Dependent Origination

[suninmyeyes]

Id just like to say 27 pages thread -very epic!Been away and going to read a bit now ,I am courious..

[RongzomFan]

Hi Vaj,

 

The primary source for the Shramana wikipedia page is on google books

 

Why don't you fucking read it?

 

Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press.

 

Dealing with you is just a waste of time.

 

You are wrong about everything.

 

Type in Sramana in the search box when you load up that book.

 

"all sramana groups....rejected the Veda"

 

"Yet while Brahmanism rejects the authority and teachings of the sramana schools, teachings akin to those of the Sramanas, concerning rebirth, retributive action, and liberation, come to dwell in the ...."

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Jetsun]

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.

 

If you felt you had the remedy for the sickness in the world would you not try apply it?

 

I wouldn't say Buddhism is "logic only" but there is certainly a great deal of logic and reason in the Buddha's explanations. Reading a few of the basic Pali scriptures such as the 'Middle length discourses of the Buddha' can give you a good understanding of how the dharma was taught, which was usually in the form that one learned man would come to the Buddha with a certain popular view and the Buddha would correct him and explain why it was erroneous and the learned man would usually leave with a changed view satisfied with the explanations given.

 

There is nothing particularly noble about not correcting an incorrect view out of respect of the persons view on reality, though you have to be a teacher of great skill to be able to do this without stirring up any great resistance or resentment and this is the main reason why the Buddha was seen as so great because he had such a talent to teach and explain the dharma while so many other people before and after him have had the same realisations yet have lacked the ability to really transmit it to other people.

[rex]

Why don't you fucking read it?

Is this really necessary?

[Vajrahridaya]

If you felt you had the remedy for the sickness in the world would you not try apply it?

 

I wouldn't say Buddhism is "logic only" but there is certainly a great deal of logic and reason in the Buddha's explanations. Reading a few of the basic Pali scriptures such as the 'Middle length discourses of the Buddha' can give you a good understanding of how the dharma was taught, which was usually in the form that one learned man would come to the Buddha with a certain popular view and the Buddha would correct him and explain why it was erroneous and the learned man would usually leave with a changed view satisfied with the explanations given.

 

There is nothing particularly noble about not correcting an incorrect view out of respect of the persons view on reality, though you have to be a teacher of great skill to be able to do this without stirring up any great resistance or resentment and this is the main reason why the Buddha was seen as so great because he had such a talent to teach and explain the dharma while so many other people before and after him have had the same realisations yet have lacked the ability to really transmit it to other people.

 

Yes, this is called the "brahma siddhi", where you are able to talk to an audience but reach the individual heart of each person in the audience. He was deeply experienced too having mastered all the different levels of meditation and space travel through meditation and was able to go to other realms to have conversations with gods, see through things, etc.

 

So the assumption that Buddhism is merely logic only is also an erroneous view that would be corrected by the Buddha, and one can see this if one simply reads the Pali Suttas.

[RongzomFan]

Is this really necessary?

 

 

yeah its absolutuely necessary. He doesn't even read the links HE HIMSELF keeps posting.

 

See post 395

 

Is no one else tired of Vaj's bullshit?

 

And I am not just talking about this thread. I am talking about every thread he shits on.

Edited February 8, 2011 by alwayson

[Sunya]

Hi Vaj,

 

The primary source for the Shramana wikipedia page is on google books

 

Why don't you fucking read it?

 

Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press.

 

Dealing with you is just a waste of time.

 

You are wrong about everything.

 

Type in Sramana in the search box when you load up that book.

 

"all sramana groups....rejected the Veda"

 

"Yet while Brahmanism rejects the authority and teachings of the sramana schools, teachings akin to those of the Sramanas, concerning rebirth, retributive action, and liberation, come to dwell in the ...."

 

 

Friends, this is why you don't feed trolls. Ignore them and hopefully they will go away.

[RongzomFan]

Friends, this is why you don't feed trolls. Ignore them and hopefully they will go away.

Edited February 8, 2011 by cat
!

[Sunya]

 

 

I can't believe this level of disrespect is given free reign on a spiritual forum. Why has this child not been banned?

 

 

 

Mods, please do your job. I suggest an IP ban so he can't come back on another username. It's time we rid ourselves of this poison.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Mal
upstream quotes removed

[RongzomFan]

I can't believe this level of disrespect is given free reign on a spiritual forum. Why has this child not been banned?

 

Are you serious? Are you actually serious?

Edited February 8, 2011 by cat
!

[Marblehead]

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):

 

Hi Observer,

 

There was not a single thing you said that I can honestly disagree with.

 

I will point this out though, as you did mention the concept - I do not just sit on my butt and hold firmly to my beliefs. I am still a very active man at the age of 99 (that age, BTW, is a lie).

 

In the TTC the word "weak" is used by some translators. In my mind this word should be "flexible". I consider myself very flexible. However, in regard to my basic philosophy of life it would be foolish, I think, to discard something that works very well for me for something that I have already tried and learned that it does not work for me.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to point out that this thread contains a few examples of what happens when we allow our emotions more control over what we say than our logic.

 

To become so emotionally involved that we resort to name-calling and personal attacks is very counter-productive.

 

I believe that the Buddhists put too much emphasis on the concept of D.O. Big deal. That's my opinion. It doesn't mean that everyone else should hold that same opinion.

 

There are going to be disagreements on occasion. That's a given. But just because we disagree doesn't mean that we have to be disrespectful. We can simply agree to disagree and 'let it go'. Anything beyond that is just ego playing games.

 

I see no need to get myself banned from this forum just because I disagree with someone else's opinion.

 

But y'all do what you feel is right.

[joeblast]

alwayson made me think of this.

 

[adept]

I believe that the Buddhists put too much emphasis on the concept of D.O.

 

 

Without dependent origination, the teachings of the Buddha have no meaning.

It is what binds the four noble truths, the eightfold path, kamma, emptiness, mindfulness meditation, all together.

D.O is the Dhamma. It is that important.

[Marblehead]

Without dependent origination, the teachings of the Buddha have no meaning.

It is what binds the four noble truths, the eightfold path, kamma, emptiness, mindfulness meditation, all together.

D.O is the Dhamma. It is that important.

 

Okay. I will do my best to lighten up.

 

But no promises, Okay? Hehehe.

[The Observer]

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Works for me .

[Eviander]

Came in a bit late and didn't read the whole thread but.. I don't see how the argument of Dependant origination has any weight against the argument for god. If reality is dependently originated it requires the independent agent to power it. In this case our world of matter and consciousness can be likened to a circuit board which is dependent on the constant energy powering it which comes from a divine source, or 'god'.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Eviander

[Vajrahridaya]

Came in a bit late and didn't read the whole thread but.. I don't see how the argument of Dependant origination has any weight against the argument for god. If reality is dependently originated it requires the independent agent to power it. In this case our world of matter and consciousness can be likened to a circuit board which is dependent on the constant energy powering it which comes from a divine source, or 'god'.

 

Actually, the weight is, is that we are that energy, as in all endless sentient beings, not one divine entity. We are those consciousness' (plural) that are the circuit board... all equally empty of inherent existence and all co-dependent for existence... endlessly, since beginningless time.

 

To see it's weight, you have to experience it's weight directly, by seeing what it truly means, experientially, surpassing all the meditative, and contemplative experiences that once supported your belief in a single "god" as supreme entity and ruler of the cosmos.

 

The Buddha wasn't an Atheist for no darn good reason... he was because he saw through all the experiences of all sentient beings, into dependent origination.

 

Oh... it holds weight... it is all weight, empty of itself.

 

You are free to believe in god... but it's a delusion that will keep you recycling yourself, over, and over, and over, and over..... from bliss realm to hell realm, to bliss realm, to hell realm...

 

 

p.s. This truth may make your heart hurt for a while as it looses it crutch for support... like a bad break up, but possibly even worse. Then... you'll get it, and realize directly how liberating it is!!! Far more than any theism can do for you.

 

p.p.s. You might even get sick, fall apart... it could get really bad loosing this crutch, no "god" but equally, no "satan"... thank goodness!! LOL!! But seriously... it could take years getting over this "god" thing as the insight of dependent origination dawns deeply on one.

 

p.p.p.s. I want to clarify... there are most definitely co-originated "god's" and "satans'" or Mara's... what have you... but none of them have ultimate existence... and that is the liberating fact of dependent origination, the insight that completely liberates without residue.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Eviander]

Whoops

Edited February 9, 2011 by Eviander

[Eviander]

Actually, the weight is, is that we are that energy, as in all endless sentient beings, not one divine entity. We are those consciousness' (plural) that are the circuit board... all equally empty of inherent existence and all co-dependent for existence... endlessly, since beginningless time.

