Dependent Origination

[lifeforce]

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

 

Sean

 

Phew !

Common sense has prevailed.

One of the reasons I've kept away is the overbearing, suffocating Buddhist preaching that has gone on from Mr. Vaj.

I have been watching what has gone on recently without posting as I feel it would have just made the situation worse.

We are all on different paths, respect has to be shown. There are some wonderful people on this forum and we should be here to give help and guidance to others, not to claim ultimate superiority.

I'm sure that real Buddhists wouldn't behave in such a manner.

It's good to be back.

[Eviander]

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

 

Like I said before, Buddhism has many similarities with other mystical traditions, formless realities exists in almost all contemplative traditions.

 

 

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.

 

Interesting...I am only on the fourth degree and have stopped because of school and previous degrees, did you get your monographs from amorc or another branch? Also, did you get through all the degree work?

 

I am compelled to see how amorc fairs against eastern originated traditions

[Eviander]

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.

 

Even buddhism is in seperation. I have heard from one side that Buddhism is more like a pyschology, but yet it seems to have a set of metaphysics aside from simply the Dharma, which some buddhists ignore, whilst other deem essential.

 

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 more science evolves, the more it overlaps with metaphysics. The future of science is a unification of the spiritual and the scientific, and phenomenology is a very important branch in physics just as it is in psychology. We can only surmise now that a time will come when computers will beable to simulate consciousness at a quantum level. When this happens, science will have a solid explanation of many metaphysical tenets that religion will be forced to oblige to.

 

Not everything in science directly connects to metaphysics, but the nature of consciousness, or the nature of awareness and the nature of phenonomen are all topics of interest in the scientific world just as they are in buddhism and any other meditative tradition. The only difference is, science finds universal laws, whilst mysticism and religion deal with subjective realizations..when the two become one and are explained in depth..

 

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.

 

Essentially, even feeling a mystical oneness with reality is beyond any concept, and is only transmitted through a conceptual bases because that is a requisite for linguistical communication. Language is but a map, the territory is beyond the concept and must be seen for oneself. What buddhists experience is but a semantical difference in philosophical terms. In the end language can be seen as the best and worst invention of our species.

 

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.

 

I really do not see the difference between no self, and the self being the whole. They both point at the same destination which is the breaking of a barrier between the perceiver and the percieved. I do not see how this is not the same goal with different semantics.

 

 

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).

 

One comes before two so it need not depend what comes after it. Better yet, the two depends on the one because it is two components of the first number. This is simple arithmatic. The one is independant whilst all other numbers or emanations after it and depand upon it.

 

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.

 

Like you say though, it is beyond concept because language is based on duality. You cannot explain things logically without it..in fact duality manifests as a measurable law in science that is uniform throughout the universe.

 

 

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.

 

Saying ones realization is any more "on" than the realization of the other is full of self and egoic delusions though, so if as a buddhist you really are lacking self you would not have such distinctions now would you? Even further

 

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.

 

Lets see if I understand it now By the way you put it. D.O. states that any sort of existence is dependant upon something else for its sustenance ad infinitum which ultimately leads to nothing?

 

Still confused a bit here, because the dependant perfume by definition requires an independant variable or else nothing could have created it.

[Marblehead]

Still confused a bit here, because the dependant perfume by definition requires an independant variable or else nothing could have created it.

 

And nothing could have smelled it.

[XieJia]

I'd hope that Mr. Vaj would realise something himself from this thread (not on the things that have been written but on that is not written) without having to get himself banned. Hope that he will see this as a good chance to contemplate on his own practice rather then building up more feeling that we have been bullying him.

 

@Sunya

Very nice post; Thank you

 

@Eviander

Maybe it is easier to conceptualize D.O. with a metaphor

Take sound for example; for any sound to be comprehendable, there must be different sounds or the sound of silence. Take another example, objects around; the only reason we can differentiate them is such that we have empty spaces. Taking conceptualization to the extreme, imagine listening to something without any gaps or knowing silence at all; what will you hear? Or feeling something without any spaces, what will you feel? Without non-existence, can there be existence?

D.O. is like the silences, the spaces, and the non-existence for phenomenal to occur. (this might be hard or easy to get your head around, and some might said it is misleading; however I do feel that this is one way that one could see it. I'd however prefer how Sunya puts it.)

Similarly, without existence; can you witness the non-existence? without sound, can you know silence? Without substances, can you know space ?

 

Hope this at least helps in a way or two,

 

 

Bliss to you all,

XieJia

[Sunya]

Phew !

Common sense has prevailed.

One of the reasons I've kept away is the overbearing, suffocating Buddhist preaching that has gone on from Mr. Vaj.

I have been watching what has gone on recently without posting as I feel it would have just made the situation worse.

We are all on different paths, respect has to be shown. There are some wonderful people on this forum and we should be here to give help and guidance to others, not to claim ultimate superiority.

I'm sure that real Buddhists wouldn't behave in such a manner.

It's good to be back.

 

What I find odd is that Vaj, though overzealous and overbearing, gets a 3 month ban. Alwayson on the other hand was cursing left and right and acting very disrespectful insulting others, and he gets a 2 week ban (this is his 3rd time getting banned too for similar behavior). It is Sean's site after all, but I don't think the punishment fits the crime in either case.

[Sunya]

Not everything in science directly connects to metaphysics, but the nature of consciousness, or the nature of awareness and the nature of phenonomen are all topics of interest in the scientific world just as they are in buddhism and any other meditative tradition. The only difference is, science finds universal laws, whilst mysticism and religion deal with subjective realizations..when the two become one and are explained in depth..

 

I don't hear many scientists talking about consciousness. It assumed that awareness is a byproduct of the brain. I think you have a very idealistic view of science. Mysticism deals with universal laws as well. Impermanence, dependent origination, the unfindability of the subject, these are all universal laws. They are true for everybody. If you mean laws like the speed of gravity, then yes mystics doesn't care about that. Not really sure what you mean by subjective since everything experienced is always through your own mind. I'd rather focus on these 'subjective realizations' and attain great peace, bliss, and wisdom then spend my life on a theorem to conceptually explain the universe.

 

Essentially, even feeling a mystical oneness with reality is beyond any concept, and is only transmitted through a conceptual bases because that is a requisite for linguistical communication. Language is but a map, the territory is beyond the concept and must be seen for oneself. What buddhists experience is but a semantical difference in philosophical terms. In the end language can be seen as the best and worst invention of our species.

 

Concepts can be non-verbal as well. Babies are born into this world and immediately are conditioned, actually even before birth this begins, and they have a sense of I before they are taught the word I. The feeling of mystical oneness is not beyond concept. There is still subtle conceptual non-verbal grasping there.

 

I really do not see the difference between no self, and the self being the whole. They both point at the same destination which is the breaking of a barrier between the perceiver and the percieved. I do not see how this is not the same goal with different semantics.

 

Self being the whole is still a self. There is still identity. There is still a reference point. No-self means everything exists without a reference point or identity, and there is multiplicity. Buddhist enlightenment is not just nonduality, which you are talking about. The deeper realization is non-inherency.

 

One comes before two so it need not depend what comes after it. Better yet, the two depends on the one because it is two components of the first number. This is simple arithmatic. The one is independant whilst all other numbers or emanations after it and depand upon it.

 

Arithmetic was created by humans who are products of an environment that conditions us to see duality. The concept of 'two' requires there to be two separate objects which are each considered 'one.' Even if you have the same looking object, like two red apples, since they occupy different locations in space, they are considered separate. Within time and space, we see this differentiation, but to say everything is the same is just jumping to the other extreme. Instead of labeling everything as 'different' you label everything as 'same.' Multiplicity does not come from one source, and this isn't a logical necessity, not according to Buddhism.

 

Saying ones realization is any more "on" than the realization of the other is full of self and egoic delusions though, so if as a buddhist you really are lacking self you would not have such distinctions now would you? Even further

 

You misunderstand what no-self means. It does not mean non-existence or no-ego or anything like that. It just means that I don't exist inherently and independently.

 

Saying a realization is deeper than another has nothing to do with ego really. If you experience a deeper realization, you'll want to clarify to others out of compassion or just wanting to share something deeper so others can experience it too. Not all realizations are made the same. For example, the mystical Christian traditions have much clearer realizations than fundamentalist Baptists. I don't think it's correct to lump all realizations into one and say only language separates them.

 

Lets see if I understand it now By the way you put it. D.O. states that any sort of existence is dependant upon something else for its sustenance ad infinitum which ultimately leads to nothing?

Still confused a bit here, because the dependant perfume by definition requires an independant variable or else nothing could have created it.

 

Why nothing?

 

I don't understand. Why is an independent variable necessary? I just used perfume as a metaphor for everything. Hindus say that the world is the perfume and God is the source, so I just pointed out that Buddhists say that source is an illusion and there is only the world.

[SeriesOfTubes]

I don't hear many scientists talking about consciousness.

 

did you ever see this? I made a thread about it 2 months ago but I think only me and marblehead watched it because its a bit long, but relates directly to anatta, phenomenology, subjectivity and neuroscience. I'd say it really gets into the meat after 20:00

 

[Sunya]

Very interesting. Thanks. I'll definitely watch it. Just to note though that he is not a scientist. He's a philosophy professor, not that there's anything wrong with that (I have a degree in philosophy), but I was referring to scientists. I'm sure there are some renegade open-minded scientists running around, but scientists for the most part do not talk much about consciousness.

[Marblehead]

SOT said:

 

did you ever see this? I made a thread about it 2 months ago but I think only me and marblehead watched it because its a bit long, but relates directly to anatta, phenomenology, subjectivity and neuroscience. I'd say it really gets into the meat after 20:00

 

 

Very interesting. Thanks. I'll definitely watch it. Just to note though that he is not a scientist. He's a philosophy professor, not that there's anything wrong with that (I have a degree in philosophy), but I was referring to scientists. I'm sure there are some renegade open-minded scientists running around, but scientists for the most part do not talk much about consciousness.

 

Indeed. We need be aware of our sources. Physics and Metaphysics are generally not very compatible if discussed in a pure scientific atmosphere.

 

Most physicists do not speak about metaphysics because that is not where their knowledge lies. I think that the same should be true for the metaphicists as well. We should not be pretending we have the answers to questions that we don't even fully understand the questions let alone have any idea what a valid answer is.

[The Observer]

Science built a wall around itself and pretends to be all inclusive. When push comes to shove I always choose the elders' wisdom.

[Marblehead]

Science built a wall around itself and pretends to be all inclusive. When push comes to shove I always choose the elders' wisdom.

 

Hehehe. I can't argue against that. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a universal truth.

 

And yes, there is a big difference between knowledge and wisdom.

[SeriesOfTubes]

Very interesting. Thanks. I'll definitely watch it. Just to note though that he is not a scientist. He's a philosophy professor, not that there's anything wrong with that (I have a degree in philosophy), but I was referring to scientists. I'm sure there are some renegade open-minded scientists running around, but scientists for the most part do not talk much about consciousness.

 

 

true he's not a physicist but he is making a case almost entirely with neuroscience and psychopathology research

[Eviander]

I don't hear many scientists talking about consciousness. It assumed that awareness is a byproduct of the brain. I think you have a very idealistic view of science. Mysticism deals with universal laws as well. Impermanence, dependent origination, the unfindability of the subject, these are all universal laws. They are true for everybody. If you mean laws like the speed of gravity, then yes mystics doesn't care about that. Not really sure what you mean by subjective since everything experienced is always through your own mind. I'd rather focus on these 'subjective realizations' and attain great peace, bliss, and wisdom then spend my life on a theorem to conceptually explain the universe.

 

Well here is peter russel, who is currently trying to explain the two. science and consciousness and a good video about the primacy of consciousness...which basically explains how science is about to have a huge paradigm shift because of the unexplainable discoveries coming up in physics

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789#

..Michael Talbot also speaks of the two in his two books, The holographic universe and Mysticism and the new physics..Another good book is radiant minds by Dean Radin and others. Dean Radin is a physicist, but essentially it is about groups of scientists exploring consciousness Radiant Minds..DMT the spirit molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman is another great example.The list goes on and on..with many psychologists and physicists now finding this link between the two. It is a relatively new thing which is probably why you haven't heard much about it, and many scientists deem it as "New age Science"

 

Concepts can be non-verbal as well. Babies are born into this world and immediately are conditioned, actually even before birth this begins, and they have a sense of I before they are taught the word I. The feeling of mystical oneness is not beyond concept. There is still subtle conceptual non-verbal grasping there.

 

This statement is a bit more subjective, essentially here if you havn't experienced it..how do you even know? Concepts are usually attributed to being verbal, as for it depends on the word concept to begin with does it not?

 

 

 

Self being the whole is still a self. There is still identity. There is still a reference point. No-self means everything exists without a reference point or identity, and there is multiplicity. Buddhist enlightenment is not just nonduality, which you are talking about. The deeper realization is non-inherency.

 

Clear enough

 

 

 

Arithmetic was created by humans who are products of an environment that conditions us to see duality. The concept of 'two' requires there to be two separate objects which are each considered 'one.' Even if you have the same looking object, like two red apples, since they occupy different locations in space, they are considered separate. Within time and space, we see this differentiation, but to say everything is the same is just jumping to the other extreme. Instead of labeling everything as 'different' you label everything as 'same.' Multiplicity does not come from one source, and this isn't a logical necessity, not according to Buddhism.

 

Well it is how the universe works. Mathematics can program computers to simulate the physical world, so we see now how the universe actually coordinatess with certain equations. And if Buddhism purports something different then how the universe functions you are better off depending on something that can be verified through a few equations rather than believing some monk that you have to reincarnate 20 more times before you get anywhere.

 

 

 

You misunderstand what no-self means. It does not mean non-existence or no-ego or anything like that. It just means that I don't exist inherently and independently.

 

Saying a realization is deeper than another has nothing to do with ego really. If you experience a deeper realization, you'll want to clarify to others out of compassion or just wanting to share something deeper so others can experience it too. Not all realizations are made the same. For example, the mystical Christian traditions have much clearer realizations than fundamentalist Baptists. I don't think it's correct to lump all realizations into one and say only language separates them.

 

You can't possibly know how deep your realization is compared to someone else's besides the inflated "me" and "my" part of it. As for no self, I did think it meant no ego which makes more sense now. As for the realizations, I still hold that they all are inherently the same cosmic energies received by different mediums such that they produce different results.

 

 

 

Why nothing?

 

I don't understand. Why is an independent variable necessary? I just used perfume as a metaphor for everything. Hindus say that the world is the perfume and God is the source, so I just pointed out that Buddhists say that source is an illusion and there is only the world.

 

Because the word dependant is defined as needing something independent to even exist. As for Buddhist go, I have heard very clearly that the point of Buddhism is not to theorize about the things we speak of now because it is past the point of the Dharma and has nothing to do with suffering?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Eviander

[ben]

I prefer D.O. to G.O.D. Another PROCESSUAL tradition uses 'way-making'.

Edited January 31, 2012 by ben

[RongzomFan]

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/17519-discourse-on-sramanism/