Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
World and Universe
upekka
Veteran
what is your definition of World? Universe?
0
Comments
our earth could be also known Jambudvipa ( from ancient indian world view of the one Mt. sumeru's world )
our realm is known as saha world
Buddhist concepts of universe is True Aspec of all Phenomena
So, in a Buddhist context, I'd define "world" as the world of experience via the six sense-media affected by craving.
the other pole being
Timeless equilibrium, non ex-istence (not standing forth), Nirvana
Secondly, and more importantly for us, is that our perception is not in line with reality even when we can touch something. We need corrective mental-eye surgery, and practice of the path and then realization of the true nature of all phenomena brings us into harmony with reality.
"With our thoughts we make the world." --Buddha
World and universe are subjective terms, i.e. they differ from person to person.
There are as many different worlds and universes as there are people, for no two people have the same experience.
Sometimes worlds "overlap," like concentric circles, and therein for a time we share with others an illusion of absoluteness or uniformity; but it is only an illusion, a temporary agreement, and in the end we part ways.
When the Buddha said to look at the world as a royal painted chariot (whatever), he was referring to the world created by human beings, which is also merely the manisfestion of their collective mental states.
:smilec:
There are two extremes in this regard that I can see, one is positing an object without a subject (i.e. a form of nihilism) such as materialists do. This is the basic notion of a an objective world waiting to be discovered by a subject ("myth of the given"). The other is is positing a subject without an object (i.e. a form of eternalism) The world only exists within our subjectivity which is unchanging.
In my experiencing there is no object without a subject or vise versa. the subjective and objective pole of awareness are two sides of one occasion. Either alternative is a projection, such as if I say my car is parked out side regardless of my percieving it directly, (it might have been towed).
This I can relate to. without practice we see through the warp of our conceptual constructs and imputed values etc. However "reality" outside of this by is definition is impossible to describe without projecting,...except that it is not-suffering.:)
Anyway lots words but I think were in the same ballpark.
Usually I can understand a bit better, but I've been sick for the past week and I just took some DayQuil a while ago and feel a bit fuzzy, so it sounds like you're typing Greek at me.
is that perticular 'object' in 'your' world now? or in 'your' universe?
http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm
The world is whatever that is perceived by our 6 senses and consists of nama(subject) and rupa(object).
:buck: Rohitassa Sutta
:buck: Loka Sutta: The World
Loka Sutta: The World :buck:
:buck: Niramisa Sutta: Unworldly
Lokavipatti Sutta: The Failings of the World :buck:
So your question can only be answered ... this is what seeing is now, and the information you are giving me about your experience is an abstraction, in the same way thinking about my car parked outside is. All I'm left with is This experience, everything else is an abstraction.
This is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana that can only be respected and left alone. A Mahayanist would not equate the world with suffering , DD does. Both views are sincere but coming from different intentions and insights. You cannot quote a Theravada Sutta to "disprove" a Mahayana assertion, and cannot quote a Mahayana Sutra or teacher to " disprove" a Theravada assertion.
Somehow there has to be acceptence of legitimate differences. I hold out hope.
Whoa, wait- what? This seems backwards.
Ok fair enough, the question of this thread is " what is your definition of World? Universe?" we do not have a general agreement here on the meaning of "World". So to clarify. By 'world" in this context I mean simply to be manifest, to have body, mind, and "external' environment. Bodymind/environment states are not in-and-of-themselves suffering. Suffering is the attachment to these states. That would be a Zen approach, Bodymind/environment, of there own accord, are not other than Nirvana, non-suffering. This I believe is similar to Nibbana with remainder in Theravada though one has to be careful not to generalize. And there is over all a different intent.
As I understand DD he is referring to Nibbana without remainder. To be truly free of suffering one is "no longer born in to this world". Bodymind/environment no longer arises. In Mahayana Nirvana without remainder is effectively renounced.
Perhaps DD means something else.
It is best to read the suttas. The suttas refer to 'worldly' conditions rather than the world or universe per se.
The world in itself is fine.
If I have misunderstood your emphasis that is great.
With respect.
in his book "wake up to your life", he says"
"we don't know where experience comes from or where it goes. we don't know how we come to be here or what is going to happen after we die. we live and are aware: experience thoughts, emotions and sensations. that's all we really know. life is mystery."
i believe that anyone who tells you differently is either deluding themselves or trying to sell you something. people just want a comfy little narrative to explain things and make them feel better.
very best wishes,
armando
Here is Ajahn Amaro's attempt at reconciling the 2 traditions.
Small Boat, Great MountainTheravādan Reflections on The Natural Great Perfection
Ajahn Amaro
http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/book/138/
Thankyou pegemara. I figure if I can reconcile them in my self that is a good start.
In it the Buddha says the following:
This looks to me like the Four Noble Truths, but with the word "cosmos" instead of "suffering".
Are you saying you disagree with this translation?
The sooner we can free ourselves from this "my way as opposed to your way" thinking, the sooner we can make real headway along the Path. Until then, we're just throwing up unnecessary obstacles before ourselves and our brothers, and losing ourselves in endless debate.
Mahayana, Theravada, Zen...it's all Buddhism. Let's focus on what we all share in common, rather than what makes us different.
It is merely different dhamma for different dispositions.
with the word 'cosmos', certainly i disagree with
but not with the word 'world'
this word 'world' we use in common colloquial speech, such as 'he is lost in his own world'
the 'world' or 'worlds' are the concoctions of the human mind
such as hell world, hungry ghost world, human world, brahma world, deva world & animal kingdom
famous pop song 'you're my world'
any world we create is impermanent
it simply means the world can make us suffer if we attach to it
example of the difference between the human world & the animal world (both inhabited by human bodies)
I agree with you that the different schools of Buddhist thought (such as Mahayana and Theravada) are indeed different dhamma for different dispositions.
It's setting the one against the other, arguing about "which one is right," that seems to me the "foolish dualistic thinking" mentioned by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa in your "The Mind Beyond The World" post.
That kind of opposition or rivalry between schools seems self-defeating, because we're all one. Plus, it drags us into endless debates, which distract from the pure and simple following of the Dharma.
That's why I try to focus on the Buddha's own words as much as possible; because the farther from Buddha you go, the more "divisions" and "differences" and "separations" appear between people, and the harder it gets to hear the pure message through all the noise.
My purpose in posting the Buddhadasa quote was to explain the meaning of "the world".
As for non-duality, the Buddha did not really teach it.
Buddhadasa is just teaching it as beginner's samadhi training.
To the Buddha, "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" were not the same.
Kind regards