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.
The infinite book of the Jataka
David
A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
I don't mean to be sacreligious on anybody and this is not meant to offend but it is something that just struck me now.
What if these impermanent selves are all reincarnations of the same exact thing on a quest (or maybe process is a better word to steer clear of original intent) to see from all viewpoints?
If all is truely happening right now, could each of our individual lives and even our individual dreams be Jataka tales?
Just a passing thought.
What if these impermanent selves are all reincarnations of the same exact thing on a quest (or maybe process is a better word to steer clear of original intent) to see from all viewpoints?
If all is truely happening right now, could each of our individual lives and even our individual dreams be Jataka tales?
Just a passing thought.
0
Comments
The arising of ignorance could just be a by-product of simplicity but that doesn't mean there is a first cause to the arising of ignorance.
If there was no ignorance and no wisdom, there was still the potential for ignorance and wisdom growing in my honest opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by an independantly existing Mind. A consciousness that needs no developement? I can't say I rightly find that logical either.
Emptiness is precisely form and form is precisely emptiness. Siddhartha was shed, so what is Buddha?
The 5 skandhas?
P.S. Wouldn't "not other than" pretty much mean the same thing as "precisely"?
The rose is the entire universe.
And it is alive.
It's all trappings.
Ignorance, wisdom... It's all the same thing.
There are no true opposites.
We are all aspects of the same thing... Including the rose.
(5-7)
Why consciousness? He's talking about all physical phenomena.
This seems to be the only version I can find online under The Disourse of the Many Realms.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+bahudhatuka-sutta+and+its+parallels+on+women's+inabilities.-a0229832356
That would require a slowing down though which has yet to be observed. I don't believe in different universes but perhaps sub-universes. The big bang could be just another speck among specks.
There may be some type of all pervasive, immaterial substrate to our existence but I think in Buddhist logic even that wouldn't be the ultimate nature of the universe but only still a conventional phenomena subject to arising and ceasing and interdependence.
The only thing that stays the same is that everything changes. There is no continuance or causation without constant change.
@Taiyaki;
I agree with you in essence but it's a bit vague. It's my curious nature to look deeper and I know this is unimportant in relation to dealing with the here and now but I enjoy it. But then I think it could be important. If we could understand the universe better we may be able to see that resources are unlimited.
We've been trying to invent a perpetual motion machine for a long time but we've been flying around in one forever.
Arising and ceasing is another way of saying impermanence. Interdependence is another way to say emptiness or no self. The true nature of things in Buddhism doesn't have some kind of thingness that stays the same, there isn't something that changes over time, as @taiyaki likes to say, its all flux.
I agree that is a big "if".
If nothing passes or arises in the stream while at the same time, there is only the stream, then it stands to reason the stream is all inclusive.
I'm not going to copy and paste from it but I urge you to read what Thich Nhat Hanh says about it. This will take you to an excerpt of his book No Death, No Fear.
http://www.dharmagates.com/no_birth_no_death.html
Imagine a wheel on a treadmill. Though it is moving and in motion, is it really moving?
And what gives the idea of motion or even non motion? Aren't these just projections of entities? Motion only occurs when points are connected by a mind. Non motion only occurs in relationship to previous points of motion.
Just some thoughts I spit out prior to eating pizza. Don't take it too seriously!
Space, time, motion is you. And not separate from you. So where you go, when you go, and where you move to is directly influenced by you. There is no time, space, and motion apart from you. And you are just a thought, then gone. Then when conditions are ripe another thought. Our of ignorance (seeing otherness) we create a center called me, my, i. From that center we connect one thought to another. When in reality they have really no connection other than the ones we connect and project.
Ok pizza time.
I could go for some pizza... Hmm.
I agree with you about me not being a fixed entity but I still feel that to negate the individual is to negate the way things go. I agree with the teachings of no-self as a tool to see beyond the individual self but not to abandon the individual self. I feel it's then no good to anybody or the whole/flux/stream/Way. While we are here, we may as well explore and help us grow.
