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.
are we doomed?
Does being DOOMED every happen?
like really, and eternally DOOMED.
After our death do we actually lose it? (our living-ness?)
like really, and eternally DOOMED.
After our death do we actually lose it? (our living-ness?)
0
Comments
Is everything going to be alright?
Yup so you shall die, but it does matter actions and effects do not cease just because I have died.
(all of this is paraphrased, but i believe i've got it right)
now, as much as i enjoy chopra's talks, i'm not sure i buy this. i mean, i see the relationship between the cosmic conscience and the individual conscience, even the idea that one can achieve a realisation that they are the same thing (and what an awesome realisation that must be). so from that standpoint i can indeed see the consciousness lasting... but at the cosmic level, -not- the egoistic and individual level. i can also see one's consciousness lasting through genetics (offspring) and the memories of others who knew the person in question, for what that's worth.
so, my question- does anybody agree with chopra on this? how would you describe his assertation as being true for the individual ego?
Who said anything to the contrary?
TheFound,
That is sounding an awful lot like atman or soul.
The Buddha taught to live in the present moment. If you're constantly worrying about "losing your living-ness" then you're missing out on the very thing you're worried about losing. This is craving, clinging to "self," and this is dukkha; the Buddha taught the way to end craving and dukkha; give it a try.
I think Chopra is referring both to the comic and individual consciousnesses. In a sense, after death consciousness become comic (as a big whole) until it decides to take birth through "offspring" ?
sorry, i forget where he mentioned it exactly. i started with this hulu program, "how to create a new self", but went on to watch some youtube stuff as well...
Also, you seem to have a materialist view of consciousness, which in Buddhism is considered a wrong view. You think that our consciousness is only a byproduct of brain and matter. While it is true that consciousness and matter are mutually interdependent, it is not the case that one is the result of another.
I wrote in another forum some time ago:
i deliberately pitched this in terms of the individual and ego because it ties the OP's question into what chopra mentioned. but as for your observations, i would say "it's all in how you look at it."
the quoted material strikes me as meritorious from some standpoints, such as when doing meditation, while at the same time as mostly useless from other standpoints. be that as it may, my primary curiosity remains in whether anyone here is familiar with how chopra interprets the original issue.
In certain strains of Zen and the latter day Chinese Buddhism, there are some (certainly not all) teachers who teach something close to a universal consciousness, but this is actually a latter extrapolation of certain things of Buddhism and even terms like 'One Mind' may not necessarily be refering to a universal consciousness. If however, they do teach such a notion, it does not have a scriptural basis but is an interpretation and extrapolation, and I would say it is actually a non-Buddhist notion. Any notion of a metaphysical essence, something of a substance, that belongs to non-Buddhist system and the Eternalists.
Do also read this related article: http://vajranatha.com/teaching/DzogchenChinese.htm
Not as for Deepak Chopra, I am not familiar with his works, but his understanding is definitely non-Buddhist: it is closer to Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism. That means he still holds on to some notion of a universal consciousness which is the eternal true Self, even though perhaps he views that the individual personalities do survive physical death. In Buddhism we do not reify any kind of an eternal Self or a universal consciousness.
Excerpt from: http://www.spiritinthevillage.com/2009/04/deepak-chopra-awareness-meditation-and-art.html
Deepak goes on to say that awareness is non-local meaning it’s not necessarily located within our body or brain. In fact we don’t know where it’s located. He says it is both local and non-local at the same time meaning awareness within you or me is part of a much greater universal consciousness or universal mind.
In Buddhism, it should be noted that we do not teach Consciousness as being localized (since consciousness is empty of independent/inherent existence and is dependently originated, hence unlocatable and ungraspable, but shall not go into this at the moment), but we do not as a result extrapolate a universal consciousness or mind.
Anyway, I have a friend who detailed his spiritual realisations in stages and also described the insight of Anatta that removes all notions of reifying Consciousness, including the notion of a Universal Consciousness. Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Personally, I like to think that there is individualistic consciousness, which is the same and will merge with this "cosmic consciousness" when one is enlightened.
Some thoughts for food.
I meant good and bad have no bearing on the question of whether you're going to die.
Oh right well then yes death is inevitable why didnt you just say that ?
