Dependent Origination

[RongzomFan]

Are you joking?

 

 

No I am not joking.

 

Are you completely clueless?

 

Yes.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

It's hard to establish origin, because they seem to be everywhere. For example, Garuda. Read about it. Notice how this kind of iconography is present in many regions. Who is first? That's hard to say.

 

For example, consider the first chapter of Chuang Tzu:

 

 

 

It appears that Phang (I've also seen it transliterated as Peng) is exactly like Garuda here.

 

The point really is not to say what's first and what's second. That's not the point at all. The point is that Buddhism adopts and re-purposes things all the time. For example, Buddha has adopted and re-purposed the idea of karma. That idea existed before Buddha was born, and yet Buddha gave a new and different explanation of karma from the prevailing one. That's just one example.

 

So the point is that there is always intermingling going on. It's unfair to try to protect your teachings from being corrupted. You should try to spread the correct version of your teachings while allowing others to creatively corrupt what you say.

 

I agree on the deity and intermingling thing. Who knows if Hanuman came from India or China...?? Who knows? Garuda does seem to be all over the place as well... yes, yes.

 

But, anyway... with the teachings... if you don't have them, and they ain't giving them to you... what cha gona do about it? Why not get transmission, go through the practices, attain the pre-requisite states of mind and meditation stability and you'll get the teachings! Then you can do whatever you want with them, write books, put them on stickers and plaster them on busses, spray pain the teachings on garage doors and high schools, the Brooklyn Bridge? Sky write them over and over again in the air through a rent a plane? How about that GIH... sound good? I mean, if you can't convince them through logic and reason to give you the teachings and methods that they are holding captive from you, then I guess you'll have to convince them through making them see that you are indeed ready.

[Vajrahridaya]

No I am not joking.

 

Are you completely clueless?

 

Yes.

 

I'm also surprised. The Buddha didn't make up most any of the terms he used to teach his teachings. He did make up sanatanadhamma though. Or whatever the Pali version of that word is... I'm not a scholar, though I know a bit of sanskrit in transliteration through growing up my entire life as a Hindu before becoming Buddhist.

[goldisheavy]

But, anyway... with the teachings... if you don't have them, and they ain't giving them to you... what cha gona do about it?

 

If I didn't have the teachings, I'd get them and then publish them freely after getting them and thus liberate them.

 

Why not get transmission, go through the practices, attain the pre-requisite states of mind and meditation stability and you'll get the teachings! Then you can do whatever you want with them, write books, put them on stickers and plaster them on busses, spray pain the teachings on garage doors and high schools, the Brooklyn Bridge?

 

Exactly. This is what I call "liberating a teaching."

 

Sky write them over and over again in the air through a rent a plane? How about that GIH... sound good? I mean, if you can't convince them through logic and reason to give you the teachings and methods that they are holding captive from you, then I guess you'll have to convince them through making them see that you are indeed ready.

 

My target audience is not "them." It is you. I want all of you who read my posts to stop supporting secrecy. First thing you should do, if you want to follow my advice, is to stop speaking positively about secrecy. Stop showing the practice of secrecy respect! Second step is to begin showing the practice of secrecy your disrespect and scorn. Third step is to actually liberate teachings and to physically thwart those who attempt secrecy (similar to Wikileaks). I don't demand that people take it to step 3 right away, but I do want everyone to be at least at step 1, which is to say, we should never publicly defend and/or praise secrecy.

 

I am neither poor nor a beggar. I have all the wisdom and teachings I could possibly want. So I don't do this for myself (at least, not this incarnation anyway, and not this narrow conception of myself as someone who posts on forums and nothing more). I do this for you. It is your birthright and I am here protecting your birthright.

[RongzomFan]

I'm also surprised. The Buddha didn't make up most any of the terms he used to teach his teachings. He did make up sanatanadhamma though. Or whatever the Pali version of that word is... I'm not a scholar, though I know a bit of sanskrit in transliteration through growing up my entire life as a Hindu before becoming Buddhist.

 

 

There was a jainist concept of karma that may or may not have predated buddhism. But it is really nothing like the type of karma buddhism and hinudism shares together, which is the type most people mean by the term karma. And I don't know if jains used the word karma way back then, or if thats a more recent introduction.

 

I'm pretty sure that Buddhism came up with the type of karma, that we all mean when we talk about karma, including the hindu version, which is similar.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

If I didn't have the teachings, I'd get them and then publish them freely after getting them and thus liberate them.

 

 

 

Exactly. This is what I call "liberating a teaching."

 

 

 

My target audience is not "them." It is you. I want all of you who read my posts to stop supporting secrecy. First thing you should do, if you want to follow my advice, is to stop speaking positively about secrecy. Stop showing the practice of secrecy respect! Second step is to begin showing the practice of secrecy your disrespect and scorn. Third step is to actually liberate teachings and to physically thwart those who attempt secrecy (similar to Wikileaks). I don't demand that people take it to step 3 right away, but I do want everyone to be at least at step 1, which is to say, we should never publicly defend and/or praise secrecy.

 

I am neither poor nor a beggar. I have all the wisdom and teachings I could possibly want. So I don't do this for myself (at least, not this incarnation anyway, and not this narrow conception of myself as someone who posts on forums and nothing more). I do this for you. It is your birthright and I am here protecting your birthright.

 

Whatever bro...

 

You can do you... I thought Wikileaks was irresponsible in many instances. His leaking ruined plenty of lives who have long been innocent of many things of the past.

[Vajrahridaya]

There was a jainist concept of karma that may or may not have predated buddhism. But it is really nothing like the type of karma buddhism and hinudism shares together, which is the type most people mean by the term karma. And I don't know if jains used the word karma way back then, or if thats a more recent introduction.

 

I'm pretty sure that Buddhism came up with the type of karma, that we all mean when we talk about karma, including the hindu version, which is similar.

 

The Hindu version was first and it's from the Vedas.

 

The Buddha deeply clarified the term and rendered it in a new light as well, as there is no creator god in Buddhism like there is in Vedic lore. The caste system was considered a persons dharma and karma granted by god... as one example.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

The Hindu version was first and it's from the Vedas.

 

 

Ha I don't think so.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

Whatever bro...

 

You can do you... I thought Wikileaks was irresponsible in many instances.

 

It was very responsible.

 

His leaking ruined plenty of lives who have long been innocent of many things of the past.

 

Is there any evidence of this, or is it just speculation?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ha I don't think so.

 

Wow, you really do need an education in your own lands religious anthropology.

 

I know so... how about that. I grew up Hindu my entire life and spent many years studying the teachings of Hinduism with deep focus and respect... before realizing that Buddhism is bigger, better, faster, more awesome... studly... etc.

[Vajrahridaya]

It was very responsible.

 

 

 

Is there any evidence of this, or is it just speculation?

 

Yes, there is evidence, it was reported with specific names and the stories behind it and what the information was... the detail escape me because I didn't care enough as I was pedicabbing at the time of listening. My mother has the information.

 

Anyway... it's not speculation. I think plenty of the information was good to let out, but I think that some things just should stay secret, including very esoteric teachings that the masses aren't ready for yet.

[Vajrahridaya]

.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

Wow, you really do need an education in your own lands religious anthropology.

 

I know so... how about that. I grew up Hindu my entire life and spent many years studying the teachings of Hinduism with deep focus and respect... before realizing that Buddhism is bigger, better, faster, more awesome... studly... etc.

 

 

Buddhism came up with karma as we know it. In fact isn't that one of Buddha's big innovations? He went from this sramanic idea of "karma", which was not really karma, to real karma.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhism came up with karma as we know it. In fact isn't that one of Buddha's big innovations? He went from this sramanic idea of "karma", which was not really karma, to real karma.

 

He clarified it, but the basic premise of rebirth through karma was already there as a Brahmanistic and even forrest hindu idea. The term karma relating to cause and effect, reincarnation, the various realms of rebirth available to one, etc. etc. was already a firmly established cultural idea in India long before the Buddha was born.

 

His clarification of the term is the specific insight of a Buddha, but that is all.

[RongzomFan]

He clarified it, but the basic premise of rebirth through karma was already there as a Brahmanistic and even forrest hindu idea. The term karma relating to cause and effect, reincarnation, the various realms of rebirth available to one, etc. etc. was already a firmly established cultural idea in India long before the Buddha was born.

 

His clarification of the term is the specific insight of a Buddha, but that is all.

 

 

Forrest Hindu? Wtf?

 

I'm not a scholar, but with just anecdotal wikipedia research, I still think I am right. I will see if I can get some actual academic info from somewhere.

[SeriesOfTubes]

Because that would mean everything is pre-determined and that all is really just one beings will. That would be independent origination, not dependent origination. Dependent origination leads to infinite regress, cycles and reversions to cycles to reversions without beginning nor an end. But if all things came from one giant will, the universe just wouldn't work as it does. The Buddha said, if there is a creator god who is truly responsible for the suffering of all beings, then that same god could take it all away at will. Or something like that... he said something to that effect. I bet Xabir could get the exact quote for us??

 

The Buddha also said that there is not a single uncaused cause in the cosmos. The theory of god is a theory of an uncaused cause.

 

thanks. but don't most philosophies that hold to the creator idea assert that it became many and endowed it's creation with free will, hence the possibility of suffering, inter-dependance, and a non-singular will?

 

Read "the middle way" by the Dalai Lama.

 

Everything that is dependently originated is empty (if you know what that means).

 

So an independent reality would not be able to interact with this universe...to such an extent that it would be meaningless to talk about a God.

 

thanks, I think I get where that is coming from, though I might be misunderstanding empty..

 

The the cup of coffee in front of me is empty of inherent existence, or dependently originated in that:

 

It was made from recycled materials (causal dependance)

 

It depends on it's pieces and parts, recycled material, coffee inside of it, molecules and so on (mereological dependance)

 

It is not a "cup of coffee" outside of my cognizance. (conceptual dependence)

 

but I still don't get how this quantum of something impacting my senses as a "cup of coffee" could not interact or in fact be broken down at the most fundamental level as *something* that exists inherently.. especially if the idea is that it is part of a something that it keeps getting recycled in a cosmic crunch.

 

I'm also not fully sold on the conceptual dependance part, I mean things don't exist (out there) as labels in our mind, yeah, but to say there is nothing at all causing an appearance as this cup of coffee until I lay eyes on it seems a bit like an artifact of the infant developmental stage before "object permanence" is grasped

Edited February 8, 2011 by SeriesOfTubes

[goldisheavy]

Yes, there is evidence, it was reported with specific names and the stories behind it and what the information was... the detail escape me because I didn't care enough as I was pedicabbing at the time of listening. My mother has the information.

 

Anyway... it's not speculation. I think plenty of the information was good to let out, but I think that some things just should stay secret, including very esoteric teachings that the masses aren't ready for yet.

 

Shame on you.

[RongzomFan]

thanks. but don't most philosophies that hold to the creator idea assert that it became many and endowed it's creation with free will, hence the possibility of suffering, inter-dependance, and a non-singular will?

 

 

 

thanks, I think I get where that is coming from, though I might be misunderstanding empty..

 

The the cup of coffee in front of me is empty of inherent existence, or dependently originated in that:

 

It was made from recycled materials (causal dependance)

 

It depends on it's pieces and parts, recycled material, coffee inside of it, molecules and so on (mereological dependance)

 

It is not a "cup of coffee" outside of my cognizance. (conceptual dependence)

 

but I still don't get how this quantum of something impacting my senses as a "cup of coffee" could not interact or in fact be broken down at the most fundamental level as *something* that exists inherently.. especially if the idea is that it is part of a something that it keeps getting recycled in a cosmic crunch.

 

I'm also not fully sold on the conceptual dependance part, I mean things don't exist (out there) as labels in our mind but to say nothing therefore exists as a cup of coffee seems a little like an artifact of the infant developmental stage before "object permanence" is grasped

 

seriously borrow the book from the library. You aren't going to learn anything on the internet.

[RongzomFan]

Shame on you.

 

 

Can I drive your car?

 

The tibetans "own" this information just like you own your car. Who are you to bully them?

 

If you come up with an invention to make a flashing condom, shame on you if you go to a patent office.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[SeriesOfTubes]

seriously borrow the book from the library. You aren't going to learn anything on the internet.

 

yeah man I'll put it on the list. I just figured the logic to that would be easily demonstrable and not just an idea repeated.

[ralis]

Yes, there is evidence, it was reported with specific names and the stories behind it and what the information was... the detail escape me because I didn't care enough as I was pedicabbing at the time of listening. My mother has the information.

 

Anyway... it's not speculation. I think plenty of the information was good to let out, but I think that some things just should stay secret, including very esoteric teachings that the masses aren't ready for yet.

 

That was propaganda from the U.S military. What Wikileaks did was what any first rate investigative journalist should be doing. Assange should be honored instead of being vilified.

[thelerner]

My God, if I ever go into a monastery or philosophy group that I really don't like, this thread has shown me what to do.

 

Whisper the words 'Dependent Origination' then run out before the fur starts flying.

[Vajrahridaya]

Forrest Hindu? Wtf?

 

I'm not a scholar, but with just anecdotal wikipedia research, I still think I am right. I will see if I can get some actual academic info from somewhere.

 

The original Upanishads were forrest hindu teachings pryer to the Buddha and these people weren't interested in the big cities where the Brahmins were rulers of spirituality.

 

You know... the first thing the Buddha did was go to the forrest and learn forrest hinduism from two masters of samadhi in the tradition? He learned the formless jhana states from these forrest hindu masters.

 

The term and meaning of karma is a Vedic invention having to do with the Vedic Sanskrit period which is anywhere from 2,000 BC to 1,000 BC pryer to Panini the famous sanskrit grammarian. It might even be earlier as some place the Vedas in the 4,000's BC.

 

Are you really an Indian? Seriously Alwayson... how old are you?

[RongzomFan]

The original Upanishads were forrest hindu teachings pryer to the Buddha and these people weren't interested in the big cities where the Brahmins were rulers of spirituality.

 

You know... the first thing the Buddha did was go to the forrest and learn forrest hinduism from two masters of samadhi in the tradition? He learned the formless jhana states from these forrest hindu masters.

 

The term and meaning of karma is a Vedic invention having to do with the Vedic Sanskrit period which is anywhere from 2,000 BC to 1,000 BC pryer to Panini the famous sanskrit grammarian. It might even be earlier as some place the Vedas in the 4,000's BC.

 

Are you really an Indian? Seriously Alwayson... how old are you?

 

 

First....what upanishads before the Buddha?

 

There was a thread about 2 years ago where we confirmed that the academic consensus was that all the Upanishads are post Buddha.

 

 

Secondly.....Buddha learned from Shramana masters, not Hindu.

 

Thirdly.....how is karma a vedic invention?

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

thanks. but don't most philosophies that hold to the creator idea assert that it became many and endowed it's creation with free will, hence the possibility of suffering, inter-dependance, and a non-singular will?

 

 

Where would the information for the first choice come from to have free will within the evolution of a single "soul" within the God is all, the maker of all, and the first cause of all theory? If I come from and am a part of god, and god is the first cause of my ability for choice, as well as the material world that he projects me into? He must have chosen where he put different people which conditioned their first choice setting off the domino effect of individual destiny.

 

I contemplated this very intensely for a long time after ever deepening states of meditation. Buddhist cosmology answered my more deeply subtle questions about how things occur, and how big bangs happen and the multi-universe theory, etc.

 

Theism hasn't been able to answer many of my deepest questions. You can come to your own conclusions through study, meditation and contemplation.