Beliefs and Intent

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am not sure what do you mean here you may want to clarify especially the last sentence.

 

A no-self experience is not identifying himself with anything, and that means no longer an experiencer standing back from pure perception, the sound, the vision, the action, the thought. Everything is just self-luminous manifestation.

 

Also actually, it is not an 'experience', because it is not a temporary altered state, but it is what is realised to be already always the case. Always So. It is the nature of reality, there never was separation in the first place. It is not a state to be attained and never was there a separation to bridge.

 

People can get into altered states of consciousness where the sense of self dissolves into a non-dual experience, but this is not the same as arising the insight that reality has always been non-dual. An experience is temporary, an insight is permanent.

I don't get your logic. A non-dual event has nothing to do with a grasping for existence, and grasping for a separate existence prevents non-dual experience. However as I mentioned, even when all sense of self dissolves into a 'non dual event'/'non dual experience', this is not the same as realisation/insight.

The universe knows.

 

As long as you see phenomena arising, there will be the subtle grasping of awareness that shines to let that phenomena "be" as it is. Call it self-luminous manifestation when you have simply removed the lower cycles of creation only to come back to the source of creation: This is the ultimate "I."

 

There can only BE separation. BEING is separation, yet you can't really call it that either. Why? Because it is separate from...nothing...

 

It is un-born. It is NOT. Consciousness ignorantly emerges into one and separates back into pieces again. Self-awareness is its nature and it is ignorance.

 

A non-dual event occurs ONLY because there is the subtle grasping for existence. You're talking about the microcosmic cycles of viewpoint, but the existence of phenomena itself. Yes insight and experience are two different things, but both must lead to one another.

 

There is no such thing as the universe except that which is ignorance.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Well, all I will say at this point is that I wish you guys would manifest yourselves because I am not going to talk with someone who doesn't exist. They put people in mental hospitals for doing that, you know.

 

Be well!

[xabir2005]

Awareness is supported by the grasping at existence when it is inherently non-existent itself. It's just coming back full circle, only to start the cycle of creation again and again.

Dualistic consciousness of "me" experiencing "outer objects", and thus a "me" manipulating "objects", "me" fearing "objects", "me" chasing after "objects", "me" trying to destroy/hate/push away "objects", etc... that is grasping at existence.

 

When it is seen there is no such separate I, and no longer any identification with duality, the attempt to bridge, divide, or do something to the subject/object gap is removed.

 

Awareness functions perfectly without grasping, just no longer seen the same way as before (no longer a 'me' inside my head looking 'out there').

This problem greatly alluded me when there was all the stress put on "being," "oneness" etc. These are very very generic words and concepts. They can be used to describe my fingers being one as a hand or the universe being one with consciousness. But the pattern of the microcosm shared with the macrocosm is definitely there.

There are many concepts of non-duality, oneness, many of which I do not mean here. As a friend of mine ('longchen') wrote:

 

http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html

 

The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.

 

Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.

 

No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.

 

However, there are also many degrees of experience and insights to the non-duality of subject and object.

 

At an earlier phase, one may realise that awareness is one with everything. However there is still a grasping onto an ultimate Self, an ultimate Awareness that is 'one' with everything.

 

A higher realisation is that there is no permanent essence, or self, to be one with everything. Here a mirror/reflection union is clearly understood as flawed, there is only vivid reflection. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. There is only 'everything' as is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence, without an agent/actor/self/perceiver/doer/thinker/etc. This is the Buddhist realisation of no-self.

 

Sound hears, scenery sees, everything manifests but there never is a seer/hearer/experiencer.

I question as to what awareness was originated from. And couldn't find anything that it could have arisen dependently to except that it is an "un-born" phenomena that all arises from the dreamlike notion of the "I." And this "I" is NOT the ego I, but ALL phenomena. People believe that by simply removing the ego's "I" that they have realized something profound, when all they have done is seen that the fingers make up the hand.

 

I cannot attest to an experience beyond this, it is simply a direction I see.

Awareness has no birth, originator or origination, however there is interconnectedness, conditions.