Aw ... does anyone personally, really KNOW the answer to this question?
Guess it's all part of the Great Adventure!
The human body is about 70% water. Water never ceases to be water. It returns to the atmosphere where it is recycled endlessly, in many forms. The rest of the body consists mostly of fats and proteins, all of which are broken down to their elements and reused by nature (or at least would be, but for our silly obsession with preserving our bodies after death).
People come into the world in an ongoing process of life. The idea that you are "not," then suddenly you "are," then eventually you are "not" again, is all a trick of perception. If you look at your life in that way, it's no small wonder death will terrify you. The reality is that you have no beginning and end. You just change. You are changing now. You are not the same being you were when you started reading this.
Universal consciousness? It's not really a big deal to me. I know that I am conscious and self-aware. I am a thinking entity ("I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, I see that the Universe is a thinking entity. I am an expression of the whole. I see others around me that also appear to be thinking, self-aware entities. If I hold my breath, I pass out. If I refuse to eat, I die. I cannot live outside my environment, or without consuming life, so I know I am part of a process of life greater than myself.
If I knew nothing else, it would be enough to observe that all living beings die. So what do I have to fear? Why should I feel a sense of doom? Whatever "I" am does not die with my body. This doesn't require belief in anything mystical, just clear understanding.
I don't know what death will do to my consciousness. If I had to choose a religious theology on the subject, I guess I'd go with the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I take much of its content metaphorically, rich in symbolism designed to shock the consciousness into awakening. Something about the journey through the bardo rings true with me, or at least stirs my imagination. The problem with theories on the afterlife, however, is that nobody survives to confirm or refute them. That renders the issue pretty much moot.
I suppose if you were interested in covering all your bases, you could get yourself baptized, saved, blessed, and so forth in a variety of religions. Read the Tibetan Book of the Dead at least once in your lifetime. Then forget about dying and get on with living.
That's my take on it.
~ AD
“Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.” ~ Buddha
being dead implies an absence of living-ness.
you didn't exist for about 14 billion years before you were born with no serious problems or discomfort. Not existing after less than 100 years isn't going to be a big deal either.
Just breathe and stay in the present moment. It's not only all that matters, it's everything that matters.
It depends, how much doom did you actually play?
I don't know about losing "our living-ness", but the consciousness moves on...
The consciousness moves from one life to the next. Kamma is carried along with the consciousness towards the next life. The consciousness that passes from one life to the next is compared to the flame of one candle being used to light another candle. The flame of the second candle is neither the same nor different from that of the first candle. This is even though the flame of the second candle originated from the first candle. It is important to understand that consciousness depends on the other four aggregates and does not exist independently from them. Consciousness is not special or above the other aggregates.
Consciousness is not the self. It is the action and interaction of all five aggregates that create the illusion of a self. This illusion of an individual self, or what we might call the ego, can more correctly thought of as a by-product of the five aggregates.
I wonder how the Buddha would have answered this question.
Buddha-nature is the potential in each being to attain Buddhahood and should not be understood as a cosmic essence.
You are right with what you say as a practice method. I agreed. But I also said the Buddha taught about Tathagata-garbha, Dharmakaya and Nivana. I then say if I give all these a modern english word - the "cosmic consciousness", would this be wrong?
It will, I hope encourage those who feel incline to practice towards the "cosmic consciousness" to do so, and those to attain Nivana to do so also. To each his own. Why quarel with my words, which really is the conventional delusional usage anyway.
The most important point, however, is how and why we practice to reach the Supreme Enlightenment of the Buddhas. The "HOW" will in all likelihood not be possible to teach in an on-line setting. So said, all who come here, will have to grasp and understand whatever each can to their best ability. Expedience used may not be useful for all.
Pray that all are with one mind in this matter.
Such a person posits that there is an inherently existing, permanent and eternal and universal Essence behind all beings.
The teaching in Buddhism, that of Anatta and Emptiness, negates any sense of a metaphysical essence, including that of a universal Brahman. There is no such thing as an ultimate Subject, a universal Source or Mind of all beings.
When we realise our true nature, it is seen that there is no metaphysical essence at all, yet everything is clearly and vividly experienced. That is the luminous essence of awareness, but it's nature is empty. Hence it cannot be a universal substratum of things or a cosmic mind.
In summary all there is in our experiential reality is just appearances, which appear vividly but is empty, without any separate perceiver/experiencer. There is no other 'essence' apart from the appearances.
Also, the view is actually very important, and that is why the Buddha put it the 1st of the noble 8 fold path to enlightenment. This is because without Right View (e.g. if your view falls into the two extremes of Eternalism or Nihilism), no matter how hard you practice, you will not realise the truth that the Buddha taught. It is that fundamental.
One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...
We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.
Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.
This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.
Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.
For one stranded in the middle of the lake,
in the flood of great danger — birth —
overwhelmed with aging & death,
I will tell you the island, Kappa.
Having nothing,
clinging to no thing:
That is the island,
there is no other.
That's Unbinding, I tell you,
the total ending of aging & death.
Those knowing this, mindful,
fully unbound
in the here & now,
don't serve as Mara's servants,
don't come under Mara's sway.
Kappa-manava-puccha: Kappa's Question
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.10.than.html
I am a mystic that believes in transcendence from the ego self, and the body/mind without any loss of what some call 'Awareness', or 'Ultimate Consciousness', or even 'Ultimate Being,' (same/same).
But, I can tell you this. You can read a whole library, and talk to every wise person alive on this earth today, and even think/formulate up your own most reasonable ideas possible, but… No one really knows anything, with any certainty, (in this area) until they witness it personally. That is what you will have to do.
Even the Buddha told us not to take any thing 2nd hand, (when it comes to Realization) and swallow it whole. This would be just cheating your own self of the real treasure, or stopping short of the mark.
I agree with you, in this way. I believe that Ultimate Consciousness is Eternal Consciousness. (The Fundamentalist, and Orthodox Buddhists gasp!)
However:
I go on to believe that Buddha’s "no-self" was speaking about no ego self (beyond the mind's imagination), and the emptiness of all of finitude (empty of any essence of its own, being temporary in nature or impermanent). (Another huge gasp from the crowd!)
But, and this may seem even stranger, Ultimate Self always appears as individuality to every single sentient being. (No not the soul, only how it is viewed/experienced, and not actually separate pieces like a jig saw puzzle.) We all think that is my very own Intimate Self, or the “I Am of the Me.”
It is, both individual and omnipresent, or everywhere center, as each sentient being is just one manifestation of the One Ultimate Self. This is an ubiquitous understanding shared by many mystics of every religion, including many Buddhists, esp. Zen Masters like Hui-neng.
Or see a very well excepted book, 'Perenial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley. He point out that this theme just keeps showing up, in the 'most advanced' of masters, and in all of the religions.
Warm Regards,
S9
Very well said.
I have a friend who likes to remind people that their baby self is already dead, their little kid self passed away a long time ago, their teen age self burned up in its own passions, couldn’t be sustained in that fever, and so on.
What part of us remains the same today, as the breath flows through us like a river, or life force?
We are kaleidoscopic, as is the universe that sustains our physical presence. And like silly putty, we keep rearranging without appreciable loss.
Physical death, and I have seen many, stood right there and watched their last breath, while working in medicine, seems to be a process of leading up to a mystery, and than a corpse very much still there, but simply not animated any longer.
Life seems a bigger mystery to me. What is it?
Respectfully,
S9
Interesting little discussion!
Here is a non-Buddhist site I found a while ago. They have a discussion forum that looks very busy.
http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/
Namaste
since I always said, "if I follow the precepts, and 8fold path, I won't be myself anymore, what will I be?"
and recently while hearing a dharma talk, a zen master said
"what will you be, is free"
So I think that myself is doomed, but that's okay.
Just my take on it.
F: and recently while hearing a dharma talk, a Zen master said
"What will you be, is free"
So I think that myself is doomed, but that's okay.
S9: No, not its okay that I am doomed. Is it really?
But, I am free from that which IS doomed.
The body/mind is doomed. Are you the body/mind?
Sometimes an idea that is so disagreeable comes along for a purpose, as a teacher. Kicks you around a bit.
So:
Ask it to teach you. Don't just hide from it.
Doomed isn't okay, not in the paradigm where it is you. Think on this.
Peace isn’t pretend,
S9
Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.
This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.
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.
~ http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Zen%20Master%20Dogen