Dependent Origination

[RongzomFan]

Wow!

 

I've never made any entries to Wiki.

 

You dear sir... are a holder of the crown of fool.

 

You need help, a guru, transmission, meditation... something. Maybe even medication?

 

 

Let everyone judge for themselves. I think you probably did if I had to bet, but I can't say for sure.

 

And secondly you are a ****** ****** as I have logically proven in the latter half of post 395 , so I don't hold it past you.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Apech
Mod Action - personal insult

[goldisheavy]

The scholar I sourced is arguing that pretty convincingly with supporting arguments. So yes he invented the karma concept as we know it today. And it went into hinudism from there.

 

I don't buy it. Buddha has not introduced any dramatically big changes to the karma concept. He simply challenged various conceptual extremisms surrounding that concept. That is literally what he has done. So he has challenged the extreme of determinism (eternalism) and he challenged the extreme of nihilism. But the gist of karma, that your actions produce results, that good actions produce good results and bad ones produce bad ones, that effects are not disconnected from causes, that idea is not whatsoever newly introduced by Buddha. The sutta I linked in one of my previous posts is a perfect source material for what I am saying here.

 

Apparently the upanishads has a couple of vague references to karma, and definitley not the karma concept as we know it today. I don't own the book. Its on google books.

 

Don't quote things you don't own or otherwise have access to, or otherwise can reasonably be able to produce within a reasonable time when demanded. Thank you in advance. If you expect to be quoting some book you don't own, make a damn Xerox copy of the thing and save it. Take a screenshot. There are ways. You can't be going around saying page 35. That just isn't good enough and it isn't respectful to the discussion. You can curse and say "fuck" all you like, but when you refer to something, you damn better be able to produce it. If you can't produce it, don't refer to it. It's just common sense and it cuts down on bullshit.

 

Now, back to the sutta. If you read the sutta I linked, it's obvious what the competing views on karma were. It's also obvious that they weren't radically different (except of course in the cases of nihilism and creationism). But basically the determinist view of karma is only subtly different from the Buddha's version. The determinist view was that the past 100% dictated the future. Buddha's view was that while the past strongly influences the future, your intention and disposition in the here and now has a competing influence on both the now and the future.

 

So in the Hindu version of karma, if you killed someone, you were absolutely guaranteed to experience the level of badness equivalent to one killing, no if and or but. In Buddha's version, if you killed someone and didn't change your heart and mind, then yes, you'll experience the same thing. However, if you change your heart and mind and apply yourself to compassion and Dharma, then you will experience only a diluted result.

 

This is discussed in the Lonaphala Sutta.

 

So this idea of dilution is Buddha's stamp. Hindus had the same idea of karma minus this idea of dilution. This is evident from the Suttas themselves which record debates between the Buddhists and Hindus. You don't need to quote some scholars. Just read the Suttas. That's authoritative material and it doesn't need scholarly input unless you are looking for bullshit and distortions.

Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

I just checked page 35 is available again.

 

But if it goes offline again, just read 38

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

I just checked page 35 is available again.

 

But if it goes offline again, just read 38

 

Stop this insanity. Cut-n-paste it. Make a link to it. If all else fails, take a screenshot. Alternatively get it from the library and type up the relevant bits, or run the book through an OCR program, etc. It's on you to make sure you can produce your citations when you're arguing on the internet. I have no clue who that guy is. Any moron can write a book, so just mentioning a name and a page is absolutely worthless in and of itself.

 

I've given you links to Suttas, which are infinitely better and infinitely more authoritative and learning-inducing than anything you can come up with right now anyway.

 

Buddha has argued with his contemporaries. The views of the contemporaries are recorded in the Suttas! That's all you need to know.

Edited February 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't buy it. Buddha has not introduced any dramatically big changes to the karma concept. He simply challenged various conceptual extremisms surrounding that concept. That is literally what he has done. So he has challenged the extreme of determinism (eternalism) and he challenged the extreme of nihilism. But the gist of karma, that your actions produce results, that good actions produce good results and bad ones produce bad ones, that effects are not disconnected from causes, that idea is not whatsoever newly introduced by Buddha. The sutta I linked in one of my previous posts is a perfect source material for what I am saying here.

 

 

 

Don't quote things you don't own or otherwise have access to, or otherwise can reasonably be able to produce within a reasonable time when demanded. Thank you in advance. If you expect to be quoting some book you don't own, make a damn Xerox copy of the thing and save it. Take a screenshot. There are ways. You can't be going around saying page 35. That just isn't good enough and it isn't respectful to the discussion. You can curse and say "fuck" all you like, but when you refer to something, you damn better be able to produce it. If you can't produce it, don't refer to it. It's just common sense and it cuts down on bullshit.

 

Now, back to the sutta. If you read the sutta I linked, it's obvious what the competing views on karma were. It's also obvious that they weren't radically different (except of course in the cases of nihilism and creationism). But basically the determinist view of karma is only subtly different from the Buddha's version. The determinist view was that the past 100% dictated the future. Buddha's view was that while the past strongly influences the future, your intention and disposition in the here and now has a competing influence on both the now and the future.

 

So in the Hindu version of karma, if you killed someone, you were absolutely guaranteed to experience the level of badness equivalent to one killing, no if and or but. In Buddha's version, if you killed someone and didn't change your heart and mind, then yes, you'll experience the same thing. However, if you change your heart and mind and apply yourself to compassion and Dharma, then you will experience only a diluted result.

 

This is discussed in the Lonaphala Sutta.

 

So this idea of dilution is Buddha's stamp. Hindus had the same idea of karma minus this idea of dilution. This is evident from the Suttas themselves which record debates between the Buddhists and Hindus. You don't need to quote some scholars. Just read the Suttas. That's authoritative material and it doesn't need scholarly input unless you are looking for bullshit and distortions.

 

Thanks for the recap, it's been a while.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Hi VJ,

 

Excellent point and I actually agree with you here. We look at it differently but just the same.

 

And yes, these things you speak to are 'personal' spiritual experiences. Therefore they can never truely be shared with others. And then, if someone who really wants to believe imagines that they have had a similar spiritual experience as one who they read about, this would be nothing more than a delusion. And this, I think would create a setting for superstition.

 

I can accept the suggestion that you believe you have all the spiritual experiences you claim to have had. I, however, have never had any of these types of experiences and therefore I cannot accept the concepts into my belief system. If I did it would be total delusion.

 

Spirituality is, always has been, and always will be, a personal experience. Anything more than that will lead to superstition and/or dogmatic religion.

[Marblehead]

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

 

Hi Kate,

 

I would agree with you that superstition is used for many reasons, including being able to predict and control the future. And yes, superstitious beliefs are fed by both internal and external sources.

 

And yes, there are Taoist schools that still hold to superstitious beliefs. I won't pass any judgement. However, in my mind, this is only an obstacle preventing the believer from seeing the Manifest reality as it truely is.

 

Different Taoist schools hold to varying beliefs. I try very hard to keep my beliefs true to the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. But even here there were a few things that I simply had to declare 'unacceptable'.

 

And yes, the different schools argued back during Chuang Tzu's days and they still do today. I remember back when I first joined this forum and Stig and I got into it. Hehehe. Stig is a good religious Taoist. I'm not one of those.

[Marblehead]

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...

 

 

I gave you one point for this paragraph. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

And I actually agree with this although I would have used Taoist words instead of Buddhist words.

[Marblehead]

Not quite the same thing but in essence it is. There is individual karma and then there is DO. The latter being the very Samsara itself and the zillions of mini-events that happen within as a result of karmic impulses.

 

Honestly I haven't read the whole thread because there is way too much bickering and negativity and I sway away from it as soon as I detect it. But maybe you are right and DO has been presented erroneously by reading others or thinking about it rather than experiencing it first had as a result from personal cultivation, the same way as the last Buddha did in this physical plane. Other Buddhas have used different methods to come across this realisation.

 

Hi Gerard,

 

Yeah, it is hard sometimes to follow the theme of threads such as this because we all, myself included, fell a need to argue for our understanding and argue against others' understandings.

 

Your first paragraph is significant, I think, and will totally agree with you. I never intentionally down-play the importance of external influences upon our life. This is the D.O. part of our life. But then we have our inner essence, our personal Chi, that allows us to create conditions that allow us a life better than what was handed to us.

 

I think that harmonixing the external influences and our inner potential is what allows us to be all that we can be, to be able to attain this condition of peace and contentment that I speak to.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Amen!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Jeez, I woke up this morning after having been at work all day yesterday, and look at all this, pages and pages later...and to think I almost didn't start this thread. (Now play nice, everybody).

Edited February 8, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

Jeez, I woke up this morning after having been at work all day yesterday, and look at all this, pages and pages later...and to think I almost didn't start this thread. (Now play nice, everybody).

 

Just wondering though, have you found the answer to your question yet?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

No, but I have learned a lot about D.O., but I don't like the "you won't get it unless you meditate on it for years and let it steep in your brain" part of the argument.

[Marblehead]

No, but I have learned a lot about D.O., but I don't like the "you won't get it unless you meditate on it for years and let it steep in your brain" part of the argument.

 

I agree. If something isn't intuitively logical (that's funny) then we need question its validity.

[Birch]

"If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right?"

 

You don't have to. However this is kind of interesting because to me it seems to point out that "Buddha" intentionally went about provoking others' beliefs. Now why do that? I can see why he'd do it in his own culture, but why pursue the issue with others?

[The Observer]

I agree. If something isn't intuitively logical (that's funny) then we need question its validity.

 

Lol. That's a lazy way of looking at it Marble. If enlightenment could be attained through reading about it then the world would be a very easy place. It's akin to saying it's illogical to learn arithmetic if I have to spend all of elementary school practicing it because it's not self evident at first.

I'm not technically a Buddhist myself, but if direct mental insight/knowing about the workings of the Universe/Samsara is the prize (pretty big IMO) you better work your ass off for it (meditate, meditate and meditate).

[Jetsun]

"If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right?"

 

You don't have to. However this is kind of interesting because to me it seems to point out that "Buddha" intentionally went about provoking others' beliefs. Now why do that? I can see why he'd do it in his own culture, but why pursue the issue with others?

 

I don't think he did, he gained a great reputation so people went to him to discuss their beliefs and concepts, I don't think he went around trying to convert people in a missionary sense. If he saw a wrong view on reality he would correct it and logically explain the reasons why it was wrong, which he probably felt was his duty once receiving such insight.

[ben]

.bla

Edited January 31, 2012 by ben

[Marblehead]

Lol. That's a lazy way of looking at it Marble. If enlightenment could be attained through reading about it then the world would be a very easy place. It's akin to saying it's illogical to learn arithmetic if I have to spend all of elementary school practicing it because it's not self evident at first.

I'm not technically a Buddhist myself, but if direct mental insight/knowing about the workings of the Universe/Samsara is the prize (pretty big IMO) you better work your ass off for it (meditate, meditate and meditate).

 

Hehehe. Sometimes the simplist answer is the best.

 

Nope, I won't down-play the importance of knowledge or meditation for that matter. It's just that oftentimes the deeper we go into a concept the further from the truth we stray.

 

No, I don't have to work my ass off anymore. I already have my truths. Hehehe.

 

But then, I'm not going to suggest that a bunch of book-learning is an answer either. Experience, Experience, and Experience!

Edited February 8, 2011 by Marblehead

[manitou]

I thought I already did. This universe is dependently originated. Maybe research what that means. So if this universe is dependently originated, how can something independent like God interact with it.

 

 

Personally, I've reconciled the God thing by coming to the understanding that it's all God. The Tao is everything there is. We are God, we are the point of the spear as to 'God's' manifestation in this reality, at least. The closer we can get down to our original self, by clearing out the psychic barnacles we've been carrying around, the more we are able to manifest the true intent.

 

The I Am consciousness.

[ben]

.bla

Edited January 31, 2012 by ben

[Birch]

I don't think he did, he gained a great reputation so people went to him to discuss their beliefs and concepts, I don't think he went around trying to convert people in a missionary sense. If he saw a wrong view on reality he would correct it and logically explain the reasons why it was wrong, which he probably felt was his duty once receiving such insight.

 

 

I see. Are you suggesting that buddhism is a "logic-only" religion? That would explain a lot (to me, anyway). However, I don't agree that the action following one's own revelation about "reality" should be to go about undermining other people's - unless they've asked for it. IMO more harm than good comes of that. I know that some people might see this as "progressive" but I'm not so sure.

[The Observer]

Hehehe. Sometimes the simplist answer is the best.

 

No denying that sir.

However, take this into account; perhaps this will help you understand, since you are a follower of the Dao (as am I):

 

The Buddha realized the same things as Lao Tzu (that things constantly change/are impermanent). However, both dealt with different students, with different temperaments and natures. The Buddha's style was more wordy because that's what worked with the people he taught. Lao Tzu's style was more simple and direct because that's what worked for his intended audience.

 

Add to this, the Buddha only taught what cosmology/philosophy was necessary for the ultimate goal of ending suffering. This is how his teachings were "packaged" if you will.

 

On the other hand if you follow Lao Tzu (for example) he doesn't explicitly offer an end to suffering, but if you sincerely follow his parables, certainly they are reduced (IMO they could even be ended).

 

It's just that oftentimes the deeper we go into a concept the further from the truth we stray.

 

On a sort of normal thinking and over analyzing level I agree; wholeheartedly! But through meditation you can short circuit the analytical process and have eureka-type moments, when you just get it.

 

 

 

No, I don't have to work my ass off anymore. I already have my truths. Hehehe.

 

And if you feel that way, who am I to stop you? I'm glad you are happy.

 

I must add however:

 

1) Truths are not static and change.

 

2) Don't rest on your laurels. Continue expanding and challenging your beliefs. There is always room to grow. Don't sell yourself short.

 

But then, I'm not going to suggest that a bunch of book-learning is an answer either. Experience, Experience, and Experience!

 

Experience is what, as they say, separates the men from the boys.

Edited February 8, 2011 by The Observer

[RongzomFan]

Hi Vaj,

 

Why don't you answer post 395? Pretty please with sugar on top.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/17287-dependent-origination/page__view__findpost__p__241451

 

Its obvious you didn't even read the link YOU kept posting as some sort of evidence.

 

You basically wasted pages of forum space, as always.

 

You are not knowledgeable about anything eastern, especially buddhism which you purport to know about.

 

Basically you are some sort of super troll, but thats all.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson