Which organised religious movement doesn't has ego?
-
When I talk about conditioned arising or dependent origination, it doesn't have to be a perceivable order. And furthermore conditioned arising works non-locally as well, for example the Aspect's experiment that proves that subatomic particles can communicate with each other instantaneously regardless of distance, whether 10 metres or 10 billion miles away.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It confirms the order there is by having no order.
An excerpt from the transcript of Informal discussions of Lankavatara Sutra by Thusness on Skype:
...Because, you see, in Buddhism when we talk about Non-Duality, we are saying something like the Dependent Origination. Because of This, That Is. This arises, That arises. This ceases, That ceases. We look at the entire formation, there is no “Who?” Where is the “Who?” When we ask “Where?”, there is no “Where?”. When we ask “When?”, there is no “When?” It can be 10 million miles away. It can be in another planet. The teaching is consistent. It does not require a “Who”, a “Where”, a “When”. Condition arises, it is there. It is not stored in any place, or anywhere. This is the teaching...
...When I say that things happen, it is not like those people that subscribe to think that anything is just taking by itself, itÂ’s nature. Mainly what is important is conditions. You must have the conditions, then things can surface. When the conditions is there, they just surfaces, and manifest. If there is cause in ten million miles away or ten million light years away, or whatever it is, or in other realms, as long as there is conditions, it WILL surface, it is not travelling {inaudible}. Can you understand this part? Condition is there, they just manifest. This is one thing...
...That is there is no I, there is no Where, and there is no When. This is very important. Do not hold anything at all, then you can experience it. You see, when we talk about cause and effect, the philosopher’s cause and effect is different from what the Buddha taught. Cause and effect always involve an entity taking place at a certain date some time later... means, there is an entity, or a first cause, or something, taking a process. Means there is changing ‘things’ going through a process and after certain time interval, takes place. This seeing things as entities. Now, to experience Reality you must not see things this way...
BTW, though karma has an order, it is too complex to ponder for an ordinary being like us, therefore being one of the 4 imponderables (for ordinary ppl). Karma is also not a predeterministic system -- conditioned arising/dependent origination is not a predeterministic teaching --Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Anyway Chaos Theory is really good. It really corresponds with Buddhism's interdependent co-arising teaching of Emptiness. Regarding this see recent thread, Net of Indra IS Dependent Origination?
Thusness says, Chaos theory breaks determinism, breaks boundary, yet does not deny order... a higher order that is too complex to be determined. Initial cause does not result into a predetermined action. From a spiritual perspective,
the rigidity of ‘I’ as a fixed pattern order must be broken down for life to be experienced in its full dynamics as wondrous manifestation. -
i.e There may or may not be a cause and effect for all conditions arising.Originally posted by An Eternal Now: -
There are cause and effect, but the philosophers' or ordinary people's understanding of it is different from Buddhists/Buddhas' understanding of it.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:i.e There may or may not be a cause and effect for all conditions arising. -
Reality begs to differ.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There are cause and effect, but the philosophers' or ordinary people's understanding of it is different from Buddhists/Buddhas' understanding of it.
-
What you said obviously contradicts Chaos Theory as well as Reality. Reality has time and time again supported the Buddhist teachings regarding Dependent Origination.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Reality begs to differ.
David Bohm and the Implicate Order
...In the 1960s Bohm began to take a closer look at the notion of order. One day he saw a device on a television program that immediately fired his imagination. It consisted of two concentric glass cylinders, the space between them being filled with glycerin, a highly viscous fluid. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid and the outer cylinder is turned, the droplet is drawn out into a thread that eventually becomes so thin that it disappears from view; the ink particles are enfolded into the glycerin. But if the cylinder is then turned in the opposite direction, the thread-form reappears and rebecomes a droplet; the droplet is unfolded again. Bohm realized that when the ink was diffused through the glycerin it was not in a state of 'disorder' but possessed a hidden, or nonmanifest, order.
In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary 'subtotalities' derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:
On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances....[2]
We must learn to view everything as part of 'Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement' [3]...
-----------------------
~ The Holographic Universe -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Lastly, I can bet you never did any further reading than the above that order is present in disorder and disorder is present in order hence they are both implicitly present.
What you said obviously contradicts Chaos Theory as well as Reality. Reality has time and time again supported the Buddhist teachings regarding Dependent Origination.
David Bohm and the Implicate Order
[b]...In the 1960s Bohm began to take a closer look at the notion of order. One day he saw a device on a television program that immediately fired his imagination. It consisted of two concentric glass cylinders, the space between them being filled with glycerin, a highly viscous fluid. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid and the outer cylinder is turned, the droplet is drawn out into a thread that eventually becomes so thin that it disappears from view; the ink particles are enfolded into the glycerin. But if the cylinder is then turned in the opposite direction, the thread-form reappears and rebecomes a droplet; the droplet is unfolded again. Bohm realized that when the ink was diffused through the glycerin it was not in a state of 'disorder' but possessed a hidden, or nonmanifest, order.
In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary 'subtotalities' derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:
On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances....[2]
We must learn to view everything as part of 'Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement' [3]...
-----------------------
~ The Holographic Universe[/b] -
Whoever said that?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Lastly, I can bet you never did any further reading than the above that order is present in disorder and disorder is present in order hence they are both implicitly present.
Disorder is an illusion, an appearance.
In reality, ...all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary 'subtotalities' derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness...
and
..As Bohm delved more deeply into the matter he realized there were also different degrees of order. Some things were much more ordered than other things, and this implied that there was, perhaps, no end to the hierarchies of order that existed in the universe. From this it occurred to Bohm that maybe things that we perceive as disordered aren't disordered at all. Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random (interestingly, mathematicians are unable to prove randomness, ad although some sequences of numbers are categorized as random, they are only educated guesses)... -
Order and disorder are polar opposites, yes or no? The less order things are, the more disorder things are.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Whoever said that?
Disorder is an illusion, an appearance.
In reality, ...all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary 'subtotalities' derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness...
and
..As Bohm delved more deeply into the matter he realized there were also different degrees of order. Some things were much more ordered than other things, and this implied that there was, perhaps, no end to the hierarchies of order that existed in the universe. From this it occurred to Bohm that maybe things that we perceive as disordered aren't disordered at all. Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random (interestingly, mathematicians are unable to prove randomness, ad although some sequences of numbers are categorized as random, they are only educated guesses)...
Very obvious that AEN is trying to misquote the book. -
I think you still don't get it.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Order and disorder are polar opposites, yes or no? The less order things are, the more disorder things are.
Very obvious that AEN is trying to misquote the book.
Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You are contradicting yourself.
I think you still don't get it.
[b]Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random[/b]
Disorder is the exact opposite of order, so why are we talking about indefinitely higher degrees? -
What I am telling you is, you have not understood at all, and I am quoting to show you that you are wrong.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:You are contradicting yourself.
Disorder is the exact opposite of order, so why are we talking about indefinitely higher degrees?
There is no disorder at all, only order that is too complex for your mind to understand. -
Tell that to any English or Mathsteacher and see if he or she can understand your logic.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What I am telling you is, you have not understood at all, and I am quoting to show you that you are wrong.
There is no disorder at all, only order that is too complex for your mind to understand. -
On the other hand I am completely clear what I am talking about, I think you are the one who is confused.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Tell that to any English or Mathsteacher and see if he or she can understand your logic. -
I am not confused....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:On the other hand I am completely clear what I am talking about, I think you are the one who is confused.
Your logic is illogical. -
And how is it illogical?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I am not confused....
Your logic is illogical. -
wads up mon? rastafari movement jah' no ego say i
-
Order and disorder are opposites, yes or no? Basic English.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:And how is it illogical? -
No, there is only order everywhere, but whether they are apparent or not is another matter. It means, there is order everywhere, but not necessarily a fixed pattern order.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Order and disorder are opposites, yes or no? Basic English. -
Go check an English dictionary.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, there is only order everywhere, but whether they are apparent or not is another matter. It means, there is order everywhere, but not necessarily a fixed pattern order. -
No need. What I am saying is that if all there is is order (more precisely, conditioned arising), there is no disorder.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Go check an English dictionary.
Of course there is no denying that the orders of the world cannot be fully comprehended by the mind, and furthermore it is non-deterministic.
Since this order is non-deterministic and without boundary, it is also empty of inherent existence, and therefore there cannot possibly be a order/non-order duality. Such duality is an illusion. -
So as we can claim there is no infinite order, there can never be infinite disorder.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No need. What I am saying is that if all there is is order (more precisely, conditioned arising), there is no disorder.
Of course there is no denying that the orders of the world cannot be fully comprehended by the mind, and furthermore it is non-deterministic.
Since this order is non-deterministic and without boundary, it is also empty of inherent existence, and therefore there cannot possibly be a order/non-order duality. Such duality is an illusion.
Therefore, there is a duality. -
???Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:So as we can claim there is no infinite order, there can never be infinite disorder.
Therefore, there is a duality.
Don't try to confuse.
The truth is simple. All there is is conditioned arising, conditioned arising doesn't mean fixed pattern order, but does not deny order.
In other words, there is order all around but not everything can be comprehended. -
Who is trying to confuse who?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:???
Don't try to confuse.
The truth is simple. All there is is conditioned arising, conditioned arising doesn't mean fixed pattern order, but does not deny order.
In other words, there is order all around but not everything can be comprehended.
Within a fixed pattern order exists disorder and vice versa.
Therefore, order and disorder exists co-currently. -
I never talked about any fixed pattern order.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Who is trying to confuse who?
Within a fixed pattern order exists disorder and vice versa.
Therefore, order and disorder exists co-currently.
What I mean is that all there is is order, and order goes far beyond fixed perceivable patterns.
Disorder is not disorder, it is only an appearance, the reality of disorder is that it is NOT disorder but rather an order that is too complex to be determined and comprehended.