 

At the earlier 'I AM' phase of insight it's seen that Awareness is unborn, but it is mistakenly separated from all phenomena. They cannot be separated.

 

In actuality all phenomena are unborn, there is no The Unborn in opposition to phenomena.

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

As long as you see phenomena arising,

There is no 'I' seeing phenomena arising. There is just phenomena, and then another phenomena, and then another phenomena. Each phenomena is whole and complete as it is. It does not come from somewhere, nor does it go somewhere, nor does it turn into something else. Each manifestation is whole and complete, without movement, without coming from nor going to.

there will be the subtle grasping of awareness that shines to let that phenomena "be" as it is. Call it self-luminous manifestation when you have simply removed the lower cycles of creation only to come back to the source of creation: This is the ultimate "I."

By self-luminous manifestation, I don't mean manifestation arising out of a luminous source and subsiding back into it.

 

There is no self, big or small, only ceaseless manifestations.

 

At an earlier phase, the practitioner experiences the pure I AMness, and mistakens it to be ultimate. It is in fact no more ultimate than the transient mind, then it is realised that all manifestation is the source and there is no other source to fall back to.

 

Also, between the realisation of I AMness (self becoming conscious of itself) and the realisation of non-duality (pure perception has always been happening without perceiver/self), one may enter into a state of oblivion there is no longer even the awareness of self, not even the I Am. Here everything manifests spontaneously out of pure nothingness of its own accord. This is Thusness Stage 3, but it is not the realisation of no-self. Any states, including that nothingness, if taken as an Absolute or a 'Purest' is still an illusion.

 

Related: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment

There can only BE separation.

I don't agree with that. As I see it, there never was separation, separation is an illusion.

It is un-born. It is NOT. Consciousness ignorantly emerges into one and separates back into pieces again. Self-awareness is its nature and it is ignorance.

 

A non-dual event occurs ONLY because there is the subtle grasping for existence. You're talking about the microcosmic cycles of viewpoint, but the existence of phenomena itself. Yes insight and experience are two different things, but both must lead to one another.

 

There is no such thing as the universe except that which is ignorance.

There is no universe out there, or a static universe, only univers-ing, the ever flowing process of manifestation/manifesting, with no one behind the flow.

 

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh puts it nicely:

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Ok...maybe it was her karma to end up that way. Who knows what non-righteous use of action she'd done in her 6 years that had a rape-murder waiting to ripen. *shrug* I wasn't there so I don't know.

 

Not six years. Endless becoming. One has to take into account past lives, otherwise the doctrine of karma makes no sense and the idea of unconnected choatic events (shit happens) starts to rule one's view. One spins into Nihilism and forgets purpose.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Means, Awareness is no longer seen as a static background, but in all transient manifestations, as all sensations. This is non-duality. However there are degrees and depths to the insight, at an earlier phase it may be misunderstood that there is an ultimate self/awareness/agent that is one with everything, whereas no such self essence can in actuality be found, only pure vivid appearances.

 

The vivid appearances have arise due to ignorance. There IS no "EVERYTHING IS THE SAME" awareness that is not ignorance.

 

It never came into existence. Phenomena has always been empty. However human beings superimpose separation and inherent existence, as David Loy said: "Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.

I disagree that Nirvana and Samsara are one. Nirvana is a term to counter Samsara. The nearest metaphor I can think of is someone claiming that there is a fish and further stating that the non-fishness is one with the fish....

 

Nirvana is not a state, view, understanding, or any imaginable phenomena. David Loy has it wrong that Samsara and Nirvana are just difference of viewpoints. He is simply speaking of the end of the cyclical cycle of Samsara that is the belief in the reality of awareness. It is still dependent on being which discriminates itself from non-being. That single universe one has manifested must be transcended and destroyed.

 

Manifestation are not projection, projections are superimpositions on pure manifestation, and pure manifestation is pure awareness, for there is no manifestation apart from awareness, and no awareness apart from manifestations.

 

I agree.

