Dependent Origination

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh yes, I also used to read Kabalah stuff. I was also into Sufi like crazy, being inspired to tears and experience by Rumi, Mansur Mastana, Hafiz, and Rabia... Kabir... etc.

 

Anyway... put your thought where your inspiration is, if you truly wish to study the worlds religions, study the one with the most texts and larger history of enlightened beings... namely, Buddhism, the largest religion in the world during the time of Christ.

 

p.s. was into Abhoriginal stuff and Bush man stuff for a while there too.

 

Also the Philokalia of the Desert Fathers, and saints of the Eastern Orthodox, the more famous saints of Catholicism too.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[sifusufi]

I was also into Sufi like crazy, being inspired to tears

 

 

 

http://www.ultimates...sound_iid.66968

 

Does anybody remember laughter? -Robert Plant

 

http://www.earthcds..../whirling.shtml

 

Maybe if it weren't for Page and Plant and Zeppelin I might not have dug in.

 

Happiness

 

Edited February 9, 2011 by sifusufi

[Vajrahridaya]

http://www.ultimates...sound_iid.66968

 

Does anybody remember laughter? -Robert Plant

 

http://www.earthcds..../whirling.shtml

 

Maybe if it weren't for Page and Plant and Zeppelin I might not have dug in.

 

Happiness

 

 

Loooove it!

[XieJia]

Oh yes, I also used to read Kabalah stuff. I was also into Sufi like crazy, being inspired to tears and experience by Rumi, Mansur Mastana, Hafiz, and Rabia... Kabir... etc.

 

Anyway... put your thought where your inspiration is, if you truly wish to study the worlds religions, study the one with the most texts and larger history of enlightened beings... namely, Buddhism, the largest religion in the world during the time of Christ.

 

p.s. was into Abhoriginal stuff and Bush man stuff for a while there too.

 

Also the Philokalia of the Desert Fathers, and saints of the Eastern Orthodox, the more famous saints of Catholicism too.

 

Sounds like you did alot of searching my friend.

It is fortunate to see someone with such dedication on his path.

 

One of the things I heard;

"if you pursue a path, any paths to the completion...

when you looked back; the paths but disappear. You will see that all the paths is one."

but when there is the 'self' arises; there is deem to be clinging and delusions, from clinging and delusions, there deem to be pride and hence conflicts of views. 'This is not it!', 'This is not the reality', 'These are right!', 'Those are wrong'.

 

In my opinion, this is what many Daoist friends is trying to help us see this clinging and the pride to this concept of 'Dependent Origination'. For those who have arrived only partially understanding of 'Dependent Origination' (Like me, I would like to think ); I came to feel that any conceptualizing it in the head/mind would be just the residuals of that partial realization. For the true 'Dependent Origination' is not a model; it is for me as a reality, the model in our heads (which is just clinging to the mental object) need to be therefore eliminate with the true experience. And in the end upon arrival, Dependent Origination and all Dharmas disappears becomes but an empty words.

 

I apologize for persistently bringing up this theme of thinking because I do still think that it will be helpful atleast to the Buddhists.

And forgive me if what I said offended anyone's belief gets on anyone's nerves in anyway.

 

But since we are not enlightened (I don't know about others but I am not), lets get back to the pride and mud-slinging .

[C T]

Have posted this talk by Master Thich Nhat Hanh before, but its always refreshing to hear it again and again, until its profound simplicity on the message of Interdependent Causation and Emptiness permeates our thick resistance to the fact that D. O. is the basis of relative existence, and to understand it deeply one does not need to convert to Buddhism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

 

 

 

Its not a sin, and there should be no fear, to accept a truth that weaves and shapes our lives, whereby we, thru its understanding, learn to be more sensitive and mindful as to how each of our thought, spoken word, and action affect our lives and the lives of both animate and inanimate objects around us. One of the primary causes of the mess this present universal society is in today, i believe, is because we do not engage the practicality and immense usability of the principle of Interdependent Origination. Once it can be understood/accepted, there will arise great liberation... we will no longer want to remain closed, insecure and fearful of what we project to be an existence that is fragmented and full of cravings to satisfy the self.

