|
Rhymenoceros posted:There are many (serious scientific) theories about what will happen to the universe with time, but it's not like we're close to being certain. I agree we don't know what will happen to the universe. I did think impermanence was a big principal of Buddhism though, so surely the universe and all its material content can't be permanent? I'm not sure I understand whether the universe itself is "conditioned" though. There's no hard evidence against God either, or the Loch Ness monster. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it exists. What is your interpretation of karma, though? Do you have a link or something for your evidence for rebirth? (not trying to call you out or anything, I'm genuinely interested) Paramemetic posted:After a fashion, Buddhism is anti-natalist, in that the goal is to break the cycle of death and rebirth into samsara. We seek to not be reborn. However, antinatalism in the sense you mean, that of voluntarily refraining from procreation, is not helpful to this end. Knowing that sentient beings will be reborn after they die according to their karma, there are two reasons why antinatalism isn't a thing. Firstly, it doesn't really matter: beings will be reborn, and whether or not I personally have children does not affect this. For example, I may very well adopt rather than have children of my own, because there are already so many suffering children who need homes, but I do not think that by not having children of my own, I'm sparing anyone anything. If I do not have a child, it simply means no being's karma is to be born by my wife. They will be born elsewhere. So it doesn't matter. Secondly, if I did have children, that would be what I would hope is an auspicious rebirth. A child born to a Buddhist family is fortunate, because they are born with access to Dharma, and to parents who (one would hope) are loving, compassionate, and so on. Of course there are Buddhist parents who are not those things, and that is sad, but one might hope that for the most part. First of all, thanks for your whole post! It gave me a lot to think about. Now this may be a stupid question, but what happens in case of mass extinction (nuclear annihilation, asteroids hitting earth, pact to refrain from procreation, whatever) leading to total loss of life? Is samsara broken for humanity, or are we reborn elsewhere in the cosmos? In a growing population, if you have a child, are you adding a new entity to samsara? How is consciousness grown anyway? I disagree that if you do not have a child, a being will still be reborn. Where and how? What if everyone decided to go celibate? Would that end suffering? I would adopt for the same reasons, but also because I wouldn't be comfortable forcing a life, without consent, into all uncertainty but suffering and death. You can hope for auspicious rebirth with favourable odds but that's not how the wheel of fortune works. I don't believe in the Buddhist concept of rebirth though, insofar as what I have read. I would like to believe that after this life all that is left is the peace of oblivion and non-existence (is this nirvana?). Ultimately, due to the size of the universe and biological factors, there will always be sapient creatures until the death of the universe, so if samsara does exist I think for many entities it is inescapable, which is quite depressing. I can't wrap my head round samsara really, what I can see is only 2 realms: non-sapient and sapient, and non-sapient gets the better deal as they tend to live in the present and aren't aware of their inevitable death. quote:With regards to Monism, Buddhism rejects it. I can only really speak to my tradition's perspective, but the reason for rejecting monism is that monism asserts that there is at least one thing which really exists in an absolute sense (the universe, God, whatever). Within my tradition, in the Madhyamaka school, this seems relatively true, but it is not absolutely true. And that's the important distinction that answers the second aspect of this question, about believing what you see. Madhyamaka holds to what is called the "two truths doctrine." This doctrine acknowledges the plain and evident truth of existence as exactly what it appears to be, but this is a relative truth. I am typing on a computer, it seems quite evident that there is I, there is computer, there is an annoying dog bothering me, I'm sitting in a bed, all these things are plain to see. Indeed, it would be pretty stupid for me to say "there is no computer, there is no I" on a relative level. However, on an absolute level, none of those things are real. How could they be? This computer is just plastics and metals and molded carbon. "I" am just a collection of meat and bone and experience, brought together by causes and conditions, and when those causes and conditions are no longer met? I will be no more. So how can we say "I exist" when such existence is dependent entirely on ephemeral and fleeting causes and conditions arising together? And how can I say I exist when even in "my" lifetime I am not the same from moment to moment? My given name was not given to me, it was given to a little baby. I am not that baby, it is absurd to say I am that baby - I'm 6'3' and 190lbs, I'm bigger than the mother who bore me, how could I be a baby? But, ah, things change, and by so doing prove that they lack any absolute nature. We are just a collection of causes and conditions, devoid of intrinsic substance or nature, and so ultimately there is just emptiness. Can you clarify what you mean by "absolute"? Surely something must absolutely exist for you to relatively exist? There is the atom, the chair, the room, the house, the world, the solar system, the galaxy. Are all these relative because they constitute a part of something else? If the universe has bounds, is it absolute? Without an absolute, can you ever truly understand something? I agree Monism isn't very practical on a day to day basis, or the fact that you're ultimately not responsible for your actions. Everything we perceive is not Truth, as we are only looking at a tiny piece of the picture. But I think everything within the whole is connected on some fundamental level, just as the chair is part of the room. When you look at the night sky and admire a star, is it absurd to say it is shining brightly even though it may be dead? I don't know how old you are, but you are that baby to an observer x light years away, and how could you disagree? If they moved away at the speed of light, you would always be that baby. According to Einstein and his special theory of relativity, the past, present and future are all just an illusion. I believe in hard determinism, so I totally agree about being collections of causes and conditions. Not too sure what you mean about being devoid of substance or nature, and just being emptiness though. Could you elaborate? It seems to me, how a person acts is nature & nurture, neither of which he has control over, so it seems cruel that someone from unfortunate circumstances or mental illness gets karmically punished. quote:As for this question of rebirth, I believe it because I see it, but I do acknowledge that it is not plainly evident. However, there is no issue with this and the ultimate destruction of the universe. Hell, Buddhist cosmology essentially sees this universe as arisen in fire and it will be destroyed by fire. Buddhist cosmology proposes that any "mahakalpa" or "great kalpa" has four stages: evolution, where the universe comes into existence, evolution-duration, where the universe exists relatively, dissolution, where the universe is dissolved into void, and dissolution-duration, where the universe remains in void. This process lasts many billions of years, by human reckoning, but it is never exactly defined. Well that seems similar to the theory of heat death! Other than it being consumed by fire. I guess in the dissolution-duration, everyone is in nirvana? Is there a stage past that or does the wheel stop spinning? quote:I hope you can find some peace soon. I will inevitably catch flak for this, but I would encourage you to take up whatever aspects of the Buddhist path work for you. Of course, you need not take on the Buddhist identity, but Buddhism is a very practical path with very practical methods for reducing our suffering not only in the next life but in this very life. Practicing those methods will reduce your current suffering, and this is good. Acknowledging the causes of suffering to be attachment, aversion, and craving, perhaps you can find some calm in the storm of existence. You exist, at least relatively, what about that causes angst? Is it the knowledge that you will not exist? Come to peace with this, you already are no longer the same as you were yesterday. Change is constant, and we will all be destroyed some day. I remember one day I was burning disused prayer flags in the outdoor fireplace with my lama, and, looking at the fire, he said to me "you know, one day you'll be just like that." So I will! And that's good, is it not? After all, as Sartre says, "no finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point." I'm not concerned about death, it's very liberating. Immortality would be the nightmare. I think it would be better for noone to exist. While suffering is the essence of existence, you can't deprive nothing of joy. Any achievements, individually or collectively are ultimately meaningless, we'll be wiped out as a species at some point so what is the point? All you end up getting is the rape of Nanking, over and over. I think collective suicide would be best for the species. However I realise this is probably an unhealthy way to think, so I'm looking for spiritual meaning! ashgromnies posted:If you haven't yet, read the Tao Te Ching! Very readable in translation and short. Interesting and largely compatible with Buddhism, though some may argue it presents a dualistic viewpoint, it also presents the singularity and non-essence of dual aspects. Thanks, at £3 on amazon with prime there's no reason not to! I think if someone attacked me I'd have no problems hitting them with the nearest blunt object though! Also sorry if I'm derailing a bit, I think this may have been better posted in the philosophy thread or just read a Nietzsche book or something.
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Hey Crack, just wanted to let you know I saw your post. I'm working until tomorrow morning so I'll reply as soon as I get a chance and a computer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Thanks. I spent a while on wikipedia while writing that post and forgot where I was posting, and it got a little e/n which wasn't my intent so I'll try and throw some more directly buddhism related stuff in. What stuck out to me while writing it though is I'm not sure I have a decent understanding of karma or rebirth, or how they are related. The OP says "Rebirth is a continuation of life past the death of a body, but at the time is not an assertion of a supernatural soul that continues past the physical death of a body." How is this compatible with (the wiki article I read on) samsara? Or are the 6 realms literally just mental states and not physical death? When nirvana and physical death is reached, does that persons life force just vanish to the void? "The basic teaching is that birth is facilitated by dependent co-arising. "When X arises, Y arises; when X ceases, Y ceases."" Not sure I get this either, is this like "when a rabbit arises, a fox arises; when the rabbit is eaten, the fox starves" or more fundamentally "when the sun arises, life arises, when the sun dies, so does everything else"? In the last case a human goes through life, has material death but the prolonged existence of the sun causes more co-arising (ie more humans). This makes sense to me but it's not religious belief, just science. Also if we nuked ourselves to extinction and knocked the planet out of orbit, I'd dispute "continuation of life past the death of a body". And then there's karma. I'm not big fan of the supernatural, "believe what you see". I always saw karma as a physical cause effect relationship - you go around punching people and eventually you're going to get punched back. Or on a grander scale, if you put out more positive energy the world would be, however slightly, improved and maybe that will improve the odds of someone being happy and doing you a good turn. Not to mention you'll more likely have better quality friends than if you act negatively. However reading a couple posts here karma and rebirth are almost always in the same sentence. The OP says, "Karma is part of what governs rebirth", then after my original post "no hard scientific evidence against rebirth or karma" and finally "If I do not have a child, it simply means no being's karma is to be born by my wife. ". I guess I just really don't understand this. Is karma a supernatural life force of the recently decreased, can karma be good or bad at birth, and especially with the last quote from Paramemetic is the karma "conceived" in the mother or passed from another being? If you're born with bad karma, thats got to be pretty lovely. also "Soon will the earth cover us all: then the earth, too, will change, and the things also which result from change will continue to change for ever, and these again for ever. For if a man reflects on the changes and transformations which follow one another like wave after wave and their rapidity, he will despise everything which is perishable. " meditations, Marcus Aurelius
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Crack posted:And then there's karma. I'm not big fan of the supernatural, "believe what you see". I always saw karma as a physical cause effect relationship - you go around punching people and eventually you're going to get punched back. Or on a grander scale, if you put out more positive energy the world would be, however slightly, improved and maybe that will improve the odds of someone being happy and doing you a good turn. Not to mention you'll more likely have better quality friends than if you act negatively. However reading a couple posts here karma and rebirth are almost always in the same sentence. The OP says, "Karma is part of what governs rebirth", then after my original post "no hard scientific evidence against rebirth or karma" and finally "If I do not have a child, it simply means no being's karma is to be born by my wife. ". I guess I just really don't understand this. Is karma a supernatural life force of the recently decreased, can karma be good or bad at birth, and especially with the last quote from Paramemetic is the karma "conceived" in the mother or passed from another being? I want to try to speak to this a bit, to solidify my own understanding. I am not an authority and just someone doing their best to learn myself, so if anyone more knowledgeable wants to correct what I'm saying, please do  > "I always saw karma as a physical cause effect relationship" That's kind of part of it, but not the entirety. It's based on actions of sentient beings. Not everything that happens is necessarily from karmic conditions, either. > "Is karma a supernatural life force of the recently decreased" No. Our karma is based on the actions we take. Karmic action plants karmic seeds, which given the right conditions can fruit into future karmic action. > "Is karma "conceived" in the mother or passed from another being?" Sentient beings are born embedded in karma. Karma is inseparable from sentience(unless you're enlightened?). Karmic action lead to their birth. They are present with karma at birth. The way it's described often is as a "karmic bundle". It's not contained in any physicality, yet it's still present, as the bundle of karmic conditions that lead to their birth, and the karmic seeds that have been planted. Was your father angry? Maybe seeing him be angry in childhood plants karmic seeds in your life that give rising to future anger. His earlier anger prior to your birth might plant the karmic seeds for his future anger, which might fruit given the right conditions. That kind of stuff. edit: good reads -- http://viewonbuddhism.org/karma.html http://viewonbuddhism.org/rebirth_reincarnation.html http://www.near-death.com/experiences/buddhism04.html Geshe Tashi Tsering posted:Intention is the most important of all mental events because it gives direction to the mind, determining whether we engage with virtuous, non-virtuous, or neutral objects. Just as iron is powerlessly drawn to a magnet, our minds are powerlessly drawn to the object of our intentions. quote:Reincarnation: Term generally avoided by writers on Buddhism since it implies the existence of an immortal soul (atman) that is periodically incarnated in a fleshly host, a notion more proper to Hinduism. By contrast, Buddhism denies the existence of an immortal soul and does not accept the dualistic opposition between spirit and matter it presupposes. Accordingly, the English term preferred by Buddhist writers to designate the dynamic and constantly changing continuity of the individual from one life to the next is ‘rebirth’. Neither this term nor ‘reincarnation’ has a direct Sanskrit equivalent, and Indian sources speak instead of ‘rebecoming’ (Skt., punarbhava) or ‘repeated death’ (Skt., punarmrtyu). quote:Buddha accepted the basic Hindu doctrines of reincarnation and karma, as well as the notion that the ultimate goal of the religious life is to escape the cycle of death and rebirth. Buddha asserted that what keeps us bound to the death/rebirth process is desire, desire in the sense of wanting or craving anything in the world. Hence, the goal of getting off the Ferris wheel of reincarnation necessarily involves freeing oneself from desire. Nirvana is the Buddhist term for liberation. Nirvana literally means extinction, and it refers to the extinction of all craving, an extinction that allows one to become liberated. It's super confusing to me, too. My understanding is that rebirth is moment to moment, and I aim to cease the perpetuation of negative cycles of suffering, by planting and harvesting good karmic seeds in the life I am living right now. I'm not quite sure about the mechanics of death, when the body I'm in now dies. It's not even mine, because there's no self for it to belong to. So I'm not really too sure. I haven't thought about that part of it too much, but you bring up an interesting discussion. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 03:03 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
nevermind
ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 11, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
nevermind
ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 11, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
So, let's talk some about karma. When we say that there is good or bad karma, this is an incredible shorthand. It is meant to be understood as good karma being that karma which allows for and conditions liberation most readily, with bad karma being the inverse. Good karma is a negative force- the more good one's karma is, the less further actions are reaped from the results of that karma. Bad karma is a positive force- the worse one's karma is, the more actions and inhibitions on enlightenment are reaped. Of course, one ought use instead skillful or unskillfil (or kusala/akusala) karma instead of good and bad. To be born into a happy life with money and love and all the well being of the world could be called "good"- but it might actually keep you from enlightenment. When someone dies- they are dead. Dead. Buried. Rotting. Decaying. Dissolved. Ripped asunder by worms and vultures. They have no soul that continues on- their "life force" cannot go to the void because there was no essential-ness to them. This is because what we are, is not. It's a fruitless question. There is no we, there is no I. These are false. From a hardline religious perspective a buddhist understands for the most part that consciousness isn't essential. It is arisen. The mind, and our resultant sense of I, emerges from all kinds of inputs. These inputs could be the structure of the brain- the neurons and chemicals and different tracts and folds and lobes. This isn't permanent though! That consciousness will not remain fixed and same if you alter those phsyical aspects of the brain. Therefore those physical aspects do not contribute to an essential consciousness. There are non-physical aspects of mind too! memories, experiences, interpretations. A victim of traumas will have those strongly condition their thoughts and "who they are". There are external factors too- To whom and in what conditions you were born, if someone shoots you, etc etc etc. One of the factors that gives rise to the sense of who we are is causality- a chain of actions and results. Their soul is not reborn over and over. When we say that someone is reborn, it is partly because we are trapped in samsara. Ignorant delusional beings that we are. As well, it is partly because there is an individuality to karmas. These karmas mean that there are conditions and causes and reactions that occur along a singular path. It's a question of the trojan ship paradox- if you have a ship that keeps getting damaged, and you slowly replace each plank one at a time, when each plank was replaced, is it a new ship? If we take a person, and drive a rail spike through their heads such that they lose their memories and their capacity to experience emotion is changed- is it still the same person that is thinking afterwards? For a christian perspective, of course it is. The self arises from an essential soul, given to us from god. Consciousness is a modification of that essential soul. For a hindu perspective, it might not be the same person- consciousness is a modification of god, which interpenetrates reality. For a buddhist perspective, it absolutely is not the same person. They have changed and died long before that railroad spike- each thought changes the arrangement of conditions of consciousness such that it might as well be called a new consciousness. But to a buddhist this is insignificant. Consciousness or no, there is still a suffering being that shares life. Likewise when you are reborn- there is simply some overall chain of events that, when you step back really far away, looks like "one life". From the start of this kalpa, to the end. Up much close, these events of death and birth look so significant and strong that they seem pretty distinct. Even closer, if we look at just one lifetime, it seems as though each sleep is a significant trauma to consciousness! If we destroy the entire human race, or all of us become celibate without attaining- it is not an end to samsara. There are still repercussions to our actions. Animals will breed, Asuras and hell beings will have new births. Devas will have new births. Pretas will have new births. Humans will not- and this means a difficulty in liberation. It will take many hundreds of eons and births for a new species of "humanity" to be conditioned into birth again. For a new sapience to evolve. Much as with paramemetic- you can always shoot me something over AIM. I'm more responsive there, usually. It's in my profile. Paramemetic posted:I am not that baby, it is absurd to say I am that baby - I'm 6'3' and 190lbs, I'm bigger than the mother who bore me, how could I be a baby? But, ah, things change, 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Crack posted:I agree we don't know what will happen to the universe. I did think impermanence was a big principal of Buddhism though, so surely the universe and all its material content can't be permanent? I'm not sure I understand whether the universe itself is "conditioned" though. Crack posted:There's no hard evidence against God either, or the Loch Ness monster. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it exists. What is your interpretation of karma, though? Do you have a link or something for your evidence for rebirth? (not trying to call you out or anything, I'm genuinely interested) It does clash with the hypothesis that brain and mind are the same, but whether this is a good hypothesis is an open question. Regarding karma; things in the universe seem to happen in accordance with rules, just look at physics or chemistry or whatever. There's no reason to think our mental world is outside the universe, so our mental world should happen in accordance with rules. Take some science, e.g. Newton's third law (taken from wikipedia): "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force." This is just describing a rule-like aspect of reality, right? So in the same way with karma, the Buddha is saying "these actions lead to suffering, these actions lead to happiness". He's just describing the rules by which the mental phenomenons of pleasure and pain behave. There is no concept of reward or punishment here; if you jump from a tall building, gravity is not punishing you by accelerating you against the pavement, it's just what gravity does. Regarding rebirth evidence, you can check out the work of Ian Stevenson, I found one of his books (through google scholar). Not so much about rebirth, but you can also check out the fascinating work of Pim van Lommel on consciousness and near death experiences.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Crack posted:I agree we don't know what will happen to the universe. I did think impermanence was a big principal of Buddhism though, so surely the universe and all its material content can't be permanent? I'm not sure I understand whether the universe itself is "conditioned" though. The entire universe as experienced by people is conditioned. Without conditioning, it is Void, primordial emptiness, but due to causes and conditions it presents itself as universes and planets and chairs and hat racks. This universe is impermanent, but it's not the only universe that will exist, has existed, or exists, probably. It is arisen as all conditioned things arise, and it will fall as all conditioned things must fall. quote:First of all, thanks for your whole post! It gave me a lot to think about. You're welcome, I hope I am accurately representing the Buddhadharma and not causing further confusion. quote:Now this may be a stupid question, but what happens in case of mass extinction (nuclear annihilation, asteroids hitting earth, pact to refrain from procreation, whatever) leading to total loss of life? Is samsara broken for humanity, or are we reborn elsewhere in the cosmos? If we nuked ourselves into non-existence, beings would be reborn other places. It's a big universe out there. It was not so long ago that no human beings existed on Earth, it will not be long before human beings cease to exist on Earth. Everything is impermanent. But I think Buddhism generally does not concern itself with these things. Here, right now, is the pertinent time to act. What happens in an apocalyptic mass extinction event is not fruitful to my right conduct right now. quote:In a growing population, if you have a child, are you adding a new entity to samsara? How is consciousness grown anyway? I disagree that if you do not have a child, a being will still be reborn. Where and how? Somewhere else, usually by procreative sex? If I, personally, choose not to have children, that doesn't mean someone else will never have children. If the entire species chooses not to have children, still other animals will have children. It becomes almost a silly thing to disagree about, because why would my personally not having children prevent all beings from being born everywhere in the entire universe? "Self" is not a meaningful concept, and there's nothing inherent about where a being needs to be born, simply the fruiting of causes and conditions. And if no child is born to me, then it follows necessarily that the causes and conditions of a child being born to me do not exist. If the entire species stops having children, it follows that the causes and conditions of human children being born does not exist. quote:What if everyone decided to go celibate? Would that end suffering? Of course not, every being in samsara suffers, not just humans. If we all go celibate, it merely ensures that any beings that are born (that we know of) are not born as humans. quote:I would adopt for the same reasons, but also because I wouldn't be comfortable forcing a life, without consent, into all uncertainty but suffering and death. You can hope for auspicious rebirth with favourable odds but that's not how the wheel of fortune works. I don't believe in the Buddhist concept of rebirth though, insofar as what I have read. I would like to believe that after this life all that is left is the peace of oblivion and non-existence (is this nirvana?). It is true that the odds are not good for favorable rebirth, and less so if you don't practice Dharma, which is the driving impetus used by such as Shantideva to encourage practitioners to practice earnestly. quote:Ultimately, due to the size of the universe and biological factors, there will always be sapient creatures until the death of the universe, so if samsara does exist I think for many entities it is inescapable, which is quite depressing. I can't wrap my head round samsara really, what I can see is only 2 realms: non-sapient and sapient, and non-sapient gets the better deal as they tend to live in the present and aren't aware of their inevitable death. Not always, one day this whole universe will burn, and nothing will remain for a great kalpa, until another universe begins anew. Both sapient and non-sapient beings suffer, just they suffer differently. It is true that only sapient beings suffer sufferings requiring thought or knowledge. Only we suffer uncertainty, doubt, fear of death, fear of loss. The animals do not suffer those, but they suffer much more immediately. When an animal knows hunger, hunger is all it knows. It does not know any state other than hunger. It is driven by this suffering, and even if it finds food, it eats it hungrily, not enjoying it. Animals know constant fear of predators. Look at a deer for example, constantly trying to avoid predation. Animals do not know the fear of death, or the uncertainty of life, but still they die! Indeed, the suffering of animals is different, but certainly there. Even the smallest worm knows suffering when it finds itself washed up on the sidewalk, drying slowly in the sun, reaching, reaching for familiar dirt for shelter and sustenance and finding only the rocky maw of pavement. No, I think suffering is not unique to sapient beings. quote:Can you clarify what you mean by "absolute"? Surely something must absolutely exist for you to relatively exist? There is the atom, the chair, the room, the house, the world, the solar system, the galaxy. Are all these relative because they constitute a part of something else? If the universe has bounds, is it absolute? Without an absolute, can you ever truly understand something? I agree Monism isn't very practical on a day to day basis, or the fact that you're ultimately not responsible for your actions. Everything we perceive is not Truth, as we are only looking at a tiny piece of the picture. But I think everything within the whole is connected on some fundamental level, just as the chair is part of the room. Absolute in this case could be terms ultimate, or actual, or some such. The relative reality is reality that we experience, and it is relative to us - our experience of reality is unique, different from one another, even from our own experiences from moment to moment. There is an ultimate reality, one that is actually true, regardless of perspective, but that reality is emptiness. In relative terms, I'm typing on a computer. In absolute terms, typing on a computer has arisen from the Void, and will only exist so long as the causes and conditions continue to support it, and both "I" and "computer" are just expressions of that Void, momentary, fleeting, ephemeral, unreal. quote:When you look at the night sky and admire a star, is it absurd to say it is shining brightly even though it may be dead? I don't know how old you are, but you are that baby to an observer x light years away, and how could you disagree? If they moved away at the speed of light, you would always be that baby. That would be the exact point of that relative reality, no? I might appear as a baby to an observer light years away, and to them, this is true, relatively. To me, how is it true? How can I be that baby when I am 6'3"? And what lunatic lets a baby drive an ambulance or fight fires? A star that burns brightly burns brightly to me, it is relatively true, but not absolutely true. In absolute terms, a star burning brightly exists only so long as its causes and conditions allow - when those no longer exist to support that star, it will not burn any longer. quote:According to Einstein and his special theory of relativity, the past, present and future are all just an illusion. I believe in hard determinism, so I totally agree about being collections of causes and conditions. Not too sure what you mean about being devoid of substance or nature, and just being emptiness though. Could you elaborate? It seems to me, how a person acts is nature & nurture, neither of which he has control over, so it seems cruel that someone from unfortunate circumstances or mental illness gets karmically punished. Nobody gets karmically punished. Quantumf8 posted a good bit on karma up there that is pertinent, but it is important to note it is not a punitive force, neither is it a force of reward. Punishment and reward are conceptual things that we ascribe to events, not actual things. When a child wanders out to the beach at low tide, nobody says they are being punished when the waters rush in and drown them. It is unfortunate that they went down there, but nobody sees it as their just desserts. No, it is just an unfortunate reality that if you wander down the beach in low tide and linger too long, you will soon find the high tide (ah, impermanence!). Similarly, it is an unfortunate reality that if you indulge in non-virtuous acts that cause suffering, you will have a rebirth tempered by the causes and conditions of suffering. This is true even from the most secular understanding of rebirth: if you create suffering in the world, you will live in a world of suffering. And, too, a person's behaviors may be tempered by nature and nurture, but what nature they exist in and what nurture they receive is also the fruition of karma. A person born with a mental illness has the causes and conditions of mental illness. It is not their "fault," because there is no "good" or "bad" judgment involved in this, it simply is the case. Nobody is born mentally ill without the support of the causes and condition of mental illness. quote:Well that seems similar to the theory of heat death! Other than it being consumed by fire. I guess in the dissolution-duration, everyone is in nirvana? Is there a stage past that or does the wheel stop spinning? The wheel doesn't stop spinning, after dissolution and dissolution-duration, it goes back to evolution and evolution duration. Consider it like the big bang and the big collapse. As for everyone being in nirvana? No, because there is no one to be in nirvana. Once again, that would require some kind of intrinsic nature or existence of beings. There is none. I exist right now because causes and conditions support it. When those conditions cease? So to do I cease. Once this being posting as Paramemetic dies, it will be gone. There is no Paramemetic-nature to pass on. Another being will be born, based on the causes and conditions I've created in life, but it will not be "me," because I will be food for worms. quote:What stuck out to me while writing it though is I'm not sure I have a decent understanding of karma or rebirth, or how they are related. The OP says "Rebirth is a continuation of life past the death of a body, but at the time is not an assertion of a supernatural soul that continues past the physical death of a body." How is this compatible with (the wiki article I read on) samsara? Or are the 6 realms literally just mental states and not physical death? When nirvana and physical death is reached, does that persons life force just vanish to the void? What life force? There is no enduring life force, no soul. When a thing dies it is dead. Another thing is reborn, supported by causes and conditions. One of those causes is the death of the previous thing, and the conditions surrounding it are dependent on the previous thing, but that first thing is well and truly dead. The 6 realms I hold to be literal states of beings, but they are also mental states and metaphorical states. When nirvana and physical death is reached, this is called "parinirvana," final nirvana. The truth is, we do not know what happens when an enlightened being passes into parinirvana. It is beyond our ability to know or conceive. It could simply stop existing, but it could mean something else - as samsaric beings we have no way of knowing. quote:"The basic teaching is that birth is facilitated by dependent co-arising. "When X arises, Y arises; when X ceases, Y ceases."" Not sure I get this either, is this like "when a rabbit arises, a fox arises; when the rabbit is eaten, the fox starves" or more fundamentally "when the sun arises, life arises, when the sun dies, so does everything else"? In the last case a human goes through life, has material death but the prolonged existence of the sun causes more co-arising (ie more humans). This makes sense to me but it's not religious belief, just science. Also if we nuked ourselves to extinction and knocked the planet out of orbit, I'd dispute "continuation of life past the death of a body". Yeah, pretty much? Buddhism is not a religion of decree. Buddha did not decide "these things are true now." Buddha observed reality how it actually is, and then taught others how to see the same thing. Of course Buddha would observe fundamentally true things. As an aside, I think it's funny how people say science and religion are incompatible, but when a religion exists that literally asserts the truth of science, several hundred years before the scientific method even existed, that religion "isn't religion, just science." Buddha did not create anything, he simply observed how things really are (rather than how we view them through conceptual filters of our own providence) and so of course his observations should line up with things that are scientifically supported. Action and result, cause and effect, are the same principles. There is certainly a metaphysical bent to karma when it applies to rebirth and so on, but only because that refers to things we cannot directly observed through our limited instrumentation (the physical senses are a poor method of interacting with non-physical things, just as they are poor instruments for perceiving EMR). quote:And then there's karma. I'm not big fan of the supernatural, "believe what you see". That is fine, but "believe what you see" becomes problematic, does it not? After all, you cannot see subatomic activities, only the implications of them. By which I don't mean to refute atomic theory! Merely to say that "what you see" is a limited field compared to what is. quote:I always saw karma as a physical cause effect relationship - you go around punching people and eventually you're going to get punched back. Or on a grander scale, if you put out more positive energy the world would be, however slightly, improved and maybe that will improve the odds of someone being happy and doing you a good turn. Not to mention you'll more likely have better quality friends than if you act negatively. However reading a couple posts here karma and rebirth are almost always in the same sentence. The OP says, "Karma is part of what governs rebirth", then after my original post "no hard scientific evidence against rebirth or karma" and finally "If I do not have a child, it simply means no being's karma is to be born by my wife. ". I guess I just really don't understand this. Is karma a supernatural life force of the recently decreased, can karma be good or bad at birth, and especially with the last quote from Paramemetic is the karma "conceived" in the mother or passed from another being? Again Quantumf8 has probably done a better job here than I will, but: karma is not a force. Karma is action, and it implies a rule of action and result. Action and result is basically what it seems, if I plant a rose bush, nurture it, give it light and water, and so on, I will get roses, I cannot possibly get tulips. If I plant a tulip bulb, I will get a tulip, I cannot possibly get a maple tree. I could get nothing at all, if I don't support it, and again that would be a result of my actions. No matter what actions I do, there are results for those actions. At its most basic, that is what we call karma. So yes, if you go around pushing people, eventually you'll get punched. If you do violent deeds, it is likely you'll reap violent rewards (metaphorically! No punishment or reward is involved). Karma and rebirth are included frequently in the same sentence because the idea that our actions now will affect our rebirth later is a fundamental concept of Buddhism. It is the carrot and stick that encourages good behavior, but the primary idea that there is a cycle of rebirth in which all samsaric beings are stuck is the entire point, without that cycle of rebirth, liberation from samsara is as simple as dying. But yet, all beings die, and still there are more beings here in samsara, so there's a problem with that. Karma, as coupled with rebirth, has to do with how causes and conditions dictate the nature of a rebirth. It is extremely important, when discussing rebirth, that one realize that the being that is born is not the same being that died, but that they are related through cause and effect. When I perform virtuous deeds in this life, it is with certainty that even if I do not attain enlightenment in this life, another being will be born when I die, and will be conditioned by my virtuous deeds, and will have an auspicious rebirth. An auspicious rebirth, incidentally, in Buddhism, does not mean one with little suffering. Indeed, like Quantumf8 pointed out, if you have too little suffering, you'll have no encouragement to work towards the Dharma, you'll have little desire to practice Buddhism and strive for liberation, and so at the end of your life you will likely not have created good conditions for the next being. quote:If you're born with bad karma, thats got to be pretty lovely. Yep, pretty much this is the main reason for living a virtuous life. Even if your life now is lovely, it is better than other lives with worse conditions, and if you murder a Buddha or your own parents, your future rebirth is bound to be extremely lovely, so don't do those things. Action and result, cause and effect are perhaps a much more frightening arbiter than a divine judge. At least a theist can hope for mercy, or blame their condemnation on an unjust god. For a Buddhist, like for an Existentialist, we are faced with the burden of our own freedom. If you kill your mother and end up in a hell realm, that is just what happens when you kill your mother. Hope it was worth it for you, because there is no appeal to leniency, just as there is no condemnation in the result. If you throw your lunchbox in a lake, your food will be wet, and you cannot blame anyone but yourself. We choose through our actions what world we will live in, and there's no savior just as surely as there's no judge. But of course, the solution is simple, don't perform non-virtuous deeds, don't cause suffering to others, and you will just as quickly gain a positive rebirth. quote:also I love the Meditations. Marcus Aurelius here is not wrong, either. Everything is impermanent, everything is subject to change. Everything will change. So don't grasp for it or attach to it. This doesn't mean don't enjoy things - if you love drinking tea from a certain cup, drink tea from that cup, but when that cup breaks, acknowledge that it was always broken, and move on without grasping or attachment. This way, you cannot be caused suffering. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:37 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The wheel doesn't stop spinning, after dissolution and dissolution-duration, it goes back to evolution and evolution duration. Consider it like the big bang and the big collapse. As for everyone being in nirvana? No, because there is no one to be in nirvana. Once again, that would require some kind of intrinsic nature or existence of beings. There is none. I exist right now because causes and conditions support it. When those conditions cease? So to do I cease. Once this being posting as Paramemetic dies, it will be gone. There is no Paramemetic-nature to pass on. Another being will be born, based on the causes and conditions I've created in life, but it will not be "me," because I will be food for worms. What is meant in Buddhism when it is said that so-and-so is the reincarnation of some previous Buddhist figure? E.g. the lamas of Tibetan Buddhism are often claimed to be reincarnations of previous figures. Does it just mean to imply that they embody the traits of that person? These declarations are often made in early childhood. I'm confused at how to reconcile "this person is a reincarnation of that specific person" with "there is no intrinsic self that is carried on". ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 17:33 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:30
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What is meant in Buddhism when it is said that so-and-so is the reincarnation of some previous Buddhist figure? E.g. the lamas of Tibetan Buddhism are often claimed to be reincarnations of previous figures. There is a self, as long as you assume there is one. And Tibetan Buddhists, while they essentially keep the doctrine of no-self, they add on that of the bodhisattva, one who comes back to this world after enlightenment to help all sentient beings. Personally I think that is impossible, but it's a nice idea all the same. Anyway, what this means is you can either assume that reincarnated lamas are bodhisattvas, or they are propelled back under the force of their karma, so to speak. Or they just make it all up, which really comes out to the same thing in my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Or maybe not impossible, but an obfuscation of something more complex.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:There is a self, as long as you assume there is one. And Tibetan Buddhists, while they essentially keep the doctrine of no-self, they add on that of the bodhisattva, one who comes back to this world after enlightenment to help all sentient beings. Personally I think that is impossible, but it's a nice idea all the same. Anyway, what this means is you can either assume that reincarnated lamas are bodhisattvas, or they are propelled back under the force of their karma, so to speak. Or they just make it all up, which really comes out to the same thing in my opinion anyway. There is a self relatively but not absolutely. The idea of bodhisattvas coming back after enlightenment to help all sentient being does not imply the same being or same self. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama for example is literally Avalokitesvara, but he is not the same self as the 13th Dalai Lama, he's not the same self as Avalokitesvara in the Buddha's time, and he's not the same self as Avalokitesvara overall. He's an emanation being of a mindstream. We are all emanation beings of a mindstream. Mindstream, in this case, is not a "self" or a "soul" or even a linear progression, it refers to the aspect of a stream whereby we might walk by it every day and see what seems like the same stream, but all the water is different each time. In what way is it the same stream if it's not the same water? In this same way, a tulku, a reincarnated being, is not the same as their previous self. Reincarnated lamas are bodhisattvas, it takes a great deal of attainment to be able to choose the time and place of one's rebirth. They are, in fact, enlightened beings, but they choose to remain in samsara in order to benefit all sentient beings in the best way, which they know, because they're enlightened. Anyways, none of this changes the doctrine of no-self. There is a nuance to the concept of mindstreams that differentiates it from a self, and, indeed relatively, there is a self. Clearly I can make an (arbitary, conceptual) distinction between you and I, for example. But that distinction does not mean there is actually such a thing as a self, only that there is something we can call a self, if we want to. In the end? Just emptiness. Or mind if you're yogacarin I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Edit, I'll just let the point stand, I'm not saying anything that useful. But I'll keep my question up.. Is mindstream still considered karmic activity, or no? ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 11, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The idea of bodhisattvas coming back after enlightenment to help all sentient being does not imply the same being or same self. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama for example is literally Avalokitesvara, but he is not the same self as the 13th Dalai Lama, he's not the same self as Avalokitesvara in the Buddha's time, and he's not the same self as Avalokitesvara overall. He's an emanation being of a mindstream. We are all emanation beings of a mindstream. Mindstream, in this case, is not a "self" or a "soul" or even a linear progression, it refers to the aspect of a stream whereby we might walk by it every day and see what seems like the same stream, but all the water is different each time. In what way is it the same stream if it's not the same water? I still don't quite understand mindstream. What do you mean when you say HHDL is literally Avalokitesvara? How does a mindstream persist after death?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I still don't quite understand mindstream. What do you mean when you say HHDL is literally Avalokitesvara? How does a mindstream persist after death? Because a mindstream is a not a thing someone is possessed of. I do not know how I can render the term meaningfully. It is the moment-to-moment flow of consciousness. It changes constantly, so it is not the same, not permanent. It can pass from one being to another, but it is not the same being. It is not a quality one possesses, it is not a thing that is discrete and identifiable. It is the unceasing flow of consciousness. HHDL is an emanation of Avalokitesvara. The great Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara manifests itself in the nirmanakaya form of HHDL. It is an emanation. The mindstream is there, and for a moment, there is water in it that is the mind of HHDL. Later, there will be other water in the stream. It's not the same water. The stream is there the whole time, but it's not the same stream because it's not the same water. I think I lack enough of a nuanced understanding myself to explain this concept adequately, and I apologize. ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Is mindstream still considered karmic activity, or no? I don't understand the question. A mindstream is not an activity but a stream of consciousness, like a stream of thought. I mean, hell, a stream of thought is some of the water in the mindstream. A mindstream's nature, too, is primordial emptiness. So. . . what sense does the question make? I feel like you're asking me, "are tables still considered karmic activity?"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
I've derailed us way off the core though and into the weird stuff, so here, just appreciate the beauty in life.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:21
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
