Dependent Origination

[Vajrahridaya]

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)

 

You should study more of it before creating a solid opinion. That would be the more enlightened thing to do.

 

I spent years reading 200 or more pages a day while meditating on what I read when I wasn't reading of the many different mystical traditions and new scientific findings of the planet.

 

Your conclusions seem to have to base themselves on some sort of clinging to inherent existence, thus you don't see the deep meaning of relativity. (imho) I humbly disagree with you.

[Eviander]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I think you are just surprised to see the two terms combined. Science and god, how can that be? And no, I am not appealing to authorities, there are more modern scientists to this day who hold the same stance, and of course, I never said scientists where enlightened, I am saying science can lead to ones own illumination. I do understand it, but Stephan hawking's is not the only guy out their. I am speaking from a newer school, that leans more towards the unified field theory. hawking's just happens to be the most renowned. Their are plenty of quantum physicists who are not atheists and have combined the two in better formats than what hawking's huge media coverage allows him to do.

 

Lets try to focus on the argument and not the ego

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Lets try to focus on the argument and not the ego

 

Ok, so let go of a unified ego, a supreme I of all then... a grand ego that is everything?

 

Unified field theory doesn't have to prove that all things are one intelligence, but alayvijnana explains it well enough. It's just collective unconscious manifesting through collective consciousness' of various vibrations of endless dimensional activity.

[Eviander]

You should study more of it before creating a solid opinion. That would be the more enlightened thing to do.

 

I spent years reading 200 or more pages a day while meditating on what I read when I wasn't reading of the many different mystical traditions and new scientific findings of the planet.

 

Your conclusions seem to have to base themselves on some sort of clinging to inherent existence, thus you don't see the deep meaning of relativity. (imho) I humbly disagree with you.

 

My opinion is far from from solid. I am currently studying Rosicrucian material however, and it has taken precedence over my previous Buddhist studies.

 

The major problem here is the paradigm and the definitions you speak of being strictly Buddhist, while not being universal to all. Though I agree that within form nothing in and of itself exists (electricity requires two charges) I don't see how that goes into any sort of deep meaning of relativity..besides all of our perceptions being Dependant upon our frame of reference (Einstein)

 

The point is we are both seeing a perception from a different frame

[Vajrahridaya]

My opinion is far from from solid. I am currently studying Rosicrucian material however, and it has taken precedence over my previous Buddhist studies.

 

The major problem here is the paradigm and the definitions you speak of being strictly Buddhist, while not being universal to all. Though I agree that within form nothing in and of itself exists (electricity requires two charges) I don't see how that goes into any sort of deep meaning of relativity..besides all of our perceptions being Dependant upon our frame of reference (Einstein)

 

The point is we are both seeing a perception from a different frame

 

Well, Buddhism... from the Pali Suttas on, goes into formless realities, non-conceptual relativity. Which is hard to reference without formless experience in meditation.

 

I respect your passion for finding... I've also studied the Rosicrucians... Due to my depth of experience and study in Buddhism, I can tell you... it ain't that deep.

 

But.. have your path of study, and embrace it. The Rosicrucian belief is more of a substantial top down metaphysics stemming from a one to many ideation of reality... it's particulars are interesting though.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ugh...getting indigestion from this thread I started Somebody "spent years reading 200 pages per day of xxxxxxx and meditating on what they read"...really? (not that I believe that claim, although judging by what that person is doing now--pedaling and peddling--maybe it's believable---it gets you an internet forum pulpit)...

 

OK, back to the turtle races...

Edited February 10, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

I'm kind of disheartened by the mood of this thread. It seems that people are having problems respecting other peoples ideas as being valid. Regardless of whether pratītyasamutpāda, dukkha, or samsara are valid explanations, the fact that people do believe that they are valid means that we should respect those ideas and try to talk about them in a respectful manner.

 

With that said, I think what is being missed here is that a belief in dukkha, pratītyasamutpāda, or samsara are not requisite for one to become enlightened, but rather they were an explanation of the need for enlightenment, which was a freedom from suffering. In my own opinion I believe they were tools Buddha used to motivate people to pursue enlightenment as he defined it.

 

My own opinion is that none of it matters in the end. If one comes to an honest understanding of the world, be that through Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, they will still come away enlightened. To clarify what I'm saying, the main requirement for enlightenment is not a release from suffering, but rather an understanding of the nature of the world and our place in the world.

 

Trying to come up with an ultimate truth is completely subjective, because the truth doesn't exist without there also being a lie. So when one looks at dependent origination, one should also understand that it is the opposite side of the spectrum, and that it requires non-dependent origination to exist.

 

This is the crux of enlightenment, that one must understand that enlightenment in the end is merely an illusion, that when we achieve enlightenment we also achieve a very basic understanding that enlightenment isn't real. I can say I'm enlightened, and according to text books I am, but in the same breath I can tell you that I am not enlightened, nor have I ever been enlightened, rather I have only been.

 

My understanding of the world and my own place within the world, even my understanding of death and the truth about death, does not change the fact that I am still the same person I was before I ever understood anything.

 

I believe that before one embarks on the path of enlightenment they should examine the reason why they wish to be enlightened. In my own opinion a desire to be free of suffering is a bit of a shoddy excuse and I think Buddha would agree, but in the same way, if you are a guru and you have something you wish to share with others that you think may improve their lives, or save their souls, whatever the case may be, you also need to supply the student with a reason to pursue it. Freedom from guilt, sin, and suffering are universal in all religious teachings, because they supply ample motivation to proceed on a path of righteousness or spirituality.

 

My own opinion is that nothing I have to say matters if one is seeking righteousness, freedom from suffering, or a universal truth, because none of these things exist. Suffering will exist as long as pleasure exists. Righteousness will exist as long as guilt exists, and universal truth will exist so long as lies exist. You can't have one without the other.

 

If you achieve freedom from suffering, then what are you experiencing and how do you gauge that experience? If one is truly free of suffering then they also must be free of the memory of suffering and if that's so, then what reference do you use to understand the state you're in? That is the key here, that there is no freedom from suffering, because there is no freedom from pleasure. On an even deeper level, how can you describe this experience to someone who has never experienced it and is incapable of understanding it? How can you talk about suffering, know about suffering, and yet still claim to be free of it? Doesn't the knowledge of suffering infer that one is still restrained within the paradigm of suffering?

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that claiming to know the way, the light, and the truth, especially if one really does, is a bit bonkers, because in understanding the way, the light, and the truth, one also understands that their is no justifiable explanation that can allow someone to understand any of these things in a deeply spiritual sense, the only way one can understand them is to experience them.

 

Buddha was a great man, but so were many other prophets and philosophers. The fact of the matter is that whether one believes in dependent origination or not, it doesn't change the fact that we have the ability to respect that idea, whether we agree with it or not. I understand that my argument may seem to be hypocritical, but in reality it's not, because I don't want to convince anyone of anything, rather I will tell someone, sit and meditate, learn about yourself first, then learn about the world. You can't learn about the world without first learning about yourself. Once you've done that, then you are ready for the grand awareness that inevitably will be a bit of letdown. The fact of the matter is that enlightenment wont free you from anything, rather it tends to wrap you up in everything more than before, because once you've reached that state, you understand even more clearly than before the connection that exists between you and everything else.

 

Aaron

Edited February 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Sunya]

The major problem here is the paradigm and the definitions you speak of being strictly Buddhist, while not being universal to all. Though I agree that within form nothing in and of itself exists (electricity requires two charges) I don't see how that goes into any sort of deep meaning of relativity..besides all of our perceptions being Dependant upon our frame of reference (Einstein)

 

The problem isn't that you're smart enough. It's that you're too smart, that is you're conceptualizing too much and that's why you don't understand the meaning of emptiness. It's very simple. Buddhism is a phenomenology. It describes our experiences and everything that makes it up, awareness, sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.

 

Trying to compare this to science will lead you in a dark and twisted maze. I wouldn't enter that cave if i were you. Science does not describe our experience phenomenologically, and really that's all that Buddhists worry about. The speed of light doesn't really concern us much since it doesn't help us in anyway in our current predicament. Buddhism is entirely pragmatic, and its focus is on getting you to realize your true nature, the nature of awareness, the nature of phenomena, and deepen your insight and integrate that with your experience.

 

The whole essence of the Dharma is no self and dependent origination. The rest is commentary. The point of these teachings is two fold. First it's to get you to break your normal pattern of perception which breaks the world up into solid independently existing objects and have an experience of things as non-things, a unified field as you say. And second, taken deeper, the teachings are meant to even deconstruct that experience because there's a conceptual overlay on top of the nondual experience. This conceptual overlay is a subtle form of grasping at an identity, and this is why Buddhists are so adamant that the point is not to experience a mystical oneness with reality. The point is to see through that oneness into a true non-conceptual experience that sees everything beyond grasping at a limited egoic self and a Grand Divine Self.

 

In short, the Buddhist teachings are beyond self, big and small. You might still not see the difference. You might say that it leads to the same goal. I disagree. Oneness is not the same. Monism (everything is one) is the extreme of duality, so think about this. Can there be one without two? The whole idea of 'one' depends on the idea of duality since it is the polar opposite. It's like going from the idea that everything is in constant flux (Heraclitus) to nothing ever moves (Parmenides). Both are interdependent concepts that do not actually grasp reality and truth because no concept can. Truth is beyond concepts, and the way to realize that truth is to deconstruct all experiences, even the amazing mystical experiences of union with God filled with bliss and love and feelings of knowing everything. Very important experiences, but the tendency to grasp at an identity or 'self' is still there even in those amazing samadhi experiences. These experiences are no inherently pure. So the misinterpretation of that experience will create a lineage uninformed of the actual truth. This is why Buddhism doesn't try to mix with other religions. Their interpretation is off, and our interpretation generates our realization. That is how we integrate and digest our realizations.

 

The point of Dependent Origination is that there's nothing to hold onto. Nothing to grasp and hold and identify with. No reference point, no ground of being, groundlessness all teh way down

 

Further, there is a confusion that emptiness means a void or formless realm that is the source of phenomena, but that isn't true. Dependent Origination leads you to realize that phenomena have no source. Sure there are many realms of experience, even formless ones, but none are self-existent.

 

Many Hindu teachers describe reality as the 'perfume of God' where God is the ground of being and everything arises from that source, but Buddhists would just say that there is only perfume which originates dependently It is the difference between saying 'something is That' and 'something simply is'

 

So while Dependent Origination may seem complex, once you understand it, it's extremely simple.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Sunya

[Gerard]

The problem is that ordinary people and beginning spiritual practitioners approach Buddhism with an objective MIND without putting the hard yards, and this is where the problem starts.

 

I still remember when I attended my first Vipassana retreat if I could bring along the Middle Discourses of the Buddha. The teacher I corresponded with by e-mail said: NO. Do not bring anything in here, you won't need anything. After I concluded the 3 week silent retreat I understood his clear NO (well it didn't take me that long to figure it out) to books and other written material.

 

The only way you can understand Buddhism (and all its irrefutable truths) is while walking and sitting in meditation. By watching the mind and all the internal and external processes in silence and solitude.

 

Thinking and taking about it only causes anger and frustration because the ego gets quickly involved and inevitably people are just trying to make a point

 

I can see Vajrahridaya's point but honestly why so much effort in arguing if we know that the Buddha wasn't wrong! Let the others find out by themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[C T]

It's very simple. Buddhism is a phenomenology.....

 

.....So while Dependent Origination may seem complex, once you understand it, it's extremely simple.

Excellent post, Sunya! Expounded like a true gentleman scholar.

 

If i could articulate my thoughts in the same vein that you have, i'd seriously consider applying for the post of Vimalakirti 2011!

:lol:

[Sunya]

Excellent post, Sunya! Expounded like a true gentleman scholar.

 

If i could articulate my thoughts in the same vein that you have, i'd seriously consider applying for the post of Vimalakirti 2011!

:lol:

Thank you

 

What do you mean by Vimalakirti 2011? I think that went over my head

[C T]

Thank you

 

What do you mean by Vimalakirti 2011? I think that went over my head

The new, modern-day personification of the famous Vimalakirti of Buddha's time! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimalakirti_Sutra

 

As with all things, i am glad it went over your head! Non-sticky mind, yes? hehe

[Marblehead]

See? Things haven't mellowed out even in my absence. Oh well.

[adept]

The problem is that ordinary people and beginning spiritual practitioners approach Buddhism with an objective MIND without putting the hard yards, and this is where the problem starts.

 

I still remember when I attended my first Vipassana retreat if I could bring along the Middle Discourses of the Buddha. The teacher I corresponded with by e-mail said: NO. Do not bring anything in here, you won't need anything. After I concluded the 3 week silent retreat I understood his clear NO (well it didn't take me that long to figure it out) to books and other written material.

 

The only way you can understand Buddhism (and all its irrefutable truths) is while walking and sitting in meditation. By watching the mind and all the internal and external processes in silence and solitude.

 

Thinking and taking about it only causes anger and frustration because the ego gets quickly involved and inevitably people are just trying to make a point

 

I can see Vajrahridaya's point but honestly why so much effort in arguing if we know that the Buddha wasn't wrong! Let the others find out by themselves.

 

 

Excellent !

[sean]

Vajrahridaya, you're suspended for 90 days for direct insults. If you come back and do it again you are banned permanently.

 

Sean

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

edit

Edited February 10, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[三江源]

.

Edited April 13, 2015 by 三江源

[3bob]

Vajrahridaya, you're suspended for 90 days for direct insults. If you come back and do it again you are banned permanently.

 

Sean

 

Justice finally! Imo a very high percentage of VJ's posts broke Buddhist precepts related to Right Speech,(among its other precepts) thus I for one do not consider him a "Buddhist" if going by those parameters; no matter how much he did and or could go on about same.

[3bob]

Absolutely brilliant.

 

nope

[Edward M]

Wanted to ad something on the God idea.

 

We as individual human beings are made up of lots of smaller beings which are collectively functional. We are not here forever physically.

 

Each smaller being like a cell or strand of Dna is an being or entity in of itself. It they work together to form something else, a being entity.

 

Likewise us human beings are part of the earth, we also part of the universe, and part of eternity.

 

Each one of these are different levels of being.

 

 

The biggest being is the whole of eternity. The universe both seen and unseen. Like i said before this is exactly what the name Yahweh means "What was, is and ever will be".

 

There are no projections on that, maybe the seen and unseen obviously refers to our senses, but we have to communicate somehow as best we can without being able to communicate direct experience.

 

A saying that explains what i'm saying is "Emptiness in form AND form in emptiness"

 

just my 2 cents

 

Ed

[Marblehead]

Hi Edward,

 

The Buddhist concept of "Emptiness" is another that I have a problem with. Emptiness, in Buddhism, is not really 'absent of substance' as the word implies but rather it is equal to the Taoist concept of "Fullness".

 

It is my opinion that without a very deep understanding of the concept a person can easily be persuaded that they don't really exist. This would be very contradictory of Taoist Philosophy. And again, I think it could easily lead to nihilism.

 

 

To the discussion of god above I did enjoy that discussion, especially where the thought was put forth that if there is a god it would be in a different realm than anything we can directly detect and therefore it would be impossible to prove its existence or non-existence.

[Edward M]

Hi Marblehead,

 

I agree with you, that is why i put the saying"Emptiness in form and form in emptiness". We cannot percieve God as we are part of God/ existence. To see we would have to see ourselves also. But when we see our true nature we see God then.

The All may change yet it is ever there.

Objective awareness/subjective awareness.

peace

Ed

[Marblehead]

We cannot percieve God as we are part of God/ existence. To see we would have to see ourselves also. But when we see our true nature we see God then.

 

Yes, there are many Taoists who hold to a concept similar to this. I am not one of them. For me the concept of "Tzujan" replaces any need of a god or other form of deity.

 

The All may change yet it is ever there.

 

Can't argue with that. Hehehe. Well, except to suggest that "The ALL 'will' change ... "

[Edward M]

Marblehead, thanks! good talking with you my friend

 

peace

 

Ed