C T

Analogy aside, the question still stands... Are you dismissing the possibility of a perpetual continuation of the essence of one candle flame to the next?

But one candle flame can light a thousand other candles. Are all the flames then same or different?

I would again postulate that 'individual selves' are nothing more than an imputation, another descriptive modcon as it were. Individual selves dont exist independently, with independence here suggesting that suddenly this self appears out of thin air and later disappearing into nothingness after death. The self is a sum of parts that is transpersonal, imputed, and with no perceptible beginning point, and with no real location. If something has no location and imperceptible beginning point, what is extinguished at death?

yes, some are more afraid of unfinished business more than death itself. But aside from death itself, there's often a gnawing feeling of an underlying fear of mysterious transpirations that is the over-arching factor, some mysterious workings which is still mentally disturbing to many. Overcoming this seat of primordial fear is one of the reasons why people take to spiritual practices - not so to actually seek to overcome death but to attain freedom above the mundane nondescript. Death, life, immortality, enlightenment... these are nothing but labels, and those who are stuck at the level of 'labels' will have to work even harder due to an added layer of delusion they need to clear along the way.

I would like to postulate this way: Long after a star has burnt out the reverberations still continue for a time, and countless 'hooks' form in that aftermath to cause all kinds of after-effects, and so on. This applies universally. Extinction is just a convenient description and sometimes dismissive term to wrap things up neatly in a box. In actuality, the acknowledgement of the constancy of change, this perpetual transformational process, implies the absence of intervals, which then implies that coming into form, sustaining form, and cessation of form happens simultaneously minus even subtle perceptible gaps. In effect, 'you', 'like', 'living', 'dying' and 'death' have no distinctive, individually existing time-frames and independent arisings, just like an absence of a distinct point and independent formative phase where a child crosses a boundary which declares an irrevocable status of adulthood. There are traces of childness in all adults, and vice versa. In a similar vein, I would surmise that death is but a deathness and not an irrevocable state of extinction due to the universal laws that govern transformation which must apply equally to all things seen and unseen.

8

passed on the presents took the kids to the fun-fair it was more for me...

misinformation is dangerous

How about the consideration that existence exists in tandem with consciousness, or is that out of the question? It would be interesting to hear further how you came to posit that consciousness possess identity because Peter Russell seems to logically present the argument that identity evolves from consciousness and not otherwise, and i concur with his position. Thank you for the input! Its great to be able to exchange views without any knicker-knotting

Dont know about you but i am guessing that it will take me more than one visit to the US to make any informed judgements about the country. Despite all the 2nd hand information i may gather, at the end of the day, nothing beats immersing myself into the vibe of the vast cultural diversities for a period of time for an impression to form, and even then, it may be totally coloured by my own biases, so i'd rather keep my mind open as much as possible. And this outlook i'll usually try to bring to any other event that transpires, be it food, religion, politics, and so on. It seems naive to assume that Daoist organisations and temples are exempted from materialistic concerns. You will perhaps reconsider that your one visit to one temple may not be sufficient to actually warrant any fruitful attempt to draw comparisons between these 3 traditions that you mentioned. Then again, you may want to also consider that some of the members here have travelled to places like China, Taiwan, and other countries in the Far East and have seen first hand, or have otherwise heard of Daoist clergies who own mansions, luxury cars, keep a harem of mistresses, and possess the kind of financial clout and exploitative potential that if you were to not put your naivete aside upon hearing details of their colourful lifestyles, it'll literally blow your mind. Does this undermine the philosophy in any way? It would be foolish to think so, one with good sense would assume. Just in case you might think i am speaking out of my behind, here's an example of how much a Daoist funeral cost (copied from a Daoist funeral specialist website), excluding the price of the casket, which could range upwards of $2500 (Singapore dollars). A reputable priest with sufficient HR can easily handle more than one funeral arrangement per day. Being the astute businessman that you are, it should not be difficult for you to do the math. Please bear in mind that other than time, there are literally no other costs involved as every conceivable cost is borne by the family of the deceased. Lastly, the topic title is inappropriate and borders on ridicule and insult, so please, i'd be very grateful if you can show some respect for other members who may not share your exact sentiments. Doing so would set a good example for your adopted belief/philosophy.

Although it is their sticks that hurt me, I am angry at the ones who wield them, striking me. But they in turn are driven by their hatred; Therefore with their hatred I should take offence. . . . SHANTIDEVA (685-763)

Existence is the seen, the phenomenological world as we know it. Consciousness lies within the domain of potential, and that which brings existence into being. Potential is the seat of creativity, therefore it is more fundamental than existence. Existence antecedent to consciousness is a claim only the brave would dare consider.

