Can we agree on truth if Science explains is?

[Bhaktajan II]

To be clear, I have experienced enlightenment, . . . I am one of the most ordinary people you could meet

So with enlightenment comes the vision that all Humans are wasting-passing time eating sleeping mating & defending birth after birth futilely seeing their "work" as all in all?

That all Humans are sufferring the indignities of 'One-Upping' their neighbors for sport?

That all Humans are sufferring of constructing their goals, born of whimsy Ego-ideas and then, finding the Irony of Life slapping them down like a randy mule's amorous desires?

That all Humans are sufferring when their sand castles are withdrawn into the cosmic ocean of life?

The enlightenment of comfort and satiation?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

♫ "Nudge nudge say no more, say no more,
Know what I mean? Know what I mean?" ♫

As Mr Python said:
Lady's & Gentlemen,
Monty's Flying Circus is in Town!

Originally Posted by Lunitik
Yes, every cell has the most sublime orgasm you can imagine

 

[Lunitik]

i wonder if you would be able to demonstrate this to be so? i can demonstrate that what you say is not so in a variety of manners both scientific and Buddhist. why, for instance, would any being need to do anything if, as you assert, all is one? since *you* have attained what you claim ipso facto we are all participating in your experience as well and we should all equally claim to be enlightened and to feel this enlightenment as well.

Unified field theory explains, scientifically, the oneness of the universe.

Quantum theory explains the interconnected nature of the universe which Buddha explains.

it is a fact that some beings claim to be enlightened.

it is true that enlightened beings do not claim to be enlightened.

So, tell me, how have we known Buddha, or Krishna, or Muhammad, or Jesus? If they made no claims to know, we would never have discovered their station. Organized religion is essentially a large group that believes a given person was enlightened/awakened to truth.

Some enlightened beings prefer to remain recluse because they see the pointlessness of this place and see it is how things must be. Some enlightened beings try to provide a point, but is these which have caused most of our wars. The gross human mind cannot fathom truth, and most are not willing to engage in a process which enable them to see things without views or ideas - projections of fallacy. This is exactly what enlightened/awakened means, to escape the lies of mind and see things as they actually are, to transcend your programming.

i think you do not need my help for this. further, i'm unclear how you have access to my privileged mental states and, in my view, more apropos is that i'm not interested in enlightenment in the least bit. i'm a Buddhist so i'm keen on what the Buddha taught which, though commonly glossed in the West as "enlightenment" is nothing of the sort. the Buddha taught how to become Awake and attain Liberation and i hope you don't think less of me for choosing to follow the Buddha's own teachings on this rather than yours.

What exactly do you think the difference is between enlightenment and awakening? The only difference between living master and someone like Buddha is that Buddha is dead, so his teachings cannot be personalized to that which blocks your own experience of the real. A dead thing cannot assist the living, it can only direct based on what has been recorded as useful for those during his life.

 

[Lunitik]

What is hilarious to me is, every religious founder has said something about detachment, or not clinging to worldly things. This is hilarious because the very religion that has resulted clings to a physical body - the founder. Learn and grow through their lessons, go deeper through a living master, but ultimately the path you walk is your own. When you create carbon copies, you are rendering your own existence functionless. That founder has already been, you are a unique expression yet you attempt to align to that persons truths.

 

[radarmark]

Lunatik -- be careful of "alls" and "every". One very pertinent example is Sikhism -- the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a physical body, nor does the Guru foretell of any apocolypse (which is pretty dang unique among Monotheistic religions).

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

Lunatik -- be careful of "alls" and "every". One very pertinent example is Sikhism -- the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a physical body, nor does the Guru foretell of any apocolypse (which is pretty dang unique among Monotheistic religions).

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark

Guru Granth Sahib is the physical scripture, thus it is still a dead and physical thing. Your exception is not at all different from any other faith, for all cling to a scripture that is dead, it is still not a living thing at all. In reality, Guru Singh has created a situation where all of the Guru's must be celebrated equally, that they are not to be considered separately. This is a good thing, and yet he has created a personification of the scriptures, so it is no different. Sikh's are unique among the Dharma because they do not accept living masters at all, it is because Singh has made a dead thing more celebrated than anything that ever lived. All things within the manifestation die, however, so pointing to the lack of apocalyptic sentiment as original is not meaningful. Everything within manifestation is in a constant state of change, birth and death are simply the extremes of a particular cycle we call life. Manifestation must itself die and be reborn, whether a scripture tells of this or not is irrelevant - as I said, truth doesn't care whether you happen to agree with its methods.

 

[radarmark]

Weel, like we Quakers, the Sikh believe their Master yet lives. Within their context, witin their point-of-view the Guru speaks to them within. It is not the text but an experience.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

Weel, like we Quakers, the Sikh believe their Master yet lives. Within their context, witin their point-of-view the Guru speaks to them within. It is not the text but an experience.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark

The only true Guru lives eternally, it cannot be otherwise because it is the very foundation of life. Scripture can only elude to that Guru, and yet we worship and align our entire lives to what the scripture has said. When you have experienced the Guru, the scriptures of the world are not even valuable any more, they are as a child's toy.

I do not know much about the Quakers, but I do know that any alignment to any system misses the very point of religion, that the very nature of such a group must mean they have not yet realized truth.

 

[radarmark]

Since you have some unique insight into truth, I bow to your pronouncement. However, the world aside from Lunatik has a right to define the term somewhat differently.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark.

 

[Lunitik]

Since you have some unique insight into truth, I bow to your pronouncement. However, the world aside from Lunatik has a right to define the term somewhat differently.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark.

It is not unique at all, it is only that those who do not know insist on disagreeing about the unity of the statements of those who have proclaimed truth. Those who do know have tried to direct all towards the same truth, they have said all segregation cannot be more than a projection and perception. Thing is, they have all had to use language to proclaim their truth, and in doing this, they have had to use words which differentiate. Always there is an overall oneness testified, but yet they have had to sort into good and bad, right and wrong because of language. Then, those that come after them have clung to the separation and the result has been wars and the like. The whole world sees everything as an us against them situation because they have not understood their underlying oneness. It is a great tragedy, but it is difficult to see when you do not know.

 

[Vajradhara]

Unified field theory explains, scientifically, the oneness of the universe.

Quantum theory explains the interconnected nature of the universe which Buddha explains.

why do you believe that is so? why do you believe that unified field theory supports any of your contentions regarding the nature of the universe?

how does QM explain interconnectedness of the universe and why do you think that has anything to do with what the Buddha taught?

So, tell me, how have we known Buddha, or Krishna, or Muhammad, or Jesus? If they made no claims to know, we would never have discovered their station. Organized religion is essentially a large group that believes a given person was enlightened/awakened to truth.

i am pleased that you accept my example of a difference between "facts" and "truths" and how they are not ideas which can be conflated. this gives me some hope that something akin to an actual dialog can develop.

as for your query, i'm not sure that i am properly understanding what you are asking. i, for instance, never met any of those beings that you listed. are you asking me how we, as humans, know of the teachings which those beings gave?

Some enlightened beings prefer to remain recluse because they see the pointlessness of this place and see it is how things must be. Some enlightened beings try to provide a point, but is these which have caused most of our wars. The gross human mind cannot fathom truth, and most are not willing to engage in a process which enable them to see things without views or ideas - projections of fallacy. This is exactly what enlightened/awakened means, to escape the lies of mind and see things as they actually are, to transcend your programming.

again, i hope you do not feel slighted when i state that i'm am quite happy with the Buddha's exposition of his teaching and see no need to abandon it for the teachings which you proffer.

What exactly do you think the difference is between enlightenment and awakening?

enlightenment is that vaguely worded sophistry which Western beings liken to the teachings of Awakening which the Buddha taught.

The only difference between living master and someone like Buddha is that Buddha is dead, so his teachings cannot be personalized to that which blocks your own experience of the real. A dead thing cannot assist the living, it can only direct based on what has been recorded as useful for those during his life.

given that Buddhas are not born Buddhas can never die. this is actually a very basic aspect of the Buddha's teachings... indeed, even viewing things in such a manner is outside the Dharma which the Buddha makes quite clear on several occasions in discussions with the monastic community.

more apropos to our discussion, perhaps, is that the Buddha didn't teach anything other than the Dharma and the Dharma is present and accessible to all beings even if a Buddha were not present in a world system and even when Buddhas are no longer arising in a world system.

by the by, Buddha is a title not a proper name and means, roughly, "The Awakened One". Buddhas have 10 titles which they are known, another very popular one is Tathagata which, depending on how it is parsed, means "The Thus Gone One" or "The Thus Come One".

metta,

~v

 

[Lunitik]

why do you believe that is so? why do you believe that unified field theory supports any of your contentions regarding the nature of the universe?

how does QM explain interconnectedness of the universe and why do you think that has anything to do with what the Buddha taught?

Why do you insist on separating them, or distancing them?

again, i hope you do not feel slighted when i state that i'm am quite happy with the Buddha's exposition of his teaching and see no need to abandon it for the teachings which you proffer.

Of course you prefer the dead thing, the dead thing cannot tell you your understanding is flawed.

enlightenment is that vaguely worded sophistry which Western beings liken to the teachings of Awakening which the Buddha taught.

There is nothing vague about it, enlightenment means you have experienced the light. Awakening means you have experienced the real. These are not separable, they occur together.

given that Buddhas are not born Buddhas can never die. this is actually a very basic aspect of the Buddha's teachings... indeed, even viewing things in such a manner is outside the Dharma which the Buddha makes quite clear on several occasions in discussions with the monastic community.

What crap are you spewing here? Do you wish me to quote the Buddhas birth story? Upon enlightenment, he is no longer Sidhartha, Sidhartha has died and he is now the ultimate. You have merged the two out of ignorance, you have not noticed that the body of a Buddha is not the same as the consciousness of Buddha. It is the body which is born and dies, but Buddha talks often as the infinite after his enlightenment.

more apropos to our discussion, perhaps, is that the Buddha didn't teach anything other than the Dharma and the Dharma is present and accessible to all beings even if a Buddha were not present in a world system and even when Buddhas are no longer arising in a world system.

I speak on nothing but the Dharma, and yet you look at me as delusional because I am alive and can dispute your erroneous understandings thereof. You apparently do not think I have reached to the Dharma despite saying it is accessible to all. This is hypocritical, you cling to a dead thing because it allows you to follow a structured system, but Buddha never gave a structured system.

by the by, Buddha is a title not a proper name and means, roughly, "The Awakened One". Buddhas have 10 titles which they are known, another very popular one is Tathagata which, depending on how it is parsed, means "The Thus Gone One" or "The Thus Come One".

Do not be naive, when we speak of Buddha, we refer to Sidhartha. You would not allow yourself to call me a Buddha because you do not wish to see that it is attainable still. It makes it seem to you like you are failing and this harms your ego, if I am a Buddha then why hasn't the practice worked for you? It is the very structure you insist on which ensures you will not attain. You speak of these concepts without knowing what they reference, and thus you can perceive them how you wish. You do not know what this paradox means at all, and yet you raise the topic of tathagata.

 

[radarmark]

Vajradhara,

I think your post is quite interesting. Neither Quantum Mechanics of Relativity (I believe this is what is meant by "Unified Field Theory") really have much to say about the Buddha's thought. They are contemporary theories in physics with a fundamental disconnect which should not really be of much concern to you (but if it is, send me a message you want to discuss it--but I am new here and do not know how).

How they are united is similar to your questions about the nature of reality. They are metaphysical, beyond physics. I do not grok the subtilies of "truths" vesus "facts" verssus "the real". But I presume what you are saying is that the Buddha is used as a sign for the Dharma. That is, the experience of Divinity (the Light Within, the Going Beyond) is the key, and it too, is metaphysical.

That is, the Buddha is a living, breathing awareness available within the Dharma. Makes sense to me. I always thought that all the "founding fathers and mothers" of religions from Zarathustra to Bahaullah somehow "went beyond" what we sense with our monkey-brain. The exoteric form of all religions can be used to rekindle this connectedness (Rufus Jones, a Quaker, called this "that of God within", a phrase from George Fox, our founding father). If the Lord Buddha does this for you, more power, friend.

You probably can tell why they call my ilk "Liberal Quakers" (even though we have a case for being in accordance with the first generation of the Religious Society of Friends). I seek inclusiveness, a general theology (poor term, but appropriate) that like metaphysics expands its applicability, an understanding of That Which is God Within Everyone and Everything (here I am really stretching things because I am also a beleiver in Whitehead's Process Philosophy).

Do I understand what you are saying correctly?

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark

 

[Vajradhara]

Why do you insist on separating them, or distancing them?

i asked for you to provide some evidence of your assertions. that you do not or cannot is really not related to me in the least bit. you made the positive claim therefor you have the obligation to provide the evidence.

Of course you prefer the dead thing, the dead thing cannot tell you your understanding is flawed.

given this comment and the others later in the post i'm coming to the conclusion that you don't have much understanding of the Buddhadharma. that's ok, of course, nobody is suggesting that you need have any. though it seems rather incongruous to make knowledge claims and then not be able to support them.

There is nothing vague about it, enlightenment means you have experienced the light. Awakening means you have experienced the real. These are not separable, they occur together.

could you be more vague, i don't know, but it doesn't seem like it. you are making all manner of claims for which you deign to provide evidence or any sort, subjective or otherwise. naturally subjective evidence isn't really evidence which is pursuasive to most beings so i would be keen to see some of the intersubjective evidence which you could provide to substantiate any of the claims which you are making.

What crap are you spewing here?

it's right from the Suttas. i would suggest a more thorough study of the Suttas would alleviate many of the misconceptions which you are labouring under.

Do you wish me to quote the Buddhas birth story? Upon enlightenment, he is no longer Sidhartha, Sidhartha has died and he is now the ultimate. You have merged the two out of ignorance, you have not noticed that the body of a Buddha is not the same as the consciousness of Buddha. It is the body which is born and dies, but Buddha talks often as the infinite after his enlightenment.

you are referring to what is known as the Three Kayas; Nirmanakaya, Samboghakaya and Dharmakaya. thank you for your concern however i assure you i'm familiar with these and how they inter-are with each other.

I speak on nothing but the Dharma, and yet you look at me as delusional because I am alive and can dispute your erroneous understandings thereof. You apparently do not think I have reached to the Dharma despite saying it is accessible to all. This is hypocritical, you cling to a dead thing because it allows you to follow a structured system, but Buddha never gave a structured system.

you are wrong in most of your statements here. you do not speak about the Buddhadharma, i know that the Dharma is accessible to all sentient beings, and the Buddha referred to his teachings as "The Doctrine and Discipline of Awakening and Liberation" providing a structured system for beings to enter the Dharma. indeed these things are some of the basics of Buddhist study and even a passing familiarity with the Suttas would confirm this.

Do not be naive, when we speak of Buddha, we refer to Sidhartha.

i try to confine my mind reading so i'm happy that you clarified which Buddha to whom you are referring.

You would not allow yourself to call me a Buddha because you do not wish to see that it is attainable still.

of course it is, the Buddha states plainly that this is so. you, however, are not a Buddha again, this is a very basic aspect of the Buddhadharma; a being which is Awake and Liberated is not a Buddha, Buddhas have a specific function in a world system and appear therein when the Dharma is no longer present. given that the Buddhadharma is still present in this world system ipso fracto you are not a Buddha. again, studying the Suttas would alleviate most of the confusion you have on these things.

It makes it seem to you like you are failing and this harms your ego, if I am a Buddha then why hasn't the practice worked for you?

quite the contrary, if i may, it is you that is reacting in an egotistical manner as your pride feels wounded as your trite and unevidenced claims are rejected out of hand.

you can claim anything that you'd like for yourself it really is of no consequence to me. when you make claims regarding my religious tradition i shall, accordingly, put paid to the pernicious views which you are promulgating.

It is the very structure you insist on which ensures you will not attain. You speak of these concepts without knowing what they reference, and thus you can perceive them how you wish. You do not know what this paradox means at all, and yet you raise the topic of tathagata.

pardon me while i ROFLAMO, i hope you won't be too offended. this whole statement is crap and you probably know it as well. clearly there can be no paradoxes unless a being is enmeshed in the thicket of pernicious views which, clearly, you are.

like most self professed prophets and enlightened beings you are not convincing with your demonstrated misunderstandings of the Buddhadharma whilst claiming that it is others that misunderstand. there is no faculty for engaging you in any sort of discussion for, indeed, you were not even aware that humans use language to communicate ideas. you admit to a lack of study regarding the basics of science and hope that others will acquiesce to your scientific claims which remain unevidenced in any manner whatsoever.

don't get me wrong, though it seems already too late, i enjoy discussions with beings such as yourself. they are, without a doubt, some of the most interesting and entertaining.

metta,

~v

 

[Lunitik]

i asked for you to provide some evidence of your assertions. that you do not or cannot is really not related to me in the least bit. you made the positive claim therefor you have the obligation to provide the evidence.

Quantum mechanics relates to interconnectedness, unified field theory correlates to emptiness. I have pointed the way here for you to look into the correlations for yourself. It does not concern me one way or the other whether you choose to do this, I wouldn't even know how to begin to explain it because just the statement or relation is enough for me to understand. It is difficult to explain something that seems so basic.

given this comment and the others later in the post i'm coming to the conclusion that you don't have much understanding of the Buddhadharma. that's ok, of course, nobody is suggesting that you need have any. though it seems rather incongruous to make knowledge claims and then not be able to support them.

I have personal experience of Dharmakaya, what use is the Buddha Dharma? The Dharmapada is a dead thing, it is not useful to a true seeker. It only points the way, it does not show you the moon.

could you be more vague, i don't know, but it doesn't seem like it. you are making all manner of claims for which you deign to provide evidence or any sort, subjective or otherwise. naturally subjective evidence isn't really evidence which is pursuasive to most beings so i would be keen to see some of the intersubjective evidence which you could provide to substantiate any of the claims which you are making.

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no interest in pursuation. You can either accept or you can deny, it does not matter in the slightest. I have pointed to a method which has worked for me in this very thread, if this doesn't work for you then I cannot show you anything.

it's right from the Suttas. i would suggest a more thorough study of the Suttas would alleviate many of the misconceptions which you are labouring under.

You read the suttas with a scholarly mind, I read them from no-mind - from right mindedness - so it is impossible that our conclusion be the same. This is the problem when we consult a dead thing, it cannot clarify further.

you are referring to what is known as the Three Kayas; Nirmanakaya, Samboghakaya and Dharmakaya. thank you for your concern however i assure you i'm familiar with these and how they inter-are with each other.

Trikaya, another dual explanation. When you refer to Buddha, you do not acknowledge these unless it is relevant to your point. You have pointed to their nature, but this is the nature of ALL Buddha's, to ALL sentient beings. Buddha is not special in any regard, neither is Krishna or Jesus or Muhammad or any other such founder. They are merely popular enlightened figures.

you are wrong in most of your statements here. you do not speak about the Buddhadharma, i know that the Dharma is accessible to all sentient beings, and the Buddha referred to his teachings as "The Doctrine and Discipline of Awakening and Liberation" providing a structured system for beings to enter the Dharma. indeed these things are some of the basics of Buddhist study and even a passing familiarity with the Suttas would confirm this.

Do you not see how this is hypocritical, how it is utter crap? Buddha has awakened when he has realized the utter uselessness of systems. He has practiced with the ascetics for 6 years and seen that it is futile, then self-awakens when he has dropped them. The structures can only have come from unenlightened followers because I refuse to believe Buddha is this dumb.

of course it is, the Buddha states plainly that this is so. you, however, are not a Buddha again, this is a very basic aspect of the Buddhadharma; a being which is Awake and Liberated is not a Buddha, Buddhas have a specific function in a world system and appear therein when the Dharma is no longer present. given that the Buddhadharma is still present in this world system ipso fracto you are not a Buddha. again, studying the Suttas would alleviate most of the confusion you have on these things.

Buddha means "enlightened one", do you think Sidhartha has created this word? Since he has not created it he does not get to define it of his own accord. It is a common terminology within Hinduism as well, Buddha was a normal man completely addicted to pleasure and then has obsessed with death and found a path to the ultimate. Again you insist on separating, I would not even call an avatar or prophet something more than man, let alone a self-enlightened person. You do not know though, this isn't your fault, you pay attention to the things which are irrelevant because you want to be devoted to Buddha.

quite the contrary, if i may, it is you that is reacting in an egotistical manner as your pride feels wounded as your trite and unevidenced claims are rejected out of hand.

I speak authoritatively, but this is not the same. My pride is not wounded at all, although I am confused why this conversation is continuing. You cannot be reached because you cling to scripture which isn't working but has convinced you superficially.

you can claim anything that you'd like for yourself it really is of no consequence to me. when you make claims regarding my religious tradition i shall, accordingly, put paid to the pernicious views which you are promulgating.

This is not ego to you? Buddha has been a great help for me in reaching the ultimate, but I have not clung. Sidhartha is dead, dead things are irrelevant. I have a feeling you do not even understand Buddha's religion, you have not experienced the interconnected or the empty, so only accept them in belief. This belief is what is holding you back, you think you know but you do not. Buddha himself has said accept nothing unless it is experienced, many masters have echoed the statement "do not become a Buddhist, become a Buddha", but you have gone against this and think it is benefiting you.

pardon me while i ROFLAMO, i hope you won't be too offended. this whole statement is crap and you probably know it as well. clearly there can be no paradoxes unless a being is enmeshed in the thicket of pernicious views which, clearly, you are.

Again, you show you do not know.

Tatha gata has one definition, Tatha agata has the other. The paradox is fundamental to Buddha's teaching, for coming and going is represented as being the same. As you are born, you have began the process of death, life consists of a scale tipping from one to the other. Buddha teaches that all opposites are the same and that neither are true, this is another paradox, that they both are but neither is real. Enlightenment is a state of understanding these paradoxes, but in dual mind everything is paradox in Buddhas texts.

like most self professed prophets and enlightened beings you are not convincing with your demonstrated misunderstandings of the Buddhadharma whilst claiming that it is others that misunderstand. there is no faculty for engaging you in any sort of discussion for, indeed, you were not even aware that humans use language to communicate ideas. you admit to a lack of study regarding the basics of science and hope that others will acquiesce to your scientific claims which remain unevidenced in any manner whatsoever.

Was Buddha convincing with his demonstrations of Hindu Dharma? Evidence suggests he was not since the ratio of Hindu to Buddhist today is 4:1 - ~800 million vs ~200 million, conversely, Christ seems quite convincing since he has a following today of ~2.5 billion, where as his predecessor has less than 20 million remaining.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste radarmark,

thank you for the post.

as an aside, one of my most dear friends is a Friend...hmm... funny to say it like that i suppose

i'll drop you a PM which you'll see listed near the top of the forum under you name, you'd simply click on it and then reply. conversely, to send a PM to someone you can click on their screen name and select the drop down option of "send private message".

How they are united is similar to your questions about the nature of reality. They are metaphysical, beyond physics. I do not grok the subtilies of "truths" vesus "facts" verssus "the real". But I presume what you are saying is that the Buddha is used as a sign for the Dharma. That is, the experience of Divinity (the Light Within, the Going Beyond) is the key, and it too, is metaphysical.

i enjoy immensely the term "grok"! leaving aside the divinity bit, for now, you are pretty much spot on and, interestingly enough, the Buddha makes this point very clear on several occasions. humans are constrained by language which is extraordinarily cumbersome for discussions like this yet, they are the tools that we have and we use them to the best of our ability.

there is a mondo, something like a parable, in the Taoist tradition which speaks to this point quite well. i hope you'll pardon me for quoting it here.

"A fish trap is made to catch fish. Once you've caught the fish you can forget about the trap. A rabbit snare is made to catch rabbits, once you've caught the rabbit you can forget about the snare.

Words are made to convey ideas, once you've got the idea you can forget the words. show me a being that has forgotten the words for that is a being with whom i would like to speak."

That is, the Buddha is a living, breathing awareness available within the Dharma. Makes sense to me. I always thought that all the "founding fathers and mothers" of religions from Zarathustra to Bahaullah somehow "went beyond" what we sense with our monkey-brain. The exoteric form of all religions can be used to rekindle this connectedness (Rufus Jones, a Quaker, called this "that of God within", a phrase from George Fox, our founding father). If the Lord Buddha does this for you, more power, friend.

indeed, this is so. in our tradition we refer to different aspects of an interrelated whole known as the Three Kayas which, roughly, correspond to the physical presence of the Buddha, the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhanature inherent in all sentient beings.

i know that some Christian traditions hold the view that beings can approach God in whatever manner which they are able even if that seems, outwardly, to have very little in common with "approaching God." this sort of view seems, in my admittedly limited understanding, a far more helpful view to have towards humanity. in my own tradition we call other religious traditions that have a valid moral and ethical base as "spiritual refuges". which means, essentially, that those traditions are valid and are able to help a being make progress along the Way.

You probably can tell why they call my ilk "Liberal Quakers" (even though we have a case for being in accordance with the first generation of the Religious Society of Friends). I seek inclusiveness, a general theology (poor term, but appropriate) that like metaphysics expands its applicability, an understanding of That Which is God Within Everyone and Everything (here I am really stretching things because I am also a beleiver in Whitehead's Process Philosophy).

Do I understand what you are saying correctly?

i think so

on a personal level i am always interested in the commonalities betwixt religious traditions especially as they can help alleviate many of the us v. them mentalities that can arise in such situations though i am, at the same time, reluctant and resistant to the modern syncristic movements which seek to gloss all differences. i am of the view that the garden of human spirituality is more beautiful with a variety of flowers than a garden of all the same flowers.

metta,

~v

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark

p.s. i don't speak Latin, can you tell me what your sign off means?

 

[radarmark]

"Peace and love conquer all"

Namnaste... good word.

 

[Vajradhara]

Quantum mechanics relates to interconnectedness, unified field theory correlates to emptiness. I have pointed the way here for you to look into the correlations for yourself. It does not concern me one way or the other whether you choose to do this, I wouldn't even know how to begin to explain it because just the statement or relation is enough for me to understand. It is difficult to explain something that seems so basic.

your arrogance is astounding! LOL indeed... quantum mechanics is so basic that you cannot even explain it?! this entered the realm of the absurd. i don't know how you can expect anyone to give credence to anything you say when you demonstrate such complete and total ignorance as this and seemingly revel in it. i shall happily await your substantiation of the claims which you've made, simply stating it over isn't sufficient. you must typically dialog with beings that are incredibly uneducated and ignorant of the basics of human communication.

I have personal experience of Dharmakaya, what use is the Buddha Dharma? The Dharmapada is a dead thing, it is not useful to a true seeker. It only points the way, it does not show you the moon.

ah... the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy would you like for me to explain what this fallacy is?

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no interest in pursuation. You can either accept or you can deny, it does not matter in the slightest. I have pointed to a method which has worked for me in this very thread, if this doesn't work for you then I cannot show you anything.

this is one of the first things which you've said that i can agree with. you cannot show anything given that this is a discussion forum. all you can do here is use words to convey ideas that you have or experiences that you've experienced...ok.. i'll be pedantic about it... or ideas which you have experienced.

You read the suttas with a scholarly mind, I read them from no-mind - from right mindedness - so it is impossible that our conclusion be the same. This is the problem when we consult a dead thing, it cannot clarify further.

perhaps you should ask Dione Warwick for more lessons on mind reading for your skills in this area are, well, terrible. you could, of course, cease trying to read people's minds and address the words which they say to you. i can understand why such a course of action may not be appealing yet it is the only genuine manner in which beings can communicate on a discussion forum.

Do you not see how this is hypocritical, how it is utter crap? Buddha has awakened when he has realized the utter uselessness of systems. He has practiced with the ascetics for 6 years and seen that it is futile, then self-awakens when he has dropped them. The structures can only have come from unenlightened followers because I refuse to believe Buddha is this dumb.

i think you've misattributed the lack of intellect here.

like i say, you can read the Suttas for yourself and see what they have to say. if you refuse to do so that is completely on you. i, however, find it useful to do so and thus reject your words out of hand when they are not in agreement with the Buddhadharma.

Buddha means "enlightened one",

no, it doesn't, however i'm not in the mood to give you a primer on Sanskrit or Pali at the moment though perhaps i will be later.

do you think Sidhartha has created this word? Since he has not created it he does not get to define it of his own accord.

you really don't have much understanding of how language works, do you? that's a rhetorical question so you don't have to answer it. though you may deign to do so i still highly recommend reading the Buddhas own words on these things, at least if you want to know what the Buddha taught regarding them.

I speak authoritatively, but this is not the same. My pride is not wounded at all, although I am confused why this conversation is continuing. You cannot be reached because you cling to scripture which isn't working but has convinced you superficially.

you believe that you speak authoritatively yet you do not. you speak as the other self proclaimed prophets and enlightened beings that have frequented this forum in the past, full of arrogance and self-righteous bravado. moreover you have thoroughly deluded yourself and slander the Buddhadharma in this regard which is a great tragedy on many, many levels. i should like once again to point out the feebleness of your mind reading powers. if you paid someone to teach you how to read minds i would suggest asking for your money back for you are, frankly, terrible at it.

Buddha himself has said accept nothing unless it is experienced,

ah... the Kalaama Sutta. why do you think that i am in the same place on the Way as the Kalaamas? it seems like your study of the Buddhadharma has been skimming through oft misquoted internet exposition and coming to the erroneous conclusion that those things apply to you. this is a fundamental mistake that the uninitiated make when approaching the Buddhadharma from their own paradigm.

i would ask you what else the Buddha said in the Kalaama Sutta and how that applies to either of us yet i really don't think that would be fruitful in the least bit for you'll simply claim to be able to read my mind and tell me what i think which is terribly tiresome.

many masters have echoed the statement "do not become a Buddhist, become a Buddha", but you have gone against this and think it is benefiting you.

i have gone against you because you slander the Buddhadharma. no more, no less.

Again, you show you do not know.

yet here i am running circles around you logically. you can believe whatever you'd like which, clearly, you do. i, however, am under no obligation to participate in your delusion even if you would really like some company.

Tatha gata has one definition, Tatha agata has the other. The paradox is fundamental to Buddha's teaching, for coming and going is represented as being the same. As you are born, you have began the process of death, life consists of a scale tipping from one to the other. Buddha teaches that all opposites are the same and that neither are true, this is another paradox, that they both are but neither is real. Enlightenment is a state of understanding these paradoxes, but in dual mind everything is paradox in Buddhas texts.

this paragraph here makes some sense. indeed, you even get a little bit of it correct yet, once more, come to the dead-end of your understanding of the Buddha's teachings and display your own arrogance in further humiliating fashion. that teaching which you ascribe to the Buddha is one which he specifically address and claims that any being which attributes a teaching like that to him is slandering him and the Dharma. i have no interest in such things though you, clearly, do.

you can claim you are a Buddha as much as you'd care to, it really doesn't do anything other than make any of the sensible things which you have said (and there are some, by the way) be discounted without second thought or consideration. i should think that you'd try to develop a better patter, perhaps one that includes less mind reading and more dialog would be helpful in your quest, Don Quixote.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

"Peace and love conquer all"

Namnaste... good word.

Namaste radarmark,

thank you for the explanation. i like that one a lot.

i know a few phrases of Latin which have some personal meaning for me, in paritcular, i like Alea iacta est (The Die is Cast) and Alis voltat propiis (She flies with her own wings)

metta,

~v

 

[luecy7]

God is all-knowing, all pervasive, and there is no choice because it wirtes our tale.

You know God that well?

Dig, if the Universe is 14 billion years old and the number of particles is 10E+87, that is 10 to the power of 10 with 86 zeroes behind it (see Hitchikers Guide, "DON'T PANIC! Space is big. Really big.

Don't panic, but I submit that 10E+87 is 1E+88, which is 10 to the power of 88, or simply 1 with 88 zeros, or 10 with 87 more zeros. 10^(10^87) is a much, much larger number.

Don't panic, but since the US gov't adds another zero to their debt every 30 years, on average since about 1840, the debt of the USA will amount to 1 dollar = 1 particle (per the estimate you presented), in 2,250 years. Since the USA has added roughly 1 zero to their population every 100 years, projecting forward either the rubber will snap, or someone will be born into the land of the NOT free, the land of enforced servitude, the land left by the fuzzy math of the dead ancestors.

The real simple choice is that Einstein was wrong, God does play dice,and those events are just that, events (interminate and indeterminable), like QM hypothesizes.

Or it could be that your prediction of what God predicts and controls, and must do to predict and control, is false. If you consider that space, time, and particles here were all created, then this Universe is just a machine in motion. I agree with you in a sense: God does play dice. The metaphysical dice represent the element of control that is given and entrusted to each of us.

Now, the problem is do you believe one approach more than another, and do you hava ample justification for that?

The problem is whether the control, or the illusion of control, is due to dice, deterministic code, ourselves, or someone else. By the term 'ample justification', you already imply a preference.

It is a matter of faith that the text is perfect.

I think there is a matter of faith that someone will place in you, though your math is verifiably not perfect.

Fine, our Orthodox friends and I can define the terms so that out discussion is based on a knowledge of that each believe. No right, no wrong, just of difference of beliefs.

You could even call the invention of new terms, or the reinvention of old ones: 'Orthodox'.