The Enlightened Sage

[joeblast]

If these things were taken in their proper contexts, I dont think there would be quite the disagreement here. VJ speaks well on buddhism; its a fine line to walk at times preserving concepts but not being overbearing in matters of differentiation. If you are interpreting something incorrectly from a strictly buddhist standpoint, you are interpreting it incorrectly from a buddhist standpoint.

 

I'm not sure that its an absolute necessity to have a master and listen to teachings and receive transmissions in order to grasp these things, but unless you have good exposure to authoritative sources then I can see how it may be easy to confuse some of these aspects.

 

Saying VJ creates his own reality in the context of his posts on buddhism is laughable. Is it that some of you dont like to get corrected or ever be told that an interpretation you hold is somewhat amiss?

[ralis]

[joeblast]

That was generally what was in my mind reading that other thread, although nazi quotes dont usually come springing right to mind. If you think what he's saying is all the same, no wonder you react as you do.

[ralis]

That was generally what was in my mind reading that other thread, although nazi quotes dont usually come springing right to mind. If you think what he's saying is all the same, no wonder you react as you do.

 

 

He has repeated the same points (dependent origination) hundreds of times.

[joeblast]

and interdependent origination, too when relevant, that I've seen - it doesnt come from left field, there is context. *shrugs* but when you dont appear to understand fully what's being discussed, the information stream does tend to converge upon itself.

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ, I'm not interested in squabbles regarding all of your dubious labelings, judgings, and sometimes fantastic presumptions about various stuff. (more so considering things you haven't yet learned about same regardless of all your bragged up exposure to such)

 

Btw, imo you are not - protecting - Buddhism that much, it's more like you often give it a black eye.

 

But don't take my word for it... (which I know you won't)

 

Later

 

You sure take things personally.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji always wants the last word to make himself right and others wrong. He even accused Wilbur of being New Age. Obviously, he has never read any of Wilbur's earlier writings.

 

Wilburs' still New Agey... that's my opinion, you shouldn't be hurt by it so much.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Wilburs' still New Agey... that's my opinion, you shouldn't be hurt by it so much.

 

When I post, I back up my writing with facts. You don't! In what way is Wilbur New Age? Why not state something relevant!

[Birch]

Wait a minute (slaps forehead) VJ is his own dependently orginating zebedee!

 

No offense VJ. I loved "Magic Roundabout"

 

Joking aside. I want to ask a "technical" question or 2 about DO.

 

Is it a "this then this then this" kind of thing? Or all all the "things" just dependent upon one "other" thing to arise? And if so, what is this "thing" that the other things depend on?

 

How does this shore up (or not) with the 10,000 "things".

[Kali Yuga]

Like I said before.

 

most of this talk is in fact just

 

mental masturbation.

 

 

 

 

you are not a beautiful snowflake.

[Vajrahridaya]

When I post, I back up my writing with facts. You don't! In what way is Wilbur New Age? Why not state something relevant!

 

His take on the Buddhadharma is New Age rambling without insight or real scriptural context.

 

He's actually more of a Kashmirian Shaivite than anything though, with his whole stages of consciousness theory.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wait a minute (slaps forehead) VJ is his own dependently orginating zebedee!

 

No offense VJ. I loved "Magic Roundabout"

 

Joking aside. I want to ask a "technical" question or 2 about DO.

 

Is it a "this then this then this" kind of thing? Or all all the "things" just dependent upon one "other" thing to arise? And if so, what is this "thing" that the other things depend on?

 

How does this shore up (or not) with the 10,000 "things".

 

Dependent origination means endless things, there is no beginning or ending. Both inter-dimensionally and linearly.

 

There is no supreme "thing" that all things are dependent upon, which is the point of dependent origination.

 

It neither subscribes to being, nor does it subscribe to non-being.

 

It's more of the highlighted sentence above, which means there is no inherent self, just inter-relative "selves".

[Vajrahridaya]

Like I said before.

 

most of this talk is in fact just

 

mental masturbation.

 

 

Your take originates dependent upon your view and your view arises dependent upon your experience and your experience originates dependent upon your view, like a self enclosed loop.

 

you are not a beautiful snowflake.

 

Oh, but you are!

[ralis]

Dependent origination means endless things, there is no beginning or ending. Both inter-dimensionally and linearly.

 

There is no supreme "thing" that all things are dependent upon, which is the point of dependent origination.

 

It neither subscribes to being, nor does it subscribe to non-being.

 

It's more of the highlighted sentence above, which means there is no inherent self, just inter-relative "selves".

 

If what you say about "endless things" and dependent origination is true, then how do you reconcile open systems as opposed to closed systems? "Endless things" i.e, an infinite universe, is a concept of an open system which would necessarily require energy and information from an outside source. Dependent origination would be a finite closed loop with no dependency from an outside source i.e, isolation.

 

In a closed system, entropy increases and that is defined by the second law of thermodynamics. For a further discussion see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Entropy Understanding this law voids the idea of "endless things." Why? "Endless things require infinite amounts of energy and this law does not allow for that.

 

If the universe were an open system, the laws of thermodynamics would not apply. Further, all the universal laws that make everyday things work would not exist.

 

What you propose is a contradiction in the laws of nature to fit your neat little world view.

Edited January 5, 2011 by ralis

[joeblast]

sorry ralis, that's not logically consistent as presented.

[ralis]

sorry ralis, that's not logically consistent as presented.

 

Actually it is and why not provide an explanation.