The Dharma as I have come to accept it has led me to see that expanding the sense of self to include all that is is what non-seperation and no-self is really all about.
In this way compassion is very literally common sense.
There is no non-seperation without something being divided. And a whole can be divided infinitely.
Dependently originated phenomena be it self or other have no applications of existence, non existence, both or neither.
But lets go direct. Anatta is a Buddhist seal.
In seeing just the seen, no seer.
In feeling just the sensation, no feeler.
In tasting just the taste, no taster.
In smelling just the smell, no smeller.
In thinking just the thought, no thinker.
In hearing just the sound, no hearer.
The subject is an after thought that references back to some vague entity.
But in direct experience there is only the non dual arising of consciousness upon contact.
Can we say this stream of consciousness arising and falling dependent upon conditions is self? We can but that is a thought projection.
So maybe i do agree with you but only in that we only exist as nominal projections onto processes, which cannot be pinned down. And even the nominal projection, Gone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. But they are "here" (whatever that is) regardless. Exactly. There is no object or subject to define as "me" but just the interaction and the consequent reaction. This means that any attributes placed on either subject or objects are just manifestations born from interaction itself.
Our actions are our only true possessions because all we consist of is action. I tend to think natural selection leans towards thought projection for a benefit and that evolution runs on some kind of instinct. Duality may be just a tool but it is a useful one once we recognise it for what it is. So where does compassion come into play in this outlook? How does it naturally arise in your understanding of the Dharma?
With that question, I'm not trying to be weird, I just enjoy learning about other viewpoints.
there is no such thing as hereness, present moment, etc. these are just thought projections onto "the stream" which cannot be pin pointed thus application of where, when or who do not apply. Even any view, position or theory is merely a thought.
Compassion is the natural expression of wisdom. For instance a bodhisattva has direct perception of the emptiness of all phenomena. A bodhisattva would see a suffering being and upon such contact neither aversion, nor attachment arises but what arises is sadness. Out of such sadness arises the desire to help in some way. On a relative level it is doing what is most obvious to help the individual. On the absolute level it is attaining full buddhahood to benefit all beings infinitely. But fundamentally the bodhisattva realizes they are no intrinsically existent suffering beings, nor is there some kind of liberator to those suffering beings. Everything is a karmic vision based on causes and conditions. Thus everything is used to manifest all the positive qualities of buddhahood. Infinite love is possible because one has enough momentum to end craving and aversion through the vision of wisdom. Spontaneous compassionate action arises only from the vision of emptiness. Everything else is just spiritual materialism, though valuable to condition oneself to have direct access to prajna wisdom. Just my opinion.
If you don't know about it, you may like to learn about the two truths doctrine of Nagarjuna. It understands the emptiness of all things while still allowing for a conventional self or reality. In fact it says the only reason a conventional reality can exist is because it is ultimately empty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
The past and the future do not exist except as what now used to be or what it may become but everything happens now. Now isn't non-existant... It is all there really is. I agree if the vision of emptiness includes inter-being.
All phenomena that arise independantly,
I say that they are empty.
Words come to an end because their message is false.
Words come to an end because there is a Middle way.
It's all about the Middle way.
Taco bell time.
The 6 elements are another way of analysing human experience, similar to the 5 aggregates - these are not intended to be a description of "reality".
I suppose it could be something like that but with more of a Tao feel instead of some kind of actual personification.
Perhaps some kind of personification could come into play when every single one of us has awakened but since there is still the potential for an infinite amount of us..?
Even if every sentient being in the universe woke up it would just signify a new age.
So I prefer to talk about "experience". In these terms the earth element for example actually refers to the experience of solidity and so is directly connected to the sense of touch.
I see where you're coming from as well but denying the subjective experience as a part of the reality is misleading.
Why get out of the way of a moving car? Why not call everybody Jim or forget about having compassion for the non-existant?