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.
Study and meditate on this. Hopefully this will give you a firm intellectual understanding, which will lead you towards a more direct intuitive realization of emptiness.
It is important to note that to see emptiness is to see dependent origination.
Have fun and always move with loving kindness.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2012
another point of reference which might help... (It takes a few seconds to load up....)
We experience pain and pleasure. Who are we? Do not try to answer that question, just let it go, that would be the most skillful choice.
Thank you, driedleaf. I think there are several passages in the sutras where the Buddha says pretty much that.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Reality is like a flowing river, constantly moving, constantly changing. When we label things, not so much with words but with our mental concepts we turn that flowing river into a river that is frozen solid and unmoving. We can' work conceptually with a moving river so its not without use but its only an approximation.
Another analogy is to imagine your visual experience if you could only see the world in photographs. Things are always moving and changing but we only conceive of the world in snapshots. The snapshots aren't false but they're only an approximation.
So our self is a constantly streaming object, but we mistakenly identify with the snapshot of 'I'.
There is no self means don’t ever be content with your current stage of development. Nature is always developing us. When we act in harmony with it, we see things go smooth, when we act thinking we’re disconnected from others then we receive negative consequences. Nature forces us to go towards where there’s less pain. So we don’t avoid pain or try to reduce it by being goodie two shoes. We welcome it, because it points us to what needs to be corrected in order for us to advance towards the general, from the particular. To see ourselves as a single cell in one organism and that has to work for the benefit of the whole organism, in order to assure its own survival. In other words, don’t become attached to forms, but just aim your mind towards the right goal, of unification and becoming integral, therefore in harmony with nature, to receive less physical pain. And the others will become the only thing that matters to you, not your own perception.
I would say further that in our world of perception, it is as though the nonfinite has pulled apart into Zero and Infinity, with the finite in between. We are as the zero that must rejoin the Infinite. We are pulled and pushed, as though inanimate objects, by pleasure and pain ("Carrot and Stick" in American idiom) towards a destiny of greater being, unto the Infinite itself. But we remain as unconscious, as zero, until we bring this zero between such forces in perception till there is a balance point, and here, we decide for growth without net pressure. It is when the zero reaches this balance, and so decides to want its destiny of its own, that zero become a free will, the "I". This is the path to becoming one with the pure ultimate Freewill -- the Unified I of Infinity itself.
@dakini: Where has Buddha said that we should not try to figure out who we really are. Can you please suggest some instances.
My understanding says Buddha pretty much highlighted us to explore within ourselves to know ourselves. The first noble truth of dukhkha or suffering has the 5 aggregates, which Buddha told, to let us know that we are not the 'I' which we percieve us to be through our mind and senses, but we are the totality of 5 aggregates.
I believe the question of - Who am I? - is really very important. Because if this is understood clearly as it is in reality, then everything else which we perceive in external world shall fall to pieces, as our dream falls to pieces when we wake up after sleep - meaning then the absolute reality shall uncover itself from illusion(created by ignorance currently).
Again above are my views, which may be totally wrong.
just copy-pasting my above post, because still the answers are awaited for my 3 basic (may be idiotic) questions below.
Just to be clear, so that we are on same page and you speaking English and i understanding German is not the case, just to be clear i am asking few basic questions here(you can consider me to be a complete idiot, who is not able to understand these things) , but please clarify below things:
1. Saying no inherent existence or emptiness - means in reality it is not existing? For example, if for sound it is said that there is no inherent existence in sound, or in reality in sound there is emptiness - means - in reality, sound does not really exist and is just a perception by our sense organ?
2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.
3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?
My understanding says Buddha pretty much highlighted us to explore within ourselves to know ourselves. The first noble truth of dukhkha or suffering has the 5 aggregates, which Buddha told, to let us know that we are not the 'I' which we percieve us to be through our mind and senses, but we are the totality of 5 aggregates.
I believe the question of - Who am I? - is really very important. Because if this is understood clearly as it is in reality, then everything else which we perceive in external world shall fall to pieces, as our dream falls to pieces when we wake up after sleep - meaning then the absolute reality shall uncover itself from illusion(created by ignorance currently).
Again above are my views, which may be totally wrong.
I agree. The question "who am I?" is very important. As you said " Buddha highlighted us to explore within ourselves to know ourselves". That probably means to sit in meditation until you have come to some understanding. Along with reading, hearing, and asking questions. You have gotten some answers to your questions. Including links to some very good information. Now you should explore within to get some understanding from what you have been told.
" As Zen Master Dogen puts it: firewood does not turn into ashes, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood while ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, while at the same time ash contains firewood, firewood contains ash (all is the manifestation of the interdependent universe as if the entire universe is coming together to give rise to this experience and thus all is contained in one single expression).
A baby does not turn into an old man. The baby has the form and thoughts of a baby, the old man similarly so. Birth of a baby is just that. Death of the old man is just that. The baby didn't die and the old man was never born although that was just conventional way of describing birth, aging and death.
Yet although baby remains as baby and old man as old man they are neither same nor different. There is a relationship between them but just not in the way that one normally thinks. Everything just a process of change or becoming otherwise. No static inherent entity or self (empty) ie. anicca/impermanent and anatta/soulless.
Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.
Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself.
I've seen suttric quotes given on this forum in which, when a disciple asks who it is that experiences this or that, the Buddha says that question doesn't apply, or it's an inappropriate question. Rather we should ask, he says, of what conditions to phenomena (such as pain) arise. He stays focussed on conditioned arising, and feels that the question of who experiences this or that phenomenon is irrelevant. The important thing is conditioned arising, and what is our response to the pain. Do we allow it to cause suffering, or do we deal with it skillfully?
1. Saying no inherent existence or emptiness - means in reality it is not existing? For example, if for sound it is said that there is no inherent existence in sound, or in reality in sound there is emptiness - means - in reality, sound does not really exist and is just a perception by our sense organ?
no, things exist as nominal projections onto processes. everything exists, but they do not exist how we "think" they exist. we think they exist as objects that are independently and objectively existing. we give things intrinsic existence, when there are no things but rather processes. a sound is not a thing, it is a process that we project "sound" onto. there is no "the sound". there is only different tones arising and falling.
if there was an inherently existing sound, then there would be no variety and we could not hear such sound.
so emptiness is that lack of essence or intrinsic existence. first something is asserted, but then one finds the lack of that thing asserted. thus we call it empty.
2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.
stone is a projection to various colors, shapes, and textures. for instance the stoneness of a stone cannot exist in the stone because if it did then the stone could not become a table or a floor. if stone was intrinsically a stone then it could not change. since stone is a projection onto a process from us, it lacks any intrinsic existence. also with color, shape and form. where is the intrinsic color located? is it in the object? is it in the eye? is it in the mind? when we look for color it is impossible to find. that is because color is empty. it is arisen dependently on various causes/conditions.
3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?
emptiness is taught in two forms. emptiness of persons and emptiness of phenomena. basically they are both pointing the fact that things do not have intrinsic existence, thus are dependently originated.
both the assertion of a book as a book and the assertion of a subject owning a book are empty. the book is empty because it is a process that we project book onto. there is no bookness in the book because it is divisible into parts such as paper, cover, etc. and even those parts a processes that have wholes projected onto.
as with a subject owning something. how can we own anything? ownership is also a projection and not intrinsic in anything.
what this all points to is that everything is a projection from us and not at us. thus it is our responsiblity to do something about that.
why does our life suck? it sucks because we are seeing our previous karma ripen. we only see the negative because that is what we planted in the past. thus it is imperative that we plant positive seeds right now.
how is this possible? because all is a projection from us.
so how is freedom possible?
with wisdom and skillful means we change our reality through changing our interpretation.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
But also the present conditions the future.
This is the first time I've heard of this and its set my mind in all kinds of new directions. Do you know of any links to teachings about this? Thanks.
@person, sorry no links. I remember this from ghana bhuti's aol class buddhism basics and beyond. It is a yahoo group and is a GREAT resource of 100s of lessons and chat logs. Unfortunately I am dealing with a computer problem in accessing the yahoo group; I can't create a new ID because it has my old ID's email and I can't remember my password on the old ID.
I think I have that correct. If you think about it it must be true. Otherwise dependent origination (DO) is no different from determinism...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person, sorry no links. I remember this from ghana bhuti's aol class buddhism basics and beyond. It is a yahoo group and is a GREAT resource of 100s of lessons and chat logs. Unfortunately I am dealing with a computer problem in accessing the yahoo group; I can't create a new ID because it has my old ID's email and I can't remember my password on the old ID.
I think I have that correct. If you think about it it must be true. Otherwise dependent origination (DO) is no different from determinism...
Yeah, it certainly makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of questions for me. I'm not questioning the voracity as much as looking for more.
Person, aren't the teachings on karma all about our present actions conditioning the future? I thought this was fairly foundational. Maybe you just haven't heard quite the turn of phrase Jeffrey used, so it seemed new and fresh. Go, Jeffrey!
@taiyaki: Thank you for the brilliant explanation. Now i think i am getting to where it all leads - to our projection of the external world, no inherent existence and dependent origination.
Well, if we see from scientific perspective, then also the things do not have any existence of their own - as they are constituted of atoms, which are constituted from protons, neutrons, electrons, which are constituted from quarks i think, which are just vibrations i think. Can we see this no inherent existence and emptiness from this scientific perspective as well? Please suggest.
@jeffery: thanks for replying. i have reposted my questions, not to increase this discussion, but to try to understand some things(considering me to be an idiot, who cannot understand which has already been told).
Hi All, One more query - in 5 aggregates in mental formations, i have read there are 52 mental formations. But pdf file where i was reading it, it gave only 7 or 8 mental formations as examples. Can somebody help me with any link which contains all 52 mental formations? Please suggest.
Well, if we see from scientific perspective, then also the things do not have any existence of their own - as they are constituted of atoms, which are constituted from protons, neutrons, electrons, which are constituted from quarks i think, which are just vibrations i think. Can we see this no inherent existence and emptiness from this scientific perspective as well? Please suggest.
I asked a lama about this once, and he said no, that's not the meaning of "emptiness", or no inherent existence. But it works for me.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Hi All, One more query - in 5 aggregates in mental formations, i have read there are 52 mental formations. But pdf file where i was reading it, it gave only 7 or 8 mental formations as examples. Can somebody help me with any link which contains all 52 mental formations? Please suggest.
=One more query - in 5 aggregates in mental formations, i have read there are 52 mental formations. But pdf file where i was reading it, it gave only 7 or 8 mental formations as examples. Can somebody help me with any link which contains all 52 mental formations? Please suggest.
That's an Abhidhamma thing. One place to find them is chapter 2 of the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha, a compendium of the Abhidhamma Pitaka composed in the Middle Ages somewhere between the 8th and 12th century.
I am facing a big problem now. The problem is as follows: till the time i am reading about these teachings of Buddha, everything makes perfect sense like 5 aggregates, 8 fold path, dependent co-arising or conditioned genesis etc and i make my mind and brain to follow it. But after i close this reading in any pdf file or URL link on any day - just immediately may be after 1 min or 5 min when any external world factor hits me (like any work which i have to perform, somebody talks to me, my manager calls me, my sub-ordinates inform me of anything not working etc) - all this understanding(which i have got from these teachings of Buddha) is gone in a moment. I start behaving as usual, with initially ignorance making me to feel that there is i and it is me who is getting affected and then ego reaches my brain, shouting I should do this or that for this or that. All the compassion towards other is lost in a moment. I have realized one thing - the moment individuality arises in me that i am a individual, the same moment compassion gets lost towards other and ill feelings like jealousy, envy, competition(i should get more than him/her in this or that thing) etc starts arousing - and I keep on drowning in these feelings.
So my question is how to retain these teachings of Buddha in my mind and brain in our day-to-day activities, so that, if pain or pleasure arises we can remain equipoise in each situation as everything is conditioned? Any suggestions please. Thanks in advance.
I think somebody can suggest doing meditation. So, just to inform you that I am already doing meditation on natural breath every day in morning, though it does not has any concentration in it.
So except meditation, any other suggestions please.
Try another form of meditation. It's called meditating on developing compassion.
First meditate on developing compassion for your parents. Meditate on the suffering they went through to bring you into this world. Meditate on the suffering they went through to raise you. Meditate on the suffering they went through when you were disobedient and you made them worry for safety, well-being, etc.
Once you can relate to that suffering and can understand it well enough, extend that meditation to your immediate family, then to your extended family. Once you can do that it's easy to see that everyone has their sets of problems and sufferings as well. It wouldn't be difficult then to feel compassion for them as well.
Hi All, But still the question remains: how to retain these teachings of Buddha in my mind and brain in my day-to-day activities, so that, if pain or pleasure arises we can remain equipoise in each situation as everything is conditioned, and that individuality/ego caused by ignorance does not overcome us? Any suggestions please. Thanks in advance.
It takes time, misecmisc1. Rome wasn't built in a day. How long have you been studying/practicing? The more we develop mindfulness, an outside observer to ourselves, the more we can catch ourselves in the act of responding from habit, and we can begin to substitute other thought, other reactions. We're creatures of habit. The Buddha knew this. Be patient with yourself. You should see progress over time.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
We are creatures of habit. By studying and meditating we are developing new habits. It just takes time and effort to rework our minds.
Maybe you can take a deep breath, and focus on them. When a situation arises, take a minute to focus on your breath, look at the thoughts that's going through your head. Not everyone is an expert in controlling their emotions, but I think this is the best way. When we examine our thoughts while focusing on our breath, we should come to a conclusion that these are just thoughts affecting us at the moment, and they will eventually pass. It is better to let them pass than to act on them and regret our actions later.
I am facing a big problem now. The problem is as follows: till the time i am reading about these teachings of Buddha, everything makes perfect sense like 5 aggregates, 8 fold path, dependent co-arising or conditioned genesis etc and i make my mind and brain to follow it. But after i close this reading in any pdf file or URL link on any day - just immediately may be after 1 min or 5 min when any external world factor hits me (like any work which i have to perform, somebody talks to me, my manager calls me, my sub-ordinates inform me of anything not working etc) - all this understanding(which i have got from these teachings of Buddha) is gone in a moment. I start behaving as usual, with initially ignorance making me to feel that there is i and it is me who is getting affected and then ego reaches my brain, shouting I should do this or that for this or that. All the compassion towards other is lost in a moment. I have realized one thing - the moment individuality arises in me that i am a individual, the same moment compassion gets lost towards other and ill feelings like jealousy, envy, competition(i should get more than him/her in this or that thing) etc starts arousing - and I keep on drowning in these feelings.
So my question is how to retain these teachings of Buddha in my mind and brain in our day-to-day activities, so that, if pain or pleasure arises we can remain equipoise in each situation as everything is conditioned? Any suggestions please. Thanks in advance.
Me too! That's the whole problem isn't it? If it were as easy as reading and then having insight then reading buddhism would liberate us immediately from suffering and allow us to skillfully liberate our loved ones..
If that were true then studying dharma would be more popular than a vacation in Hawaii or Mallorca or whatever.
The answer in my book is contemplation with a light touch. The purpose of the contemplation in the end is to loosen our mind's up and question our assumptions.
Fortunately, the nature of mind in part is clarity and we can make breaks in the confused state. Actually from the mahayana perspective confusion never ends we just get to a point where we know the difference between confusion and clarity. We have both mahadukkha and mahasukkha (bliss). This correlates with the bodhisattva staying in suffering to liberate other beings. This isn't true insight on an intellectual level (thats kind of my label) but rather comes about by opening and lightening views we are attached to.
Sometimes life presents us with situations where it’s hard to know what is the right thing to do. In dealing with other people, we can find ourselves embroiled in disputes or differences of opinion. Other times we may feel that we are not being treated fairly, or that we are being taken advantage of. Perhaps it seems like we are being cheated. These situations can occur in our business dealings as well as in our personal relationships.
Certainly there are situations when we have to dig our heels in and stand up for ourselves. But it’s important to weigh the cost of putting up a fight against the gratification of feeling victorious or vindicated. In the end, every challenging situation in life is a spiritual test.
To walk a spiritual path requires us to stay centered and at peace within ourself. Resistance brings up the negative energies of anger, hostility, judgement, and fear. These negative energies take a toll upon our physical, spiritual and emotional bodies. It is always preferable to “turn the other cheek” and maintain one’s spiritual composure. The challenge is to remember we ultimately have nothing to fear, all our needs are being taken care of, and no matter what obstacles others may put in our path, all is well.
Don't quarrel with the world and the world will have no quarrel with you.
"The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort [of doctrine] where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine, such is what I proclaim."
yesterday i saw the documentary which @person has posted with the subject - the day i died. Today morning i was thinking about it, and something came up in my mind abruptly.
Before going on as what came to my mind, i will like to clear following things: 1. i am not contradicting what Buddha said - Buddha was enlightened and i am not even intelligent(rather may be even stupid) , so no way i am raising questions on Buddha's teachings. 2. i am not comparing religions here - not saying whether things said in Hinduism or Buddhism is more correct. 3. i am not a quantum physicist but have just studied about it a little bit through google search and some videos about it.
The below are only my views, which can be totally wrong.
In Hinduism in Bhagwad Geeta(a holy book), Lord Krishna told: there is Soul or Atman or Consciousness and the human body is just a vehicle in which the Soul(or Consciousness) is travelling like a passenger. On death, Consciousness leaves old body and migrates into new body.
Now quantum physics M theory of 11 dimensions suggests - matter really does not exist. Moreover, the quantum superpositioning(not sure if this is the technical term, but it is something like this) suggests an atom is everywhere but when a conscious observer observes it then it seems to occupy the position as per it:
So it can happen that there is actually Consciousness in ourselves. We deny it saying it is imaginary as it cannot be perceived by our physical senses. But there are other things, which we cannot perceive by our physical senses like high-frequency sounds which dogs can perceive but not us, ultra-sonic sounds which bats can perceive but not us, ultravoilet or infrared light which we cannot perceive etc - but these all exist. So Consciousness also may be existing in us.
Moreover at the time of death, consciousness disappears from one body and moves in another body - this seems possible from quantum physics as it does not get lost anywhere, rather it just disappears from one point and appears in another point, so relatively its position changes - this is not to say that it actually works like this, but in a way something like this may be explained from scientific perspective. This can lead to rebirth in human life or transmigration of Soul into bodies of animals, birds etc. The same reasoning can be used to explain NDE out of body experiences too.
So what do you all think, can something of the above may be happening and in reality Soul or Consciousness is in all of us and it is the Soul which experiences all pains and pleasures? I think the real answer may come only on Enlightenment, but till then we can have some view about it. Please share your views.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2012
Buddhism doesn't ascribe to a transmigrating soul, and frankly, based on what I have learnt, as a Buddhist of 20-odd years (and a R.Catholic of the remainder) I have concluded that buddhism is right.
Buddhism doesn't ascribe to a transmigrating soul, and frankly, based on what I have learnt, as a Buddhist of 20-odd years (and a R.Catholic of the remainder) I have concluded that buddhism is right.
Tibetan Buddhism does. Someone here recently came up with a quote from a sutra that actually used the word "transmigration". I don't remember which thread.
It's not called "soul" but "very, very subtle mind" or "consciousness", equated with what the Buddha called "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "storehouse consciousness", where the karmic seeds of our actions are stored and carried forward to the next life.
In my view, the scientific explanation relates to the theory that consciousness is a field that permeates the universe (we had a video and a science article on that, but I haven't been able to find them). Quantum physics says consciousness is non-local, it's not confined in our body. So when someone dies, or has an OBE, their consciousness is simply re-integrating into the consciousness field. That's my story until proven otherwise.
My teacher says it depends what you mean by a soul. And it is evaluated by what is true in your experience. Of course texts are written by fantastic people who have also.. experienced.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2012
It's not called "soul" but "very, very subtle mind" or "consciousness", equated with what the Buddha called "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "storehouse consciousness", where the karmic seeds of our actions are stored and carried forward to the next life.
I don't believe that the description matches what is conventionally referred to as a soul. Tulkus display certain characteristics of their previous incarnation, but are recognised to have ample qualities of their own, in addition to these. In fact, it is said that unless the tulku is located within 2 to 3 years after the previous lama's death, then this "very, very subtle mind" or "consciousness" disappears and the reincarnation risks being lost for ever. The soul i was thinking about was the one more conventionally thought of in, for example, theistic teachings....
Perhaps @misecmisc1 can elaborate and clarify which he is referring to.
I agree that the "very subtle mind" is different from the concept of soul. But the way the Tibetan tradition relates to the tulkus, the reincarnate lamas, seems like it harks back to the concept of soul. They expect similar personality traits, they expect the reincarnation to have some memory of his teachings from past life/lives, etc. Maybe that's because they expect the high reincarnate lamas to be like the Buddha, who had spontaneous recall of past lives...? I guess the implications of the fact that the Buddha had full recall of his past lives are debatable, meaning--whether that is evidence that the concept of soul bled into Buddhism, or not.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2012
I have seen a couple of programmes surrounding the lore and tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and while I found them fascinating, informative, educational and at times, astonishing, I was not entirely convinced by the methods they deem foolproof, to identify and confirm that the child they find is in fact the tulku they sought. There are various tests the child has to pass, to the satisfaction of the Lamas he comes in front of.. some of these tests involve identifying and touching personal items belonging to the deceased Lama... (Something HH the DL obviously also did, as a young child....) However, the amount of prompting and hints given to the children I watched, bordered on the suspicious to say the least.... Items were either held tantalisingly, tempting the child to reach for them, or certain others were moved around, ostensibly to fool the child and see whether he would still go for the specific item, but it seemed oddly to me that in moving the objects around, they brought said specific item, actually closer to the child's touch, rather than randomly moving it around...
Mind you. I do believe Hh the DL is a pretty formidable and unique individual. I'm pretty sure they got it right with him.... with Steven Seagal, I'm not so sure.....!
@Dakini, it's not personality traits I feel rather it is the same wisdom mind.
As far as Stephen Seagal (SS) I think he is not the same education and experience as could have been. But I have heard him talk about his status and he seemed very serious about trying to cultivate bodhicitta which is what his teachers had instructed. How can I criticize SS when I could instead put that energy in my own practice?
Not saying Fed that you were being too hard on SS, I won't put words in your mouth! I just had to give my 2c
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
Mental thoughts and habits also create karma. So these karmic seeds carry into the next life. So the mental habits are the ripening of past mental karma. I'm quite uncertain of the mechanism for how memories in general or for personal objects transfers though.
The self isn't the skandas to begin with. There never is a graspable self.
I'm not sure 'what' is enlightened. Since the self is not the fourth skanda that means that whatever is enlightened isn't a 'substance of mind', which is how Shunryu Suzuki translates the fourth skanda. I think in the west we think of a soul as kind of a substance in some ways.
Anyhow that which is enlightened is not one of the five skandas. At least not according to buddha. Now the question of what's left when you strip away the skandas? That is a good question!
@Federica I've read the same thing about the tulku selection process. I've also heard that "tulkuships" tended to be kept in the same family, thought not always. Is any of that footage you saw available online, so we could take a look? It sounds fascinating.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'll have to have a good look, but it was some time ago.... i don't wish to give the impression that such a process is corrupt. What i did conclude (and this is a conclusion entirely of my own making) is that as we have reached a period where some Tibetan Buddhist factions may be fearful of their future, due to the political upheaval dating back 50+ years, i drew the impression that there is a silent desperation to keep the lines going, because tulkus in this lineage are more difficult to come by, as Tibetan buddhists have been flung far and wide by being ejected from their homeland. so, 'any port in a storm' as it were. A willing child with a grateful and co-operative family, may be easily trained in the ways of the Buddha....
This however, is a beautiful documentary, and I think the guy is as genuine as HH the DL.
@dakini: please try to find that link which you are referring, so that i may get more insight into till where quantum physics can take us. Thanks in advance.
@federica: in Bhagwad Geeta, Lord Krishna stated there are two consciousness - Consciousness(Jeevatma) and Universal Consciousness(Parmatma) existing in human physical body - the analogy is given to a tree on which 2 birds are sitting - one bird(Consciousness or Soul or Jeevatma) is eating the fruits of the tree, so bound by Karma and the second bird(Universal Consciousness) is just the observer and only observes whatever is going on, so is unbound by karma. So basically a theory of dualism - Consciousness, though being part of Universal Consciousness, is both same and different.
@dakini: Moreover, seeing your view something came to my mind just now - so quantum physics suggests consciousness permeates through universe and is non-local - this can be the case - so what may be happening is this: The whole universe is permeated by Universal Consciousness - so we may have both Consciousness and Universal Consciousness in us - at the time of death, our local Consciousness relocates to a point which is out of our body in case of NDE OBE experience, or relocates to a point which may be local to another new body in case of rebirth a human body or transmigration of Soul to a body of animal, bird etc. As far as Universal Consciousness is concerned, since it is permeating the whole universe, so it is everywhere. Though we have to keep in mind that Consciousness, though being part of Universal Consciousness, is both same and different. So may be what has been separately said is just for the easier understanding of the people and in actuality, there may be only one Consciousness, which can be both local Consciousness and Universal Consciousness (getting diffentiated only because of Karma getting accumulated - if karma, then Consciousness is local - if all karma finished, then Consciousness has merged into Universal Consciousness and it is liberated from the cycle of birth and death.
The above are completely my views and it can be totally wrong too. But somehow after writing the above things, i am feeling it is making some sense to me.
Hi All, Please suggest your views on above.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica: in Bhagwad Geeta, Lord Krishna stated there are two consciousness - Consciousness(Jeevatma) and Universal Consciousness(Parmatma) existing in human physical body - the analogy is given to a tree on which 2 birds are sitting - one bird(Consciousness or Soul or Jeevatma) is eating the fruits of the tree, so bound by Karma and the second bird(Universal Consciousness) is just the observer and only observes whatever is going on, so is unbound by karma. So basically a theory of dualism - Consciousness, though being part of Universal Consciousness, is both same and different.
The above are completely my views and it can be totally wrong too. But somehow after writing the above things, i am feeling it is making some sense to me.
