how do other dimensions relate to buddhism?

evolve

or do they?? do you think consciousness has the potential to be multidimensional?

andyrobyn

I am not sure but it looks to me as if that cat is evidence of the possibility of absolute knowledge by means of mystical experience ... he looks very serious about it !

Zero

What is a 'dimension'?

Cloud

Moved to Advanced Ideas.

BhanteLucky

evolve said:

or do they?? do you think consciousness has the potential to be multidimensional?

Asking such a question has no benefit, and no answer other than idle speculation.
It is impossible for us to know.
Here's what the Buddha said: (with my italics)

A HANDFUL OF LEAVES

The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

Cool picture of the cat by the way!

Lotus21

A HANDFUL OF LEAVES

The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

Thank you for this quote.
For some reason I need more today than any other days.

lobster

as an ozmonaut, I regularly have to travel to other dimensions. Buddhism is very different in this brane (Dimension) let alone others . . .
http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/post/27759414205/ftl-has-to-start-with-a-theory-so-here-is-one :vimp:

DairyLama

JamestheGiant said:

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them.

But according to the suttas the Buddha did teach extensively about other realms, which can be seen as other dimensions. So presumably he saw this stuff as important to dispassion and enlightenment.

Zero

PedanticPorpoise said:

But according to the suttas the Buddha did teach extensively about other realms, which can be seen as other dimensions. So presumably he saw this stuff as important to dispassion and enlightenment.

Dimensions = space = other realities like your own = other worlds = higher numbers are better and bigger = ascension etc is science fiction.

The concept of a dimension is not understood - it is thus far a mathematical pitstop.

tmottes

Imaging the Tenth Dimension

tmottes

Another bit on dimensions...

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

RebeccaS

"Time as a measure of the numerical order of change" that makes so much more sense I think.

Awesome stuff. Cheers, @tmottes

Sile

evolve said:

or do they?? do you think consciousness has the potential to be multidimensional?

Single-focus mind.

Sile

evolve said:

or do they?? do you think consciousness has the potential to be multidimensional?

We probably need to define dimension before going too much further, but if we ask whether the ordinary mind has the potential to be in different states, the answer in Buddhist terms is yes.

If the question is one of realms (that strikes me as a concept very similar to dimension), then the answer would I think also be yes, since (I believe) there are accounts in Buddhism of individuals acting in multiple realms within one lifetime.

Certainly a realized being can manifest in multiple realms within another being's lifetime (or even simultaneously, infinitely and basically all over the place), so if we all have Buddha nature, and the capability to do this ourselves, it seems to me the consciousness definitely has the potential to be multidimensional.

I just LOVE that picture.

Dakini

Other dimensions = "realms" of existence. The Bardo, for example.

David

Dimensions are just ways of measuring change and distance... Height, width, depth, time/space.

Even for other realms of existence... It's all the same place (for lack of a better word), just different frames of mind and or being.

Jeffrey

The boundaries between two people have no dimensions.. just something my lama said that I don't understand so well.

ZendoLord84

I read a book once about the ten dimensions. I stopped reading it.
It's too abstract and humans are not equipped to actually....go there.

Zero

Jeffrey said:

The boundaries between two people have no dimensions.. just something my lama said that I don't understand so well.

Something without dimensions is a point - that's the fiction for it as the point doesn't exist - it's adopted for mathematical purposes - it's right there in front of you but it has no dimensions.

Perhaps it is the same with boundaries between people - they're adopted for human living purposes but they dont really exist in a way... no dimensions

Jeffrey

Yes my teacher talks about dimensionless points and how they can connect into a line or surface while having no dimensions themself

Zero

Jeffrey said:

Yes my teacher talks about dimensionless points and how they can connect into a line or surface while having no dimensions themself

Geometry would be lost without it!

Sile

I tried to understand the fourth dimension once and came to the conclusion it was a doughnut.

My reasoning was that the 2nd dimension (a round plane) can be achieved by connecting two lines at a point, the 3rd dimension (an oval tube) by connecting two planes at a line, and therefore the 4th dimension (a doughnut) is the shape you get when you connect two tubes at a plane.

Kinda need some graphics here. But it sounded good in theory long ago.

jumbles

di-ment; hypothetical adhesive for affixing delusion to nothing else.

Sile

The koan for 4th dimension might be, "How is the hole part of the doughnut, yet tasteless?"

Jeffrey

Don't mention donut. :eek: That's my weakness. :eek2: