A while ago I went to a lecture on the Dalai Lama where I came across some concepts that seemed to contradict the teachings of Advaita Vedanta (non-dual branch of Hinduism) that I stick to.
First, according to Buddhism, no phenomenon has an ultimate substance. Nagarjuna claimed that such phenomena are empty and regarded all experienced phenomena as “depending on” arising from the emptiness called “Shunyata“One he did not believe that such phenomena could not be experienced or that they would not exist. Rather, he felt that they were devoid of everlasting, permanent substance (svabhava). In this way, it is said that Buddhism should not be confused with nihilism. In Hinduism, the ultimate “substance”, which is not really a substance, is the original consciousness itself, Purusha.
Second, in Buddhism, ultimately, there is no “self” (anatta or anaatman), which would be the underlying hypostasis of being. This is in stark contrast to Hinduism, where the “Self” is regarded as the ultimate reason for being, the all-pervading omnipresent Brahman (God) or the primary consciousness from which all phenomena arise.
Third, I said that “in Buddhism there is no creator”. In different Hindu sects, there are different mythological descriptions of the process of creation and different names of a creator, but the role of higher intelligence in this process is undeniable.
Let’s see if a comparison with modern notions of quantum physics and ontology would be able to help us reconcile these seemingly opposite positions.
In quantum physics, there is the wave particle duality. In this duality, considered in the light of Einstein’s equation E = mc2, energy (E) can be either unbound Ie in a waveform (such as electromagnetic radiation) or material in the form of e.g. a subatomic particle such as an electron of mass (m). Energy in its particle form can only be detected by a suitable instrument configuration, but if a different instrument configuration is used, a wave-like behavior is observed. What appears to be solid and material is, in fact, a buzzing hive of energy streams forming orbitals, shape and structure together.
What is important in this last sentence is the word “together”. As long as energy is alone and not observed, it is assumed to be non-local, in other words everywhere. In measuring, observing, the wave collapses to make a particle observable. This requires and interacts with this energy with a material configuration of a sensor. Together, the observer and the energy to be observed are able to manifest an observable local, particulate entity. This fits nicely with the notion of addiction that arises for the observable energy.
It must be carried out that every type of substance is a collection, a collection of several particles or energy packages. There is no such thing as an unobserved free particle. On the contrary, as long as it is not observed, it is non-local. Materiality therefore requires at least two energetic entities, which together create a kind of density, an interference pattern, like a locally concentrated one.
There must be an observation for the particle aspect to be observed. But if you let a two-split experiment take place in your absence, the experiment still takes place and you can still see the result, even if you were not present at the moment of interaction between the detector and the energy wave collapse that established the particle. This means that the “observation” terminology does not necessarily imply that the observer is human. On the contrary, the interaction between structural fabric and functional energy transmission of the detector and the energy to be observed can be considered as an observation.
Given this interaction aspect of the observation, it could be found that matter is a consequence of the mutual observation of energetic entities; the interaction of at least two energetic entities forming a so-called “didensity“.
Interestingly, a thing in the information world of a given entity can only be ontologically defined by at least two descriptive statements. Meaning is conveyed only by informal information content. A term without a relation to another term is just a name without inherent essence. It is only when things are defined from the elements that make them up that they can be understood as a thing of the brain. Yet we also know certain sensory properties (such as colors, tastes, sounds) that may seem a priori to escape from this dual-type definition. This is not the case. We can only know one color if at least we know a different color, we can only get some information about sounds if they contrast with other sounds. If there is no contrast, there may be observation, but there is no point. Meaning can only arise if there is contrast. One didensity. A summary of energetic entities that differ at least in one aspect (e.g., their relative location) of a quality (the aspect) that is the same for both (this uniformity of quality that differs only in degree; is called “the identity of opposites” “). Thus, a quality is polarized into a duality to generate a phenomenon. This fits nicely with the notion of” dependent origin. “
Yet energy that is not materially bounded can still convey information if that energy transmits a contrast. An interference pattern, a pulse sequence, a set of different frequencies. Perhaps the most amazing modern application is Wi-Fi that transmits very complex information non-materially. This transmitted seemingly unbounded energy certainly has a structure. And if it has a structure, it also has a certain pattern, shape or form. So even in the seemingly non-material world, which can still be decoded into material observable, there must be some kind of structure and form. This implies that it is only relatively non-local. It may be non-local in terms of the scale of our instruments and ourselves, but from a cosmic point of view, if you were able to see, be, or feel that energy, it would still be a waveform with a form that going further or expanding through space. It would be “particulate” for such an observer, limited in time and space. The peaks and valleys of the interference pattern would be “somewhere”.
In a sense, such energy is “matter,” a particular substance, since it seems to have implicit structure and form. So materiality is perhaps only a relative term. What we regard as solid is, in fact, largely empty, and the subatomic particles that remain are in themselves just whirlwinds of energy revolutions at light speed in a – for us – very limited space. So matter itself is actually nothing but energy. We can accelerate the subatomic particles until they dissolve in pure energy, which we then measure in Mega-electron volt units. For an observer billions of times smaller than a subatomic particle, such energy turbulence building the particle would be non-local unbound energy.
So it seems that matter and energy are relative expressions and that there is no end to this tower of emptiness turtles becoming form emptiness, etc. depending on the scale you are looking at it.
So it is as valid to state that form is as substantive as emptiness. One could say in the end that there is no emptiness; if you could look further down, e.g. below the Planck scale, there would be an infinite degree of materiality levels. Similarly, one can ultimately conclude that there is no materiality if one could look further down, e.g. below the Planck scale, there would be an infinite degree of levels of unbound energy which is nothing but emptiness.
So it seems that “empty” is not so empty after all, and “form” is not at all full or permanent. Even the polar notions of form and emptiness seem to follow the pattern of “addict that arises”.
On the other hand, these arguments are speculative. Perhaps there is a lowest level of aggregation below which there is only unbound energy in revolutions. To us, it seems that this level is the Planck scale, but we cannot be sure.
The point I wanted to make is the seemingly unbounded energy (Ie energy that is not bound in a material form) has structure, has an interference pattern and conveys some information.
Modern analyzes of the vacuum have shown that it is not so empty. The well-known Casimir effect shows that particles can arise from a vacuum. Which then leads to the conclusion that the vacuum is a kind of energy ocean that boils of activity. This is sometimes also referred to as the zero point energy.
The physicist Nassim Haramein suggests that the vacuum has a structure, namely an isotropic vector balance, which can best be modeled in the form of cuboctahedrons, which itself can be composed of adjacent octahedron and tetrahedron. Or in a dynamic way like a “Jitterburging“octahedron cuboctahedron, which when closed is an octahedron and when fully open is a cuboctahedron. This non-stop”Jitterburging“would generate a persistent toroidal flux that establishes the zero-point field in sub-quantum.
Although these theories have not yet been proven, they are a very elegant approach to describe the possible “structure” of emptiness. It is in a certain way the return of “ether” that was denied by the scientists at the beginning of this century. Remarkably, Nikola Tesla, the father of all wireless energy transmissions, was convinced of the existence of an “ether,” and Einstein later began to doubt his earlier denial of the ether.
Interestingly, Nassim Haramein mentions the possibility of a fractal type of octahedron cuboctahedron nesting, giving the vacuum an infinite structure; There are turtles all the way down. As in the Hindu parable, the world rests on a turtle (or an elephant) and when asked what this turtle rests on the answer is: another turtle. When the question is repeated, the answer is: It’s turtles all the way down.
So the answer to the question “is there an ultimate substance” may be answered in the form of an infinite regress zero energy matrix à la Haramein with changing shape and emptiness. As this system is in a constant stream of expansion and retraction (Jitterburging), and maybe even spinning, there is no place that has complete emptiness for energy flux, nor is there the ultimate duration of a shape or structure, rather forms / structures shift and repeat at intervals, making them “semi- permanent “or” dynamic “if you wish.
I will return to this question after discussing the next issue, which provides some additional clues as to the notion of a definitive substance.
In terms of anaatman (or anatta) –That (or Brahman) dichotomy, I suppose Buddha would fight the “false ego”. The idea that our personality can be held permanently. The idea that we have an individual soul independent of Brahman.
To address this issue, I need to go deeper into this matter. Please forgive me if I have to repeat some of the concepts mentioned above with different words.
With the logical analytical technique “Syndiffeonesis“, developed Chris Langan, it can be demonstrated that everything is reductively the same.
“Syndiffeonic“means” difference in uniformity. “Any claim that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same. The difference between two things can be described in terms of quantities and qualities of something they have in common. This difference briefly builds relationships. If you do this for all things, and if you do it recursively in terms of the differences between the differences between two or more sets of relationships, it turns out that all things are reductively the same.
It can be said that the difference is written in a common language (not necessarily a literal language, but spoken verbally) of a quality that is the same for everything. The mere fact that a difference between things can be described linguistically (or geometrically, which is just another type of language) implies that the difference is only “partial” and quantifiable in terms of “contribution. Both related things (“relands“) are quantified manifestations of one and the same quality.
Which means that relationships lead to patterns, shape patterns, formation of some kind of information. Unlike the Greeks who found atoms as the ultimate building blocks which cannot be further reduced, our paradigm today is that pure energetic (structured) vibrations (as described above) appear to be the ultimate essence of reality, as cannot be reduced further. Since things are only temporarily composed of one and the same quality, but eventually return to the same original energetic state, things can be said to be “in formation“.
When things interact, they affect each other, leading to a mutual “reaction.” In order to respond, some information must be exchanged. Between two adjacent billiard balls, a vector pulse is transmitted and exchanged. Electric charges “sense” each other’s presence and respond accordingly in their movement; again a kind of energetic vibration is transmitted. Objects, albeit in a very rudimentary form, are somehow “aware” of what happens to them when they encounter other objects and “react” to them. There is a kind of “sensing” involved. True, this is not the focused conscious type of sensing that living entities (as we know them) can have, but it can be called sensing, perception in a certain way. Even if programmed to the object, how to react when encountering a particular stimulus, it means that it can respond to a stimulus that it must somehow be able to perceive that stimulus. We can call this ability to perceive some form of proto-awareness. Since all forms of energy somehow interact with one another, even if in an almost very almost imperceptible way, we cannot deny that there is an interaction; there is a kind of sensing involved.
In other words, the pure energetic structured vibrations that are the ultimate essence of reality and cannot be further reduced have an inherent quality of proto-consciousness. They are a presence that senses. A “Introduce yourself“as long as they have not encountered any other presence, they may not feel anything.
But as long as pure energy has not encountered any other energy, it is in its wave state and is not really located anywhere. It is only when energy interacts with some other or other form of energy that it becomes manifest and localized. Without interaction, you can’t say much about energy. When it interacts, it means that there is at least one other entity to interact with. A meaningful event in the life of an energy ray can only occur when it interacts with something else when there is a closeness between the two; it can be said that they can occur or collapse if they are close enough to be able to influence one another.
Funny enough in modern programming building against a “thinking” robot or computer network, such as Watson from IBM (this program seeks to respond to an appearance by “meaning” via so-called “Latent Semantic Analysis”), “meaning” is derived when two terms have a statistical “proximity relationship” in a text section.
Similar to building an ontology, both in interaction between energies or (sub) atomic particles and in latent semantic analysis, we encounter the same thing: Meaning, meaningful interaction, a reaction can only occur if there is sufficient closeness to to locate and event, an event, something that makes sense.
The undifferentiated energy as such seems a priori meaningless, and it can only form one event, something noticeable, when it encounters another energetic vibration of some kind. So any event is minimal a didensity, a presence of closeness. Only the relationship is actually observed.
Wittgenstein and other philosophers pushed this idea even further: The only facts that can be said to exist are the relation of things; things as such have no “independent reality”. If you consider a three-dimensional ocean of energy, as long as it is homogeneous everywhere, nothing can be said that anything can be observed. But when you have interference patterns in the energetic ocean, it means that there has been some stimulation to form an inhomogeneous distribution in the ocean. The different energy waves can then interact, giving rise to observable interference patterns.
What we can observe, we say it exists; it stands out from a more or less homogeneous background. But that does not mean that this background is an absolute void, an absolute nothingness. Rather, it is bursting with potential energy waiting for it to be possible to interact.
So observable “things” can be said to be the consequence of the relationship between (at least) two streams of energy. Only their relationships then lead to observable existence, the reason of which is not directly recognizable via sensory perception, although it can be deduced if one deviates from the thousand-year-old concept “nothing can come from nothing”.
So, in its most basic basic form, existence stems from the ability of energetic vibrations to sense stimuli (prototype state) and interact / respond to give rise to interference patterns: to shape and form, generating an observable relationship event that we can call a form for information. So energy is equipped with proto-awareness and proto-information (Ie the ability to sense and the ability to interact, thereby giving shape and form). Thus, we may have some idea that the most basic reason for being is not essential in the meaning of matter or structured energy, but also not an absolute void. Rather, it may be proto-consciousness or primordial consciousness in itself.
All that can be said for “ab last“(Ie “stand out” from a background as opposed to “exist”: being the underlying background, which is not an absolute “nothing”) can therefore be said to be a composition of at least two different streams of energy. All that can be said for “ab last“can be said to be of a temporary nature as it eventually dissolves into its structured energetic building blocks. But its underlying energetic proto-consciousness and proto-informative ability is never lost.
Proto-consciousness leads to self-creation, self-organizing self-sufficiency (autopoiesis), which is a cybernetic stimulus-response-feedback loop that is inherent to Reality. Reality has sensors, senses what happens otherwise it is not possible to evaluate conditions, recognize them and react to them. This seems to be true at any level: wave energy, subatomic, atomic, molecular, macromolecular, cellular, organ level, plant and animal level.
So awareness of a kind, Ie Consciousness, however minute, is an inherently functional characteristic of all that is. This leads us to the need to accept the notion of hylozoism or panpsychism, where every energetic entity inherently has some form of (proto) consciousness. For if it did not or could not interact with other energies / entities, it would not exist.
As long as energies / entities are localized and autopoietically working for their self-sufficiency, one can be said to be “selfish”. But as soon as they begin to contribute to the creation, organization and nourishment of other entities, they begin to fuse with it and the “self” aspect begins to wane. In that sense, ultimately, we have no “individual self” and eternal individual atman that remains confined to a particular form, as our energies will one day merge and merge and contribute to a greater whole with other energies. The drop of energy, which we are temporarily, will one day flow back to the sea where it came from.
But the ocean as a whole is probably aware of its internal energy flows. That the sea as a whole is a stream of consciousness at a higher level. This ocean can then be equated with Brahman or God, if you wish, which is all-encompassing. And that is what the Upanishads (a set of Hindu scriptures) call (higher) the “ego”. But since it is the infinite wholeness of all existence and existence, there is no point in calling this “self” because “self” would imply the existence of “non-self”. And there can be nothing outside of all existence / reality. Reality is what contains everything and only what is real. There are no things or beings outside of reality, because if they are real, they are by definition included in reality. Whatever may affect reality is, by definition, part of reality. This excludes external causes. But this also means that the term “self” for Brahman is in fact meaningless.
So perhaps the Buddha did not deny the existence of Brahman, but realized that the term “self” was inappropriate for the whole and that the individual atman was not a permanent entity. Notable in Hinduism Buddha is revered as one of the incarnations of Vishnu.
Interestingly, the term “That“is etymologically related to the German”atmen“which means breathing, and actually”Jitterburging“The buildup of the vacuum can be considered a form of breathing. As all phenomena arise and endlessly sink from this sea of energy, this can also be considered a form of” breathing “.
In this way, there may be no real dichotomy between these aspects of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta (non-dual Hinduism), but only an apparent one, using the same words, but slightly different meanings intended.
The third topic concerns the notion of a “creator”. In the more mythological branch of Hinduism as described in Vaishnavist Puranas, the demi-God Brahma (not to be confused with Brahman) created the world or the universe as we know it. Yet Brahma himself originated from the navel of Vishnu, an original he could not find himself. When the incarnation of Krishna from Vishnu confronted Brahma with countless other Brahmas from parallel universes, he became blurred. Shiva was born from the head of Brahma in England Puranas. This is the view of those who see Vishnu as the supreme God and equal to the supreme Brahman, the view of the Vaishnavas. The Shivaites, on the other hand, describe how Brahma and Vishnu sought the origin of lingam by Shiva but could not find it. Although the various sects may be divided over the name of the Most High God, Hinduism accepts that everything is One and everything is the creation of an ultimate entity often called Brahman.
According to the Dalai Lama, “in Buddhism there is no creator” and the existence is the consequence of the “addict who arises”.
However, the statement that in “Buddhism there is no creator” is not the same as “there is no creator” or “Buddha denied the existence of a creator”. It seems that for the philosophy of Buddhism, the notion of a creator is not a necessary concept.
In fact, Buddhism was in a certain way a reaction to an ancient form of Hinduism, also called Brahmanism, where animals were often sacrificed to please the gods. Buddhism may have been a necessary response to stop this cruelty, which also seems strongly contrary to the morality of the more modern abstract form of Hinduism Ie Advaita Vedanta. In the Advaita Vedanta, the most important key concept of morality is “ahimsa“or the absence of violence. This includes refraining from killing animals, which is why most Hindus are vegetarian.
In any case, they were too frequent animal sacrifices in early Hinduism a kind of perversion and did not conform to the concept of all-is-one. It was therefore important to disassociate Hindu gods from their pedestal, and this may well be the reason why the Buddha never addressed the subject with a god or creator.
However, if we observe the complex structure of our solar system, which is seeded with a large number of numerical traces hidden in the measurements of the orbits and orbits of the planets, it is difficult to deny the existence of a higher intelligence, who should have designed this. John Martineau has described a large number of coincidences in the solar system that are so astoundingly accurate that they defy the notion of spontaneous arising. It is already quite a coincidence that the moon has a distance from the earth and the sun and such a size that it can accurately cover the sun when viewed from the earth during an eclipse. This is often rejected as a form of “anthropic principle“who says it is” imperceptible that the fundamental constants of the universe happen to fall within the narrow spectrum assumed to be compatible with life. “Things seem so incredibly random because if they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
What if I tell you that Mercury and Earth’s average orbit are in exactly the same ratio, ratio as their physical sizes, and what if I tell you the same is true for Earth vs. Earth? Saturn. That an octagram and a fifteen-pointed star can be drawn respectively in these respective orbits / orbits, where the star’s points precisely touch the orbit of the larger planet, and where the star’s inner space precisely touches the orbit or circumference of the smaller planet, you can begin to wrinkle. If I tell you that this star also produces the exact slope of the earth, you may start to wonder what is going on here. If you study the complete solar system, you stumble upon several of such coincidences, which, on top of that, describe the most beautiful flower-like patterns.
And this is not the end of your amazement: Nature is full of bizarre coincidences, and our goals such as miles, miles and centimeters appear to have been magically chosen to code our basic numerical system. And the ancients seem to have been aware of this and have coded this in their buildings.
The equation (Hlf * p) / Ω = c Describe the ratio of the fine hydrogen transition line, the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a circle to the velocity of light in a vacuum Thoms / secwhere omega is 0.012345679012345679 (by multiplying 0.012345679012345679 by the missing 8, we get 0.0987654321 -ergo omega codes base 10 number system).
The speed of light is coded 3 times in the Pyramid of Giza. The Great Pyramid: GP, has 144,000 casings (144,000 is the speed of light in the arc / grid second); The latitude position for the complex of pyramids halfway in Khufu and Khafre is 29.9792458, which is the same numbers as in the speed of light in meters per second; the difference between the outer and inner circumference of the GP also encodes the light velocity (299.8 m).
The height of the GP (280 royal cubit: Pi – Phi ^ 2 = royal cubit) encodes the distance between Earth and the Sun and also the Earth’s polar radius.
The base length of the GP is 365.2422 sacred cubs, which refers to the length of the year.
Other sizes used in the general practitioner further encode the moon and the radius of the earth, Pi, Phi, etc. The diameters of the earth and moon (7920 miles and 2160 miles) are in the ratio of 11 to 3, which proportions also encode the human body ratio (as in Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man). Twice the circumference of the bottom of the granite coffet times 10 ^ 8 is the average radius of the sun.
The radius of the earth and the moon is a total of 5040 miles, which is 7! but also 7 * 8 * 9 * 10. Ergo these radii together also encode the base 10 number system. The circumference of the moon is 12 ^ 7 feet.
And I can go on and on. How could the old people have been aware of the metric system and the mileage system? How could they have known the speed of light? How could constants and planet sizes encode for our base ten system? Do you realize how extremely fine-tuned materials chosen to create the proportional coincidences between Mercury, Earth and Saturn have to be? It defies understanding.
To me it seems too random and it looks more like a very detailed beautiful work of higher intelligence expressing itself among other via us. We may not have known what we were doing when we built these structures, but a higher intelligence with knowledge of the future seems to have worked through us.
It seems that there is a higher intelligence and that this higher intelligence creates all creations. Primordial consciousness seems to express itself to become known by its lower temporal “self”.
Whether this is the work of higher intelligence or more collaborative intelligences is not so important. It seems too far ahead to assume that all these precautions and conditions are the consequence of “spontaneous arising”.
To claim that there is no creator at all is, given these overwhelming data, a less likely hypothesis than the opposite.
It is noteworthy that Nagarjuna never said that “dependent arising” and “emptiness” represented the absolute truth. He used these notions pragmatically and used a higher form of logic to show that through logic, reason, metaphysics and science we cannot know the absolute truth.
Note that he did not say that we cannot know the absolute truth. In many religious traditions, the absolute truth is said to be known only through a direct mystical communion. samadhi in Hinduism, Satori in Zen Buddhism.
Alan Wallace, a Buddhist repeatedly writes that consciousness is a relative thing. But at a certain point he distinguishes between “substrate consciousness” (relative consciousness; consciousness of a phenomenon) and “indigenous consciousness.” He quotes the Tibetan monk Düdjom Lingpa: “Primordial consciousness is self-raising, naturally clear, free from external and internal veil; it is the all-pervading, radiant, clear infinite space, free from pollution.”
This view fits perfectly with the Advaita Vedanta. It is this view that Hinduism, perhaps unnecessarily, calls “the Self” or Brahman. Så hvis du graver dybt nok ud over sløret med semantisk tilsløring, viser det sig, at buddhisme og hinduisme ikke er så forskellige. Og den mest lovende ting er: Du er en med det! Tat Tvam Asi. Du kan opleve at fusionere og blive en med denne bevidsthed.