Dependent Origination

[Marblehead]

That's call nothing, not emptiness.

 

Emptiness means, "no essence," basically. So neither nothing, nor does something have any essence. Both nothing and something are empty of inherent existence and are merely relative.

 

I naturally disagree with you but won't go into that (again).

[Marblehead]

This discussion still generally lies in the realm of theory and no real world experience. Ya Mu requested examples and none are given. The Buddhists still remain in airy fairy land and will never want to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty for fear of a contaminated DO experience.

 

Hehehe.

 

I really do have to agree with you.

[Otis]

Along the same lines, my response to the OP:

 

Dependent Origination, non-separation, etc. are not (IMO) descriptors of how the world actually works (although it's possible that the world does work that way, as science is showing us). Rather, they are suggestions for how to believe.

 

We are given suggestions as to how to believe, because beliefs are very important in surrendering the ego. So if we believe in separation, then the ego will continue to see separation, which is not its job. Other parts of the brain can handle the whole ground / object thing, and the ego only confounds things, when it tries to figure out separation.

 

Same for dependent origination. When the ego tries to figure out cause and effect, it inevitably creates (to some degree, at least) superstition. This is because the ego wants to simplify causes, whereas the reality is always a lot more complex. So, the more we try to figure out causation, the more we get trapped in an ego that's not doing what it was designed for: solely paying attention.

 

We are encouraged not to believe in cause and effect, because that belief reinforces the ego, and because it creates delusion. Likewise, however, we should be wary of believing too strongly in Dependent Origination, either, because all belief reinforces ego, even Buddhist doctrine.

 

The fewer beliefs, the better, as all beliefs are ego fodder. But we have to make sure our beliefs make as much sense as possible, so better to choose Dependent Origination (if we must choose), then to continue to create superstition with causality.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

When the ego tries to figure out cause and effect, it inevitably creates (to some degree, at least) superstition. This is because the ego wants to simplify causes, whereas the reality is always a lot more complex. So, the more we try to figure out causation, the more we get trapped in an ego that's not doing what it was designed for: solely paying attention.

 

But we have to make sure our beliefs make as much sense as possible, so better to choose Dependent Origination (if we must choose), then to continue to create superstition with causality.

 

I must disagree with this. Proper use of the concept of cause and effect actually negates superstition. Superstition was created back in the old days because people did not understand the causes of so many events in nature. When we properly observe nature and try to understand exactly what is happening we no longer need superstition.

 

True, it is oftentimes impossible to know all the underlying causes for an event. But most often we can become aware of enough so that we attain awareness.

 

Taoist Philosophy suggests to us that to know the world all we have to do is look out the window and observe. We will see all forms of cause and effects and this is the key to living a full and rich life. We don't have to hold to any superstition because we become aware of reality (as our senses perceive it).

[XieJia]

道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。

[Vajrahridaya]

Nonsense! There is no difference "between a Buddha and a human"! A Buddha is an awakened human, not a non-human.

 

The Buddha himself said that he had transcended being a human, he in fact said he had transcended being anything other than "awake."

 

Though yes, this is a human potential, but not just human as the suttas and sutras talk about intelligent life forms of other worlds who can attain Buddhahood as well.

 

Nor does a Buddha "see" "reality" "correctly". (I had to put all of those words in quotes, because none of them make sense).

 

Actually, according to Buddhism, a Buddha has correct cognition of existence. Which is basically saying the same thing.

 

A Buddha is, of course, a human being, with the same senses, and the same brain. She does not view in the infrared, nor does she see sonar. She cannot view through solid objects, nor is she privy to the "true nature" of anything.

 

Actually, in scriptures talk about many of the powers of a Buddha and all of the above are part of these powers. A Buddha can in fact see through solid objects and knows directly the true nature of everything. This is how a Buddha is defined in Buddhism, but... you're not a Buddhist.

 

I don't have blind faith in these qualities, as I have my own experiences to back up these facts.

 

What a Buddha has is merely ALL of the potential of a human being. What makes her different is that the rest of us put our conditioning and our separation between ourselves and immediate experience of our senses.

 

Note that I wrote "of our sense", not "of reality". We do not experience reality; we only experience our senses' response to reality.

 

A Buddha does have extra sensory perception, in fact of all the 5 senses. A Buddha can see long distance, hear long distance, feel long distance, even taste and smell long distance.

 

I don't have blind faith in these powers as I've experienced their reality directly as a fruit of intense meditative practice. These qualities have been verified to me by others, so it's not my imagination either.

 

The Buddha does not see the ultimate reality, nor can she ever.

 

There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism. There is dependent origination/emptiness and that is the all. There is no mysterious ultimate invisible rooftop to all things according to Buddhadharma, which makes it different from other traditions.

 

But indeed, the Buddha sees directly the ultimate nature of all things, including the cosmos. This is what a Buddha is.

 

It's funny how people project their limitations in perception and experience onto others as if it were the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As if other people couldn't have an entirely different experience and perception of things than them?

 

She merely gets rid of the myth of "ultimate reality" and understands her own limitations will never allow her to fully connect to that reality. She is not a master of "reality" but a master of "internal unity". It is internal unity which allows the full human being (the awakened one) to act without the obstruction of self.

 

Some of this is correct, but like I said, there is no ultimate reality, a transcendent non-thing that exists from it's own side.

 

In other words, the Buddha is not "the one who knows". The Buddha is instead "the one who accepts that she will never know", the one who "lives in mystery." This is what emptiness is.

 

No, that's not what emptiness is. Also, a Buddha is omniscient about the nature of things, this is one of the qualities of a Buddha. A Buddha can get into a state of meditation and perceive beyond the senses and know a scope of things beyond the normal human being, but knowing every nuance of everything that ever was or will be at all times is impossible and the Buddha actually talks about this in the Suttas.

 

What amazes me, is people profess to understand what a Buddha is, or what emptiness or dependent origination means in Buddhism without having ever studied the Suttas. It's like being a Christian without having any knowledge of what Jesus said in the Bible.

 

I recommend you study what the Buddha said, starting with the Pali Suttas, then working your way up through the Mahayana Sutras. You are filled with experiential excuses for your ignorance, as if your experience of yourself were the limits of a Buddhas experience of his/herself?

[goldisheavy]

If Vajraji was as psychic as he claims to be, he wouldn't need to be riding his pedi bike all day. He would be making millions in the stock market. He could find a job with Goldman Sachs.

 

I think you are conflating psychic abilities with aims. Not all people make it their aim to acquire maximum material wealth. It seems you take it for granted that everyone craves an unreasonable maximization of the material wealth, so if one had any extra ounce of ability, then "of course" that ability would be directed at getting a job at GS. I hope you are just kidding and aren't actually thinking in that way in real life.

Edited February 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

I hope you are just kidding and aren't actually thinking in that way in real life.

Me too!

[RongzomFan]

I recommend you study what the Buddha said, starting with the Pali Suttas, then working your way up through the Mahayana Sutras. You are filled with experiential excuses for your ignorance, as if your experience of yourself were the limits of a Buddhas experience of his/herself?

 

 

I totally disagree with this. If you want to learn about buddhism start studying Dzogchen. Then start Mādhyamaka. Read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama.

 

Ignore the Pali canon and all that other stuff until the end.

 

I recommend a top down approach.

Edited February 7, 2011 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

This discussion still generally lies in the realm of theory and no real world experience. Ya Mu requested examples and none are given. The Buddhists still remain in airy fairy land and will never want to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty for fear of a contaminated DO experience.

 

What are you talking about? The Buddhist texts discuss both ordinary and psychic experiences. As far as practicing Buddhists go, they are of course different, just like all people. Some are completely ignorant and worthless, and simply light incense to pray for their relatives and good fortune, without having the slightest understanding of the subject matter of the Buddha's teaching. Others have a good grasp of the subject matter and know how it relates to their day to day experience, but don't have any psychic experiences. Sariputta was one such example, I believe. Sariputta was considered released/unbound (arahant), and yet he had no special abilities to brag about, and thus, no "experience" as many people on this forum would construe it. Maha-Moggallana, on the other hand, was not considered as wise as Sariputta, but had a ton of the psychic experience.

 

So what kind of experience are we talking about? As far as Buddhism goes, Buddha has praised psychic experience and has taught its development (the 4 basis of power sutta), but at the same time, he didn't make it either a prerequisite for enlightenment (unbound state), nor the most important virtue (that would be wisdom).

[Vajrahridaya]

I must disagree with this. Proper use of the concept of cause and effect actually negates superstition. Superstition was created back in the old days because people did not understand the causes of so many events in nature. When we properly observe nature and try to understand exactly what is happening we no longer need superstition.

 

True, it is oftentimes impossible to know all the underlying causes for an event. But most often we can become aware of enough so that we attain awareness.

 

Taoist Philosophy suggests to us that to know the world all we have to do is look out the window and observe. We will see all forms of cause and effects and this is the key to living a full and rich life. We don't have to hold to any superstition because we become aware of reality (as our senses perceive it).

 

Yes, but there are dimensions beyond the 5 senses which the 5 senses cannot ascertain, even through telescopes or microscopes, which are products of the 5 senses.

 

There are other levels of senses that can be developed where one can indeed see without eyes into other dimensions of experience. This is not superstition. Though, you would call it schizophrenia or delusion most likely. Doctors don't really know what causes schizophrenia beyond some theories about the chemicals in the brain.

[goldisheavy]

I totally disagree with this. If you want to learn about buddhism start studying Mādhyamaka. Read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama.

 

Then start studying Dzogchen.

 

Ignore the Pali canon and all that other stuff.

 

You shouldn't need to ignore anything specifically. Even if something is of less value, there is no need to fear it or avoid it. The authorities you appeal to, they themselves constantly appeal to the Gotama Buddha's authority. Constantly! So you should realize that. If you're going to be an iconoclast don't suggest a bunch of Gotama boot lickers as role models!

[RongzomFan]

You shouldn't need to ignore anything specifically. Even if something is of less value, there is no need to fear it or avoid it. The authorities you appeal to, they themselves constantly appeal to the Gotama Buddha's authority. Constantly! So you should realize that. If you're going to be an iconoclast don't suggest a bunch of Gotama boot lickers as role models!

 

 

well I edited my post, but you responded before then.

 

and by the way, what the fuck are you talking about LOL

 

anyway just reread my post

Edited February 7, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

I totally disagree with this. If you want to learn about buddhism start studying Dzogchen. Then start Mādhyamaka. Read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama.

 

Ignore the Pali canon and all that other stuff until the end.

 

I recommend a top down approach.

 

As long as you get to the Pali Cannon. It's a total mistake to say, "ignore" the Pali Cannon as it's amazingly deep, subtle, clear, beautiful and should be a pre-requisite to studying Dzogchen, at least in the sense that one should agree to have to read it eventually even if one starts with Dzogchen. Every known Dzogchen master has studied the Pali Cannon. Every known Mahamudra master has studied the Pali cannon. Oh... you did edit your post... duh! Sorry.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

I must disagree with this. Proper use of the concept of cause and effect actually negates superstition. Superstition was created back in the old days because people did not understand the causes of so many events in nature. When we properly observe nature and try to understand exactly what is happening we no longer need superstition.

 

True, it is oftentimes impossible to know all the underlying causes for an event. But most often we can become aware of enough so that we attain awareness.

 

Taoist Philosophy suggests to us that to know the world all we have to do is look out the window and observe. We will see all forms of cause and effects and this is the key to living a full and rich life. We don't have to hold to any superstition because we become aware of reality (as our senses perceive it).

 

As far as I can figure (so far) superstition is an attempt to predict stuff towards the end of controlling the outcome. That our predictive capacity may have gotten more subtle, doesn't IMO/IME necessarily make our predictions any less superstitious, especially if you add a layer of believing people (including oneself) on top, maybe with a crunchy side of media and personal interests?

 

One of the many things I like about Taoism is 5E which seems to have a pretty well established schema of phase changes. Do Taoists argue about which phase things belong to? I would posit that superstition is fire

[Vajrahridaya]

As far as I can figure (so far) superstition is an attempt to predict stuff towards the end of controlling the outcome. That our predictive capacity may have gotten more subtle, doesn't IMO/IME necessarily make our predictions any less superstitious, especially if you add a layer of believing people (including oneself) on top, maybe with a crunchy side of media and personal interests?

 

One of the many things I like about Taoism is 5E which seems to have a pretty well established schema of phase changes. Do Taoists argue about which phase things belong to? I would posit that superstition is fire

 

Something I can support.

[goldisheavy]

Along the same lines, my response to the OP:

 

Dependent Origination, non-separation, etc. are not (IMO) descriptors of how the world actually works (although it's possible that the world does work that way, as science is showing us). Rather, they are suggestions for how to believe.

 

I think neither is true. DO is describing the nature of experience. Dependent origination (or interdependent origination) is better than just a belief. You can change your beliefs, but you can't change DO as the truth of experience. DO is always in effect, unlike beliefs. At the same time DO doesn't talk about something that's beyond experience, such as the way most people conceive of the world "out there".

 

We are given suggestions as to how to believe, because beliefs are very important in surrendering the ego.

 

In Buddhism there is no need to surrender the ego. In fact, a strong ego is actually recommended. What's important is to see the nature of the ego -- it is empty, like a dream, like a desert mirage. But to surrender it means you believe there is something less illusionary, something more true than it, and that would be a very big mistake. Everything is ultimately equal in Buddhism. Ego is equal to Buddha. Emptiness is equal to form. Etc. Etc.

Edited February 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

I think neither is true. DO is describing the nature of experience. Dependent origination (or interdependent origination) is better than just a belief. You can change your beliefs, but you can't change DO as the truth of experience. DO is always in effect, unlike beliefs. At the same time DO doesn't talk about something that's beyond experience, such as the way most people conceive of the world "out there".

 

 

 

In Buddhism there is no need to surrender the ego. In fact, a strong ego is actually recommended. What's important is to see the nature of the ego -- it is empty, like a dream, like a desert mirage. But to surrender it means you believe there is something less illusionary, something more true than it, and that would be a very big mistake. Everything is ultimately equal in Buddhism. Ego is equal to Buddha. Emptiness is equal to form. Etc. Etc.

 

Damn, that's well put. I don't agree with what you think about the "secret mantra" tradition of Vajrayana, but... the above is damn well put! So clear.

 

Which is why I think Buddhism is such a practical approach, especially when it comes to it's psychology.

[goldisheavy]

Damn, that's well put. I don't agree with what you think about the "secret mantra" tradition of Vajrayana, but... the above is damn well put! So clear.

 

I like the content of the "secret" mantra tradition, but I strongly oppose their practice of secrecy. I think some of their secrecy was well justified at the time, because during many of the tumultuous past times revealing the contents of the secret mantra could get you hanged or beheaded. So keeping the teachings secret was a reasonable precaution in some circumstances. But to keep the teachings secret as a principle -- that's very wrong. It goes against Mahayana teachings, it is in fact the most evil thing you can do. It's much less grave to slaughter 100,000 beings while allowing them access to the highest teachings, than to avoid the slaughter of beings, while keeping the teachings knowingly and intentionally secret.

 

It is not only perfectly OK to liberate any and all secret mantra material, it is commendable. That's my personal permission and empowerment. If people aren't ready, they have every right to reject the teachings and ignore them. If they are ready, they will make use of the teachings. It's very wrong to forcefully push any teaching onto anyone, but keeping teachings secrets is equally as wrong. People must be given a choice and their choice must be respected.

Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

I like the content of the "secret" mantra tradition, but I strongly oppose their practice of secrecy.

 

 

Would you rather have this information slip into the hands of black mages?

 

There are a ton of magick forums, and lot of people practice black magick etc. Don't take my word for it, you can confirm yourself by going into the magick forums on the internet.

 

Black magick takes EVERYTHING "white" and flips it to make it black.

 

They do it with everthing from Golden Dawn magick (invert the pentagrams etc.), to Goetia (worship the demons instead of subjugating) to even enochian (angelic) magick. They can't help themselves!

 

And my understanding is that this is the traditional concern as per Keith Dowman's commentary in "Flight of the Garuda"

 

And the issue is not whether magick is real or not. Even if magick is 100% bullshit, the fact remains there ARE a bunch of people whose sole goal is to corrupt sacred teachings.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Birch]

"Ego is equal to Buddha. Emptiness is equal to form. Etc. Etc. "

 

I'd sort of figured that.

 

In fact, the more I contemplate it, the problem I see with many people is that they haven't gotten to full duality yet. Never mind the non-duality part. Walk before you run etc etc etc...

 

---presently walking-----

[goldisheavy]

Would you rather have this information slip into the hands of black mages?

 

There are a ton of magick forums, and lot of people practice black magick etc. Don't take my word for it, you can confirm yourself by going into the magick forums on the internet.

 

There are always selfish people. Keeping life-saving teachings secret is more selfish than anything else. Using magic with the intention to put other people at risk is selfish, but it can't compete in terms of selfishness with the elitism and cultism that sprouts around and with the help of secrecy.

 

In any case, black mages know everything they need to know to do their craft. The 4 foci of power sutta is openly available and it teaches everything you need to know to perform any kind of magic. Even without that sutta, mages have plenty of good information internally.

 

Keeping "secret" mantra teachings secret doesn't put these black mages in a disadvantageous spot. It simply deprives ordinary people of liberation, which is their birthright.

 

Quoting from Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra:

 

"Then the goddesses, saluting Vimalakirti, said to him, 'Householder, how should we live in the abode of the Maras?'

 

"Vimalakirti replied, 'Sisters, there is a door of the Dharma called "The Inexhaustible Lamp." Practice it! What is it? Sisters, a single lamp may light hundreds of thousands of lamps without itself being diminished. Likewise, sisters, a single bodhisattva may establish many hundreds of thousands of living beings in enlightenment without his mindfulness being diminished. In fact, not only does it not diminish, it grows stronger. Likewise, the more you teach and demonstrate virtuous qualities to others, the more you grow with respect to these virtuous qualities. This is the door of the Dharma called "The Inexhaustible Lamp." When you are living in the realm of Mara, inspire innumerable gods and goddesses with the spirit of enlightenment. In such a way, you will repay the kindness of the Tathagata, and you will become the benefactors of all living beings.'

 

So you see, keeping teachings secret is against the very essence of compassion. It is against the spirit of Mahayana, and also, karmically, it makes you stupid over time. As you keep teachings secret, you become dumber and dumber and eventually you lose the understanding of the teachings altogether.

 

If you want to keep something, you must give it away. If you want to keep wealth, give it away. If you want to keep wisdom, you must give away teachings without the slightest inhibition. If you want to keep your personal freedom, make other people free from your own oppressive desires. If you want to be loved, you must love others freely and without reservation. This is a constant principle in Buddha Dharma. If you want to ignore it, you do so at your own peril. Not to mention that anyone who does so is considered a retard by people like me.

Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Would you rather have this information slip into the hands of black mages?

 

There are a ton of magick forums, and lot of people practice black magick etc. Don't take my word for it, you can confirm yourself by going into the magick forums on the internet.

 

Black magick takes EVERYTHING "white" and flips it to make it black.

 

They do it with everthing from Golden Dawn magick (invert the pentagrams etc.), to Goetia (worship the demons instead of subjugating) to even enochian (angelic) magick. They can't help themselves!

 

And my understanding is that this is the traditional concern as per Keith Dowman's commentary in "Flight of the Garuda"

 

And the issue is not whether magick is real or not. Even if magick is 100% bullshit, the fact remains there ARE a bunch of people whose sole goal is to corrupt sacred teachings.

 

I'll give you another reply. Let's compare the power of the secret mantra to a different kind of power: guns. Guns are dangerous, I think we can all agree. Should the sale of guns be limited then? Who does this benefit? It turns out that gun control only benefits the crooks while it deprives ordinary citizens of many rights, such as their right to self-defense, and their right to overthrow a tyrannical government, and their right to practice marksmanship as a hobby, and so on.

 

The answer to outlaws having guns is to empower everyone, rather than to try to disempower everyone by default and to attempt to control the flow of power. Make everyone powerful and then the deviant users of power won't feel so confident and sure.

 

Now, is there a danger that someone will buy a gun and then misuse it? Of course there is. But it's worth the sacrifice. For every 1 person who misuses the liberty to own a gun, there are 100,000 who don't misuse it. We shouldn't punish the 100,000 in order to protect our society from that 1 oddball.

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

 

Now, the teachings of the secret mantra are certainly powerful. But their function and intent, first and foremost, is to liberate. Never forget that.

Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

In any case, black mages know everything they need to know to do their craft. The 4 foci of power sutta is openly available and it teaches everything you need to know to perform any kind of magic. Even without that sutta, mages have plenty of good information internally.

 

 

Wow I guess you missed the entire point of my post. I don't care whether black magicians kill people or whatever.

 

Again the point is they would corrupt the teachings. In fact it has already happened. The ass clown Poke Runyon took some Vajrayana teachings and combined it with the Goetia.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson