|
|
Post by buddhitakso on May 9, 2013 8:10:07 GMT 1
Balance leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkle. Sparkle leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to imbalance. Imbalance leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to new balance.
The principle in effect: -
A stream of balance phenomena would conjure up aggregate activity,
A stream of aggregate activities would conjure up information,
A stream of information would conjure up memory,
A stream of memories would conjure up ignorance,
A stream of ignorance would conjure up volitional impulse,
A stream of volitional impulses would conjure up consciousness,
A stream of consciousness would conjure up body and mind,
A stream of body and mind would conjure up six sense bases,
A stream of six sense bases would conjure up contact,
A stream of contacts would conjure up feeling,
A stream of feelings would conjure up craving,
A stream of cravings would conjure up clinging,
A stream of clinging would conjure up becoming,
A stream of becoming would conjure up birth,
A stream of births would conjure up aging,
A stream of aging would conjure up death,
A stream of deaths would conjure up segregate activity,
A stream of segregate activities would conjure up imbalance phenomenon,
A stream of imbalance phenomena would conjure up new balance phenomenon.
Thus the conditional phenomena would continue repeatedly to depict the rising and the falling activities in the dependent nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on May 9, 2013 13:49:31 GMT 1
Not sure why you are trying to mix Buddhism with a wish-wash of half understood highschool physics and invent your own version of dependent origination?
Are you trying to present Buddhism, or trying to integrate Buddhism with science or are you just venting your own ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by buddhitakso on May 9, 2013 14:24:39 GMT 1
Not sure why you are trying to mix Buddhism with a wish-wash of half understood highschool physics and invent your own version of dependent origination? Are you trying to present Buddhism, or trying to integrate Buddhism with science or are you just venting your own ideas? I am seeing Buddhism from a thorough perspective only. Science is for real. Buddhism is a philosophy that talks on seeing the real things. Therefore, science and Buddhism goes along hand-in-hand i.e. symbiotic.  |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on May 9, 2013 19:14:36 GMT 1
A stream of nonsense would lead to eye rolling.  |
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 9, 2013 23:00:23 GMT 1
Perhaps the end of analysis is the beginning of selfless bodhichitta. Science is the description of reality and the Middle Way is living it.
Science breaks things down into little parts while mindful meditation puts them all back together into only One.
They are symbotic, but don't leave it all scattered into separate pieces. There is only One and All to really know, which is represented in the Tao.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed Fadde on May 11, 2013 4:14:09 GMT 1
"Selfless Bodhichitta" leads me to think of compassion-in-daily-practice of Buddhism. This then, believe it or not, goes on to thinking of the Miami Heat basketball team. I guess I am in the classic sense what the media refers to as a Heat-hater, though I don't think of myself of hating anything, but the media will insist on it. They may actually have a point: my emotions stir strongly against the Miami Heat. Not only do the Miami Heat greatly annoy me...I am more annoyed that I even care, let alone have it bother me so much!! Why can't I just watch a game without having to root for anyone to "beat the Heat"? What good is my mediation doing me if I immediately jump off my cushion, quite literally, and run to anxiously watch someone "beat the Heat"? (which rarely happens by the way)
I need to have compassion on the Miami Heat, I feel this would be somewhere in the Great Path that Buddha discussed. Not so much for the Miami Heat, but for me: recognize them as an enormously talented group of athletes whom deserve their success.
Ok. That's a good first step of developing my compassion. Like standing on top of the bridge, bungee cord tied to my leg. Yet, what would be the actual bungee cord jump of developing my compassion vis-à-vis the Miami Heat whom I tend to irrationally and madden-ingly loath so much? Perhaps, when I watch the Miami Heat play a team I need to "root for the Heat"....is such a thing a possible? Would I be fooling myself with a fruitless exercise? What am I afraid of? Am I afraid that I would come to actually be a Miami Heat fan...and what would that say of who I thought I was?
Am I afraid that developing true compassion for the Miami Heat show me that my ego-structure is fragile and flittering, a farce, a scam? Would it show me that the Buddha was right about all this stuff? Am I afraid to fall into the Dharma? Am I afraid that what I loath the most, has the most to teach me?
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 11, 2013 8:42:32 GMT 1
Ed Fadde, you are a bit ridiculous about your most hated basketball team but you never stated your favorite team. Who do you root for? I can somewhat feel the same way about my Philadelphia football and baseball teams. I'm a huge Eagles fan and I like the Phillies, but of course they are classic losers. I could hate the New York Giants and the New York Yankees but that's just pointless to feel that way. It's just sports. This has nothing to do with the wisdom Buddha proposes. Your ideas are petty and quite contemptable to be quite honest. You are really not that shallow are you?
Sports are just entertainment, nothing else. You sound like a 12 year old. Be honest.
|
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on May 11, 2013 9:01:56 GMT 1
It's funny that this thread has turned into a thread on sport. Last night I was in a shopping mall & went into a bookshop. The thing that struck me the most was the amount of books on sport & cooking. I couldn't help but think of the Roman empire, which of course eventually fell. I was looking for a book on chicken breeds/breeding/husbandry & although in this particular shop I couldn't find what I was looking for, I could have found at least 20 books on how to cook chicken. Quite sad really. Are our athletes the equivalent of the Roman gladiators & there are already big health problems in the west with our obsession with food.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on May 11, 2013 22:46:41 GMT 1
Science breaks things down into little parts . You mean one tiny aspect of it does, as does Buddhism. And the things that are broken down into tiny parts already exist that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Mandala on May 12, 2013 12:50:00 GMT 1
Yet, what would be the actual bungee cord jump of developing my compassion vis-à-vis the Miami Heat whom I tend to irrationally and madden-ingly loath so much? When you focus on 'evening the score' you are traveling on the 'victim pathway' and are shutting the door to the compassion pathway. EXCERPT: The Tao of competition says there are better and worse ways to compete... (One) emphasis is external in that the focus is on finding weaknesses, vulnerabilities and openings in others. When we do so, we find that no matter how much we focus on opponents, and no matter how much we wish they would fail, we simply cannot change anything about them. ...The approach of the Tao is the opposite. Its emphasis is internal in that the focus is on developing, maximizing and utilizing one's strengths. When we do so, we find that our minds are peaceful, not contentious, because the goal is improving the self rather than dominating others. We find that we can never change others no matter how hard we try, but we can always change ourselves by willing it, and then following through with action....Thus, the real challenge in life is internal, not external. It is not about defeating someone else, but about overcoming our own inertia against change. www.greattao.org/english/2010-07.htm |
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 12, 2013 23:14:38 GMT 1
Science breaks things down into little parts . You mean one tiny aspect of it does, as does Buddhism. And the things that are broken down into tiny parts already exist that way. In a way of seeing things through a microscope, I guess you can say that things are already broken own into tiny parts, but that is an extremely close point of view and a distorted perspective of human visual experience. What I mean to say is that science catergorizes things, it dissects them, it separates a whole process into successive steps. It is usually a deconstructive procedure to find out how things really work. For example, to take an engine out of a car, take it all apart, and figure out how everthing works will tell you the science of it's mechanics, but if these parts aren't put back together into the car properly, then the car becomes a useless hunk of metal not being able to run at all. So to just deconstruct something like the dharma without fitting it back into your life is a fruitless pastime. I have been guilty of this but I am at the point of putting the analyzed material of buddha's teaching back into One mind, One way. It's a building up of confidence no longer a tearing down of doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Ed Fadde on May 13, 2013 0:32:43 GMT 1
Thanks for your input Brian. I love what Pema Chodron teaches in her book, "Smile At Fear"...I paraphrase:
"I try to learn from everything. Even the people who yell at me when they drive by in their car. They really are my guru."
You are correct actually, I really am a 48 year old father of two 12 year old; essentially, that's it. I'm trying to smile at my fear that there are so many ways I find myself falling short of the Dharma. I'm trying to use accepting myself as I am, as a starting point.
I ask for your compassion.
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 13, 2013 4:54:00 GMT 1
Thanks for your input Brian. I love what Pema Chodron teaches in her book, "Smile At Fear"...I paraphrase: "I try to learn from everything. Even the people who yell at me when they drive by in their car. They really are my guru." You are correct actually, I really am a 48 year old father of two 12 year old; essentially, that's it. I'm trying to smile at my fear that there are so many ways I find myself falling short of the Dharma. I'm trying to use accepting myself as I am, as a starting point. I ask for your compassion. Lol that's cool. I understand your passion with sports and it's emotional investment. I feel the same way about it but never thought of it having anything to do with compassion or any buddhist practice. Didn't mean to sound condescending but that post about the Heat didn't really make much sense to me. Wish you the very best and follow on your spiritual journey with great success. namaste. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on May 15, 2013 16:10:59 GMT 1
You mean one tiny aspect of it does, as does Buddhism. And the things that are broken down into tiny parts already exist that way. In a way of seeing things through a microscope, I guess you can say that things are already broken own into tiny parts, but that is an extremely close point of view and a distorted perspective of human visual experience. What I mean to say is that science catergorizes things, it dissects them, it separates a whole process into successive steps. It is usually a deconstructive procedure to find out how things really work. For example, to take an engine out of a car, take it all apart, and figure out how everthing works will tell you the science of it's mechanics, but if these parts aren't put back together into the car properly, then the car becomes a useless hunk of metal not being able to run at all. So to just deconstruct something like the dharma without fitting it back into your life is a fruitless pastime. I have been guilty of this but I am at the point of putting the analyzed material of buddha's teaching back into One mind, One way. It's a building up of confidence no longer a tearing down of doubt. Your analogy of the car is exactly how the understanding of emptiness begins (from what I've been told ). However, reductionism is just one aspect of science. There is also positivism. These are both just ways of viewing the world, as is Buddhism. I always try to stand up for science when I get the chance, because I believe there is only one truth. Whether we use science or Buddhism or snake handling to get there makes no difference (IMO). Edit: Just to add to that, I think a lot of people forget that science does not aim to prove anything. The purpose of science is actually to disprove theories and hypotheses. I've said this before, but any scientist worth his salt never uses words like "prove". But many people, even scientists, make the mistake of believing that if research finds something, it must be so. Good scientists know that science is just a philosophy/method that aims to describe reality and relationships that occur within it. Obviously it has been very skillful in doing this, but it is nowhere near perfect. As people all view the world from their own perspectives, it will likely always be impossible for science to be perfect (but you never know. We probably know nothing close to what we will know 100 or 1,000 years from now). |
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 16, 2013 1:00:51 GMT 1
I agree that science is imperfect and a human methodology for understanding how systems work. Yet it frustrates the hell out of me when "spiritual" people want to write off science altogether as if it was some kind of conspiracy against God or something. Like when creationists say that evolution is "only a theory" as if there wasn't any research or hard work put behind it. Claiming God made the Universe with a snap of his finger sounds alot more like a lazy, mindless speculation than saying we evolved from primates with mounds of fossils and bones to support it.
Science is the best tool we have for finding truth. Not bibles or subjective accounts of miracles. Some guy had a near death experience and says he saw Heaven. I'm like OK whatever. He could have been hallucinating, he could be completely lying and making this story up to gain attention, he could have been high on drugs, whatever. I'm not going to take his word over centuries work in science.
When science is discredited and religious ideals are held in higher esteem, that's when places like the Middle East become the way they are today. Reason and Logic is looked down on as only a critic and Faith in a "higher power" (aka DICTATOR) is held in the highest propagandized light.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on May 16, 2013 16:58:26 GMT 1
Some guy had a near death experience and says he saw Heaven. I'm like OK whatever. He could have been hallucinating, he could be completely lying and making this story up to gain attention, he could have been high on drugs, whatever. I'm not going to take his word over centuries work in science. Interesting example though. The Buddha says he has visited heaven during his lifetime, this is even celebrated during one of the main annual celebration days in Buddhism, so who do you believe? By the way, I never heard a scientist say that heaven or hell do not extist. Someone can only say that he cannot prove the existence. The mere fact that a century ago nobody had seen the backside of the moon does not prove that there is no backside to the moon... |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on May 17, 2013 3:12:15 GMT 1
Science is the best tool we have for finding truth. It is inherently the only one we will ever all be able to agree upon, anyways. |
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 17, 2013 7:51:53 GMT 1
My buddhist/secular view is pretty simple and straightforward. I don't believe any heaven or hell exists. I don't believe the supernatural exists...except in people's deceptive imaginations.
I interpret "Heaven" as Buddha stated as most likely a reference to a state of mind, such as enlightenment. That seems to be more logical than Buddha talking about an abstract, non-material place somewhere in the sky. I don't think Buddha would say our souls go to heaven when he teaches Non-Self. But what do I know?
Maybe the flying spaghetti monster created the whole universe because Jesus loves pasta and died for our sins. I just know what people WANT to believe as truth is usually a very different animal from what IS truth. Any supernatural assertion ever made without any evidence is nothing more than just mere words. And so it is for the other-worldy claims of God and the afterlife. With no proof, there is no reason to believe, there is only a WISH to believe. And as Buddha teaches, wishing and wanting are forms of desire and attachment that lead to greater suffering.
So one's wish to "make it to heaven" or one's desire to have "God on his side" is thoroughly self -defeating and delusional. It would be more important for the "religious" man to "wake up" rather than finding his god or heaven as he conceptualizes. His version of god or heaven is only capable of being a phantom that quickly fades away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on May 17, 2013 11:59:37 GMT 1
Hmmm, I am still wondering what kind of a Buddhist you really are.
It seems You tend to defend Buddhism as if you are on a persopnal crusade against other religions, but it seems now that you reject or don't understand large parts of the Buddhist teachings.
You first establish for yourself (arbitrarily) what is 'supernatural', and perhaps everything that you haven't seen for yourself is supernatural to you, unless a scientist tells you that it exist? And everything that the Buddha said about things you call supernatural is thereby nonsense?
The Buddha taught that yes, heaven and hell are states of mind, but so is human existence. All the realms are states of mind we can experience.
Simply said, if we experience just about exclusively suffering in our existence, we can call it a hellish existence, if we almost exclusively experience happiness and bliss, we can call it heaven. In general, human existence has a combination of both, and is in-between these extremes. As distinction to the animal realm, humans have a much bigger capacity for intelligence, and because of that also the possibility to go a spiritual path.
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on May 22, 2013 3:34:04 GMT 1
Well Rudy, you make some good points. I don't know what kind of buddhist I could call myself except for not a great one but yet not an inflexible one either.
I just think that too many religious or spiritual teachings are adept at mystifying and conceptualizing what buddha taught. Any talk about afterlife, and ghosts, and gods, and reincarnation seems SO far off the common path of humanity. It's not relevant. We should work with what we know to be true and what we can control. This aspect of life where reason and logic reside should not be put away in light of 'right brain imaginative possibilities'.
I predominately care about the buddha-mind. I just care less about traditions or rituals. Any dogma in buddhism is meaningless to me. Who cares if Theravadans disagree with Mahayanans? It is over some trite scripture or whatever. I wouldn't even take that seriously.
I am critical of Abrahamic religion, but I am also critical of Buddhism also. But my criticisms of Buddhism are somewhat trivial and semantic compared to the gross manipulation of spirituality in Islam and Christianity. As a system of belief and practice, I guarentee that Buddhism is much better and more effective at generating positive qualities than these other less intelligent, less ingenuine forms of worship.
I think if you study the history of mankind, overwhelming evidence clearly supports this train of thought. As I would presume for awhile, the future will still hold human life.
|
|
