TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 5, 2011 OK, so according to this guy I know, dependent origination trumps everything else, there is no ultimate unity, and all of us with our different paths ultimately do not end up in the same place. I don't buy it. It sidesteps the issue of First Cause. Is there anyone here who can convince me that the view of dependent origination (upon which all of the Buddha's teachings rest) is the way reality is? If so, what are the implications for other religions? It therefore affirms that God (the First Mover, without a cause) does not exist. If only there was someone here who could clear all this up for us... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 5, 2011 OK, so according to this guy I know, dependent origination trumps everything else, there is no ultimate unity, and all of us with our different paths ultimately do not end up in the same place. I don't buy it. It sidesteps the issue of First Cause. Looking for a first cause is grasping at a self, just in the universal sense. Is there anyone here who can convince me that the view of dependent origination (upon which all of the Buddha's teachings rest) is the way reality is? If so, what are the implications for other religions? It therefore affirms that God (the First Mover, without a cause) does not exist. If only there was someone here who could clear all this up for us... If you're not internally open to it, it can't be done by anyone but yourself first. Someone externally can only reference your readiness for reception of the perfect display of words that wakes up the potential for this experiential insight from inside of you to manifest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 5, 2011 Hi Songs, I am not going to pretend that I have any knowledge of Buddhist concepts but based on conversations here and with people elsewhere the concept of dependent origination is not all that far removed from similar concepts within Taoist Philosophy (which is heavily based in the concept of cause and effect). I have no idea if there was or is a 'first cause' (Prime Mover, God, etc). I hold strongly to the Taoist concepts of reversion and cycles. And this is from where I formed my saying that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. They (things) just take different form over time." There are many spiritual concepts that cannot be proven or disproven using physical science because the two lie in different realms. I think the important thing is that whatever spiritual beliefs we hold to that they do not contradict physical reality. We need harmonize the two so that we live a fruitful life internally as well as externally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) If there was a permanent independent God, he would not be able to interact with this universe, because this universe is dependently originated. The two natures are not compatible. Thus it would be meaningless to talk about God at all. Thats essentially what the Dalai Lama says in "the middle way" Everything that is dependently originated is empty (if you know what emptiness means). Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 5, 2011 If there was a permanent independent God, he would not be able to interact with this universe, because this universe is dependently originated. The two natures are not compatible. Thus it would be meaningless to talk about God at all. Thats essentially what the Dalai Lama says in "the middle way" So is dependent origination a 'proof' that God doesn't exist, or an alternate view? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) So is dependent origination a 'proof' that God doesn't exist, or an alternate view? Yes its a proof that there is no God or independent reality. There may be a deluded being, who misbelieves he is the Creator, but thats another story. Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 5, 2011 Yes its a proof that there is no God or independent reality. There may be a deluded being, who misbelieves he is the Creator, but thats another story. This deluded being can have tons of great power, lots of love, but not insight... They can perform miracles, come to beings in visions that are filled with light, power and love... but they can only inspire virtue, not really insight into the nature of things. Most religions come from one or other of these gods... that say, "I am the alpha and the omega" Blah, blah, blah... It sounds nice, but it's not going to take one to Buddhahood, just long lived god realms, where you get to dance and frolic in bliss, eating pie all day. It's very nice though... I've been to a few of these lokas... they actually exist, there are heavens!! It's not imagination... I know the difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 5, 2011 Yes its a proof that there is no God or independent reality. There may be a deluded being, who misbelieves he is the Creator, but thats another story. Can you walk me through why this is "proof" rather than just a convenient view? Why can't d.o.be false, or just another way to look at things? Why must it be the way reality is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Observer Posted February 5, 2011 Can you walk me through why this is "proof" rather than just a convenient view? Why can't d.o.be false, or just another way to look at things? Why must it be the way reality is? You've hit a wall that can only be passed through by direct experience. No amount of debate is going to bring you to the direct perception you're looking for. Being told about enlightenment is never the same as enlightenment. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 5, 2011 Can you walk me through why this is "proof" rather than just a convenient view? Why can't d.o.be false, or just another way to look at things? Why must it be the way reality is? It has to be experienced directly... you have to, and I mean it's absolutely paramount to have meditative experiences that reference this insight in order for it to be an internally unmistakable realization, and not just a conceptual formulation. If you're really interested, you should just start at the beginning and read suttas and sutras, while you meditate on the inner meanings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Can you walk me through why this is "proof"...? I thought I already did. This universe is dependently originated. Maybe research what that means. So if this universe is dependently originated, how can something independent like God interact with it. Because Mādhyamaka shows that everything that is dependently originated is empty (if you know what that means). If you still don't get it, read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama. Thats where I got it from. Edited February 6, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) OK, so your 'irrefutable premise' is that the Universe is dependently originated. I probably have some homework to do to see if that is the case. I don't see however, how meditative experience can verify the ultimate origin of the Universe. If this is so, I can see why/how Vajra is always saying that all other ways are lesser. Edited February 5, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 5, 2011 I don't see however, how meditative experience can verify the ultimate origin of the Universe. Was this for me? Or for someone else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 5, 2011 Was this for me? Or for someone else? Sure, give it a shot. I don't see then, why any intelligent person would bother with anything other than this view, and yet there are many brilliant Christian and hindu thinkers. Even non-dualism is subsumed. Why isn't this more widely known? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Sure, give it a shot. I don't see then, why any intelligent person would bother with anything other than this view, and yet there are many brilliant Christian and hindu thinkers. Even non-dualism is subsumed. Why isn't this more widely known? Well I never said anything about meditation or ultimate origin of the universe. The only difference between a Buddha and a human is that a Buddha sees "reality" correctly. Thats where Dzogchen and other practices come in. Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) I don't see however, how meditative experience can verify the ultimate origin of the Universe. Through meditation you self transcend, and I mean deep meditation, the type where you can travel to other realms that truly exist (in the sense that this realm exists that is), see into past lives, see through time and space... expanding not only your reference for self, but your reference for information gathering. This can take many years of deeply dedicated meditating. I meditated 4 to 6 hours a day for a number of years. I don't think there is any other way... just sitting around thinking about things is not meditation. You really have to get into the higher formless jhanas or samadhis to accomplish deep intuitive information gathering where you transcend body reference and slip through and into other dimensions. Edited February 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2011 It has to be experienced directly... you have to, and I mean it's absolutely paramount to have meditative experiences that reference this insight in order for it to be an internally unmistakable realization, and not just a conceptual formulation. If you're really interested, you should just start at the beginning and read suttas and sutras, while you meditate on the inner meanings. That could be nothing more than a self fulfilling wish. A program that is transmitted of an experience that is just another experience. I am not certain humans are prepared or even have the capacity to comprehend the complexity of the cosmos. Further, to say there is no God is missing the point. The fundamental problem is that humans have no idea what to look for and therefore assign arbitrary terms in an attempt to quantify reality. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Observer Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) That could be nothing more than a self fulfilling wish. A program that is transmitted of an experience that is just another experience. Could be true! I actually believe this to a large extent. I am not certain humans are prepared or even have the capacity to comprehend the complexity of the cosmos. If reality is just a giant feedback loop would you really want this as your manifestation (that because you are human you can't aspire towards higher things)? I think maybe existence is formless and meaningless, but as consciousness we give it form and purpose, so why not aspire towards a happy, exciting and beautiful experience? Edited February 6, 2011 by The Observer 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted February 6, 2011 That could be nothing more than a self fulfilling wish. A program that is transmitted of an experience that is just another experience. I am not certain humans are prepared or even have the capacity to comprehend the complexity of the cosmos. Further, to say there is no God is missing the point. The fundamental problem is that humans have no idea what to look for and therefore assign arbitrary terms in an attempt to quantify reality. Well, meditate more deeply on yourself and find out more ralis. You can limit yourself to these ideas and think they are the truth, or question them and yourself more deeply, and even go further into your own depths, into your subconscious and unconscious and take the flashlight of awareness with you. It's easy to be someone outside of a circle to say the circle is wrong, never having entered it to find out its interior. In this case though, the circle is really just your own self. It seems to me you've set up a logical criteria for self limitation. One of the possible problems with being smart, you cleverly enclose yourself into a premise of self limitation through intellectual justification. Your intelligence can work for the sake of self expansion though. Just because what you say is true of the majority of the human race, doesn't mean there haven't been those few who this is just not true for, because they've actually made the quantum leap. It is possible to transcend yourself and transcend your humanity and I mean in a good way, not in a bad way. In fact, one of the positive aspects of being a human is the capacity to self transcend, which can go either way... but I'm not talking about getting demonic here, I'm talking about the other direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) OK, so according to this guy I know... This guy you know is YOU as well. MARBlEHEAD= THE BUDDHA WITHIN, the awakened one. And his principles are deep, full of wisdom yet so obvious...the paticcasamuppada (interconnectedness of all phenomena) is basically telling us that everything contained within Samsara, the Dream, Maya, etc... (whatever term you fancy) is connected like a giant web of cause and effect, you are attached to that web via mini-electrical impulses, like wires to a giant electric circuit. When you realise about the connection then you will notice the nature of karma and suffering. Spiritual liberation is a result of jumping off the circuit within the circuit itself, you will reach the state of Nirvana. Peace at last. Now that state is impossible to describe, but what I felt is that you'll dissolve yourself into nothingness and then...no idea what happens next...man it is extremely difficult to reach that last, ultimate jump. I wish it was easier! I think maybe existence is formless and meaningless, but as consciousness we give it form and purpose, so why not aspire towards a happy, exciting and beautiful experience? I wish that too, but unfortunately within the giant dream it's not possible...because of one simple little thing (not that simple, not that little) called IMPERMANENCE. Even the happy and powerful devas suffer somehow because they are bound by it, especially when they lose their companions due to karma. May all sentient beings end their suffering and endless round of rebirths. Edited February 6, 2011 by Gerard 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted February 6, 2011 Just the ranting: What can one ever truly see? Is that not only of that one? How does events arise, sustain and cease? What is the cause? For one to know, one must be able to see. but how does one arises, sustains and ceases? What is actually 'knowing'? What is 'insight'? Can such be given by sutras, conversations or deduction? @Vajrahridaya Admiring your dedication in the practice, In my humble opinion, one need not goes deep down into deep samadhis for the purpose; maybe for power perhaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Observer Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I wish that too, but unfortunately within the giant dream it's not possible...because of one simple little thing (not that simple, not that little) called IMPERMANENCE. Even the happy and powerful devas suffer somehow because they are bound by it, especially when they lose their companions due to karma. May all sentient beings end their suffering and endless round of rebirths. I highly respect Buddhism and your beliefs but personally I genuinely think the key is to love and appreciate the permanence of impermanence. We are all constantly transforming and changing, it's a fact of life so I just try to roll with the punches and accept heartache and pain as another part of life. Perhaps Nirvana lies within Samsara? Without sadness, I would not be able to distinguish the flavor of happiness! Edited February 6, 2011 by The Observer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard Posted February 6, 2011 I highly respect Buddhism and your beliefs but personally I genuinely think the key is to love and appreciate the permanence of impermanence. We are all constantly transforming and changing, it's a fact of life so I just try to roll with the punches and accept heartache and pain as another part of life. Perhaps Nirvana lies within Samsara? Without sadness, I would not be able to distinguish the flavor of happiness! Who said I am an unhappy or happy being. Trascend the both is the wisdom of a Buddha. Take care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted February 6, 2011 OK, so according to this guy I know, dependent origination trumps everything else, there is no ultimate unity, and all of us with our different paths ultimately do not end up in the same place. I don't buy it. It sidesteps the issue of First Cause. Is there anyone here who can convince me that the view of dependent origination (upon which all of the Buddha's teachings rest) is the way reality is? If so, what are the implications for other religions? It therefore affirms that God (the First Mover, without a cause) does not exist. If only there was someone here who could clear all this up for us... Nobody can clear it up except ourself, (although granted with some key help) Besides, even the most possibly perfect doctrine requires the most possibly perfect being to understand same for themselves - for such understanding can not be bought or sold, given or taken away, it must be unfolded from within (so to speak), along with all sorts of nearly countless direct experiences. OM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I meditated 4 to 6 hours a day for a number of years. I don't think there is any other way... Well there is the way buddhism teaches, that is to work on the channels and bindus in the body. Dalai Lama says the degree of enlightenment is directly correlated to the configuration of channels etc. in the body. And Namdrol says the sooner that everyone realizes that it is all about working on the channels etc. in body, the better. Edited February 6, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