 

It's easier to conceive of us as being objective expressions of this energy if we are looking at a working scientific model of phenomenon. If we where what was emanating this energy we would experience everything at once. Yet we are limited to our bodies for experience, therefore we are part of and Dependant of this energy for food, air, the light of the sun, other bodies ect, we are emanations of it.

 

You certainly don't have to call it god which is why I emphasized it as 'god', it can be conceived as the supreme being, the universal consciousness, ect. Of course we are extensions of this principle, we are powered by it, modern physics is looking for it in verifiable data and it is considered the "god" particle. but yet we are speaking on a objective level here. For it is through objective measurements in which the scientific method gave rise to computers to allow material bodies to surmise about such instances of creation and thus measure the separation in 'oneness'.

 

And in my original post I directly said we where the consciousness and matter that is the circuit board but yet we are powered by the source which gives light to the circuitry.

 

To see it's weight, you have to experience it's weight directly, by seeing what it truly means, experientially, surpassing all the meditative, and contemplative experiences that once supported your belief in a single "god" as supreme entity and ruler of the cosmos.

 

Certainly. All mystics have had experiences pointing out that at a subjective level we are connected and may connect back with the oneness that is god, nirvana, have it what you may. As in this case I am not arguing in a single material entity as god, I am arguing from a modern pantheistic view which purports everything is of the essence of god, or is within the body of god. Again, semantics play a big role in any philosophy, but I stress that whatever you call this this energy, it certainly has an intelligence far surpassing the limits of human contemplation.

 

The Buddha wasn't an Atheist for no darn good reason... he was because he saw through all the experiences of all sentient beings, into dependent origination.

 

Well, the Buddha was not an atheist since he founded his own religion, but I would like to open you to the view that he was not the only enlightened being to tread this planet. There where countless mystics who received such a light from the depths of their being and had abilities such that the Buddha had.

 

 

 

Oh... it holds weight... it is all weight, empty of itself.

 

Its emptiness is what makes it easily filled.

 

 

You are free to believe in god... but it's a delusion that will keep you recycling yourself, over, and over, and over, and over..... from bliss realm to hell realm, to bliss realm, to hell realm...

 

This is the kind of primitive belief that defines a religious faith.

 

 

p.s. This truth may make your heart hurt for a while as it looses it crutch for support... like a bad break up, but possibly even worse. Then... you'll get it, and realize directly how liberating it is!!! Far more than any theism can do for you.

 

Unfortunately you failed to define any truth, only easily debated Buddhist philosophy

Edited February 9, 2011 by Eviander

[Vajrahridaya]

It's easier to conceive of us as being objective expressions of this energy if we are looking at a working scientific model of phenomenon. If we where what was emanating this energy we would experience everything at once. Yet we are limited to our bodies for experience, therefore we are part of and Dependant of this energy for food, air, the light of the sun, other bodies ect, we are emanations of it.

 

This idea is based upon your attachment to a notion that there is a "at once".

 

Since it's a we, there is no way "I" can experience all being's at once. It's a more grounded non-dualism based upon emptiness of inherent existence instead of a supreme substance of a god that is one with everything.

 

You certainly don't have to call it god which is why I emphasized it as 'god', it can be conceived as the supreme being, the universal consciousness, ect. Of course we are extensions of this principle, we are powered by it, modern physics is looking for it in verifiable data and it is considered the "god" particle. but yet we are speaking on a objective level here. For it is through objective measurements in which the scientific method gave rise to computers to allow material bodies to surmise about such instances of creation and thus measure the separation in 'oneness'.

 

Finding it would only originate dependently... and be just as illusive as anything.

 

And in my original post I directly said we where the consciousness and matter that is the circuit board but yet we are powered by the source which gives light to the circuitry.

 

There is no source beyond us... I do understand how deep the attachment to a transcendent super being is though... a transcendent essential self... it's a multi-layered attachment. It's ok to have it... it's just not going to lead to the "Awakened" insight of liberated experiencing.

 

 

 

Certainly. All mystics have had experiences pointing out that at a subjective level we are connected and may connect back with the oneness that is god, nirvana, have it what you may.

 

Nirvana has nothing to do with God... read the Suttas for verification... meditate deeply on what you find there for experiential data.

 

These are not my opinions.

 

As in this case I am not arguing in a single material entity as god, I am arguing from a modern pantheistic view which purports everything is of the essence of god, or is within the body of god. Again, semantics play a big role in any philosophy, but I stress that whatever you call this this energy, it certainly has an intelligence far surpassing the limits of human contemplation.

 

Then transcend your humanity... which is one of the human capacities... strangely enough.

 

 

Well, the Buddha was not an atheist science he founded his own religion, but I would like to open you to the view that he was not the only enlightened being to tread this planet. There where countless mystics who received such a light from the depths of their being and had abilities such that the Buddha had.

 

In Buddhism... we see that theistic paths can lead to all the mundane siddhis, or powers... supernatural or just deeply natural?

 

Anyway... the power of insight into dependent origination is the liberating siddhi or super-power that has no signs, and is not determinable outside of it's own realization of self transcendence, or rather, just seeing through oneself and all being eminently, while being... also very strange. Seemingly anti-natural even? But it's really just being natural in seeing through oneself.

 

 

 

 

Its emptiness is what makes it easily filled.

 

This is not what emptiness means... like an empty jar from the popular English ideation. Shunyata means malleability, non-static nature, no inherent essence... inter-dependently originated.

 

What you are referring to is space or ether. Which can be experienced directly through meditative focus. This is not the same type of emptiness as referred to in Buddhism. Well, ok it's one of the emptiness', of which there are many, depending upon the paradigm of application.

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of primitive belief that defines a religious faith.

 

Actually, these realms do exist on a co-objective or rather, inter-subjective level, just like this one. Go deeper into meditation and verify this.

 

 

 

Unfortunately you failed to define any truth, only easily plugged Buddhist philosophy

 

This is merely your self clinging talking... it's ok. I understand it's depth. I feel it's self importance.

 

Just... study more, practice deeper and contemplate it's possibility is all... nothing more, nothing less. Just open up to it's maybe-ness?

Edited February 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Eviander]

This idea is based upon your attachment to a notion that there is a "at once"

 

If your trying to point to experiencing everything in intervals then we would still experience it all as separate bodies perceiving fragments of a whole. I'm not sure if that is what you where referring to though, if not then please elaborate.

 

 

 

 

Finding it would only originate dependently... and be just as illusive as anything.

 

No, finding it would prove we are Dependant upon it.It would create breakthroughs in science and human understanding, and its in the ball park of the next 20 years.

 

There is no source beyond us... I do understand how deep the attachment to a transcendent super being is though... a transcendent essential self... it's a multi-layered attachment. It's ok to have it... it's just not going to lead to the "Awakened" insight of experiencing.

 

Actually, its already proven that what we perceive is a vibrational field that is constantly pulsating outside of us. It is simply the way in which we form the image of the vibrations on our retina and inverse it in our cerebral matrix that is Dependant upon our own mind. The material world is completely objective and outside of us. This is no attachment, this is a simple assessment of the countless mysteries that modern science provides us, which leads to the source of this vibrational field of our reality havening its origin in a intelligence beyond the scope of it conceivably being inanimate.

 

 

 

 

 

Nirvana has nothing to do with God... read the Suttas for verification... meditate deeply on what you find there for experiential data.

 

These are not my opinions.

 

My bad, I got confused with the Hindu definition of nirvana.

 

 

 

Then transcend your humanity... which is one of the human capacities... strangely enough.

 

This I agree upon, but It can not transcend the faculties that the human brain gives one, it only allows what psychic function is available for it to perceive.

 

 

 

 

In Buddhism... we see that theistic paths can lead to all the mundane siddhis, or powers... supernatural or just deeply natural?

 

Anyway... the power of insight into dependent origination is the liberating siddhi or super-power that has no signs, and is not determinable outside of it's own realization of self transcendence, or rather, just seeing through oneself and all being eminently, while being... also very strange. Seemingly anti-natural even. But it's really just being natural in seeing through oneself.

 

There are certain aspects of Buddhism and other meditative schools that are universal to most other traditions, for example, though you may disagree as a Buddhist, I perceive your religion to be similar to many forms of Hinduism, taoism, Jainism, ect. And though again, you might not see this, but your search for insight or the ultimate reality is the same mystical quest that other traditions go through. If you take out the traditional values you simply have mysticism..you as a Buddhist just use different semantics or words such as Dependant origination, ect, to explain the same phenomenon that is universal.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not what emptiness means... like an empty jar from the popular English ideation. Shunyata means malleability, non-static nature, no inherent essence... inter-dependently originated.

 

What you are referring to is space or ether.

 

You don't explain it to well

 

 

 

Actually, these realms do exist on a co-objective or rather, inter-subjective level, just like this one. Go deeper into meditation and verify this.

 

Likewise with the same intent and same results I could go deeper to verify the fact that they are fabrications of the human mind. Just remember Buddhist are not the only ones who have entered deep states of meditation and explored the hidden dimensions of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

This is merely your self clinging talking... it's ok. I understand it's depth. I feel it's self importance.

 

Just... study more, practice deeper and contemplate it's possibility is all... nothing more, nothing less. Just open up to it's maybe-ness?

 

I practice a non-secular meditation along with other methods, though I see how Buddhism is essentially the same intent as other mystical paths.

[Vajrahridaya]

If your trying to point to experiencing everything in intervals then we would still experience it all as separate bodies perceiving fragments of a whole. I'm not sure if that is what you where referring to though, if not then please elaborate.

 

 

There is no end to this whole... who can experience all nuances of everything all at once? All endless cycles of cosmic eons? Show me that being?

 

If you are merely referring to states of infinite consciousness... infinite space, such other formless samadhis. You should read the suttas, maybe some abhidhamma even. Or Abhidharma Kosha? These are still merely just references to individual exploration of ones own unconscious.

 

 

 

 

No, finding it would prove we are Dependant upon it.It would create breakthroughs in science and human understanding, and its in the ball park of the next 20 years.

 

Sure... it's just infinite potential... that doesn't mean it's a real entity in and of itself. You are merely projecting "self" onto infinite potential that has no reference other than beginningless time as it's own cause, which is also an effect.

 

You haven't studied much buddhism, so you haven't meditated upon it's meaning, so you would not have the insightful experience of it's explanation. I do recommend it though.

 

 

 

Actually, its already proven that what we perceive is a vibrational field that is constantly pulsating outside of us. It is simply the way in which we form the image of the vibrations on our retina and inverse it in our cerebral matrix that is Dependant upon our own mind. The material world is completely objective and outside of us. This is no attachment, this is a simple assessment of the countless mysteries that modern science provides us, which leads to the source of this vibrational field of our reality havening its origin in a intelligence beyond the scope of it conceivably being inanimate.

 

This is still merely self projection. This is merely the collective unconscious, not a self shining entity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My bad, I got confused with the Hindu definition of nirvana.

 

Which is post Buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

This I agree upon, but It can not transcend the faculties that the human brain gives one, it only allows what psychic function is available for it to perceive.

 

No, you can transcend the human brain too. Just get into immaterial realms, or rather, more refined material realms. Of course, the brain has openings for this experience of brain transcendence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are certain aspects of Buddhism and other meditative schools that are universal to most other traditions, for example, though you may disagree as a Buddhist, I perceive your religion to be similar to many forms of Hinduism, taoism, Jainism, ect. And though again, you might not see this, but your search for insight or the ultimate reality is the same mystical quest that other traditions go through. If you take out the traditional values you simply have mysticism..you as a Buddhist just use different semantics or words such as Dependant origination, ect, to explain the same phenomenon that is universal.

 

It's obvious you haven't delved into Buddhism without attachment to pre-conceptions.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't explain it to well

 

 

You don't receive the explanation well.

 

 

Likewise with the same intent and same results I could go deeper to verify the fact that they are fabrications of the human mind. Just remember Buddhist are not the only ones who have entered deep states of meditation and explored the hidden dimensions of existence.

 

Yes, but "right view" the 1st noble truth understood is the only view that empties all these experiences of inherent quality and sees their dependency within infinite regress and does not create a rooftop concept that is independent which all other experiences originate from or upon as their platform for existence.

 

Truly seeing this intuitively leads to an entirely different understanding of existence.

 

Basically... if you want to know what the Buddha taught... study it. If you don't, then don't. Study yourself without an intellectual, emotional, or experiential excuses for ignorance, empty yourself of yourself.

 

 

 

 

I practice a non-secular meditation along with other methods, though I see how Buddhism is essentially the same intent as other mystical paths.

 

You might like to study more of the Pali Suttas. Try some Theravada studies to begin with.

 

I used to believe as you did, but only due to a lack of study and experience. I won't say much more on this, as I'm not trying to bring forth a sense of personal reaction from you at all! That is not my intent.

[Eviander]

There is no end to this whole... who can experience all nuances of everything all at once? All endless cycles of cosmic eons? Show me that being?

 

If you are merely referring to states of infinite consciousness... infinite space, such other formless samadhis. You should read the suttas, maybe some abhidhamma even. Or Abhidharma Kosha? These are still merely just references to individual exploration of ones own unconscious.

 

The whole is conceived as the supreme being, god, universal consciousness, call it what you will. That being is the multi-verse which is far from being inanimate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure... it's just infinite potential... that doesn't mean it's a real entity in and of itself. You are merely projecting "self" onto infinite potential that has no reference other than beginningless time as it's own cause, which is also an effect.

 

You haven't studied much buddhism, so you haven't meditated upon it's meaning, so you would not have the insightful experience of it's explanation. I do recommend it though.

 

Well yea, it is all potential, it is the essence which gave you substance allowing you to contemplate what realness is. As far as its realness goes it is more 'real' than what we perceive now, which again is only our interpretation of what is there . It in itself is the only cause, our existence the measure of its effects.

 

And no, studying Buddhism is just as important as studying all religions, to me.

 

 

 

 

 

This is still merely self projection. This is merely the collective unconscious, not a self shining entity.

 

This is not a self projection, it has nothing to do with self or such ideologies, it is simply the measurement of what is there. Only counting material bodies. It is not the collective unconscious it is simply the vibrational field that is outside us, that we interpret as the physical universe in our subject frames of reference.

 

 

 

 

No, you can transcend the human brain too. Just get into immaterial realms, or rather, more refined material realms. Of course, the brain has openings for this experience of brain transcendence.

 

Such is the reference to the astral planes, which are still limited in experience because we are incarnate in a physical body with a limiting brain, we can only traverse so far without having to come back to the body.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's obvious you haven't delved into Buddhism without attachment to pre-conceptions.

 

I could say the same to you about other schools of thought. But in this sense I am not attaching, I am simply assimilating my knowledge to assess the soundness of other bodies of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't receive the explanation well.

 

Do you drink spoiled milk?

 

 

 

 

Yes, but "right view" the 1st noble truth understood is the only view that empties all these experiences of inherent quality and sees their dependency within infinite regress and does not create a rooftop concept that is independent which all other experiences originate from or upon as their platform for existence.

 

Truly seeing this intuitively leads to an entirely different understanding of existence.

 

Basically... if you want to know what the Buddha taught... study it. If you don't, then don't. Study yourself without an intellectual, emotional, or experiential excuses for ignorance, empty yourself of yourself.

 

thought forms have their dependency within self fulfilling belief cycles. If you go into it without thought or thinking of a right view you see things as they are.

 

All of these paradoxical statements might make sense to buddhists, but to me they seem rather avoidant of direct responses and immediate results.

 

 

 

 

 

You might like to study more of the Pali Suttas. Try some Theravada studies to begin with.

 

I used to believe as you did, but only due to a lack of study and experience. I won't say much more on this, as I'm not trying to bring forth a sense of personal reaction from you at all! That is not my intent.

 

Likewise you should study the mathematics and the sciences to understand how the physical universe operates and how that reality ties into understanding metaphysics. And just as well you should study all religions to see the ever apparent unity that unites them to end suffering and gain insight.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Eviander

[Vajrahridaya]

The whole is conceived as the supreme being, god, universal consciousness, call it what you will. That being is the multi-verse which is far from being inanimate.

 

 

 

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 yea, it is all potential, it is the essence which gave you substance allowing you to contemplate what realness is. As far as its realness goes it is more 'real' than what we perceive now, which again is only our interpretation of what is there . It in itself is the only cause, our existence the measure of its effects.

 

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

 

And no, studying Buddhism is just as important as studying all religions, to me.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a self projection, it has nothing to do with self or such ideologies, it is simply the measurement of what is there. Only counting material bodies. It is not the collective unconscious it is simply the vibrational field that is outside us, that we interpret as the physical universe in our subject frames of reference.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Such is the reference to the astral planes, which are still limited in experience because we are incarnate in a physical body with a limiting brain, we can only traverse so far without having to come back to the body.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could say the same to you about other schools of thought. But in this sense I am not attaching, I am simply assimilating my knowledge to assess the soundness of other bodies of knowledge.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you drink spoiled milk?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

thought forms have their dependency within self fulfilling belief cycles. If you go into it without thought or thinking of a right view you see things as they are.

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?

 

All of these paradoxical statements might make sense to buddhists, but to me they seem rather avoidant of direct responses and immediate results.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Likewise you should study the mathematics and the sciences to understand how the physical universe operates and how that reality ties into buddhism (without being heart broken). And just as well you should study all religions to see the ever apparent unity that unites them to end suffering and gain insight.

 

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.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya