You seem to be suggesting that there isn’t an individual stream of consciousness from life to life, but a reformulation of multiple fragments of consciousness. How do you square that with the notion of kamma being passed on from one life to the next or a path to nibbāna taking more than a single life?
In Buddhism, the law of kamma dictates that an action would cause a chain of reactions and vice versa. It’s just a universal law that’s not shaped by religious beliefs, but a mechanism that provides a sustainable balance in nature. Moreover, Buddhism embraces rebirth, not reincarnation. Rebirth means the evolution of consciousness or the stream of consciousness of a person and the new consciousness of the same person (in the new person after death) is neither the same nor completely different from the former consciousness, but it is part of a continuum of causation or flux with it.
Fundamentally, when someone dies, his/her subtle-consciousness transpires in the soul or spirit and carries with the kamma seeds. That is because, within the subtle consciousness, we would discover the elements of memory and information. The information stored in each life cycle would then evolve into the so-called treasures of kamma seeds that have been amassed throughout the series of his past lives.
For example, the subtle consciousness of: Individual A would carry kamma-seed A, Individual B would carry kamma-seed B, and Individual C would carry kamma-seed C. When a new being is born (Individual ABC), he or she would inherit all the respective kamma-seeds from Individual A, B, and C. This is what the void in Buddhism signifies, namely all beings and things are formed as continually convoluted existences rather than as discrete units.
Consequently, the law of kamma can never be decrypted like an eye for an eye because you can’t clearly separate things or events. Each created event or object has been interdependent and interrelated since time immemorial in an extremely complicated network of existence. In a nutshell, each existence would not be totally identical or different from each other; this is known as universal emptiness.
In your illustration of how a stream enterer would attain liberation across lives you claim that the fragmented consciousness would only recombine with other fragments at the same stage of kamma. Is that how it works for everyone that our fragments can only combine with those with the same kind of kamma?
Perhaps you are aware of the law of attraction, namely like attracts like, unlike repels unlike. Our thoughts, feelings, words, and actions produce energies which in turn draw in like energies. For example, if you start with positive thoughts all the time, it will attract favourable energies and things will unfold positively. This is how the call to pray for someone works: the transfer of merit.
In the meantime, the law of attraction would lay down the law of kamma, namely turning the seeds into kamma fruit. For example, Seed A would emit A energy that, in turn, would draw similar energies elsewhere. At maturity, Seed A will attract enough similar energies and then convert Seed A to Fruit A. Eventually, similar subtle-consciousness traits among different individuals would attract and unite together, much like the saying, “Ashes in ashes, dust in dust”.
What was the cause of the first moment of ignorance to arise? Doesn’t everything have a cause? Therefore, what is the cause of the very first moment of dependent phenomena, why didn’t it arise earlier or later than it did?
Ignorance signifies the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed, or lack of knowledge, education, awareness by the mental consciousness itself. This means that mental consciousness is a necessary prerequisite for ignorance to exist. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor of all states and with its maintenance in ignorance, there are elements of suffering in the dependent nature.
Nonetheless, the first link, namely ignorance, in the doctrine of Dependent Origination cannot be regarded as the primary cause. This doctrine does not place emphasis on the importance of the primary cause in the dependent nature, but rather concentrates on the root cause of suffering that arises because of the emerging mental consciousness. Hence, it is incorrect to construct the accounts of Dependent Origination from a series of linear events.
In the end, one would realise that emptiness exists in all dependent phenomena. Therefore, the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the very first moment of dependent phenomena because it does not have a beginning or an end in nature. And since the dependent nature is beginning-less, its oldest phase would be itself.
I think where I disagree is where you say that a moment of ignorance arises from memory. I don’t see why a memory can’t be free of ignorance and why one moment of ignorance can’t be simply said to arise from a previous moment of ignorance.
Ignorance means the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed, or lack of knowledge, education, awareness. While memory refers to the undertakings of retaining and recalling impressions, facts, remembrance, recollection, recognising previous experiences or past events or knowledge. When a person is not educated, unconscious, uninformed of any kind of events, this means past events that have been preserved as references for the present and the future. Without memory, the iterations of fluctuating activities in the dependent nature would be impossible because all the things or events are interdependently co-appearing ad infinitum.
For example, ice, water, and steam appear differently depending on the orientation of H2O properties. Without the subtle recollection of the respective shapes, iterations of ice, water, and steam would not be possible. Moreover, the memory would carry with the seeds and fruits of kamma. Kamma seeds and fruits are comparable to deposits and withdrawals of ripe information. Therefore, the elements of remembrance are responsible for the process of becoming within all beings or things. Consider the early learning abilities of children. If memory is missing, any educational programme learned would be immediately forgotten. More importantly, without memory, the law of kamma in the domains of existence would be regarded as impossible.
I need some guidance on this: Whenever I meditate, I reached the “falling off a step” point..... then it is really very tranquil. Are you familiar with this? There is only the breath at that point. The only thing is that I can’t sustain it, maybe for a minute or so. I have heard it is one-pointedness, but not sure, any advice?
For your information, the mind consists of an amalgam of dominating and subtle aspects. During profound meditation, the dominant mental consciousness would temporarily decouple from the subtle mental consciousness, so the feeling of dropping a step as you mentioned. The main reason for embarking on samatha meditation is to calm the subtle mental consciousness. Subsequently, the dominant mental consciousness enters into a state of pure (conscious) observation without identification over the flow of thoughts brought about by the subtle mental consciousness.
I have one question: If a monk wishes to achieve enlightenment, does it mean that he has desires (to be enlightened)? Is such desire an awakening force or an ignorant force?
Desire is merely an intent to build castles in the air. Enlightenment can never come about through desire. If a monk tells someone he wants or desires enlightenment, then this would be a mistake as it is an ignorant expression. However, should the same monk later realise and express his determination to attain enlightenment, then it is an expression of awakening.
You are trying to create a difference where there is none. It does not matter whether the monk uses the word “desires” or “determined”. Desire is desire and if a monk meditates and performs spiritual training with enlightenment in mind, that by it can be considered as desire (to achieve something).
Yes, I agree that it’s pretty hard to define these words clearly in the topic of enlightenment. Maybe we need to replace the word enlightenment with wisdom. As an example, if you are wise, then you are wise. There can never be any desire for wisdom. In the same way, if you’re stupid, then you’re stupid. There can never be any desire for stupidity.
And yet, wise can lead to the ego. Is to know all things consider you are wise? Or to accept that you know nothing is considered to be wise?
No, I hope you’re not thinking of enlightenment as wisdom. I am merely applying a comparison that there is no desire for enlightenment. Likewise, there is no way you can desire wisdom or stupidity. As a matter of fact, wisdom is the consequence of enlightenment, so to speak.
In a sense, while enlightenment is a matter of realisation, wisdom means applying it to day-to-day perspectives and decision-making in a healthy way. Again, you need to learn first, and then apply understanding and experience with common sense and insight – that’s wisdom. Meanwhile, stupidity is knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still trusting the untruth.
If there is no way to desire enlightenment or wisdom, then why commit spiritual acts or practices? It is obvious that not everyone can become enlightened, or we all could become enlightened. So, what are the criteria of a person who can become enlightened over the course of time?
Again, enlightenment and wisdom begin with decisive determination, not strong desire. If you want to become enlightened and wise, you need to walk the talk – that’s the difference between determination and desire.
I don’t see a difference between determination and desire. How can one differentiate between them? A monk can say he is determined to achieve enlightenment and unknowingly, change that into a desire to seek enlightenment, so much so that he refuses everything worldly (including compassion and mercy towards other less fortunate souls). It is a very thin line between determination and desire.
As I said earlier, it’s pretty difficult to differentiate those words for any ordinary person. In fact, there is no absolute condition in anything or circumstance that occurs. Like the yin-yang concept: each one contains the seed of the other, so we see a black yin stain in the white yang and vice versa. Likewise, a saint can transform into a devil and a devil can transform into a saint simply by a moment of reflection. For example, in a moment, a monk has the thought of wishing or longing for enlightenment, so this is an ignorant expression. And from the next moment, he realises and inculcates a resolve to reach enlightenment, so it is an expression of awakening.
Why do universal laws exist in dependent nature?
Mother Nature is universal and infinite in her native disposition and is governed by universal laws. In other words, there are two sides to Mother Nature that can be illustrated in a mathematical equation as follows: -
Both Sides To Mother Nature
The two sides will exist simultaneously and can be illustrated in a mathematical equation, as described below: -
Facet 1 Facet 2
The Realm Of Something The Realm Of Nothing
(Dependent Arising) (Inherent Existence)
… (-2+2) + (-16+16) + (-133+133) + (0) + (-54+54) …, etc. = 0
Key: -
Facet 1
= Dependent arising.
= The prevalence of the mind that evokes perceptions, designs, labelling, etc.
= The fluctuating phenomena.
= The start and end processes.
= All subjects and objects are created.
Facet 2
= Inherent existence.
= No mind at all.
= No start and end process.
= No conditional phenomena at all.
= The Buddha-nature.
Zero (0)
= Intermediation, absence, or emptiness.
= A mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
= Lack of one or all units under review.
... (-2+2) + ... + (-54+54) ...
= Flow values which are dependent.
= This arising, that arises.
... + (0) + ...
= This ceasing, that ceases.
= A phase of enlightenment.
( .... )
= The law of kamma.
= A universal law of balance.
-2+2 or -133+133
= The law of attraction.
Based on the above mathematical equation, the conclusions could be summarised as follows: -
1. Mother Nature is a constant system with an intermediary or absent factor. This means that it will constantly move towards a balanced state.
2. If a scene is made in Mother Nature, the natural law which governs the balance would come into effect through time and the planes of existence.
3. All that exists inherently does not imply change and the created objects cannot exist inherently because it implies change.
4. Dependent nature resembles intrinsic nature.
What regulates these universal laws?
From the above mathematical equation, one might see that nature would always steer towards a balanced state. Generally speaking, every existence (sentient, non-sentient, or any material thing) consists of energy and matter that would orient itself towards a balanced condition. Furthermore, all things would exist only under perpetual conditions where there is a balance.
This means that if one causes a scene, the natural law that governs the balance would come into effect in time and in the planes of existence. This natural law is also referred to as the law of equilibrium. In Buddhism, it can also be referred to as the law of kamma, namely a portion of universal laws that are not shaped by religious beliefs, but simply a natural mechanism that ensures a sustainable balance in nature.
At the end of the day, the Energy Conservation Law says that energy in a system cannot be created or destroyed and the sum of all energy is constant or never changes. This implies that the dependent nature needs to be balanced at all times, or otherwise, a constant factor could not be reached in any way.
What initiates thoughts?
Let’s think about the cycle of Dependent Origination as follows: -
Equanimity (E0) leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkling. Sparkling leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to discomposure. Discomposure leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to equanimity (E1).
In the illustration above, we would notice that the conscious elements inside the sentient beings would trigger thoughts or actions. This means that in the case of thoughts or deeds, a new equal opposing force would arise both through the stream of time and the planes of existence. Iterations of fluctuating thoughts or actions would make up the wheel of life in Mother Nature.
Why are thoughts stronger than other vibrations?
The brief answer is because of the emergent mind. In general, the mind is known as consciousness in individuality. It is something more objective and involves clear discrimination that distinguishes and comprehends the characteristics of objects. The mind is used to understand things since it understands the manipulation of consciousness; thus, self-deception arises among sentient beings in dependent nature. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor to every state. This means that without the mind, things would appear as the deepest facts in itself, namely, without label, without boundary, without name, without activity, without form, without description, etc.
Why does magnetism exist?
It comes from the mechanisms of the law of balance in the dependent nature. As mentioned previously, Mother Nature is a constant system with an intermediary or absence factor. Somehow, if one provokes a scene, the natural law which governs the balance would apply through time and the planes of existence. Otherwise, there is absolutely no way that a constant factor can be achieved.
