Dharma in universe and beyond?

[Leftimies]

So now, either this idea of mine has been debated/handled many many times before me, or alternatively it goes to show how little my understanding of the Buddhist reality truly is; in any case, I want to get some feedback to cool out the massive flux of thoughts I've been having lately.

Now here comes my view, the part that either shows i hit the nail or shows that i got it all wrong comes here. My favorite quote of Buddhist reality was for a long time exclusively "World in Ten Directions is One Bright Pearl". I forgot about the saying for quite some time, as I dwelled deeper and deeper into the existence question. In the end, I achieved the following idea:

You know how world is made of particles? you know how they circle each other in orderly manner, affected by basic laws such as gravity and quantum superposition;

now, you know how these particles form up planets and moons, that follow the same principle;

then, you know how they in turn form solar systems that circle sun in similar fashion;

surely, you know how the solar systems in their turn circle the centre of galaxy (black hole and/or other gravity well) in similar fashion;

and how galaxies are governed by the gravity fields of each other and/or of larger black holes;

and how these come to form ordered galactic clusters;

and how these, together with hypothesized dark matter, form the universe, with its limitations;

which in its turn goes further to multiverses, creating universal wave function similar to quantum superposition;

what do you bet,

considering that quantum superposition of great multiverse is also the fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that make it possible for physical system like electron to exist in all particular states simultaneously, indeed, what do you bet that it all becomes in the end a particle again and the sheet begins anew?

I know...i did probably not make myself clear. What that incoherent rant above meant, is that the very formation of multiverses seem to be key law that makes the tiny particles - founding material of our world - exist the way they do in the first place.

And it was after all this pondering, that I *think* I realized at least briefly what "World in Ten Directions is the One Bright Pearl" means...but I am unsure: Is this a continuum of entirety, the fundamental infinity that is based on nothing except itself, Dharma - if you will, that is like a picture presenting a picture of a picture of a picture etc. etc., an endless world where stuff happens and universal consciousness switches earthly avatars? We are, after all, the universe experiencing itself. Or, is there somewhere border of realm divide? Where our world's universes and multiverses switches to become basic quantum superposition of Heaven realm? Which one is it? I have no idea.

Any brights ideas to enlighten this lost mortal up?

 

[Leftimies]

Oh lol, wait. The continuum here (assuming its correct) has more to do with structure of Cycle of Samsara and inferior dharmas...not with Enlightenment itself. Uh...right, gimme some rope guys?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ultimate reality can never be known by conceptual thought, only when the mind is still and free from the thinking process will ultimate reality be present directly without mental interpretation.

That is not to say that contemplation of the Cosmos isn't an interesting activity, but conceptualizations are merely symbolic representations of perceived aspects of a Cosmic reality which is forever beyond the concepts of time and space.

 

[Leftimies]

Ultimate reality can never be known by conceptual thought, only when the mind is still and free from the thinking process will ultimate reality be present directly without mental interpretation.

That is not to say that contemplation of the Cosmos isn't an interesting activity, but conceptualizations are merely symbolic representations of perceived aspects of a Cosmic reality which is forever beyond the concepts of time and space.

Yes...my mind has still fetters. A ton of them. Gazillion of them actually, most of them I am not aware of. I can not posses the capability that Buddha or his following Arahants did. They had already a favorable rebirth as a result of their past lives' good deeds, especially the Buddha. His final life only existed for the concievement of Enlightenment. But in a way, science and Buddhism do agree on one thing: we all are same construct.

EDIT: Actually, construct is a very ill word...wait. I'll go read some scriptures and do meditation to get somewhere

 

[crossfire]

Yes...my mind has still fetters. A ton of them. Gazillion of them actually, most of them I am not aware of. I can not posses the capability that Buddha or his following Arahants did. They had already a favorable rebirth as a result of their past lives' good deeds, especially the Buddha. His final life only existed for the concievement of Enlightenment. But in a way, science and Buddhism do agree on one thing: we all are same construct.

EDIT: Actually, construct is a very ill word...wait. I'll go read some scriptures and do meditation to get somewhere

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (in its entirety)

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

So, are you experiencing the madness and vexation connected with conjecturing about the world and its origins yet?

 

[DreadFish]

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (in its entirety)

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

So, are you experiencing the madness and vexation connected with conjecturing about the world and its origins yet?

And in tandem with Ms.Crossfire's post, I present this:

...
The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth.
Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know.
To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source.
At the moment of inner enlightenment there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness.
The changes that appear to occur in the empty world we call real only because of our ignorance.
Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions.

...

The source is the Hsin-hsin-ming Verses on the Faith Mind

Just dont worry about defining stuff so much. I know the compulsion to intellectually define all these things and make ties between a teaching and a scientific principle, or something like that, but, it only confuses to keep on trying to do that. Understanding wont come from that kind of thinking, but the spontaneous insight into these said parallels will come about from actual understanding.

EDIT: at least, that's what my opinion.

 

[Leftimies]

And in tandem with Ms.Crossfire's post, I present this:

The source is the Hsin-hsin-ming Verses on the Faith Mind

Just dont worry about defining stuff so much. I know the compulsion to intellectually define all these things and make ties between a teaching and a scientific principle, or something like that, but, it only confuses to keep on trying to do that. Understanding wont come from that kind of thinking, but the spontaneous insight into these said parallels will come about from actual understanding.

EDIT: at least, that's what my opinion.

Thanks man, I found great deal of wisdom from this. Its the cultural context in which i have grown that drives me to define everything XD Da Western mindset. Its good for practical purposes, but can not and will not ever define being as it is.

 

[Musty]

I'm not sure that Buddhism has anything to say about cosmology or the nature of the physical universe.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'm not sure that Buddhism has anything to say about cosmology or the nature of the physical universe.

Buddhism has a rich cosmology, just read the Lotus Sutra, or nearly any other Mahayana Sutra, for that matter. Some don't take it as literal, some do. It's all a matter of understanding and personal opinion.

But Buddhism has quite a bit to say on the physical universe. Besides all physical (and mental) phenomenon corresponding to the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self, the Buddha, according to some, described other world systems like ours. But again, this could just be metaphor.

 

[Musty]

Buddhism has a rich cosmology, just read the Lotus Sutra, or nearly any other Mahayana Sutra, for that matter. Some don't take it as literal, some do. It's all a matter of understanding and personal opinion.

But Buddhism has quite a bit to say on the physical universe. Besides all physical (and mental) phenomenon corresponding to the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self, the Buddha, according to some, described other world systems like ours. But again, this could just be metaphor.

At best Buddhism, or more specifically the writings on meditation and associated practices, give us insight into how the mind/body function but it says nothing about the wider physical universe.

Many religions speculate about cosmology but they don't offer anything constructive to the body of scientific knowledge on this subject.

 

[Union jack]

Does Kalachakra speculate on cosmology?
Kalachakra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Musty]

Does Kalachakra speculate on cosmology?
Kalachakra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first two chapters are considered the "ground Kalachakra." The first chapter deals with what is called the "outer Kalachakra"—the physical world– and in particular the calculation system for the Kalachakra calendar, the birth and death of universes, our solar system and the workings of the elements./QUOTE]

This reads as being speculation to me.

 

[VajraYosid]

At best Buddhism, or more specifically the writings on meditation and associated practices, give us insight into how the mind/body function but it says nothing about the wider physical universe.

Buddhism or your understanding of Buddhism doesn't say anything?

Sutras often speak of other planets and other buddha fields, pure lands, and so forth.

The Kalachakra tantra is neither speculatively derived nor speculatively practiced. There is no completion stage of tantra in the mode of speculation.

 

[Union jack]

The dynamics of a healthy student-teacher relationship puts a serious damper on
inter-faith debate.
Published Books (eBooks)

 

[Musty]

Buddhism or your understanding of Buddhism doesn't say anything?

Sutras often speak of other planets and other buddha fields, pure lands, and so forth.

The Kalachakra tantra is neither speculatively derived nor speculatively practiced. There is no completion stage of tantra in the mode of speculation.

For something to move beyond speculation it needs to demonstrate it's ability to hold up under testing. As I understand it the Buddha encouraged people to test things for themselves rather than accept someone else's word. The writings and practices on meditation that have been passed down the centuries are the product of such testing and therefore I wouldn't describe them as speculative.

On the other hand claims about the cosmology of the universe couldn't be tested by anyone historically and it's only really in the last few centuries at most that we're began to develop an understanding of cosmology because we have the necessary tools available. Any claims prior to that were purely speculative in nature, and I suspect that there may be some creative interpretation/translation going on as well.

 

[DreadFish]

For something to move beyond speculation it needs to demonstrate it's ability to hold up under testing. As I understand it the Buddha encouraged people to test things for themselves rather than accept someone else's word. The writings and practices on meditation that have been passed down the centuries are the product of such testing and therefore I wouldn't describe them as speculative.

On the other hand claims about the cosmology of the universe couldn't be tested by anyone historically and it's only really in the last few centuries at most that we're began to develop an understanding of cosmology because we have the necessary tools available. Any claims prior to that were purely speculative in nature, and I suspect that there may be some creative interpretation/translation going on as well.

While, on one hand, the teachings read like stories and the fact of whether they are true or not really doesn't matter much, on the other hand, you could say they are testable, just not by regular instruments, because a highly accomplished meditator would be able to experience these things.

Unfortunately, such evidence would only be anecdotal.

Anyway, I would assume that the geography of the cosmos wouldn't matter too much, as its the nature of reality that is in question.

 

[Musty]

While, on one hand, the teachings read like stories and the fact of whether they are true or not really doesn't matter much, on the other hand, you could say they are testable, just not by regular instruments, because a highly accomplished meditator would be able to experience these things.

Unfortunately, such evidence would only be anecdotal.

Anyway, I would assume that the geography of the cosmos wouldn't matter too much, as its the nature of reality that is in question.

I'm unclear what you mean by the nature of reality. Do you mean the human experience of reality resulting from the manner which our bodies/mind collect and process information about the world around us?

 

[DreadFish]

I'm unclear what you mean by the nature of reality. Do you mean the human experience of reality resulting from the manner which our bodies/mind collect and process information about the world around us?

I dont know. Do we need to place a separation between what our mind fabricates and the basis for that fabrication (i.e. external reality)?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Im glad dyanaprajna mentioned the Lotus Sutra.

As applies to the op. Do you turn the petals of the lotus, or are the petals turning you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I dont know. Do we need to place a separation between what our mind fabricates and the basis for that fabrication (i.e. external reality)?

What the mind fabricates (mental constructs/concepts/etc.,) is that which creates the separation, ie. the fabrication separates the fabricator from the reality on other side of the fabrication. Mental interpretation of reality is just that, a mental representation of the reality it perceives/conceives, not the reality itself. The goal of meditation is to still the mind so that mental interpretation ceases, then reality exists directly without an interpreter present to divide the unity of existence into two parts, interpreter and interpretation.. Iow, when the dualistic way of interfacing with reality is transcended, non duality is all there is. When the mind is in a state of non-duality, what actually is...is,..but no second party can be present as full witness...