[Birch]

I was still mulling over my aversion to buddhism. Didn't help that VJ started in with this "you" stuff again. Well, I think I've found something that helps me understand why I don't like it. I think it's just because you can't argue with a buddhist or with buddhism because it will use your argument for your own aversion as proof of its own logic.

 

Which is IMO, really sneaky.

[三江源]

.

Edited October 26, 2015 by 三江源

[Aaron]

Like I said before.

 

most of this talk is in fact just

 

mental masturbation.

 

 

 

 

you are not a beautiful snowflake.

 

 

Hello Kali,

 

Two questions. First, what's wrong with mental masturbation? I believe masturbation, sexual or mental is healthy, it allows one to experience the bliss of a relatively benign act. Second, how do you know I am not the beautiful snowflake? From what I know, I am not just the beautiful snowflake, but also the pile of horrible smelling dung on the floor as well.

 

Aaron

Edited January 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I was still mulling over my aversion to buddhism. Didn't help that VJ started in with this "you" stuff again. Well, I think I've found something that helps me understand why I don't like it. I think it's just because you can't argue with a buddhist or with buddhism because it will use your argument for your own aversion as proof of its own logic.

 

Which is IMO, really sneaky.

 

 

I think you'll find that most Buddhists, the ones that aren't on the forums at least, don't feel the need to convert or preach. They are quite content living life in an ordinary fashion, rarely giving sagely advice or advocating Buddhism. In fact I have many friends that are Buddhists that never once talked to me about Buddhism and still haven't. Don't let the few be the example of the many.

 

Aaron

[Easy]

If the universe were an open system, the laws of thermodynamics would not apply. Further, all the universal laws that make everyday things work would not exist.

 

Ralis,

 

I really hate to interject a little incidental reality into this profound and oh-so-mature discussion, but as far as this totally incidental conglomeration of probably cancerous cells called the Human Race is concerned, the universe is an open system and there is such a thing as Open System Thermodynamics.In the early 1940s Erwin Schrodinger proposed (in a series of lectures that he gave in Dublin, and which in 1944 were compiled into a book entitled What Is Life) that life itself existed and was advanced through the absorption but also perpetuation, of "free entropy" from the surrounding environment. This was not just insignificant theorizing in as much as the entire theory hinged on the assumption there was a self-replicating aspect of all living cells. This assumption led directly to the discovery of DNA. Most open system systems are self-organizing (like hurricanes) and to some extent the human body, and will engender and re-engender themselves back into the living environment as free entropy long after (to human sensibilities) they are viable entities. Perhaps in time (50-60 billion years) the free entropy in this incidental quadrant of the universe will dissipate and the surround will collapse into some rendition of a closed system and die off, but what will that matter to you or I or any Buddhist or Taoist or Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu who are still lurking in the cosmic weeds and claiming to be the supreme poobah in the spiritual food chain. Yum!

 

And then there is this post about an aversion to Buddhism and I have to wonder why anyone would give a rat's ass either way. On a Rockwell Scale I generally find Buddhism to be about the same hardness as the United Methodists...boring...while the Reformed Lutherans seem to be marginally more interesting.

[ralis]

Ralis,

 

I really hate to interject a little incidental reality into this profound and oh-so-mature discussion, but as far as this totally incidental conglomeration of probably cancerous cells called the Human Race is concerned, the universe is an open system and there is such a thing as Open System Thermodynamics.In the early 1940s Erwin Schrodinger proposed (in a series of lectures that he gave in Dublin, and which in 1944 were compiled into a book entitled What Is Life) that life itself existed and was advanced through the absorption but also perpetuation, of "free entropy" from the surrounding environment. This was not just insignificant theorizing in as much as the entire theory hinged on the assumption there was a self-replicating aspect of all living cells. This assumption led directly to the discovery of DNA. Most open system systems are self-organizing (like hurricanes) and to some extent the human body, and will engender and re-engender themselves back into the living environment as free entropy long after (to human sensibilities) they are viable entities. Perhaps in time (50-60 billion years) the free entropy in this incidental quadrant of the universe will dissipate and the surround will collapse into some rendition of a closed system and die off, but what will that matter to you or I or any Buddhist or Taoist or Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu who are still lurking in the cosmic weeds and claiming to be the supreme poobah in the spiritual food chain. Yum!

 

And then there is this post about an aversion to Buddhism and I have to wonder why anyone would give a rat's ass either way. On a Rockwell Scale I generally find Buddhism to be about the same hardness as the United Methodists...boring...while the Reformed Lutherans seem to be marginally more interesting.

 

 

Obviously I am not a physicist and was trying to find a way to refute the incessant Buddhist rant here.

 

Will comment more later. I was not familiar with his work on open system thermodynamics. Are you a physicist?

[TheJourney]

me no likey science. me likey philosophy.

[Easy]

Are you a physicist?

 

No, I'm a polymath artist and private investigator. There is a good book on the issue called Into the Cool. If you have sufficient non-deficit attention you can read more here on my blog.

 

What I am wondering is why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control. Buddhists or Taliban...birds of a feather on the Rockwell Scale. Second rate stuff that need not dirty one's hands, mind or spirit.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Easy

[Starjumper]

What I am wondering is why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control. Buddhists or Taliban...birds of a feather on the Rockwell Scale. Second rate stuff that need not dirty one's hands, mind or spirit.

 

Wow, that was very good, it's always good to see someone stand up for freedom and against fundamentalism.