 

We will hopefully also see that satisfying others, even if its just the mention of a kind word of appreciation or empathetic understanding of another's plight, is enough to bridge the illusory gulf that we, as a unit of humankind, is somehow less than what we truly are, and what we truly are, when recognized, would indeed cause us to burst into a great laughter, because so many of us take ourselves and our problems so so seriously. This is due to the constant refusal to acknowledge that our essence is beyond purity or defilement. How else can we see this, and practice to come to terms with our primordially perfected state, other than thru the realization of how one thing brings about one result, and how the absence of another thing would mean the absence of another result? This, in essence, is why D. O. is so efficacious.

 

The beauty of understanding this principle, as in all other principles found in the Buddha's teachings, is that, once the teachings have helped one, or has become a habitual aspect that shapes one's life, one can let the teachings go. Otherwise, the very same teachings has the potential, again because of D. O., to weigh one down and causes one to falter, thru useless contemplation. This is why i love the Buddha's teachings so much.... there is no requirement for indoctrination.

[Vajrahridaya]

This, in essence, is why D. O. is so efficacious.

 

If one understands D.O. one realizes that there is nothing here to grasp at, and no one to do the grasping... there is just open flow.

 

But, there is also not this ideation nor attachment to a "one" that everyone keeps hollering about. I find that D.O. offers a deeper flowing than the all is "oneness" camp, I feel it offers an even deeper letting go and letting be.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

One of the things I heard;

"if you pursue a path, any paths to the completion...

when you looked back; the paths but disappear. You will see that all the paths is one."

 

I do consider this a mis-conclusion, or a mistaken understanding based upon a mis-interpretation of spiritual experience. This sentiment seems true for most traditions, but not for Buddhism. All roads do not lead to Rome and not all roads come from Rome either. Not all paths lead to full awakening.

 

But since we are not enlightened (I don't know about others but I am not), lets get back to the pride and mud-slinging .

[adept]

Well, the Buddha was not an atheist since he founded his own religion

 

He didn't start a religion.

His followers descendants did many years after his death.

[Vajrahridaya]

He didn't start a religion.

His followers descendants did many years after his death.

 

Adept,

 

That's not quite true, as he did create an order of monks, he created rules of conduct for both male and female monks, as well as a lay disciple doctrine of suggestions. He definitely intended to manifest a tradition that would be followed by many people to come.

 

The fact that he started a religion, has no baring at all on wether he was atheist or not. I don't see Evianders point at all. The Buddha was atheist and he started an atheistic religion, that believes in the gods, but doesn't see them as ultimate or any one of them as the main source of all existence. So it's kind of a polytheism but also atheist due to dependent origination/emptiness.

 

Buddhism is quite unique in my opinion.

[Vajrahridaya]

Eviander, on 09 February 2011 - 03:29 AM, said:

Well, the Buddha was not an atheist since he founded his own religion

 

I don't understand your reasoning as a religion can indeed by atheistic.

[Gerard]

Vajrahridaya,

 

I am going off-topic a bit because this thread can become endless. It's pointless discussing high level stuff with practitioners who are not ready for it, why? Because they need to experience it by themselves through personal practice. It may take one lifetime or one thousand five hundred. It's through spiritual realisation and not by reading Sutras how paticcasamuppada is experienced, otherwise you (as you have seen already in this thread) will be mocked, scorned and insulted as a result. It's pointless maintaining this sort of debates with unenlightened people. Also be careful with klesa of aggression which you are probably aware of. It's not worth going through this stress which will backfire you eventually.

 

Take care,

 

Gerard

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya,

 

I am going off-topic a bit because this thread can become endless. It's pointless discussing high level stuff with practitioners who are not ready for it, why? Because they need to experience it by themselves through personal practice. It may take one lifetime or one thousand five hundred. It's through spiritual realisation and not by reading Sutras how paticcasamuppada is experienced, otherwise you (as you have seen already in this thread) will be mocked, scorned and insulted as a result. It's pointless maintaining this sort of debates with unenlightened people. Also be careful with klesa of aggression which you are probably aware of. It's not worth going through this stress which will backfire you eventually.

 

Take care,

 

Gerard

 

Thanks for your heart felt input... it's contemplative.

[Eviander]

This is still a projection arisen originated from erroneous cognition. The whole is no such "self" intelligence. It is merely collective unconscious, known in Buddhism as the Alayavijnana, which has 2 applications, individual and collective unconscious.

 

Well, it seems Buddhism doesn't follow any form of logic which as we know by now, makes it hard for some statements to be taken seriously in a philosophical discussion.

 

Let me put it this way, what is coming from outside your cognition, those vibrations, have actual effects on you whether you deny their existence or not. As well, you have been organized through years of evolution to the adaptation of atoms that at the base of your components is you. All this was not done through you..it was done through an independent agent that I am calling god. Again, atheism sees this process of life blossoming as the adherence of coincidence...Buddhism says it is emptiness (which cannot explain what science has found by the way) and I am saying this is the work of a supreme intelligence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You still don't understand dependent origination then. Neither intellectually nor experientially.

 

Apparently not, you can't explain it to well so I am questioning if you even know what your talking about.

 

 

 

Ok, so then study Buddhism in depth. I've studied all the worlds religions myself. Buddhism says and experiences something different. Not as an -ism, but as an expression of those that are truly, "awake" or Buddha.

 

I certainly would love to have the time to read some suttas. The fact is though Buddh-ism is still an ism with traditional racial values that turn off the un-secular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only suggest one go deeper into meditation and study.

 

Thats what I plan to do with my life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is all connected, and the human brain, as far as on this Earth goes, has the unique ability to go infinite, both conceptually and experientially, of course what it can house physically is another dimension. But, this brain can transcend itself quite well.

 

That would be wrong. Certainly the soul consciousness or consciousness, if you would have it, can transcend the brain, but we are still limited by the body and the brains anchoring to the material world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually... I was raised theist, through Advaita Vedanta, as well as Kaula Tantricism. I studied Taoism before Buddhism in fact. With much enthusiasm and openness.

 

Thats good, you should be open to science then without filtering it through Buddhism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so you're not open to me at all... so be it.

 

It has nothing to do with you, I am not using ad-hominem attacks, it has to do with your arguments..some of them don't make to much sense?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, as dependently originated, empty of self essence.

 

You do not do as you suggest, otherwise you'd come to the same conclusion and wouldn't reify the cosmos. If you want to know Buddhism, start at least with Madhyamaka, without commentary first.

 

If you are truly open to studying other systems... as you claim?

 

From being empty of self essence only leads me to conclude that their essence is of god, from my interpretation anyhow. But again, I am heavy on science as a means to find the answers, both physical and metaphysical. I am open to studying Buddhism, I just haven't the time to at the moment, and no, Buddhism, like anything else, is not without its holes and leads different analyzers and knowledge bases to different conclusions.

 

 

 

 

I'm not speaking in paradox, you're mentality of interpretation must be dualistic?

 

Yep

 

 

 

 

Oh my dear... you have no idea how much I've studied. Stop projecting and actually study Buddhism, from beginning to end.

 

I've read the Nag Hammadhi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Upanishads and Puranas, the Vedas and the Tao Te Ching, I know the I Ching back to front, the Shamans of Pueblos in New Mexico, the Shamans of the Auywaska and Peyote tribes, experientially. I know Hinduism back to front, from the Siddhars of Tamil Nadu to the Bhakti Siddhas like Mirabai and the teachings of Jhaneswar. I know about the Hungarian Shamans, the Bon... etc. etc. etc. I've studied plenty my dear.

 

Please... study the Pali Suttas, for your own sake...

 

No baring on me though.

 

Well I would suggest you come to terms with science if you haven't already. which ties deeply into the fabric of religious claims...and what we are discussing now..a modern review of such things clears up a lot of mythology and false geographical dating with many religious fantasies.

[Eviander]

I don't understand your reasoning as a religion can indeed by atheistic.

 

I've read a few different places, on Buddhist sites and blogs in the past, that Buddhism is not atheistic but is non-theistic. It has been placed into an entirely separate category from atheism because atheism is much different. Atheism generally denies anything except for the material universe, while Buddhism denies everything but the mind (from my understanding) and claims the material universe is an illusion..this has nothing to do with atheism..which believes in nothing such as enlightenment nirvana, reincarnation etc..which are all supernatural claims..which again..have nothing to do with what atheism claims.

 

A religion is not atheistic in this sense, but rather it can be non-theistic...as for atheism it is generally opposed to not just the god part of religion, but also of its claims of anything other than the material world.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Eviander

[Sunya]

From being empty of self essence only leads me to conclude that their essence is of god, from my interpretation anyhow. But again, I am heavy on science as a means to find the answers, both physical and metaphysical. I am open to studying Buddhism, I just haven't the time to at the moment, and no, Buddhism, like anything else, is not without its holes and leads different analyzers and knowledge bases to different conclusions.

 

Science doesn't lead to God at all unless you interpret it that way. Good luck with science. According to neuroscientists, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, just a by product. This is the complete opposite of all mystical traditions. Yogis trust their inner experience and view it as empirical. Neuroscientists view such experiences as dreams and the firing of neurons, nothing mystical or special at all. Your two views are at odds.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, it seems Buddhism doesn't follow any form of logic which as we know by now, makes it hard for some statements to be taken seriously in a philosophical discussion.

 

Your attachment to this "god" thing as logical is showing and blocking your ability to understand Buddhism.

 

But yes... if you can't understand Buddhism without god, you won't understand Buddhism. It is deeply logical though. I probably am just not the right person to convey it to you as you already have so many mental blocks against anything I say.

 

 

Let me put it this way, what is coming from outside your cognition, those vibrations, have actual effects on you whether you deny their existence or not. As well, you have been organized through years of evolution to the adaptation of atoms that at the base of your components is you. All this was not done through you..it was done through an independent agent that I am calling god. Again, atheism sees this process of life blossoming as the adherence of coincidence...Buddhism says it is emptiness (which cannot explain what science has found by the way) and I am saying this is the work of a supreme intelligence.

 

No... you're definitely not understanding what emptiness means. it merely means malleability, as in, no static being.

 

If you want to call dharmakaya, divine intelligence, you can, but then you'd be missing the point of emptiness as you are subscribing a self to chaotic order defined by the infinite mass that is us. I think you're not seeing between the words I'm using...

 

Read... The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama

 

Who is also atheist by the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently not, you can't explain it to well so I am questioning if you even know what your talking about.

 

 

Your opinion is subjective and disagreed upon by plenty, so obviously I can't get the nuances of explanation right for your particular set of conditionings...

 

Oh well? What can I do? Just learn from it.

 

 

I certainly would love to have the time to read some suttas. The fact is though Buddh-ism is still an ism with traditional racial values that turn off the un-secular.

 

You make opinions about something you've never studied? How presumptive... and unenlightened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats what I plan to do with my life.

 

Though, without right view, you will be just as conditioned by meditative experiences as you are by life experience through your senses.

 

So be it... you don't have the openness to study even the 1st of the noble truths of the Buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would be wrong. Certainly the soul consciousness or consciousness, if you would have it, can transcend the brain, but we are still limited by the body and the brains anchoring to the material world.

 

Only if you consider the material world material. Certainly you know that there are those that eat without food, walk through walls, fly without wings... etc. Only those open enough karmically to experience such things directly would be the witness of course.

 

Our individual reality originates dependent upon such a vast beginningless reservoir of karma... it's like infinite limitations. Until you truly see their inter-dependency and emptiness of course.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Thats good, you should be open to science then without filtering it through Buddhism.

 

 

 

Science seems to more and more prove Buddhism these days. That's what I've found...

 

Have you read the Holographic Universe by Talbot?

 

I don't know... it seems that we have different ideas of what is going on in science. I've heard of this search for the god particle. But, because of the fact of infinite regress, even if one says... "oh, I found it" this experience will be arisen dependent upon an endless assortment of conditions which the scientist will be blind to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with you, I am not using ad-hominem attacks, it has to do with your arguments..some of them don't make to much sense?

 

Subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From being empty of self essence only leads me to conclude that their essence is of god, from my interpretation anyhow. But again, I am heavy on science as a means to find the answers, both physical and metaphysical. I am open to studying Buddhism, I just haven't the time to at the moment, and no, Buddhism, like anything else, is not without its holes and leads different analyzers and knowledge bases to different conclusions.

 

You should re-read your own statements, just for clarification. You've just stated what dependent origination means. The inter-dependent self fulfilling it's self prophesies empty of inherent existence, arisen merely dependent upon an endless assortment of causes and conditions.

 

 

 

Yep

 

There is no paradox in dependent origination.

 

 

 

 

 

Well I would suggest you come to terms with science if you haven't already. which ties deeply into the fabric of religious claims...and what we are discussing now..a modern review of such things clears up a lot of mythology and false geographical dating with many religious fantasies.

 

Sure have... which is what took me to Buddhism. Such "god" fantasies don't hold weight.

 

Even Einstein thought Buddhism was the best religion on the planet.

 

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

 

or,

 

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Edited February 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I've read a few different places, on Buddhist sites and blogs in the past, that Buddhism is not atheistic but is non-theistic. It has been placed into an entirely separate category from atheism because atheism is much different. Atheism generally denies anything except for the material universe, while Buddhism denies everything but the mind (from my understanding) and claims the material universe is an illusion..this has nothing to do with atheism..which believes in nothing such as enlightenment nirvana, reincarnation etc..which are all supernatural claims..which again..have nothing to do with what atheism claims.

 

A religion is not atheistic in this sense, but rather it can be non-theistic...as for atheism it is generally opposed to not just the god part of religion, but also of its claims of anything other than the material world.

 

Ok, I've never heard this... obviously a Western invention. This is fine to me though and has merit.

[Vajrahridaya]

Science doesn't lead to God at all unless you interpret it that way. Good luck with science. According to neuroscientists, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, just a by product. This is the complete opposite of all mystical traditions. Yogis trust their inner experience and view it as empirical. Neuroscientists view such experiences as dreams and the firing of neurons, nothing mystical or special at all. Your two views are at odds.

 

I agree for the most part, even though there are certain quantum physicists who have theories that are in line with Buddhist thought. Like for instance...

and the theories of Michio Kaku, one of the top physicists on the planet.

[Eviander]

Science doesn't lead to God at all unless you interpret it that way. Good luck with science. According to neuroscientists, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, just a by product. This is the complete opposite of all mystical traditions. Yogis trust their inner experience and view it as empirical. Neuroscientists view such experiences as dreams and the firing of neurons, nothing mystical or special at all. Your two views are at odds.

 

Actually, your wrong. The main goal of the greatest scientists and their breakthroughs in science have been done under the stance of understanding the works of the creator. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and countless others where mystics who firmly believed in god and interpreted reality from a scientific sense. The atheists you speak of have no merit in the evolution of science and ignore a bigger half of what is now known as quantum physics...which is heavily mystical. In fact the whole paradigm of old science is slowly falling with the newer theories slowly getting more attention.

[Vajrahridaya]

Einstein, and countless others where mystics who firmly believed in god and interpreted reality from a scientific sense. The atheists you speak of have no merit in the evolution of science and ignore a bigger half of what is now known as quantum physics...which is heavily mystical. In fact the whole paradigm of old science is slowly falling with the newer theories slowly getting more attention.

 

Actually Einstein talked about god early on, then he learned about Buddhism.

 

There are plenty of Buddhist physicists. View and experience are inter-dependent, and equally empty.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Eviander]

Your attachment to this "god" thing as logical is showing and blocking your ability to understand Buddhism.

 

But yes... if you can't understand Buddhism without god, you won't understand Buddhism. It is deeply logical though. I probably am just not the right person to convey it to you as you already have so many mental blocks against anything I say.

 

I have no blocks against what you say. I have been saying this whole time that the word god is a choice in semantics. You can call it the cosmos if you will. I am stressing that no metaphysical model, Buddhist or not, can be adequately explained without it. It has not with what you say but by the way you say it. I have heard people explain Buddhism more clearly..thats all I'm trying to point to.

 

 

 

 

No... you're definitely not understanding what emptiness means. it merely means malleability, as in, no static being.

 

If you want to call dharmakaya, divine intelligence, you can, but then you'd be missing the point of emptiness as you are subscribing a self to chaotic order defined by the infinite mass that is us. I think you're not seeing between the words I'm using...

 

Sorry, your using words that have only been defined within Buddhism, and do not mean the same in the general english language. I don't understand what you mean by 'no static being'

 

Read... The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama

 

Who is also atheist by the way.

 

Thats good, the title also points to general spirituality, not just Buddhism..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your opinion is subjective and disagreed upon by plenty, so obviously I can't get the nuances of explanation right for your particular set of conditionings...

 

Oh well? What can I do? Just learn from it.

 

Lol thats fine

 

 

 

 

You make opinions about something you've never studied? How presumptive... and unenlightened.

 

I have read about Buddhism, and I am telling you what I took from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though, without right view, you will be just as conditioned by meditative experiences as you are by life experience through your senses.

 

So be it... you don't have the openness to study even the 1st of the noble truths of the Buddha.

 

I have already, likewise, I have studied other things that make more sense. I actually used to lean towards Buddhism more than anything..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only if you consider the material world material. Certainly you know that there are those that eat without food, walk through walls, fly without wings... etc. Only those open enough karmically to experience such things directly would be the witness of course.

 

Our individual reality originates dependent upon such a vast beginningless reservoir of karma... it's like infinite limitations. Until you truly see their inter-dependency and emptiness of course.

 

Well the material world is not material, it is simply a series of vibrations. I've heard of those who eat without food, though the others could very well be mythology, which is present in large amounts of Buddhist texts, (at least ones I have seen). Karma ect, all that I know of, of course emptiness I don't know if that is legitimate..since what is their is a frequency..though very small..its the .000001 percent of the atom that actually exists..

[Vajrahridaya]

I have no blocks against what you say. I have been saying this whole time that the word god is a choice in semantics. You can call it the cosmos if you will. I am stressing that no metaphysical model, Buddhist or not, can be adequately explained without it. It has not with what you say but by the way you say it. I have heard people explain Buddhism more clearly..thats all I'm trying to point to.

 

 

 

 

Oh sure... plenty of more clear Buddhists out there... Buddhas, bodhisattvas... etc.

 

 

Sorry, your using words that have only been defined within Buddhism, and do not mean the same in the general english language. I don't understand what you mean by 'no static being'

 

As in... not self standing... as in, not self same always.

 

 

 

Thats good, the title also points to general spirituality, not just Buddhism..

 

Read it, it's all Buddhist and science. That's the only spirituality that the Dalai Lama defines himself or undefines himself by.

 

 

I have read about Buddhism, and I am telling you what I took from it.

 

Read more, the Buddha said in the Pali Suttas, that there is neither an inherent personal self, nor is there a permanent universal Self. Read some Madhyamaka then?

 

 

 

 

I have already, likewise, I have studied other things that make more sense. I actually used to lean towards Buddhism more than anything..

 

I didn't understand Buddhism very deeply before psychic transmission from a Buddhist master.

 

 

 

Well the material world is not material, it is simply a series of vibrations. I've heard of those who eat without food, though the others could very well be mythology, which is present in large amounts of Buddhist texts, (at least ones I have seen). Karma ect, all that I know of, of course emptiness I don't know if that is legitimate..since what is their is a frequency..though very small..its the .000001 percent of the atom that actually exists..

 

No, that's empty of inherent existence too.

[Sunya]

Actually, your wrong. The main goal of the greatest scientists and their breakthroughs in science have been done under the stance of understanding the works of the creator. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and countless others where mystics who firmly believed in god and interpreted reality from a scientific sense.

 

Historically you are talking about people who lived, with the exception of Einstein, under the authority and suppression of the church. Whether or not they actually believed in God is impossible to know because if you did fancy such thoughts you'd best keep them quiet. For example, Descartes is considered the father of rationalism and science and formulated arguments for the existence of God, but many scholars today see the arguments for God in Meditations to be circular and that he purposely did this. Only the first and last chapters, which are skeptical and deconstructive in method actually reflect his actual thoughts.

 

Another example is George Berkeley who was a bishop of the church. He was a very well-known philosopher, but he also argued for God because he had to. In his very last published work, he pointed to a view that was very mystical which leads many to the conclusion that he didn't actually believe his earlier arguments for God.

 

Scientists are not philosophers, and I'd argue that some who actually said they believe in God during those times had to do it and didn't actually believe it. Or perhaps they did. Doesn't mean they were right. Doesn't matter why Newton studied gravity, but I'm happy he did.

 

The atheists you speak of have no merit in the evolution of science and ignore a bigger half of what is now known as quantum physics...which is heavily mystical. In fact the whole paradigm of old science is slowly falling with the newer theories slowly getting more attention.

 

Stephen Hawking is considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, and he's an atheist. He has no merit in the evolution of science? Hardly. He understands quantum physics very well, but you don't. Watching 'What the Bleep do we know' does not count as a course in quantum mechanics, which is not a new theory at all. It's been around since the 50s. There's nothing about quantum mechanics that proves that everything is created by a divine being.

 

Your argument seems to be that science and God are connected because the early scientists grew up in a time where theism was the 'in philosophy' and justified their findings through that lens. The same argument can be applied to scientists today and how they interpret everything through a lens of reductive materialism (quantum physics being no different). You're appealing to authority and not recognizing that scientists are not enlightened.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Sunya

[Eviander]

Science seems to more and more prove Buddhism these days. That's what I've found...

 

Have you read the Holographic Universe by Talbot?

 

I don't know... it seems that we have different ideas of what is going on in science. I've heard of this search for the god particle. But, because of the fact of infinite regress, even if one says... "oh, I found it" this experience will be arisen dependent upon an endless assortment of conditions which the scientist will be blind to.

 

Science is not just proving buddhist claims, but it is proving mysticism in gene

 

No I havn't read it, but I understand what its essence is. That what we see is not out there, we are projecting a sort of hologram. The point is that something is out there and it is measurable..or else there would be no shared reality..our world would be such as a lucid dream.

 

As for infinite regress, I don't see how that has anything to do with such discoveries..but of course I am only familiar with Aristotle definition of infinite regress. And if one says they found it, then they have the knowledge of the particles that create life..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective.

 

Just like buddhism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should re-read your own statements, just for clarification. You've just stated what dependent origination means. The inter-dependent self fulfilling it's self prophesies empty of inherent existence, arisen merely dependent upon an endless assortment of causes and conditions.

 

Sorry, but I used the term god, I don't see how that defines what your speaking of.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no paradox in dependent origination.

 

Well I now realize it is a Buddhist definition only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure have... which is what took me to Buddhism. Such "god" fantasies don't hold weight.

 

Even Einstein thought Buddhism was the best religion on the planet.

 

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

 

or,

 

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

 

Well the second half before Buddhism is quoted describes what I am purporting.. Buddhism however might be the most accepting religion..but as a system of spiritual philosophy in general, there are better (imo)