at the point whereby he never mentioned it, so I still don't know how you can. Unless this is a phrase that has kind of developed within Buddhism over the years which other people have have created in order to teach some realizations within their own meditative experiences(which I can accept by the way).

 

 

The Buddhas purpose was to teach, he just needed some coaxing. He probably needed a little time for his enlightenment to really unfold it's wisdom as a gradual process. When he first realized the truth of things as inter-dependent and inherently empty, I'm sure he was more in a state of profound awe and thought... "Wow, how profound! How can I teach anyone this truth which is so profound, no one will get it." I'm sure that was merely a mistaken cognition based upon the awe of it all. But, he calmed down and integrated his enlightenment with all that he was supposed to do.

 

That's an interesting perspective, but he still didn't talk about it though. Otherwise it wouldn't be one of the 'four imponderables' which he said he didn't want to elaborate on. I do get that bearing in mind it was imponderable, then use of the logical mind would be pointless(as well as language), and so his actual teaching was sort of 'don't ask me, I don't wanna get into an endless argument, go do the work yourself'.

 

Edit: html

Edited June 29, 2010 by Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that

[gendao]

It never did begin. Buddhist cosmology talks of infinite regress, not primal origin. If you keep looking for a beginning, or a primal agent, then you will not understand what emptiness means even intellectually.

Looking for a "beginning" also assumes a linear time-dependent perspective.

 

Outside of spacetime though, there is no "time" and thus no "beginning." "Beginnings" and "endings" are only concepts used to describe phenomena in the time (linear sequential perception) dimension.

 

By the same token, emptiness is also a concept used to describe phenomena (or the lack thereof) in the space dimension. But outside of that dimension, it becomes a meaningless term as well.

 

These are all just concepts built upon limited frames of reference. So, you cannot use concepts and vocabulary limited by any frame of reference to fully describe phenomena that lie outside of that frame of reference.

 

"Buddhist emptiness" thus probably describes reality completely unframed (deconceptualized, non-dual, dimensionless, etc).

Edited June 29, 2010 by vortex

[3bob]

Intellect is a dualistic based tool with limitations related to same; so it's kind of funny to me that we have all sorts of supposedly absolute or irrefutable intellectual concepts flying around about what some see as the truest type of non-dualism along with intellectual definitions of two or more types of other non-dualism that don't measure up according to measurements made by a dualistically limited tool.

 

lol, unless we go nuts...

 

Om

Edited June 29, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

Intellect is a dualistic based tool with limitations related to same; so it's kind of funny to me that we have all sorts of supposedly absolute or irrefutable intellectual concepts flying around about what some see as the truest type of non-dualism along with intellectual definitions of two or more types of other non-dualism that don't measure up according to measurements made by a dualistically limited tool.

 

lol, unless we go nuts...

 

Om

 

The difference between Buddhist non-dual and Hindu non-dual is subtler than the intellect. What the Buddha is saying is that basically the bondage of Samsara or karmic seeds exist in a formless state beyond the intellect, or beyond concepts, while the Hindu school takes this state of the non-appearance of karmas as the source of all being. It's really just the source of an individuals samsaric experience even though it seems to be completely non-dual, it's really just either the repressed state of particulars through samadhi focus, or the unexpressed state of particulars due to the fact of no secondary conditions for the seeds of karmas to be expressed out of this formless storehouse. So, Buddhist non-duality through the insight of inter-dependent origination does go deeper than the Theist, or Monist experiential excuse for non-dualism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Looking for a "beginning" also assumes a linear time-dependent perspective.

 

Outside of spacetime though, there is no "time" and thus no "beginning." "Beginnings" and "endings" are only concepts used to describe phenomena in the time (linear sequential perception) dimension.

 

By the same token, emptiness is also a concept used to describe phenomena (or the lack thereof) in the space dimension. But outside of that dimension, it becomes a meaningless term as well.

 

It's not meaningless at all, as the state of beyond time or timeless state of meditation arises due to the fact of phenomena. The timeless state or formless samadhi or experience of the state beyond time also arises dependently and is not an independently existing phenomena. Emptiness applies in a state of consciousness beyond concepts as well in order to de-root completely the state of craving for identity. The conclusion of "The Self as being beyond time and space" is a mis-cognition that doesn't recognize inter-dependent origination/emptiness which is more than merely a conceptual model, it's deeply experiential as well.

 

These are all just concepts built upon limited frames of reference. So, you cannot use concepts and vocabulary limited by any frame of reference to fully describe phenomena that lie outside of that frame of reference.

 

You have to directly experience the meaning of the different states of samadhi as well as their outcomes, then apply emptiness there as well

 

"Buddhist emptiness" thus probably describes reality completely unframed (deconceptualized, non-dual, dimensionless, etc).

 

Just that none of this arises even as an experience or concept without causes and conditions. Even the state of de-conceptualization is a conditioned phenomena. Thus, one realizes the non-dual state is truly eminent with concepts too, not just transcending concepts. Both concepts and non-concepts arise dependently, as well as time and beyond time are empty and emptiness is also empty of inherent existence. Going beyond, completely beyond is really just being here, completely here.

 

But yes... the non-conceptual realization is what it's about. It's just really having it and not making an experiential excuse for it, thinking the true experience is due to the one Brahman of all, or merging the Atman with Brahman. These differences in non-dualities of Monism and Buddhism are more than merely conceptual. Though I'm trying to relate this difference through concepts... it really has to be experienced first hand.