Well if nothing else, I'm certainly not asking if tables are considered karmic activity, because when we are talking about a mindstream, we are referring to living, conscious beings, which have many more experiences and difficulties than tables. It seems like from your conception, the mindstream exists first, and then is impinged upon by karma. So it exists before personal conditioning. Is that accurate? That's basically my question. What relevance does mindstream have to the individual exactly? It really does seem like trying to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to rejecting the self. Mindstream seems like something essential to an individual from what you have said and what I just read. I really try not to get caught in these traps that Buddhist lay out for themselves. The Buddha didn't ask these questions and refused to answer them. Good for him.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Well if nothing else, I'm certainly not asking if tables are considered karmic activity, because when we are talking about a mindstream, we are referring to living, conscious beings, which have many more experiences and difficulties than tables. I don't know about that, look how hard we make tables work! Haha quote:It seems like from your conception, the mindstream exists first, and then is impinged upon by karma. So it exists before personal conditioning. Is that accurate? That's basically my question. What relevance does mindstream have to the individual exactly? I have answered this a few times, if my previous answers were insufficient to explain it, I haven't learned anything in the last 20 minutes to make it more clear I think? quote:It really does seem like trying to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to rejecting the self. Mindstream seems like something essential to an individual from what you have said and what I just read. Mindstreams are not essential to individuals, not unique to them, and regardless can be neither essential nor unique because it is literally consciousness, moving and changing, ebbing and flowing, coming and going. How can it be self? If I take a cup of water and throw it into a river, there is no way to say "ah, this river is now essential to the cup of water, this river is unique to this cup of water, and this river is the self of this cup of water." Similarly, if I take a river and, using the same cup, scoop water out of the river, it will not be the same water it was before. The cup, the river, the water have all changed! There is nothing intrinsic or essential to self or to mindstream. Furthermore, that flow of consciousness from moment to moment is what carries the causes and conditions forward. The two are inseparable. If a being is a human and they accumulate vast merit, then upon this death and the rebirth of another being along that same continuum, that same mindstream, they'll have good results. They are not the same being, and the mindstream is not a "part of them." If anything, they are a part of the mindstream? It is a continuum, all sentient beings are part of a mindstream, because all sentient beings have a continuum of consciousness from moment to moment. HHDL has written a formal statement on his own reincarnation/emanation/rebirth, found here: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation , and it goes into fair depth on the basis of the statement before the statement itself. It will probably do a better job of explaining this than I. I have also quoted from Kunzang Pelden in this thread, in a way that explains things better. quote:I really try not to get caught in these traps that Buddhist lay out for themselves. The Buddha didn't ask these questions and refused to answer them. Good for him. You say this, but you're caught in the trap yourself by persisting on the topic and asking the questions, which I've been assuming you were asking in earnest and out of curiosity. Or were you asking in bad faith, trying to "win" the conversation by proving a "gotcha" that disproves the religion somehow? Either way, yes, the Buddha was far wiser than either of us.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I think your interpretation of Buddhist canon, and maybe even the canon itself, has little to do with my experience of what I think is behind these words. I experience no mindstream. All I feel is the fraudulent, painful weight of my own self-consciousness, and the slow burn of that eating itself up through some stroke of luck or fortune or something. I can't find any corresponding concepts to this process within Buddhism anymore, but it's still the best friend I've got. I'm actually about to apply to be an administrator for a Buddhist retreat center out of lack of anywhere else to turn in this society, but I fear that I don't have much in common with the tradition anymore. It's a strange feeling. And that's why I ask you these questions. For me, but also for you, and everyone else. What do these concepts have to do with you. That's the question I always ask. I feel like some of the time the answers lead to more abstractions and justifications and I want to be proven wrong, for everybody's sake.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Or rather, if mindstream is a symbol for self-consciousness, then I've got that in spades. But if mindstream is the absence of mind, the destruction of it, and the allowing of the world to work its own magic, and so the mindstream is a symbol for the world, then I have little to no experience of that. So I was asking you which it is. And you seem to be saying it's neither, it's something else. Some other distinction to make about individuals and their relation to the world. None of your answers have addressed this. HHDL doesn't seem to address it either. I don't think he knows. edit - quote:“…If one understands the term “soul” as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness. From that point of view, the debate on whether or not there is a soul becomes strictly semantic. However, in the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or “no soul” theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called ‘soul.’ That is what is being denied in Buddhism.” Alright. He says that there's no *unchanging* soul. But there is one that changes from moment to moment and that is what you are describing with the river analogy. And that's the mindstream. And so that stream constantly changes and moves and fluctuates. But at the end of the day it is still a stream! It still has a certain structure, a certain behavior. It follows itself. Cause and effect. That he does not seem to deny. This just seems to be a more careful way of affirming a self. A storehouse for thoughts and emotions and behaviors. They deny one kind of self but affirm another kind. I didn't know this mindstream business had crept into Buddhism. Maybe it's been there for a while. I never noticed it. To me, self is self. The whole structure needs to be eradicated. I feel the fraudulent weight of the whole thing and come what may. I really have no choice anyway. And I don't intend to put out any kind of soapbox in the world until it's all over and done with, if I ever do at all. The self that thinks it is changing is actually never changing. It is just as static and rigid as it ever was. It wants to tell itself it has changed and that it will change, but it never will. The self is like a person with that bone disease where every bump and scrape grows bone instead of tissue and eventually they are encased in bone. It is rigid and yet violent. This stream business is another way to fool yourself into thinking you are evolving, progressing, moving forward. This is all the basis of delusion. There is no progression, no evolution. No change is possible. There's only the world, and there's not even that. Although, then if the mindstream is really your very existence, your very ability to experience as an individual person, then I suppose I have no answer to that because I just do not know, and I can't doubt that I see out of my own eyes and not someone else's. But there seem to be a lot of traps possible by thinking about mindstream. Did the Buddha really give different teachings on mindstream depending on the experience level of the student? http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html quote:Question: What happens to the mind-stream when a person becomes a Buddha? What does anyone make of this? Prickly Pete? I don't trust Berzin sometimes to interpret things for me. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 12, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Or rather, if mindstream is a symbol for self-consciousness, then I've got that in spades. But if mindstream is the absence of mind, the destruction of it, and the allowing of the world to work its own magic, and so the mindstream is a symbol for the world, then I have little to no experience of that. So I was asking you which it is. And you seem to be saying it's neither, it's something else. Some other distinction to make about individuals and their relation to the world. None of your answers have addressed this. HHDL doesn't seem to address it either. I don't think he knows. I recommend you quit hating the Jews before you try and reach enlightenment. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:03
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recommend you quit hating the Jews before you try and reach enlightenment. I recommend you try and understand my posts in that thread a little better. btw I am part Jewish, not by matrilineal rules, but Jewish enough. Am I a self-hating jew then? The slander never ends. I want no part in your dramas. Your post reeks of lack of the ability to understand anything substantial, but you're not alone.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:I recommend you try and understand my posts in that thread a little better. btw I am part Jewish, not by matrilineal rules, but Jewish enough. Am I a self-hating jew then? The slander never ends. I want no part in your dramas. Your post reeks of lack of the ability to understand anything substantial, but you're not alone. There is a very strong ego-ism in judging someone's capacity to understand your own wild intimations- of which you yourself profess to not understand. Am I such as well that lacks the capacity to understand something substantial?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:05
|
|
Quantumfate posted:There is a very strong ego-ism in judging someone's capacity to understand your own wild intimations- of which you yourself profess to not understand. Am I such as well that lacks the capacity to understand something substantial? I wasn't articulate enough about my own point the first day, but the second day I was totally clear. But I got banned for my waffling the first day. And the line between trolling and seriousposting for me is very ambiguous, because of how disinterested I am in belief (and even fact) in general to carry one to anywhere worthwhile. That's why I said that. Another way in which I was misunderstood. But to say I hate Jews is to completely misunderstand everything I said. To not understand my posts is one thing and that's fine, but to allege that I am a hateful racist is to buy in to every stereotype ever sold by institutions of Power/Knowledge (Foucualt termed it best). I hate no one. I don't see the benefit. Other people don't arouse such a strong feeling in me anyway, that they think they do is to buy into the myth of their own power. Largely any anger that I have is at myself, and it's generally always been that way. But I have no problem with making judgements, and you shouldn't either. At least judgements are honest. Don't hold back on what you think. I'll be right there with you when you or anyone else says exactly what you *actually* think. And then you can see if it was something worth saying or not. Sometimes you don't know what will happen until you get it out.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