Maybe this explains why the same people who laugh at gypsy fortune tellers continue to put their trust and hopes in economists.

I think, therefore I am suggests that there are consequences to choices we make in life, and in that realisation some would become more open and responsible, or at least, be vulnerable to the possibility of seeking to adapt to changes. I am, therefore i think seems but a mental stance subsumed within a belief of total independence, in control, and therefore all will be well. Its often a tricky assumption that could breed arrogance and denial. Such a view and its offshoots are based off Stoicism and related ideologies which are no better or worse than other ideologies. From a contemporary perspective, it has been noted that this is an archaic view which is often clung to determinedly by those who seek to negate the role of emotional responses, or even to ignore emotions as anything but sissified obstacles, and that only weaklings demonstrate them uncontrollably. Imo, its useless to argue that one is more appropriate than the other since individuals are conditioned from a young age to which direction they will likely bend. There is nothing challenging in keeping to either view. It seems the cause for spiritual quests to arise, therefore, is the longing in a person to go beyond philosophies and views that are merely operating within the bounds of intellect and logic. If one so choose adamantly that life should remain solely within these bounds, then the debates for transcendence and conversion of mundane attitudes to their spiritual equivalent becomes moot.

Glad you enjoyed the talk, Manitou. This will give you an idea of what nimittas are: http://journal.samatha.org/issues/issue-9/reflections-nature-nimitta

Consciousness is not a thing separated from that which it is observing. Putting it differently, it can be said that the observed is none other than consciousness since you its illogical to say that one is not conscious while observing an object. And saying "I am conscious" is also without meaning if its not being conscious of something. Being conscious of something is different from identifying with it, so one can identify or not identify while being conscious of the observed. I think its incorrect therefore to state bluntly that consciousness is identification since to identify objects labels and names are necessary, yet consciousness are not dependent on these labels and names. For example, being exposed to something completely new and strange, like hearing a foreign language for the first time, one remains fully conscious of the sound and movement of the speaker's lips but completely incoherent to the meanings behind the sounds. This principle applies to all things filtered in thru the senses, and because these senses are conditioned by a multitude of factors which are unique to each individual, it follows that notions of the self, which relies on data imputed via the senses to form an identity, are nothing more than an estimate, whereby these estimates again depend on degrees of cognition and levels of awareness. Two pairs of eyes seeing a mountain, for example, cannot objectify it identically other than on a gross level involving gross notions - however, as distinctions get subtler and subtler, variations to the theme will become more apparent.

Haha the writer of the Heart Sutra is not at fault if we choose to ignore the steps that lead to wisdom needed to understand it without the chance for any doubt or contradictions to darken the understanding.

This is why we cannot discount conventional or expedient means in order to arrive at a nondescript absolute. We cannot assert this absolute by negating the relative.

Actually what we call the 'present' is simply an echo or imprint left behind by what has passed.

Precisely why a correct view of anatta is quite helpful - not as a stand-alone principle but one which needs to be contemplated together with anicca and dukkha. Otherwise it'll be difficult to pierce or deconstruct the tight knots of ignorance, delusion and tendencies, which includes seeing experiences as either real or unreal, exist or non-existent, coming and going, birth and death, and so on. More important than knowing truths which fall short of addressing views that do not bring resolution to seeing how emptiness and form arise and subside inseparably. According to the Muni, knowing how to apply relative or conventional truths in order to blow out ignorance and develop right insight into dependent origination will alleviate confusion altogether. Once confusion is cut at the root, then we no longer need to struggle with further existential questions arising from the primary ones relating to self.

Anatta explained.

If you go deeper into the study of this particular doctrine you will note the subtle but vital difference between no-self and not-self. This may help point the way if you are interested to adjust your thinking http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

The direction of Buddha's teachings is more towards the eradication of wrong views of self, rather than affirming some kind of truth of no-self. Actually the basis of Dharma is to disband ignorant views, and its said when these views are snuffed out then that which remains is a view that is in touch with the 'real'. The Muni discouraged attempts to define what this 'real' is because it can only arise through causes and conditions, usually in Buddhism this is related to the cultivation/accumulation of merit, and individual karmic processes dictates that these causes and conditions may differ from one person to the next.

Im getting notification "There appears to be an error with the database" and unable to access most topics and contents. Anyone else have the same issue?

yeah, buddhists need your reminding very much. They can be a miserable lot without you looking out for their interests.