Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Good bye Spiny! Hope you find your way out of the stagnant backwaters of Hinayana to see how Mahayana has expanded Buddhism beyond a constricted provincial and dead view. Cheers!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good bye Spiny! Hope you find your way out of the stagnant backwaters of Hinayana to see how Mahayana has expanded Buddhism beyond a constricted provincial and dead view. Cheers!

I'm not even a Buddhist and I fail to see what your ramblings have to do with Mahayana. Sounds more Advaitist, which has nothing to do with Buddhism.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not even a Buddhist and I fail to see what your ramblings have to do with Mahayana. Sounds more Advaitist, which has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Do you think that the Enlightenment the Buddha allegedly realized was of a universal nature, or just that of his own personal, limited view?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you think that the Enlightenment the Buddha allegedly realized was of a universal nature, or just that of his own personal, limited view?

It was a personal experience, an apotheosis, to put it in Western terms. I'm not aware of Buddhism having any concept of a "universal mind/consciousness" or whatever. That's Hindu Advaita.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Good bye Spiny! Hope you find your way out of the stagnant backwaters of Hinayana to see how Mahayana has expanded Buddhism beyond a constricted provincial and dead view. Cheers!

I spent about 20 years in Mahayana schools, so yeah, whatever. I hope you eventually find your way out of the convoluted muddle of your theories and can emerge from your Chopra/Watts rabbit hole to see the light again. You might need some sunglasses when you first emerge from your rabbit hole, reality is actually quite bright and might overwhelm you initially.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It was a personal experience, an apotheosis, to put it in Western terms. I'm not aware of Buddhism having any concept of a "universal mind/consciousness" or whatever. That's Hindu Advaita.

Exactly. And "Cosmic Consciousness" as preached by Chopra is really a sort of new-age Hinduism. Trying to mix this stuff with Buddhist teachings like sunyata is never going to work.

 

[godnotgod]

It was a personal experience, an apotheosis, to put it in Western terms. I'm not aware of Buddhism having any concept of a "universal mind/consciousness" or whatever. That's Hindu Advaita.

Well, for one, you are aware that Buddhism, particularly Mahayana, espouses the idea of 'Buddha Nature' universal to all sentient beings, along with the Law of Interdependent Origination, rendering all forms universally interconnected as a single reality?

I am suggesting that the differences you perceive are only superficial.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

The outward emphasis of Buddhism is focused on suffering and the alleviation of suffering. The Buddha frowned on pursuing knowledge of the universe and its origins as unimportant to the immediate reality of suffering. But his experience was a complete transformation of consciousness from the personal level to the universal level, in which he realized the true nature of all Reality, himself and the cosmos together as a single Reality and experience. This kind of experience is impossible to transmit to the ordinary man bound up in his daily troubles and concerns. It only comes as a completely spontaneous event, and is not the result of systematic rational thought. This he termed his 'Supreme Enlightenment'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am suggesting that the differences you perceive are only superficial.

No, the differences between Buddhism and Advaita are not superficial. Sunyata ( emptiness ) is not compatible with Advaita, nor is it compatible with your "Cosmic Consciousness". By the way, dependent origination and sunyata are just variations on the same theme, that of conditionality.

So, sunyata or Advaita? It's your choice, but sooner or later you will have to make a decision.

Be warned that sunyata is to your PPNs as sunlight is to vampires.

 

[godnotgod]

I spent about 20 years in Mahayana schools, so yeah, whatever. .

Blah blah blah.....

The Taste of Banzo's Sword


Matajuro Yagyu was the son of a famous swordsman. His father, believing that his son's work was too mediocre to anticipate mastership, disowned him.

So Matajuro went to Mount Futara and there found the famous swordsman Banzo. But Banzo confirmed the father's judgment. "You wish to learn swordsmanship under my guidance?" asked Banzo. "You cannot fulfill the requirements."

"But if I work hard, how many years will it take me to become a master?" persisted the youth.

"The rest of your life," replied Banzo.

"I cannot wait that long," explained Matajuro. "I am willing to pass through any hardship if only you will teach me. If I become your devoted servant, how long might it be?"

"Oh, maybe ten years," Banzo relented.

"My father is getting old, and soon I must take care of him," continued Matajuro. "If I work far more intensively, how long would it take me?"

"Oh, maybe thirty years," said Banzo.

"Why is that?" asked Matajuro. "First you say ten and now thirty years. I will undergo any hardship to master this art in the shortest time!"

"Well," said Banzo, "in that case you will have to remain with me for seventy years. A man in such a hurry as you are to get results seldom learns quickly."

"Very well," declared the youth, understanding at last that he was being rebuked for impatience, "I agree."

Matajuro was told never to speak of fencing and never to touch a sword. He cooked for his master, washed the dishes, made his bed, cleaned the yard, cared for the garden, all without a word of swordsmanship.

Three years passed. Still Matajuro labored on. Thinking of his future, he was sad. He had not even begun to learn the art to which he had devoted his life.

But one day Banzo crept up behind him and gave him a terrific blow with a wooden sword.

The following day, when Matajuro was cooking rice, Banzo again sprang upon him unexpectedly.

After that, day and night, Matajuro had to defend himself from unexpected thrusts. Not a moment passed in any day that he did not have to think of the taste of Banzo's sword.

He learned so rapidly he brought smiles to the face of his master. Matajuro became the greatest swordsman in the land.

 

[godnotgod]

No, the differences between Buddhism and Advaita are not superficial. Sunyata ( emptiness ) is not compatible with Advaita, nor is it compatible with your "cosmic consciousness". By the way, dependent origination and sunyata are just variations on the same theme, that of conditionality.