I always appreciate reading this thread, but things tend to take a turn towards being incomprehensible and confrontational when TPJWA pops up.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Or rather, if mindstream is a symbol for self-consciousness, then I've got that in spades. But if mindstream is the absence of mind, the destruction of it, and the allowing of the world to work its own magic, and so the mindstream is a symbol for the world, then I have little to no experience of that. So I was asking you which it is. And you seem to be saying it's neither, it's something else. Some other distinction to make about individuals and their relation to the world. None of your answers have addressed this. HHDL doesn't seem to address it either. I don't think he knows. It's not a symbol of anything. It's the moment to moment stream of consciousness, uninterrupted awareness, just bein' there, existing. Thoughts just bein' thought. You keep asking me all kinds of questions that aren't pertinent to the concept, which is why I'm having some trouble here. I'll admit it's kind of hard to follow you. quote:Alright. He says that there's no *unchanging* soul. But there is one that changes from moment to moment and that is what you are describing with the river analogy. And that's the mindstream. And so that stream constantly changes and moves and fluctuates. But at the end of the day it is still a stream! It still has a certain structure, a certain behavior. But the "self" in the stream metaphor is not the stream. It's the cup of water. You're misapprehending the fundamental concept. It is called a stream because, like a stream, it looks like it is the same thing, even when all of the constituent parts are changing. The continuum is the only part that can be said to be enduring, but because it's a continuum from moment to moment, it's not enduring in any fundamental way. You don't seem to like this, and so you decide I'm saying something else that you also don't like, and you're challenging that. But I don't know how to say "there is no self" in such a way that you won't say "so what you're saying is there's a self, but it's like this, and I reject that." quote:It follows itself. Cause and effect. That he does not seem to deny. Are a seed and a flower the same thing to you? Of course there is cause and effect. Action and result , the distinction is a dualistic illusion. quote:This just seems to be a more careful way of affirming a self. A storehouse for thoughts and emotions and behaviors. It's not a storehouse, nothing is retained. quote:They deny one kind of self but affirm another kind. I didn't know this mindstream business had crept into Buddhism. Maybe it's been there for a while. I never noticed it. To me, self is self. The whole structure needs to be eradicated. I feel the fraudulent weight of the whole thing and come what may. I really have no choice anyway. And I don't intend to put out any kind of soapbox in the world until it's all over and done with, if I ever do at all. I mean, the concept of a mindstream has existed since at least Vasubandhu, probably earlier. Perhaps you should learn more about Buddhism in general before you start talking about concepts that have been firmly established for centuries as if they were novel and you don't know what to make of these young whippersnappers? quote:The self that thinks it is changing is actually never changing. That's tautologically problematic. If a self thinks it is changing, then it is thinking. Thinking is an action, thoughts rising and falling. If a thought rises, the being that thinks it changes (it is now a being that is thinking that thought). When the thought falls, again the being changes (it is now a being that has thought that thought). A self that thinks it is changing is changing, because the causes and conditions which sustain a being thinking it is changing are not permanent. quote:It is just as static and rigid as it ever was. But it never was. Self is conditioned, a conceptual illusion, it has never been rigid or static. That is in fact the point. quote:It wants to tell itself it has changed and that it will change, but it never will. The self is like a person with that bone disease where every bump and scrape grows bone instead of tissue and eventually they are encased in bone. It is rigid and yet violent. This stream business is another way to fool yourself into thinking you are evolving, progressing, moving forward. This is all the basis of delusion. There is no progression, no evolution. No change is possible. There's only the world, and there's not even that. I agree, all of these ideas you're promoting are based in delusion. But amusingly, they're a strange delusion. You talk about observing the world how it really is, and then deny the one thing that is characteristic of how the world really is (impermanence). But then, I'm trying really hard to extract meaning from what seems like word salad. I am certain this all makes sense to yourself, but you're not coming through clearly or meaningfully. How can you say nothing changes? In this very thread you've both claimed to be an Arhat, and not a Buddhist. Something's changed! quote:Although, then if the mindstream is really your very existence, your very ability to experience as an individual person, then I suppose I have no answer to that because I just do not know, and I can't doubt that I see out of my own eyes and not someone else's. But there seem to be a lot of traps possible by thinking about mindstream. The mindstream isn't our very existence, I've not said anything to that effect. That's an extrapolation you've made yourself, and it's off base, and it's obviously causing you a lot of confusion. quote:Did the Buddha really give different teachings on mindstream depending on the experience level of the student? This is a basic premise of the history of the three turnings of the Wheel. The first turning gave the basic Four Noble Truths and is foundational of the Hinayana. The second turning teaches Emptiness, and founds the Mahayana. The third turning teaches the Buddha-nature, and adds to Mahayana and founds the Vajrayana. The fact that you don't trust one of the world's foremost experts on Buddhism to inform you about Buddhist doctrine is bemusing to me. With the hope of getting out of this PriceJustWentUp loop, I offer up this towards the other people interested in the subject: On the subject of cause and effect and their relationship, I'm going to go ahead and go to a source, for the benefit of the others in this thread looking at this and going "the hell's this philosophy?" A lot of this comes from the Mulamadhyamakakarika, a text by Arya Nagarjuna titled in English "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way." It is a philosophical text that basically dismantles dualism of existence and non-existence to establish a doctrine of Emptiness which takes impermanence and interdependent origination into synthesis. It is the core philosophy which establishes much of Tibetan Buddhism, the other being Yogacara, where the main distinction is that Madhyamaka holds that everything is emptiness, whereas Yogacara holds that mind itself exists in some form or another. The synthesis of the two is very common, where one would hold that mind exists, but is fundamentally empty. On action and result, Nagarjuna writes: quote:If until the time of ripening, action had to remain in place, it would have to be permanent. If it has ceased, then having ceased, how will fruit arise? On the topic of self and entities, he writes: quote:If the self were the aggregates, it would have arising and ceasing (as properties). If it were different from the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I feel terrible saying this, but maybe someone can give me some insight. I feel like practicing is a chore sometimes. Going to sangha meetings takes me an hour one way on public transportation, and the meetings are all late at night. Meditating is uncomfortable and I live with someone who thinks it's all hippie woo. There are so many other things I rather do than sit quietly for 5 minutes. What do I do? I almost formally took refuge about a year ago with a sangha I'm no longer with, but I felt that I wasn't ready to commit. I ascribe to the teachings, and I know that if I practice it will only benefit me, but it feels like something else I have to do every day. Sorry to interrupt.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:30
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I always appreciate reading this thread, but things tend to take a turn towards being incomprehensible and confrontational when TPJWA pops up.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
I'll try and get in on the mindstream chat soon. I am traveling and only have my phone at the moment. And be nice to each other! The extra effort is worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:01
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It's not a symbol of anything. It's the moment to moment stream of consciousness, uninterrupted awareness, just bein' there, existing. Thoughts just bein' thought. You keep asking me all kinds of questions that aren't pertinent to the concept, which is why I'm having some trouble here. I'll admit it's kind of hard to follow you. I'm not misapprehending a single thing you've said. You might not be giving me enough credit, or yourself enough credit for being clear. You still haven't told me what the mindstream is. Because the way in which you have contradicts itself. If the mindstream is not my very perceptual existence (that was the answer I thought you would go for, because it makes sense and leads to future inquiry) but it is instead this feeling of awareness, moment to moment, then I assume that's some kind of meditative experience you've had at one point or another, or maybe you have it all the time? Because right there, I think I know exactly where you are coming from and that is not it. That moment to moment awareness is not the basis for the experience of any thing remotely related to enlightenment. At all. That is still mind in its entirety. This is what I have been trying to get across from the very beginning of my involvement in this thread. There is no experience remotely related to enlightenment. Not even enlightenment. It's not an experience, it's the end of all experiences, and of Experiencer and Experienced. I only say that because that is what is happening to me. Experience, little by little is showing itself to be pointless, hopeless, folly. To see the hope in others that their wonderful little experiences will maybe someday add up to something is like me seeing someone continuing to drive down a one way street. like no...turn back.. you can't...no..stop...stop... And I know that's slightly neurotic but I know I'm neurotic and that I have to wade through the poo poo. My sense of self was once much more cohesive and proud and hopeful. That's all going away. And you say these things about self being conditioned and a conceptual illusion, and I agree, sure. But it exists all the same. We exist as a body because we have a self. To say it's just illusion and conditioned is to say something like "I'm not an alcoholic, I can quit at any time". Well do it. Pierce the veil. It's not that simple. I know you don't think it is, but I am bringing it up because it has nothing to do with your definition of moment to moment awareness. I know that's not what they mean by it. The sense of self is the whole, visceral structure, it INCLUDES that moment to moment awareness. This is the most shocking part of all. Anyway thanks for the quotes and I think we will just agree to be misunderstood by each other. Maybe you have a tighter answer ready, maybe you don't, but your answer right there was not satisfactory to me. Sorry. OK return to scheduled programming carry on