 

The universe (that means all experiences) is not an illusion, our own perceived duality and inherency -- that is an illusion. Universe never was an illusion, it is merely illusion-like, in the sense that there never was a solid, objective substance/essence to what we experienced. It absolutely does not mean that it is merely an illusion that we dreamt that will be removed after some kind of awakening. And the world not being an illusion, as such, it cannot disappear, but can only be seen correctly. Thus Buddhism is not world-denying, it merely rectifies the false 'impure vision' of the world. And hence Nirvana is not the dissolving of the world, rather it is seeing the world as it is.... as empty, as unborn, as Mind, and thus, Nirvana is Samsara rightly seen.

 

The world is the false creation of the mind. It is absolutely an illusion and a dream like phenomena that comes from the ignorant attachment to the world being a certain form one way or another. The awakening you speak of is only an attachment to the creation itself. Simply switching your views is NOT Nirvana. The final river one has to cross is the duality of being and non-being.

 

I am not saying that the world is our thoughts. I am saying exactly what you posted in that it is the work of a ghost like mind that is neither existent or non-existent.

 

I believe this is where the usefulness of words are ended. To see the world through the filter of discrimination is to awaken according to that view of discrimination. I could be totally wrong on my assessment of things, for mere philosophical conceptualizations are far from true understanding.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Aetherous]

Vajrahridaya,

 

Michaelz is actually quite a smart kid. Ok... look, she did and she didn't. She did create the karmas (which means action) to be in that situation by following certain prompts. Like maybe she decided to walk out early in class because her friend called her about a problem and she was so attached to him/her that she didn't follow the dharma of just staying in class. Dharma means righteous use of action, as in proper more wholistic use of karma. Now in that moment that person who did the deed, could have thwarted his own karma by being more aware of conditioning, (karma) and understood the interconnectivity of both person's actions (karmas) and been compassionate and aware that his desire (karma) would only compound (karma) both her bad karmas (who's causes are complex and manifold dimensionally, through unconscious, subconscious and conscious personal realities) and his own. Because he wasn't awake about his own craving's (karmas), he compounded (karmad) his own and her own bad karmas through more karma, or action as it may be. Now, if she understood the doctrine of karma and saw directly that the person who did the deed was acting (karmaing) out of suffering (karmaing), and she had compassion (dharma) on him, she would forgive him and move on from the event in a way that would disable any future neurosis (karma) due to that event. This of course is extremely hard to do (dharma) and would require incredible insight (dhyan/meditation) into the nature (karma) of seeming chaos and it's secret order (pratitsamutpada or interdependent origination). Only very rare beings in this point of time in the Kali Yuga or age of seeming darkness (not that that's inherent but the Kali Yuga is an age when most people are ignorant of the true nature of being and are caught up in externals.) Though anyone can transcend that at anytime and see now as complete and perfect even as it seems to be chaotic and imperfect through deep realization. Which is another discussion. Anyway, yes it's all due to karma. But who creates karma? You do! So the blame game is a lame train.

 

Thanks for responding to my post.

 

So if you're good, bad things don't happen to you?

 

I don't believe in that.

 

In the example, the girl was actually in her own bedroom when she was abducted...not off doing something wrong. Was it her dharma to be somewhere else that night?

 

The karma idea can sort of work. For instance, if people work to make their community nice, and treat each other with kindness, there will be less crime. Do good, and live a good life. But maybe an outsider will come break into someone's house one night and steal everything at gunpoint?

 

So, I think these ideas of moral cause and effect are way too simple. The universe doesn't follow our rules. I truly believe it is random chance, and chaos.

[xabir2005]

Scotty, I think you forgot this post by Vajrahridaya:

 

Not six years. Endless becoming. One has to take into account past lives, otherwise the doctrine of karma makes no sense and the idea of unconnected choatic events (shit happens) starts to rule one's view. One spins into Nihilism and forgets purpose.