So, sunyata or Advaita? It's your choice, but sooner of later you will have to make a decision.

I don't think in Black and White terms like you do. Underneath, I see both traditions pointing to the same Reality. I have no problem reconciling them to one another. You are still in the world of 'this' vs. 'that'. We call that 'duality'.

Unlike you, I try to follow Buddha's teaching, which is that he had no preferences.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Underneath, I see both traditions pointing to the same Reality.

They're not pointing to the same reality at all, that is the whole point. But you can't see it because you are so fixated on your woolly syncretic new-age theory. By all means stay in your Chopra-inspired rabbit hole, keep listening to Alan Watt's drunken ramblings, keep trawling the internet for obscure opinions, whatever you like.

As for preferences, it seems you are now so emotionally attached to your opinions that you have become rather irrational, you simply cannot conceive of your opinions being incorrect. That explains why you react so badly whenever your view are challenged.

I think Advaita would be your best option. Sunyata is probably too challenging to your beliefs.

 

[godnotgod]

They're not pointing to the same reality at all, that is the whole point. But you can't see it because you are so fixated on your woolly syncretic new-age theory. By all means stay in your Chopra-inspired rabbit hole, keep listening to Alan Watt's drunken ramblings, keep trawling the internet for obscure opinions, whatever you like.

As for preferences, it seems you are now so emotionally attached to your opinions that you have become rather irrational, you simply cannot conceive of your opinions being incorrect. That explains why you react so badly whenever your view are challenged.

I think Advaita would be your best option. Sunyata is probably too challenging to your beliefs.

Thanks, but I'll just stick with what is right here, right now, in the Present Moment.

There is only One Reality, but many fingers pointing to it. Stop attacking the pointing fingers and shift your attention to the Moon they all point to.

Good luck with your pile of contradictions, otherwise known as baggage.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Good luck with your pile of contradictions, otherwise known as baggage.

And this from the master of contradiction, misrepresentation and muddled concepts! Again with the projection.

Maybe you will have more luck selling your Chopra snake-oil somewhere else. They certainly ain't buying here.

But yes, do try to spend some time in the present moment, the fresh air will do you good. I wouldn't keep pointing at the moon though, people will think you are a little odd.

 

[godnotgod]

And this from the master of contradiction, misrepresentation and muddled concepts! Again with the projection.

Maybe you will have more luck selling your Chopra snake-oil somewhere else. They certainly ain't buying here.

But yes, do try to spend some time in the present moment, the fresh air will do you good. I wouldn't keep pointing at the moon though, people will think you are a little odd.

But just between you and I, we both know the problem is with them, don't we?

LOOK, SPINY! THE MOON!

Aw! you missed it .....AGAIN! Pity! You might try disengaging from all those things muddling up your view. That way, you might be able to actually SEE something!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You might try disengaging from all those things muddling up your view.

I was going to suggest exactly the same thing to you! I could teach you about mindfulness practice, would that be helpful? Handy hints for fully experiencing the present moment, developing self-awareness, that kind of thing.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes! That is the best way to be alive in this world...and truly happy! Such people have nothing to defend, and therefore, take no offence.

Yet it is only possible by not being alive. While alive, we will continue to cause harm to some other living creatures, whether intentionally or not.

 

[godnotgod]

Yet it is only possible by not being alive. While alive, we will continue to cause harm to some other living creatures, whether intentionally or not.

Are you talking about the negation of life? Or perhaps just being unattached? Or maybe actionless activity? Or?

 

[Straw Dog]

Are you talking about the negation of life? Or perhaps just being unattached? Or maybe actionless activity? Or?

Not prescribing anything in particular. Just pointing out the actual dissonance or incongruity in the background of life.

 

[godnotgod]

Not prescribing anything in particular. Just pointing out the actual dissonance or incongruity in the background of life.

I see. Yes, this is a difficult question. I am thinking of a Buddhist film in which a group of monks, living in abject poverty in Japan, dedicate themselves to the singular goal of Enlightenment. The monastery has adopted a young boy as a monk who, one day down by the river, wantonly stones a bird on a branch, fatally injuring it. Realizing what he as done, he takes the injured bird back to the monastery, hiding the fact from the other monks, in a futile attempt to save its life. This scene is a metaphor for the wantonness of man, who, as a rule, seems to follow this same pattern of destructive behavior first, then regretting it later. Maybe this is the history of the world. Is this the kind of thing you are referring to?

 

[godnotgod]

It was a personal experience, an apotheosis, to put it in Western terms. I'm not aware of Buddhism having any concept of a "universal mind/consciousness" or whatever. That's Hindu Advaita.

In a nutshell, Sunyata, a Buddhist ideal, says that nothing has any self-nature. That includes us and our conscious mind. If that is the case, then there are no borders to limit what we are, ie; to define what we are, as 'self' requires such distinctions. Because there are no such delineations, then what you are and what the universe is, is one and the same. There is no separate observer called 'self' observing the universe. IOW, there is no separate' observer' of the observation. There is only the universe observing itself through your eyes. Therefore, the consciousness by which such observation is occurring is universal in nature, as contrasted with personal consciousness, (ie 'self-view'), which, according to Sunyata, is an illusion.

This is the point at which Hinduism and Buddhism come together. One of the descriptions of this merging of self (ie 'jiva', in Hinduism) with Brahman is to say that it is 'like dye dissolved in water'.

The Buddha understood what the nature of things was via an enlightened mind. This enlightened mind is of the nature of Universal Consciousness. It is the unenlightened mind, ie 'conditioned awareness', that is the mind of self, or personal, view, and which cannot comprehend the true nature (ie 'emptiness) of things.

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single reality"
Deepak Chopra

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

These two statements are saying the same thing.