Hi All, Please suggest your views on above.
The text you mention, and Lord Krishna are Hindu matters and as such, not entitrely relevant to buddhism. While Buddhism and Hinduism are similar in some ways, in other, more distinct and importasnt ways, they differ. So the subject you raise is not of Buddhist significance here.
Comments
Study and meditate on this. Hopefully this will give you a firm intellectual understanding, which will lead you towards a more direct intuitive realization of emptiness.
It is important to note that to see emptiness is to see dependent origination.
Have fun and always move with loving kindness.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100902034756/http://www.bps.lk/bp_library/bp_102s/page_43.html
Another analogy is to imagine your visual experience if you could only see the world in photographs. Things are always moving and changing but we only conceive of the world in snapshots. The snapshots aren't false but they're only an approximation.
So our self is a constantly streaming object, but we mistakenly identify with the snapshot of 'I'.
My understanding says Buddha pretty much highlighted us to explore within ourselves to know ourselves. The first noble truth of dukhkha or suffering has the 5 aggregates, which Buddha told, to let us know that we are not the 'I' which we percieve us to be through our mind and senses, but we are the totality of 5 aggregates.
I believe the question of - Who am I? - is really very important. Because if this is understood clearly as it is in reality, then everything else which we perceive in external world shall fall to pieces, as our dream falls to pieces when we wake up after sleep - meaning then the absolute reality shall uncover itself from illusion(created by ignorance currently).
Again above are my views, which may be totally wrong.
just copy-pasting my above post, because still the answers are awaited for my 3 basic (may be idiotic) questions below.
Just to be clear, so that we are on same page and you speaking English and i understanding German is not the case, just to be clear i am asking few basic questions here(you can consider me to be a complete idiot, who is not able to understand these things) , but please clarify below things:
1. Saying no inherent existence or emptiness - means in reality it is not existing? For example, if for sound it is said that there is no inherent existence in sound, or in reality in sound there is emptiness - means - in reality, sound does not really exist and is just a perception by our sense organ?
2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.
3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?
Please tell. Thanks in advance.
That probably means to sit in meditation until you have come to some understanding. Along with reading, hearing, and asking questions. You have gotten some answers to your questions. Including links to some very good information. Now you should explore within to get some understanding from what you have been told.
A baby does not turn into an old man. The baby has the form and thoughts of a baby, the old man similarly so. Birth of a baby is just that. Death of the old man is just that. The baby didn't die and the old man was never born although that was just conventional way of describing birth, aging and death.
Yet although baby remains as baby and old man as old man they are neither same nor different. There is a relationship between them but just not in the way that one normally thinks. Everything just a process of change or becoming otherwise. No static inherent entity or self (empty) ie. anicca/impermanent and anatta/soulless.
Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.
Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself.
no, things exist as nominal projections onto processes.
everything exists, but they do not exist how we "think" they exist.
we think they exist as objects that are independently and objectively existing. we give things intrinsic existence, when there are no things but rather processes. a sound is not a thing, it is a process that we project "sound" onto. there is no "the sound". there is only different tones arising and falling.
if there was an inherently existing sound, then there would be no variety and we could not hear such sound.
so emptiness is that lack of essence or intrinsic existence. first something is asserted, but then one finds the lack of that thing asserted. thus we call it empty.
2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.
stone is a projection to various colors, shapes, and textures. for instance the stoneness of a stone cannot exist in the stone because if it did then the stone could not become a table or a floor. if stone was intrinsically a stone then it could not change. since stone is a projection onto a process from us, it lacks any intrinsic existence. also with color, shape and form. where is the intrinsic color located? is it in the object? is it in the eye? is it in the mind? when we look for color it is impossible to find. that is because color is empty. it is arisen dependently on various causes/conditions.
3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?
emptiness is taught in two forms. emptiness of persons and emptiness of phenomena. basically they are both pointing the fact that things do not have intrinsic existence, thus are dependently originated.
both the assertion of a book as a book and the assertion of a subject owning a book are empty. the book is empty because it is a process that we project book onto. there is no bookness in the book because it is divisible into parts such as paper, cover, etc. and even those parts a processes that have wholes projected onto.
as with a subject owning something. how can we own anything? ownership is also a projection and not intrinsic in anything.
what this all points to is that everything is a projection from us and not at us. thus it is our responsiblity to do something about that.
why does our life suck? it sucks because we are seeing our previous karma ripen. we only see the negative because that is what we planted in the past. thus it is imperative that we plant positive seeds right now.
how is this possible? because all is a projection from us.
so how is freedom possible?
with wisdom and skillful means we change our reality through changing our interpretation.
I think I have that correct. If you think about it it must be true. Otherwise dependent origination (DO) is no different from determinism...
Ouchh!
The whole universe sheds a tear.
Well, if we see from scientific perspective, then also the things do not have any existence of their own - as they are constituted of atoms, which are constituted from protons, neutrons, electrons, which are constituted from quarks i think, which are just vibrations i think. Can we see this no inherent existence and emptiness from this scientific perspective as well? Please suggest.
Hi All,
One more query - in 5 aggregates in mental formations, i have read there are 52 mental formations. But pdf file where i was reading it, it gave only 7 or 8 mental formations as examples. Can somebody help me with any link which contains all 52 mental formations? Please suggest.
I am facing a big problem now. The problem is as follows: till the time i am reading about these teachings of Buddha, everything makes perfect sense like 5 aggregates, 8 fold path, dependent co-arising or conditioned genesis etc and i make my mind and brain to follow it. But after i close this reading in any pdf file or URL link on any day - just immediately may be after 1 min or 5 min when any external world factor hits me (like any work which i have to perform, somebody talks to me, my manager calls me, my sub-ordinates inform me of anything not working etc) - all this understanding(which i have got from these teachings of Buddha) is gone in a moment. I start behaving as usual, with initially ignorance making me to feel that there is i and it is me who is getting affected and then ego reaches my brain, shouting I should do this or that for this or that. All the compassion towards other is lost in a moment. I have realized one thing - the moment individuality arises in me that i am a individual, the same moment compassion gets lost towards other and ill feelings like jealousy, envy, competition(i should get more than him/her in this or that thing) etc starts arousing - and I keep on drowning in these feelings.
So my question is how to retain these teachings of Buddha in my mind and brain in our day-to-day activities, so that, if pain or pleasure arises we can remain equipoise in each situation as everything is conditioned? Any suggestions please. Thanks in advance.
So except meditation, any other suggestions please.
First meditate on developing compassion for your parents. Meditate on the suffering they went through to bring you into this world. Meditate on the suffering they went through to raise you. Meditate on the suffering they went through when you were disobedient and you made them worry for safety, well-being, etc.
Once you can relate to that suffering and can understand it well enough, extend that meditation to your immediate family, then to your extended family. Once you can do that it's easy to see that everyone has their sets of problems and sufferings as well. It wouldn't be difficult then to feel compassion for them as well.
Hi All,
But still the question remains: how to retain these teachings of Buddha in my mind and brain in my day-to-day activities, so that, if pain or pleasure arises we can remain equipoise in each situation as everything is conditioned, and that individuality/ego caused by ignorance does not overcome us? Any suggestions please. Thanks in advance.
For one month focus on seeing impermanence.
For one month focus on seeing contact and arising feeling then becoming.
For one month surrender to the experience.
Do all of this in meditation and throughout the day.
Patience, grasshopper. :buck:
Me too! That's the whole problem isn't it? If it were as easy as reading and then having insight then reading buddhism would liberate us immediately from suffering and allow us to skillfully liberate our loved ones..
If that were true then studying dharma would be more popular than a vacation in Hawaii or Mallorca or whatever.
The answer in my book is contemplation with a light touch. The purpose of the contemplation in the end is to loosen our mind's up and question our assumptions.
Fortunately, the nature of mind in part is clarity and we can make breaks in the confused state. Actually from the mahayana perspective confusion never ends we just get to a point where we know the difference between confusion and clarity. We have both mahadukkha and mahasukkha (bliss). This correlates with the bodhisattva staying in suffering to liberate other beings. This isn't true insight on an intellectual level (thats kind of my label) but rather comes about by opening and lightening views we are attached to.
Certainly there are situations when we have to dig our heels in and stand up for ourselves. But it’s important to weigh the cost of putting up a fight against the gratification of feeling victorious or vindicated. In the end, every challenging situation in life is a spiritual test.
To walk a spiritual path requires us to stay centered and at peace within ourself. Resistance brings up the negative energies of anger, hostility, judgement, and fear. These negative energies take a toll upon our physical, spiritual and emotional bodies. It is always preferable to “turn the other cheek” and maintain one’s spiritual composure. The challenge is to remember we ultimately have nothing to fear, all our needs are being taken care of, and no matter what obstacles others may put in our path, all is well.
Don't quarrel with the world and the world will have no quarrel with you.
"The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort [of doctrine] where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine, such is what I proclaim."
Madhupindika Sutta
yesterday i saw the documentary which @person has posted with the subject - the day i died. Today morning i was thinking about it, and something came up in my mind abruptly.
Before going on as what came to my mind, i will like to clear following things:
1. i am not contradicting what Buddha said - Buddha was enlightened and i am not even intelligent(rather may be even stupid) , so no way i am raising questions on Buddha's teachings.
2. i am not comparing religions here - not saying whether things said in Hinduism or Buddhism is more correct.
3. i am not a quantum physicist but have just studied about it a little bit through google search and some videos about it.
The below are only my views, which can be totally wrong.
In Hinduism in Bhagwad Geeta(a holy book), Lord Krishna told: there is Soul or Atman or Consciousness and the human body is just a vehicle in which the Soul(or Consciousness) is travelling like a passenger. On death, Consciousness leaves old body and migrates into new body.
Now quantum physics M theory of 11 dimensions suggests - matter really does not exist. Moreover, the quantum superpositioning(not sure if this is the technical term, but it is something like this) suggests an atom is everywhere but when a conscious observer observes it then it seems to occupy the position as per it:
So it can happen that there is actually Consciousness in ourselves. We deny it saying it is imaginary as it cannot be perceived by our physical senses. But there are other things, which we cannot perceive by our physical senses like high-frequency sounds which dogs can perceive but not us, ultra-sonic sounds which bats can perceive but not us, ultravoilet or infrared light which we cannot perceive etc - but these all exist. So Consciousness also may be existing in us.