 

Anyway, there's a good and timely post in my other Buddhist forum by another forummer (which also happened to be discussing on karma and dependent origination) a few hours ago:

 

 

from my personal understanding, cause & effect as we understand it in daily life is just an extremely superficial view of how reality works (dependent origination). nothing wrong with A+B=C understanding of cause & effect and it works for our simple understanding of how things works in daily life. hit the bell and if the ears are working and we will hear the sound of bell, no problem. mix blue and green and u get yellow, no problem too. but this superficial and simplistic understanding does not in any way fully describe the teaching of dependent origination or how reality, phenomenon and processes works.

 

 

reason why when a person breathes, changes the air pressure but didn't cause tornado is simply because dependent origination is not so simplistic as A+B=C as we think it is. dependent origination is probably more like A+B+C...N=result, where N=infinity, to put it in scientific sense. that's why kind person (A) + do good deeds ( does not always = good outcome (not immediately anyway). we see kind people who do good still encounter so-called bad outcomes simply because all the conditions are not in place to produce the good outcome. we assume we just need A+B but in reality it is A+B+C....N to produce the "good outcome". so when we mistakenly assume that we only need A+B=C, and we don't see it happens immediately (like good people encountering bad circumstances), we then further mistakenly thinks that dependent origination is not true, cause & effect is not true. fact of matter is we do not appreciate dependent origination deeply enough to know its implications and how it impacts the simplistic "cause & effect" phenomenon in daily life.

 

 

i think the teaching of emptiness helps me personally to understand dependent origination much better. the lack of inherent existence of A, B, C...N is exactly why the eventual and expected outcome can be "produced" relatively. at what exact point in time does a seed appear/disappear that leads to the exact point in time a sprout appear/disappear? who knows...

 

 

Neither from itself nor from another,

Nor from both,

Nor without a cause,

Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

 

 

- Nagarjuna

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Aetherous]

Thanks Xabir,

 

Not six years. Endless becoming. One has to take into account past lives, otherwise the doctrine of karma makes no sense and the idea of unconnected choatic events (shit happens) starts to rule one's view. One spins into Nihilism and forgets purpose.

 

Past lives, as in, reincarnation?

 

Well that ruined it for me I guess, because I don't believe in past lives either.

[xabir2005]

Unfortunately, karma and rebirth is something to be taken by faith until one sees and experiences it for himself (which I know many people personally who does experience past lives memories and karma, including Vajrahridaya here, but also many others).

 

At least in Buddhism, rebirth and karma is still a very important part of Buddhism which many people unfortunately have chosen to ignore, or is unable to accept.

 

 

"The sacred texts say that after 40 days, the truth came to Siddhartha in stages.

 

During the first night watch, he achieved insight into all his past lives.

 

During the second night watch, he discovered the coherence of cyclical existence, the law of cause and effect, the movement of karma.

 

During the third and last nightwatch, he conquered the four mental poisons: sensual desire, attachment, wrong views, and ignorance.

 

That evening, under a full moon in the month of May, in the age of 35, he attained enlightenment, awakening, Supreme Knowledge, Nirvana."

 

 

 

Very good youtube video imo which I just found in another forum, by Thich Nhat Hanh. It's title is 'Nirvana'.

 

Here's another one, titled 'Emptiness': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Awareness is always happening whether or not there is ignorance, otherwise you are nothing but a corpse.

 

Non-duality is not a 'me' perceiving everything as 'same', rather all experiences have the same taste of aware-emptiness.

That Nirvana and Samsara are one is taught by Buddha in many sutras. Realising the nature of mind and phenomena as luminous emptiness is nirvana. It is the end of suffering.

 

Samsara may be an expression of Nirvana, but so called "realizing" you speak of through a leap in view is itself a samsaric delusion and part of the cycle. But my guess is that Nirvana sees samsara only as a coin would see the other side as a probability of occurrence of which there are infinite variations.

 

It is not a state nor an intellectual understanding, but is the result of insight and a quantum leap of perception that leads to the end of all grasping and suffering.

The universe was never born and can never be destroyed. Realising emptiness means realising that this has always been so.

 

I didn't mean that the universe is destroyed, but the discriminative nature of the mind and the craving of identity must be transcended. I would like to know whether you speak of this realization from personal experience, or I must include you in with all these so called enlightened masters who talk of simply realizing the "Right View" for one to "enter" into Nirvana.

 

Awareness never had any essence, but nevertheless manifests vividly as mirages that is both luminous and empty.

 

In Buddhism the nature of mind or the buddha nature is known as Luminosity and Emptiness inseparable. Not realising and experiencing the vivid luminosity of awareness, you skew towards nihilism. Not realising that awareness is inseparable from emptiness, you skew towards eternalism. Realising their inseparability is the middle way free from all extremes and is the insight that liberates.And the seeing through of being and non-being is simply the insight into the empty nature of the world. And how is it that the insight into dependent origination and emptiness clears up the false views of being and non-being?

 

Namdrol said:

 

Dependent origination leads to the pacificiation of views precisely because one cannot say of a dependently originated phenomena "it is" or "it is not", apart from mere convention.

 

When one no longer entertains views about the existence or non-existence of existents because of understanding dependent origination, one's mind is freed from proliferation, and one can acheive liberation.

 

And who is it that holds this vieless view? Awareness itself may become free of these concepts but itself shines by the attachments to being. Unless this awareness can be physically, mentally, and phenomenally transcended (NOT just through views), the mind stream will continue, divide, grasp, create, suffer and so on.

 

Buddha said:

'It is with ignorance as condition that formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness ...' (And so on with both arising and cessation.)"

 

Awesome. It is with ignorance that one grasps to form. And with that form comes consciousness and further division and grasping. Believing that the arising of form and conditions without the seer or the dooer is realization is not cutting off the very root of the matter that let's the universe manifest. The very ignorance is the attachment to being and this is NOT just regarding ideologies and views, but experience also.

 

It must also be understood that Emptiness does not mean the world is a dream or an illusion, but that though vividly appearing they are like a dream and illusion. There is a difference: this means that the world is not an illusion and cannot disappear, but they are simply appearances without findable inherent/independent essence. Seeing all appearances as dream-like, illusion-like, mirage-like.

 

No the world is an illusion created by the grasping of the mind. "Seeing" appearances as dream like and illusion like is method to final realization but to be stuck at this stage is playing a silly game of pretending. It is only holding the right view which alone cannot deliver one to final Enlightenment.

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

Yes this is to be directly experienced and not simply "viewed."

 

If you mean that this mind is vivid awareness and emptiness inseparable, inseparable from all experiences, then I agree with you. If you mean that there is an underlying 'neither existent or non-existent' ultimate reality behind the illusory world, then I do not agree with you.

 

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Awareness has nothing to do with ignorance. A non ignorant person continues to be fully aware.

 

Anyone not seeing, hearing, smelling, is dead, is a corpse.

 

Samsara may be an expression of Nirvana, but so called "realizing" you speak of through a leap in view is itself a samsaric delusion and part of the cycle. But my guess is that Nirvana sees samsara only as a coin would see the other side as a probability of occurrence of which there are infinite variations.

A quantum leap of perception I am speaking of is not the same as a leap from one conceptual view to the next. Rather it is the ending of all inherent and dualistic views due to the direct insight of D.O. and emptiness.

I didn't mean that the universe is destroyed, but the discriminative nature of the mind and the craving of identity must be transcended.

That too is my stance.

I would like to know whether you speak of this realization from personal experience, or I must include you in with all these so called enlightened masters who talk of simply realizing the "Right View" for one to "enter" into Nirvana.

What Thich Nhat Hanh, a truly enlightened master, said is entering the Right View without Taint which according to Buddha only the enlightened beings have entered into. I never said that intellectual understanding alone is enough, however according to Buddha right mindfulness and right effort is made possible by mindfully entering into right view (Which means putting effort in reminding, and experiencing, the right view in direct experience), and hence right view is on top of the list of the noble 8 fold path.

 

Non-enlightened beings have only a conceptual understanding but not a direct realisation and hence is different.

And who is it that holds this vieless view? Awareness itself may become free of these concepts but itself shines by the attachments to being. Unless this awareness can be physically, mentally, and phenomenally transcended (NOT just through views), the mind stream will continue, divide, grasp, create, suffer and so on.

You can't transcend awareness, if you did you'll be a corpse. The purpose of Dharma is not to annihilate yourself and your awareness. End clinging, false view of self, identity, yes, but not awareness.

 

You can however transcend the illusion of a separative consciousness, a 'me in here' experiencing 'world out there'. When there is no more sense of a being, then there is simply manifestation not perceived through a separate perceiver. Sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, there never was a thinker, never was a seer.

Awesome. It is with ignorance that one grasps to form. And with that form comes consciousness and further division and grasping. Believing that the arising of form and conditions without the seer or the dooer is realization is not cutting off the very root of the matter that let's the universe manifest.

It is a realisation, it is not a stage of experience. Whenever it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. What is realised in the awakening or realisation of no-self is what is already always the case. Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[thaddeus]

 

So, I think these ideas of moral cause and effect are way too simple. The universe doesn't follow our rules. I truly believe it is random chance, and chaos.

 

Yes!

I know this is a completely unpopular point of view here, but why is this idea so hard to accept.

 

T

[Pietro]

Edited July 27, 2009 by Pietro

[Lucky7Strikes]

More talk from me is only speculation as I have not transcended singular or bodily awareness nor have I created universes, given rise to Buddha realms.... etc. .

 

My point is simple: Self-awareness is itself ignorance. Awareness is the root of all creation and suffering. When I said the transcending of awareness I meant of singular outlook of the universe as a single phenomenon. All knowing, all pervading awareness or unawarness, being or non being are concepts that are beyond words for only experience can bring them about.

 

Nirvana is therefore neither a state of existence, non-existence, both, or neither.

 

And what gave rise to realization except the state of experience itself? Which came first, the realization or the experience? Such distinctions are silly. Just because someone has told you that the colors you see are illusory and dependent on the human eye doesn't let you see the truth of phenomena (again this is a metaphor).

 

You don't seem to believe that a Bodhisattva can indeed transform himself into myriad forms and create Buddhalands for the sake of enlightenment of all beings. Well I think it's cool , and believe it to be very very possible.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes!

I know this is a completely unpopular point of view here, but why is this idea so hard to accept.

 

T

 

Because nothing happens without a cause. The morality is individual and has to do with the persons state of intentionality, and attachments from within. It is mind made, not merely the action itself, but the entire being, and how it's aligned to whatever structure of notion within the conscious, subconscious and unconscious spectrum of the individual in motion is.

 

There is no effect without a cause. That would mean things stand alone and arise from their own essence and we know through observation that all things from come each other add infinitum without a single cause. Even seemingly random events are only called random because they don't follow linear framework, but even non-linear abstraction has a framework, it's just more complex and pulls from a wider range within it's causes for seemingly out of order chaos.

 

You know the person who came up with the Chaos theory also said that Chaos only appears chaotic upon initial view, but if one looks deeper, there is a pattern that emerges, even if deeply complex.

 

This modern usage of the term Chaos to suggest complete disorder is a mis-use of the term as it was intended upon it's creation. There are still causes and conditions surrounding the creation of what the term describes as certain aspects of the universal workings.

 

Read this if you wish... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

It's not that the universe is moral. It's that the universe is connected. The more a being realizes interconnectivity, the more that one will act in alignment with interconnectivity and thrust actions, intentions, thoughts and notions out that reflect this interconnectivity which is generally deemed as "Virtue". Because you don't hurt what you recognize intimate connection with, unless you hate yourself, which has it's own causes to that effect.

 

Vajrahridaya,

Thanks for responding to my post.

 

So if you're good, bad things don't happen to you?

 

I don't believe in that.

 

 

It's not as linear as all that. It's quite complex and the doctrine of karma has many layers. There's the karma of body, mind, history, group karma, karma just means action. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

 

It's not so black and white, it's quite complex as each point in the universe can lead through contemplation to all other infinite points simultaneously. As anything is supported by everything else.

 

Karma doesn't judge good or bad, we do.

 

Things just happen through a complex order of cause and effect. But for conscious beings, it also has to do with the state of consciousness. So, evil intent, so called evil emotions, selfish actions also bare fruit and effect physical events, as all layers are interconnected.

[JustARandomPanda]

I am not going to argue points of Buddhist conception of reality. I don't know anything about it.

 

But I will try to explain how I feel about the stuff in this thread at the moment.

 

It becomes most clear for me when I see the example of just-born newborns with something like Down's Syndrome, AIDS, crack cocaine addiction or any other kind of physical, mental birth defect.

 

To hear that Buddhism says

 

 

A) you are your karma

 

and

 

B ) you are solely responsible for your karma

 

 

I find lacking.

 

 

I look at those tiny just-born newborns with all those problems, hear Buddhists explain the above and I want to howl in despair. What a horrifying thing to posit about these little tiny babies. The most innocent of all beings - and then to be told we're all responsible for our own karma and that we are our karma. These babies's karma must be so twisted it has literally twisted their physical bodies even in the womb. What an awful thing to assert as Truth - a doctrine that asserts these little babies brought this condition upon themselves.

 

The opposite posit - that this happened to these babies purely by chance - I find equally horrifying.

 

Do you see now - Oh Great Enlightened Buddhas of TaoBums - why I say a situation brought about by pure chance looks identical to your karmic one?

 

Karma and rebirth is no answer. Nor is pure chance. The only difference is which story we choose to tell ourselves to explain what can't be explained.

 

The real answer may be beyond Enlightenment, beyond Nirvana, beyond Awakening to anything or nothing.

 

 

 

 

p.s. Pietro...have your questions been answered to your satisfaction?

[Vajrahridaya]

These babies's karma must be so twisted it has literally twisted their physical bodies even in the womb.

 

Yes, it must be. As there is no effect without a cause. Things don't just happen out of the blue without any cause.

 

What an awful thing to assert as Truth - a doctrine that asserts these little babies brought this condition upon themselves.

 

Yes, through past lives, through the parents. It's also at the same time not just their karma but the karma of all beings, as we are all connected. Thus compassion is necessary and because it's also their karma, they can work on themselves, instead of wasting energy in the blame game. Oh, it's God's fault, it's the parents fault. There is a cause for that soul (accumulation of non-physical notions throughout endless rebirths as an individual mind stream) that is older than the physical body. When a baby is born that doesn't mean that consciousness or mind stream was born just then, that's just a new house reflective for that "soul" made of previous causes and effects that are causes for future effects.

 

The opposite posit - that this happened to these babies purely by chance - I find equally horrifying.

 

That's horrifying because then one just succumbs to helplessness and nihilism.

 

Do you see now - Oh Great Enlightened Buddhas of TaoBums - why I say a situation brought about by pure chance looks identical to your karmic one?

 

There's no effect without a cause. What pure chance, what does that mean?

 

Karma and rebirth is no answer. Nor is pure chance. The only difference is which story we choose to tell ourselves to explain what can't be explained.

 

If you understand karma and re-birth, it is the answer. But one would have to meditate deeply and see more deeply into one's being as we see the universe as we ourselves see ourselves. As deeply as we see within is as deeply as we see without. Your interpretation of our words and inability to see the far reaching ramifications that transcend the page you are viewing is merely your own subjectivity. It's not the understanding of karma and rebirth that is wrong, it's how it's interpreted and used. To use it as an excuse to be apathetic and not compassionate is a mis-use of the understanding of karma and re-birth. If one were to truly see karma and rebirth and how it works on deeply complex levels that transcend linear thought in deep states of meditation. Compassionate action becomes the reaction and this is what alleviates harmful karmas both to oneself and one starts to help others as well.

The real answer may be beyond Enlightenment, beyond Nirvana, beyond Awakening to anything or nothing.

p.s. Pietro...have your questions been answered to your satisfaction?[/b][/color]

 

 

If you don't yet understand Buddhism, or have not studied it much or meditated deeply as of yet. How can you know what Buddhahood means and how a Buddha sees the world, or what awakening actually means in Buddhism, or Taoism?