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
You're allowed to be happy and enjoy things. Enlightenment would be a shedding of clinging desire and suffering. Not of experience. Experience is just an arising of the physical universe. You have a physical brain that creates consciousness somehow in the universe. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 03:28 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Shnooks posted:I feel terrible saying this, but maybe someone can give me some insight. Practicing can definitely be a chore. In honesty, I have a variety of practices I intend to do, but I basically open and close my shrine daily and practice moment to moment, without doing any of the formal, distinct practices that I really should be doing (various ngondro practices, for example). It is something I wish I were better about, too. One thing, however, that pertains to you that doesn't pertain to me, which my teacher often teaches, is that it is important to practice only according to your current ability and disposition. A long drive over public transit, late at night, could interfere with your regular life. It might be too inconvenient for you to do right now. And that's okay. As he once told me, you do not have to be a great bodhisattva right this instant. You can be a just okay bodhisattva, and then try to get better with time. Do what you can so as not to get discouraged. If you take up too much at once, or hold yourself to too high an expectation of practice, this will hurt more than it helps I think. I think finding some bare minimum practice and holding to that is a good idea. Then, whatever you can do above that bare minimum, good, but you'll always be doing something. For me, the absolute bearest minimum would be prostrations and refuge. For you, maybe it's something else, or something less. Meditation for one minute, just thinking about Buddha, hell, just an aspiration prayer, repeating three times every morning "may all mother sentient beings, boundless as the sky, have happiness and the causes of happiness, may they be liberated from suffering and the causes of suffering, may they never be separated from the happiness that is free from sorry, and may they rest in equanimity, free from attachment and aversion." Even just this simple practice of recitation three times is a good way to orient your day for the better and focus your mind and activities on the Dharma. ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Experience, little by little is showing itself to be pointless, hopeless, folly. To see the hope in others that their wonderful little experiences will maybe someday add up to something is like me seeing someone continuing to drive down a one way street. like no...turn back.. you can't...no..stop...stop... And I know that's slightly neurotic but I know I'm neurotic and that I have to wade through the poo poo. My sense of self was once much more cohesive and proud and hopeful. That's all going away. I hope you find some peace on your path at some point, and you find some end to your suffering. I'm sorry you're finding life so hard right now. I think any good fruit from our discussion has been picked, though, so that'll do. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:26
|
|
ashgromnies posted:You're allowed to be happy and enjoy things. If those are the things you want then my post has nothing to do with you. They're only for the few and far between but I figure everyone ought to at least hear the arguments. "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein That's the sentiment I live my life by, effectively. It's not a question of "being allowed" or not, I don't care who says what's the right or wrong thing to do. I'm not an ascetic, I just see the writing on the wall. Lama Surya Das told me I was very perceptive. I would like to believe him and I generally actually do. But I didn't need him to tell me that. I had already come too far for compliments to matter. It was a kind of confirmation though. I see a problem to be addressed, and if you don't see one, you're doing something different than I am. I don't even know what you're doing. The pleasures of this world are cheap and shallow and based on misunderstandings of inner value and character. I'll only "enjoy things" once those internal inconsistencies have been addressed and integrated. I can deal with the long haul. That's what I wish for you all too. Anything less is staving off the darkness to no end, and to no avail. But when you look, the darkness disappears. I try to keep looking. I already found one person on these forums who believes in me and what I am talking about, well 2 maybe 3. I suppose that's how the percentages break down in general. Only one person out of 100 really wants the true thing. But I think everyone could want it. And wanting it is enough. It just has to be the right aim. Edit - probably much higher than 1 out of 100, judging by who I've met in my life and the state of things in the world and so on. To find what you're really looking for, you have to go back the other way. Or stop. If you have to ask, it's the other way. That's probably a good rule of thumb. I dunno. I don't know what the catalyst is. Are all these posts really actually incomprehensible? That's kind of strange to me. What are you all doing?? Paramemetic posted:I hope you find some peace on your path at some point, and you find some end to your suffering. I'm sorry you're finding life so hard right now. I think any good fruit from our discussion has been picked, though, so that'll do. Good luck. You still misunderstand, the thing that is happening to me is the necessary thing. Life is not beating me down. More like a chest burster of truth out of the old husk of the body. I dunno. Analogies kinda fail here. This isn't a question of knowing or not knowing, it's a question of giving in. It's probably possible to resist indefinitely. I can't be sure. And if you wish me peace, I wish chaos and mayhem on you. I don't want your peace. No stone left unturned. Thanks for the wishes of luck, I'll take those at least, and same to you. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 12, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Are all these posts really actually incomprehensible? That's kind of strange to me. What are you all doing?? You aren't incomprehensible, you just come off in human terms as "pompous" and "confrontational". Sit and meditate.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:49
|
|
ashgromnies posted:You aren't incomprehensible, you just come off in human terms as "pompous" and "confrontational". Sit and meditate. I don't see anything wrong with that. The alternative is to say nothing because to say it weakly or indirectly is to say nothing at all. None of this has anything to do with following all the rules and getting rewarded. It's far more serious than that. As in, you're judging me on a standard you haven't reached yet but you think exists. I'm saying the standard doesn't exist and never will and never has. This has been the shocking discovery of the few throughout the ages I suppose. There's nowhere for the mind to get to. I'm mostly writing for the lurkers at this point. Humility is a myth anyway. Say what you think and feel and mean it. People put on airs of humility and I never buy it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
What standard do you think I'm judging you on?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:12
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What standard do you think I'm judging you on? Enlightenment, Arhat or not, bla bla. Whether or not I have anything to say, the criteria that people have for that "attainment" are the criteria that other people try to live up to in order to enter into a power relationship with them. Example: gurus and teachers all over the world. People play into other people's expectations. But I am just raw and no one knows what to do with it. My own family, people at school, no one recognizes me as any such thing and the few people I claimed something like enlightenment to a long time ago I have regretted it since, partly because since then one person in particular has told me "I still have a ways to go". As if he has any idea. I mean I could come up with a good song and dance for him and fool him like every spiritual dude he's met that he thinks is in some "high state" has done, but I don't care to and I couldn't anyway. The direct path is the one without pretensions. Just be raw. The whole way. It sorts itself out. I'm just a person on an internet forum, so I am saying this for anyone who comes in contact with these kinds of people in real life. Be aware that many will, and are catering to images. Don't be fooled by images. Anything else I could say about this would be less and less articulate.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Yes I'm projecting an image too.. No there's no way not to on an internet forum, or any position where you have to play a role or assume a responsibility. I'm trying to be truthful but I also don't want to give too much away because it wouldn't have an impact and because privacy bla bla. OK now this is probably getting boring. I will wait for Prickly Pete's reply for now.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
By the way I generally like your posts, ashgromnies, wherever they are on the forums. I don't mean to be dismissive or anything. At least you say what you think anyway. Lots of people hide behind a lot of tricks. And I am starting to like Paramemetic's posts more, even though I have never had as many miscommunications with a person on these forums. I can't figure out what that's due to. Some huge difference in personality, for sure.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:55
|
|