Moreover at the time of death, consciousness disappears from one body and moves in another body - this seems possible from quantum physics as it does not get lost anywhere, rather it just disappears from one point and appears in another point, so relatively its position changes - this is not to say that it actually works like this, but in a way something like this may be explained from scientific perspective. This can lead to rebirth in human life or transmigration of Soul into bodies of animals, birds etc. The same reasoning can be used to explain NDE out of body experiences too.
So what do you all think, can something of the above may be happening and in reality Soul or Consciousness is in all of us and it is the Soul which experiences all pains and pleasures? I think the real answer may come only on Enlightenment, but till then we can have some view about it. Please share your views.
It's not called "soul" but "very, very subtle mind" or "consciousness", equated with what the Buddha called "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "storehouse consciousness", where the karmic seeds of our actions are stored and carried forward to the next life.
In my view, the scientific explanation relates to the theory that consciousness is a field that permeates the universe (we had a video and a science article on that, but I haven't been able to find them). Quantum physics says consciousness is non-local, it's not confined in our body. So when someone dies, or has an OBE, their consciousness is simply re-integrating into the consciousness field. That's my story until proven otherwise.
Tulkus display certain characteristics of their previous incarnation, but are recognised to have ample qualities of their own, in addition to these.
In fact, it is said that unless the tulku is located within 2 to 3 years after the previous lama's death, then this "very, very subtle mind" or "consciousness" disappears and the reincarnation risks being lost for ever.
The soul i was thinking about was the one more conventionally thought of in, for example, theistic teachings....
Perhaps @misecmisc1 can elaborate and clarify which he is referring to.
There are various tests the child has to pass, to the satisfaction of the Lamas he comes in front of..
some of these tests involve identifying and touching personal items belonging to the deceased Lama...
(Something HH the DL obviously also did, as a young child....)
However, the amount of prompting and hints given to the children I watched, bordered on the suspicious to say the least.... Items were either held tantalisingly, tempting the child to reach for them, or certain others were moved around, ostensibly to fool the child and see whether he would still go for the specific item, but it seemed oddly to me that in moving the objects around, they brought said specific item, actually closer to the child's touch, rather than randomly moving it around...
Mind you. I do believe Hh the DL is a pretty formidable and unique individual.
I'm pretty sure they got it right with him....
with Steven Seagal, I'm not so sure.....!
http://sangyetashiling.dk/kt/seagal.htm
I'm sorry, this is a bit off-topic.... but sometimes they drift that way....
Maybe it should be in the 'Buddhists against reincarnation!' thread....
As far as Stephen Seagal (SS) I think he is not the same education and experience as could have been. But I have heard him talk about his status and he seemed very serious about trying to cultivate bodhicitta which is what his teachers had instructed. How can I criticize SS when I could instead put that energy in my own practice?
Not saying Fed that you were being too hard on SS, I won't put words in your mouth! I just had to give my 2c
I'm not sure 'what' is enlightened. Since the self is not the fourth skanda that means that whatever is enlightened isn't a 'substance of mind', which is how Shunryu Suzuki translates the fourth skanda. I think in the west we think of a soul as kind of a substance in some ways.
Anyhow that which is enlightened is not one of the five skandas. At least not according to buddha. Now the question of what's left when you strip away the skandas? That is a good question!
i don't wish to give the impression that such a process is corrupt.
What i did conclude (and this is a conclusion entirely of my own making) is that as we have reached a period where some Tibetan Buddhist factions may be fearful of their future, due to the political upheaval dating back 50+ years, i drew the impression that there is a silent desperation to keep the lines going, because tulkus in this lineage are more difficult to come by, as Tibetan buddhists have been flung far and wide by being ejected from their homeland. so, 'any port in a storm' as it were. A willing child with a grateful and co-operative family, may be easily trained in the ways of the Buddha....
This however, is a beautiful documentary, and I think the guy is as genuine as HH the DL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0152d29
@federica: in Bhagwad Geeta, Lord Krishna stated there are two consciousness - Consciousness(Jeevatma) and Universal Consciousness(Parmatma) existing in human physical body - the analogy is given to a tree on which 2 birds are sitting - one bird(Consciousness or Soul or Jeevatma) is eating the fruits of the tree, so bound by Karma and the second bird(Universal Consciousness) is just the observer and only observes whatever is going on, so is unbound by karma. So basically a theory of dualism - Consciousness, though being part of Universal Consciousness, is both same and different.
@dakini: Moreover, seeing your view something came to my mind just now - so quantum physics suggests consciousness permeates through universe and is non-local - this can be the case - so what may be happening is this: The whole universe is permeated by Universal Consciousness - so we may have both Consciousness and Universal Consciousness in us - at the time of death, our local Consciousness relocates to a point which is out of our body in case of NDE OBE experience, or relocates to a point which may be local to another new body in case of rebirth a human body or transmigration of Soul to a body of animal, bird etc. As far as Universal Consciousness is concerned, since it is permeating the whole universe, so it is everywhere. Though we have to keep in mind that Consciousness, though being part of Universal Consciousness, is both same and different. So may be what has been separately said is just for the easier understanding of the people and in actuality, there may be only one Consciousness, which can be both local Consciousness and Universal Consciousness (getting diffentiated only because of Karma getting accumulated - if karma, then Consciousness is local - if all karma finished, then Consciousness has merged into Universal Consciousness and it is liberated from the cycle of birth and death.
The above are completely my views and it can be totally wrong too. But somehow after writing the above things, i am feeling it is making some sense to me.
Hi All,
Please suggest your views on above.