 

I would just say, be patient and try to go deeper within with a good teacher, guide and good books by great beings. It may become clear someday in a state of eureka! The epiphanies are deeper than the words that lead you there.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Pietro]

p.s. Pietro...have your questions been answered to your satisfaction?

 

Hi Serene,

not really.

 

I mean, I received an answer (1), but the answer essentially said (2), you need to meditate long enough (3) until you see the world as I see it (4). And as I see it is (5) the correct one (6), because (8) those people said so (7).

 

I still don't see how all those claims (at least eight) can be declared true in a universe that is not real. If the universe is not real no claim is true. Sounds like those people have not invesigated the corollaries of their own theory, and are just repeating what other people are saying. But I am faithful that eventually an explenation will appear.

 

Unfortunately being a mathemathician and a scientist I am quite strict in my understanding of what a proof is. The core is that a proof is not an act of believe. As such I consider invalid the following arguments: Proof on Authority; The Mystery Card; Claims of personal Authority.

 

Let me explain:

no proof must be given on authority ( I don't accept a proof that goes, it is so because this book/teacher said so );

no mystery card ( "It's a mystery" is logical bancruptcy );

no "you don't have enough experience" card. If you have enough experience you must be able to explain it to me (I can on science, and believe me, Artificial Life is not always that easy). If you are not able to explain it, you are essentially relaying on the authority of others. See point 1.

 

When someone, not using any of the three intellectual tricks above (who could make me believe something, but not understand itm, and really make it mine) will be able to show me how reality does not exist I might concede. And hopefully at that point I might walk through walls, get invisible, and look through Nastasja Kinski underwear (yeah, I am old, but she was hot). In the meantime...

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I still don't see how all those claims (at least eight) can be declared true in a universe that is not real. If the universe is not real no claim is true. Sounds like those people have not invesigated the corollaries of their own theory, and are just repeating what other people are saying. But I am faithful that eventually an explenation will appear.

 

 

 

Buddhism never say's that the universe is not real, or an illusion. Just it's like an illusion because as soon as you have seen it, it has already changed. All current events are based upon previous events so do not inherently exist, but merely exist relative to endless history. Thus, are not solid, but ever changing impermanence.

 

To say, "like an illusion" is not saying it's literally an illusion, that would mean an inherent non-existence. Which of course there is no such things as inherent non-existence. Just, does not inherently exist on it's own with it's own self essence. There is only change, so the illusion is that things are solid when you should know as a scientist mathematician, they are not. The five senses do fool us to a certain extent as my solid oak table is indeed moving and changing as I speak, even though I can't see this minute process physically without some sort of visual aid that focuses my perception into a subtler than 5 sense dimension.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism never say's that the universe is not real, or an illusion. Just it's like an illusion because as soon as you have seen it, it has already changed. All current events are based upon previous events so do not inherently exist, but merely exist relative to endless history. Thus, are not solid, but ever changing impermanence.

 

To say, "like an illusion" is not saying it's literally an illusion, that would mean an inherent non-existence. Which of course there is no such things as inherent non-existence. Just, does not inherently exist on it's own with it's own self essence. There is only change, so the illusion is that things are solid when you should know as a scientist mathematician, they are not. The five senses do fool us to a certain extent as my solid oak table is indeed moving and changing as I speak, even though I can't see this minute process physically without some sort of visual aid that focuses my perception into a subtler than 5 sense dimension.

 

Quantum mechanics posits that all physical phenomena exists definitely only in relation to the observer. Without the observer, it only exists as a possibility.

 

But then who observes the observed for the self awareness to be?

 

I am not going to argue points of Buddhist conception of reality. I don't know anything about it.,,,

 

Buddhism is actually the perfect remedy for those who suffer since its joys are independent of physical or mental conditions.

 

Hmm...then again, I guess you could say that for other religions also?

 

Too much thinking today .