Madhyamika and Time

[RigdzinTrinley]

Hi all,

(excuse my english - its my second language)

 

this is my first personal contribution to the forum, I picked the Topic of Time because it is very interessting to me.

 

Last year I had the great opportunity to receive teachings on Shantidevas "Bodhisattvacharyavatara" three times - two times with a focus on the 9th chapter, each of those teachings lasted for about a month, sometimes less.

 

I would like to share one very interessting AhAAA moment I had while receiving these teaching (a little buddhist geeky intellectual orgasm).

 

Madhyamika has a very beautiful way of dealing with time - for this school of thought when you say time you say reincarnation and when you say reincarnation you say time

 

so I for one still believe in having a masala chai tomorrow in the morning - I still believe in Time. If I belive in Tomorrow - I unknowingly believe in reincarnation

 

or a cuntinuum of conciousness

 

Now for people who have tastes of meditation - Time is not such a fixed Idea anymore, because when one tastes Nowness Awereness (Keith Dowmans translation for Ye She) Time is seen to be a construct of the mind

 

thats exactly what madhyamika is saying - reincarnation (time) is realtive truth, functional and important but realtive

 

because why? The continuity of Consciousness is a mere imputation - an unborn phenomena (like all phenomena) that arises like a dream. If one starts to investigate no such thing like a continuity of mind exists -> ultimately

 

the commentators on the ninth chapter of shantideavas classic (Khnepo Kunphel or Ju Mipham Rinpoche) use the analogy of the mala to talk about this: A mala is a compound phenomena, a collection made from 108 or 111 round stones or seeds or whatever and a string - each one of them doesnt constitute a mala and a collection of 108 "not malas" doesn't have the power to produce a real substantial mala. The beads themselves can be analysed down to its smallest particles that can be further divided into the 10 direction etc. they are shown in ultimate analyses to be like space

 

its the same with our feeling of continuity of consciousness

 

so Time and Reincarnation are just a figment or hallucination of our mind. I always had a problem with the Idea of reincarnation - I said to myself "Oh well its to keep us social good hearted animals - that doesn't hurt" - this explanations of my lamas (that I tried to share here in a much much shorter and easy to understand way) helped me alot in understanding basic buddhist nondualism and the conception of time/reincarnation in that light

 

I hope its some food for thought

[soaring crane]

 

thats exactly what madhyamika is saying - reincarnation (time) is realtive truth, functional and important but realtive

 

because why? The continuity of Consciousness is a mere imputation - an unborn phenomena (like all phenomena) that arises like a dream. If one starts to investigate no such thing like a continuity of mind exists -> ultimately

 

 

 

Hey, thank you very much for that post :-)

[doc benway]

Greeting Rigdzin Trinley,

You are indeed fortunate to have access to such wonderful teachers and teachings. 

I appreciate that you've chosen to share with us .

I hope you continue to do so.

Warm regards from the USA

[manitou]

Echart Tolle would agree with you, Rigdzin Trinley.  He would say that the concept of reincarnation is but a construct man has created due to fear of dying, or not-being.  Much more comprehensive than the Christian belief in a heaven, but a construct of mind just the same; that is, until an awakened one desires extinction and relief from Time.

 

Your description and discussion of the malas, the unending, reminds me of the trillions of Buddha-worlds discussed at length (I mean, really at length) in the Avatamsaka Sutra.  It reminds me of the atomic structure manifesting everywhere, in all sizes.

 

A wonderful post - thank you!

Edited October 13, 2015 by manitou

[3bob]

there is no extinction per-se, there is return,

 

btw the Buddha expressed thankfulness about the experience of being human for without it there would have not been a return.

[manitou]

there is no extinction per-se, there is return,

 

btw the Buddha expressed thankfulness about the experience of being human for without it there would have not been a return.

 

 

The action of the Dao is reversion -

[RigdzinTrinley]

Yes its good to talk about time, because its seems so natural to most people (including me) - I rarely question time

 

Echart Tolle would agree with you, Rigdzin Trinley. He would say that the concept of reincarnation is but a construct man has created due to fear of dying, or not-being. Much more comprehensive than the Christian belief in a heaven, but a construct of mind just the same; that is, until an awakened one desires extinction and relief from Time.

 

Your description and discussion of the malas, the unending, reminds me of the trillions of Buddha-worlds discussed at length (I mean, really at length) in the Avatamsaka Sutra. It reminds me of the atomic structure manifesting everywhere, in all sizes.

 

A wonderful post - thank you!

I never read much of Eckhart Tolle, but still from the Buddhist point of view (the Madhyamika point of view) his statement is true but not for 100%

 

because time is relatively appearing, dreamlike but appearing - and so is reincarnation

 

also the idea of tomorrow is very workable, it makes alot of sense to have that concept.

Reincarnation is workable in the same way (even if most beings don't remember past lives or see future lives, but then who knows how tomorrows tea will taste, I mean have the direct experience of tomorrows tea already now? or who can really recall for example what exactly they thought 5 minutes before they read this?)

 

the continuity of concisousness is relatively true - like a dream is true or a mirage is true

 

and also: as the buddha is unborn, how could the buddha cease (be extinct?) like the awakened one said:

 

"my dreamlike form appeared to dreamlike beings to show them the dreamlike path to lead to dreamlike nirvana"

 

or shantideva: (I quote the meaning not the exact words of the translation)

 

"the bodhisattva is allowed only one illusion, namely that there is a result to the path"

 

I have by the way no idea what all of this means

but those indo tibetan teachings sure sound great to me

Edited October 14, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

A good and new friend pointed out that my post lacked consideration and sensitivity.

 

I've got some growing to do...

 

Edited October 13, 2015 by steve

[RigdzinTrinley]

Steve inspired me to Edit my post,

 

When I start talking about Buddha Dharma (madhyamika specially) I can get in some sort of hysteria...

I get so excited over those ideas that I forget that they are Ideas that resonate with me but not with everybody

also Ideas can express wisdom, but wisdom and ideas are of course very different things.

 

I go drink tea - that calms the hysteria down

Edited October 14, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[3bob]

Hi Manitou,  Obviously this is the Buddhist forum and they have their own vehicles....

 

Thus it is problematic to use the term "Tao" in a purely Taoist context here although I think it safe to say that there is some common ground among aspects of the different teachings.

 

As for the word "reversion" imo that sounds like another one of those debatable type terms that are misused and or misunderstood in the "West".

 

Btw, here is what the TTC says about Tao going far and returning, and which will not jive at all with what some Buddhists say:

 

TTC. 25.
THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in
  itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.

Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,
It may be regarded as the Mother of the world.
I do not know its name;
I style it "Tao";
And, in the absence of a better word, call it
  "The Great."

To be great is to go on,
To go on is to be far,
To be far is to return.

Hence, "Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
King is great."
Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe.

Man follows the ways of the Earth.
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven,
Heaven follows the ways of Tao,
Tao follows its own ways.

Edited October 14, 2015 by 3bob

[manitou]

I haven't studied Buddhism, so I'm out of my element here.  I've read some sutras, and I've been hanging around here for a long time.  Please excuse me if I don't understand your vehicle - it's just the nomenclature and structure that are at issue.  And as for time - it is our choice as to whether to dwell in the future or past at all.  For practical purposes, of course we use time.  I may meet you for lunch tomorrow at 12:00.  This is the functional part of this unfolding.  But to 'fear' tomorrow, or what is going to happen to us next - is what Tolle talks about.  He's not pretending that there is not going to be a new day tomorrow; his idea is just to use this unfolding, this anticipation of a point of time tomorrow, to our benefit, not our detriment.  Just functionally.

 

What I think,  is that there is One Truth at the bottom of all this.  How many Truths can there be?  I've triangulated and seen the metaphysics of several disciplines and they end up in one place.  That we are the I Am, that we manifest our surroundings, that we can look at our surroundings and determine where our inner self is at all times.  That we are mirrors of each other; that, until we know better, we seek approval in each other's eyes; that when we reach the bottom of our own psyche, we cease to need approval from anyone; that We are the creator; that Love, or a magnetic type of mutual attraction, is the operative principle underlying everything - and when we align ourselves with that dynamic, life falls into place magically; that to find the love of everything is our life, to see the being-ness of everything, is to have peace of heart.

 

Buddhism as it's discussed on this forum is often a complicated path.  Sometimes I think that there is so much to learn within the Buddhist structure, that a type of ego can develop if we're not careful once it's learned.  Or the mindset that my Rinpoche is better than yours.  But I think that Buddhists too will ultimately end in the Void, or the Dao.  Perhaps just a different language.  I've seen many threads here that believe that Buddhism is the only way to enlightenment.  I think it's an excellent way, but not the only way.  I'm guessing Gautama would agree with that.

 

When a Buddhist says that extinction is desirable, is this not to revert to the Void?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  But it seems that the more complicated the answer gets, the less likely that it is that that's the finality of the answer.  I don't think the ultimate answer is complicated at all.

 

It is Us, that's all.   When we have eliminated that which is undesirable within us, the Sutras would seem to agree with this.  The Buddha mind, as I've read, is also found through elimination of qualities that hamper the inner dive, in addition to growth within the structure.  We are the Buddha, if we only knew it.  We are the Christ.  We are the Sage.  I found my Buddha nature in the Avatamsaka Sutra.  When we have finally developed our Eyes, this becomes quite apparent, and it is a Truth within us that is the steady rock within, unchangeable.

 

But, then again, maybe an old metaphysical lady shouldn't oughta' be mouthing off on the Buddhist forum.  Point taken, 3bob.  I'll just read until I understand better the intricacies of this structure.

Edited October 14, 2015 by manitou

[3bob]

Manitou, I don't use the term extinction since the term 'attachment' is probably a more relatable one....(for me anyways)

thus to lose attachments that bring about or are related to suffering for oneself and others would be following dharma.

 

As for the term "mind" I mostly take it's meaning as it is defined under Vedic teachings which do not match up in meanings with Buddhism. 

 

I'd also add that by doctrine (or at least by widely and commonly held interpretations of same) that Buddhists reject all other paths (or vehicles) as being inferior to theirs.  (along with some forms of infighting or disagreement among their own sub-divisions as to which of them are closest to their founders teachings)  

 

gotta run, take care

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I haven't studied Buddhism, so I'm out of my element here.  I've read some sutras, and I've been hanging around here for a long time.  Please excuse me if I don't understand your vehicle - it's just the nomenclature and structure that are at issue. [...] But, then again, maybe an old metaphysical lady shouldn't oughta' be mouthing off on the Buddhist forum.  Point taken, 3bob.  I'll just read until I understand better the intricacies of this structure.

 

No need to apologize for not completely understanding Buddhism, and definitely don't worry about 'mouthing off' - your posts here have a warm personal perspective and are appreciated.

 

What I think,  is that there is One Truth at the bottom of all this.  How many Truths can there be?  I've triangulated and seen the metaphysics of several disciplines and they end up in one place.  That we are the I Am

 

This is where the sticking point is in most people's understanding of Buddhism - anatta. Heck, took me ages to begin to get it!

 

In Buddhism the view 'I Am' has to go along the path of awakening. E..g the Khemaka Sutta describes someone who has awakened enough to see that there is nowhere for a valid view of self to latch on to, but hasn't fully dropped the 'I Am' notion yet:

 

[...] "Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

 

"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

 

"No, friend."

 

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

 

"As the scent of the flower[...]"

 

"In the same way, friends, [...] 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

 

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.

 

Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent [...] is fully obliterated.

 

In the same way, friends, [...] a noble disciple [...] keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

[...]

 

One sees that each of the aggregates is not self, not in self, not containing self, not owned by self. Just phenomena. 'This is not me, not mine.' There is mental stuff, there is physical stuff, they comprise a person, but in that person there is no central subject, no 'me'. Who makes sap flow in a tree? Nobody. Who makes thoughts flow in a person? Nobody. Eventually gnosis cuts through that last subtle scent of 'I am'.

 

Buddhism as it's discussed on this forum is often a complicated path.  Sometimes I think that there is so much to learn within the Buddhist structure, that a type of ego can develop if we're not careful once it's learned.  Or the mindset that my Rinpoche is better than yours. 

 

Absolutely. 'Too much knowledge cleaves the heads of fools and destroys their innate goodness.' Right Speech can be in short supply when people argue about Right View.

 

Though the funny thing is, if you read and think over this stuff in a balanced way (as a guide for actual practice, which includes a hefty chunk of heart-practice) it reaches a point where it feels more like unlearning... complicated theory becomes a knife for scraping off the crust over your eyes, and it all becomes increasingly simple and obvious. What once seemed obvious and simple is a complicated delusion, what once seemed complex theory is straightforward experience.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[manitou]

I agree on having to go through the I Am as well, to be more explicit.  But the I Am must be gone through, IMO, to the point where no identity at all is reached, the gnosis - which perhaps the Daoist would call the Void?  I'm guessing that Gautama spent his 7 years under the tree going within - not relying so much on the words and teachings of others, although they do point the way before the structure can be shed.

 

The way I see it, the I Am is the original Word - the Void or emptiness is what dwells prior, that which cannot be said.  The I Am is the One, before the Two, before the Three, before the 10,000.  I'm just not seeing a huge difference between the ultimate conclusion in Buddhism or Daoism.  Or mystic Christianity.  Or Theosophy. Or Islam, where True Jihad is doing battle with and overcoming the flames of Ego - not throwing pipe bombs at your opponents.  And yes!  It does seem to be a 'backward' process.  I have sometimes likened it, on this forum, to standing in a stream, looking downstream, but walking backwards upstream.  It is definitely a shedding process.

 

I'm not familiar with the structure, but I do have understanding.  I recall when I was maybe 8 years old, walking home from my elementary school.  I stopped suddenly and stared down at the sidewalk, caught up in thought, and I said to myself "My soul is tired."  Where does an 8 year old get that?  And I've felt that way all my life.  I want a rest.  I need a rest.

Edited October 14, 2015 by manitou

[manitou]

I'd also add that by doctrine (or at least by widely and commonly held interpretations of same) that Buddhists reject all other paths (or vehicles) as being inferior to theirs.  (along with some forms of infighting or disagreement among their own sub-divisions as to which of them are closest to their founders teachings)  

 

 

I'm guessing this needs to be transcended.

[3bob]

that "rest"  in the deepest sense is in or of the True Self hidden in plain sight and which never wears out or down, and It has no problem with True identity, thus being beyond some vague and often heartless sounding concept of the void, for without True identity or Self all else would end up being in vain... thus there are warnings given by both the Buddhist and Vedic teachers that  no assumptions can be made about "no-self" per Buddhism or "True Self" per the Vedas -  btw, it's safe to assume these ideas will be argued about until the end of time.            

Edited October 14, 2015 by 3bob

[doc benway]

I haven't studied Buddhism,

Perhaps, but you have lived it... 

 

so I'm out of my element here.

Perhaps, but you have much to offer...

 

Buddhism as it's discussed on this forum is often a complicated path.

Fortunately, although the theory is complex, the practice can be quite simple...

Rest body, speech, and mind. 

Let everything be as it is.

 

 

But I think that Buddhists too will ultimately end in the Void, or the Dao.  Perhaps just a different language.

The language is the three bodies: the union of emptiness and self-knowing which is great bliss

 

 

It is Us, that's all.   When we have eliminated that which is undesirable within us, the Sutras would seem to agree with this.  The Buddha mind, as I've read, is also found through elimination of qualities that hamper the inner dive, in addition to growth within the structure.  We are the Buddha, if we only knew it.  We are the Christ.  We are the Sage.  I found my Buddha nature in the Avatamsaka Sutra.  When we have finally developed our Eyes, this becomes quite apparent, and it is a Truth within us that is the steady rock within, unchangeable.

 

But, then again, maybe an old metaphysical lady shouldn't oughta' be mouthing off on the Buddhist forum.

She damn well should if she's gonna say stuff like that!

_/\_

 

 

 I'm just not seeing a huge difference between the ultimate conclusion in Buddhism or Daoism.  Or mystic Christianity.  Or Theosophy. Or Islam, where True Jihad is doing battle with and overcoming the flames of Ego - not throwing pipe bombs at your opponents. 

I suspect when there is direct contact with truth, one can see how the words are pointing to it.

While wrestling with words and concepts they appear to point in different direction.

It makes sense when you consider that space has no center, perhaps.

 

 

I'm not familiar with the structure, but I do have understanding.  I recall when I was maybe 8 years old, walking home from my elementary school.  I stopped suddenly and stared down at the sidewalk, caught up in thought, and I said to myself "My soul is tired."  Where does an 8 year old get that?  And I've felt that way all my life.  I want a rest.  I need a rest.

That is the pith instruction of all masters of Dzogchen, the "highest" vehicle in Mahayana Buddhism:

Rest 

Leave it as it is

[3bob]

Steve, I hear you professing some interesting non-reconcilable contradictions in your posts that plays to teachings that are 180 degrees off from each other... and its nice in way that you make such stretch's but such also goes against well recognized doctrine of both those ways which I think should be pointed out while you are at - thus we have Steve's variation of two differing doctrines.

 

As for me I see no way to gloss over the repetitive fact that a kind person like the Dalai Lama is walking around saying no-atman, no-atman, no-atman, etc... while Self-realized or Atman -realized Gurus are doing no such thing.

[forestofclarity]

Buddhism is infinitely scalable to the person--- in fact, this is a part of the teachings. One of my favorite stories is the story of Suddhipanthaka, who couldn't memorize even one line of sutras. So the Buddha told him to keep in mind two words: sleep and clean, and to sweep his mind as he swept the floor. It is said that Suddhipanthaka attained enlightenment based on this simple instruction. 

 

But having said that, I wonder if the end goal is truly the same. But the end goal of Buddhism, in my mind, is not enlightenment or liberation. The end goal of the Mahayana Buddhist is also not to end up in the Void, or the Dao. The goal is to become a Buddha, dedicated to assisting infinite beings end their suffering. For me, the interesting question is whether other religions share this vision or not?

 

 

Buddhism as it's discussed on this forum is often a complicated path.  Sometimes I think that there is so much to learn within the Buddhist structure, that a type of ego can develop if we're not careful once it's learned.  Or the mindset that my Rinpoche is better than yours.  But I think that Buddhists too will ultimately end in the Void, or the Dao.  Perhaps just a different language.  I've seen many threads here that believe that Buddhism is the only way to enlightenment.  I think it's an excellent way, but not the only way.  I'm guessing Gautama would agree with that.

[doc benway]

Steve, I hear you professing some interesting non-reconcilable contradictions in your posts that plays to teachings that are 180 degrees off from each other... and its nice in way that you make such stretch's but such also goes against well recognized doctrine of both those ways which I think should be pointed out while you are at - thus we have Steve's variation of two differing doctrines.

 

As for me I see no way to gloss over the repetitive fact that a kind person like the Dalai Lama is walking around saying no-atman, no-atman, no-atman, etc... while Self-realized or Atman -realized Gurus are doing no such thing.

 

Thank you for pointing that out and please be more specific if you care to.

 

Not knowing what you are referring to specifically I'll add that I do not struggle too much with contradiction.

I think there is inherent contradiction in trying to conceptualize the ineffable and reconcile personal experience with the wholeness of being.

That inherent contradiction is at the heart of the Ch'an and Zen koan methods, no?

 

I love this quote from John O'Donohue:

"And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

 

Like manitou, I find myself a bit exhausted by trying so much to understand. My practice has been more focused on the non-conceptual of late.

[3bob]

Well Steve to be more specific: In Buddhism there is no "soul" as mentioned and or as alluded to in your quote by John Donohue,

instead there is the dealing with aggregates and or composites that are often said to be nothing more than illusions.

 

Contradiction serves a purpose just as the four-fold-negation does up to a point, but one can't eat them like multi-grain and sprouted, organic, non-gmo, no-high-fructose corn syrup, no additives or preservative's, no-trans-fat, and added organic seeds that all add up to a complete protein, vitamin and mineral food along with fiber for good measure.

Edited October 15, 2015 by 3bob

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well Steve to be more specific: In Buddhism there is no "soul" as mentioned and or as alluded to in your quote by John Donohue,

instead there is the dealing with aggregates and or composites that are often said to be nothing more than illusions.

 

Contradiction serves a purpose just as the four-fold-negation does up to a point, but one can't eat them like multi-grain and sprouted, organic, non-gmo, no-high-fructose corn syrup, no additives or preservative's, no-trans-fat, and added organic seeds that all add up to a complete protein, vitamin and mineral food along with fiber for good measure.

Hi Bob,

A few points.. Buddhism is big on reincarnation. What do you suppose it is that reincarnates? That which reincarnates in Buddhism could very well be compared to the "soul" in Chistianity except that there is no mention of reincarnation in Chistianity.

 

Steve's quote is a little misleading. If one inquires further, one discovers that John O'Donahue is actually a Catholic priest whom uses Buddhism as a method of purification and he does not ascribe to the Buddhist tenet of no Self. I think the quote is a suggestion to look inside the heart and see what you can find.

 

http://www.onbeing.org/program/inner-landscape-beauty/transcript/1125

 

MS. TIPPETT: Well, you have said, you write, "God is Beauty."

 

MR. O'DONOHUE: Yeah, I — I, yeah, I have, yeah.

 

MS. TIPPETT: Did you always feel this? Is that something — is that a sense that has grown in you or something that you name now?

 

MR. O'DONOHUE: It's a sense that has grown in me, I suppose, that I've always kind of had the intuition about it, because I feel that there are two ways that you must always keep together in approaching the God thing. One is, and this is what I like about the Christian tradition — and this is where I diverge a little from the Buddhist tradition even though I love Buddhism as a methodology to clean up the mind and get you into purity of presence. What I love is that at the heart of Christianity, you have this idea of intimacy, which is true belonging, being seen, the ultimate home of individuation, the ultimate source of it and the homecoming.

 

That's what I call spirituality, the art of homecoming. So it's St. Augustine's phrase, like, "Deus intimior intimo meo" — "God is more intimate to me than I am to myself." Then you go to Meister Eckhart, and you get the other side of it, which you must always keep together with it, where in Middle High German, he says, "Gott wirt und Gott entwirt" — that means, "God becomes and God unbecomes," or translated it means that God is only our name for it, and the closer we get to it the more it ceases to be God. So then you are on a real safari with the wildness and danger and otherness of God.

 

It is hard to let go of the idea that we do not really exist by virtue of the fact that there is something larger than ourselves which is animating us. Call it illusion, emptiness, God, ultimate Bodhicitta, or whatever you'd like. You seem to think that Buddhism is at odds with other religions when in fact, true reality does not change one iota based on any system of belief.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Does there have to be 'a thing which gets reborn'? I see this as process, the person who dies and the person who is born are points in a process, not an entity moving from one state to another.

 

Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

[Jetsun]

There are all sorts of processes, but I think there must be something which keeps things localised inbetween lives and in the bardo otherwise the processes would split off in a million different directions and different lives.

[doc benway]

Well Steve to be more specific: In Buddhism there is no "soul" as mentioned and or as alluded to in your quote by John Donohue,

instead there is the dealing with aggregates and or composites that are often said to be nothing more than illusions.

 

Contradiction serves a purpose just as the four-fold-negation does up to a point, but one can't eat them like multi-grain and sprouted, organic, non-gmo, no-high-fructose corn syrup, no additives or preservative's, no-trans-fat, and added organic seeds that all add up to a complete protein, vitamin and mineral food along with fiber for good measure.

 

Did I mention a soul 3bob? I'm still not sure what contradictions you are referring to. 

I don't doubt that I speak in contradictions, however. 

I don't have it all figured out. 

 

I like that dialogue, TI, thank you. I think the homecoming that O'Donohue referred to is quite well represented in Bön.

O'Donohue was actually a poet. His main focus was on coming to awakening through beauty - particularly poetry and art. 

He was a priest for a while but left the priesthood and focused on Celtic spirituality. His poetry and talks are wonderful.

I have a set of his CD's called Celtic Wisdom. Anam Cara is his masterpiece.