Have any Buddhist writers explored whether lack of attachment might be a bad thing? Personally, I don’t mind enduring some suffering from time to time that comes with an attachment, because I would not want to miss out on the joys that come from attachment. I don’t see completely ending all of my sufferings as a good thing. I think it takes courage to take risks: to enter into and develop attachment because you know you may experience suffering, but the joy of the attachment is worth the risk. I believe it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Could someone point me in the direction of discourse or dialogue discussing this exact issue?
In Buddhism, it is revealed that all worldly desires or attachments would ultimately result in suffering. And desire or attachment is not something that is a sin or something strange that comes into our lives. As humans, we naturally have cravings or attachments and there is nothing to be ashamed of. What Buddhism taught is the realisation of the ultimate reality, that is to say, that desire or attachment would lead to suffering. It’s about the second Noble Truth, namely acknowledge the cause of suffering.
Consequently, if we want to stop suffering, we need the resolve to see through the origin of suffering. Then we need to work diligently on the right path to end the suffering. However, if we choose to recognise the cause of suffering and let the condition of suffering continue in our lives, so be it. There is nothing sinful about such a decision. In the end, Buddhism is an alternative approach to those in need of spiritual comfort and liberation. It may not be acceptable for those who cannot live without dependants. Again, there’s no right or wrong here, just an individual choice.
Buddhism hasn’t lived up to its promise for me. I haven’t devoted my life to the Dhamma, but I’ve invested a significant amount of time in studying as much as I’m able to and invested a significant amount of time into meditating. I’m not seeking some profound religious experience or even jhāna. I’m just seeking peace. Do I need to join a monastery to find it?
I assume you have everything wrong with Buddhism. There is nothing superficial about Buddhism and the earth would still rotate 24 hours a day according to cosmic laws, even if you have achieved enlightenment. The first thing to take care of is your behaviour. It is sufficient to look at things or questions from a profound or interior perspective rather than from a conventional or superficial one. In other words, Buddhism is not a question of circumstances, but of attitude towards circumstances. Simply change the way you view your environment and you can glimpse a totally different perspective.
There is a “Big Logical Flaw” in saying everything is changing or impermanent. Please see...
A motion is always with reference to something that is not moving. A change means with reference to something that is not changing. So, the earth is moving with reference to the sun/stars. Earth cannot be moved without a “Frame of Reference” that is stationary. So, when I say, “Everything is moving...who recognises that change?” If the recogniser is also changing... who recognises this change in the recogniser?
A change... or a movement... is always with reference to changeless entity. So, with reference to what is this changing? “Change is the only thing that is constant”... is a logical flaw... because what about the truth value of this statement then?
By convention, humans would see things for what they are, rather than what they actually are. For example, the moon rotates on its own axis, although it may appear contrary to what our naked eyes might observe. In another case, seeing the earth from a distance and very closely would give a different result to the observer’s perception.
Also, all that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing ever existed in its own quality, that is to say, nothing is permanent and immutable. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances which, in turn, vary with the perceptions of the spectators. In the end, it is difficult for most people to see that ultimate truth because the mind is intrinsically dependent.
In Buddhism, the law of kamma dictates that an action would cause a chain of reactions and vice versa. It’s just a universal law that’s not shaped by religious beliefs, but a mechanism that provides a sustainable balance in nature. Moreover, Buddhism embraces rebirth, not reincarnation. Rebirth means the evolution of consciousness or the stream of consciousness of a person and the new consciousness of the same person (in the new person after death) is neither the same nor completely different from the former consciousness, but it is part of a continuum of causation or flux with it.
Fundamentally, when someone dies, his/her subtle-consciousness transpires in the soul or spirit and carries with the kamma seeds. That is because, within the subtle consciousness, we would discover the elements of memory and information. The information stored in each life cycle would then evolve into the so-called treasures of kamma seeds that have been amassed throughout the series of his past lives.
For example, the subtle consciousness of: Individual A would carry kamma-seed A, Individual B would carry kamma-seed B, and Individual C would carry kamma-seed C. When a new being is born (Individual ABC), he or she would inherit all the respective kamma-seeds from Individual A, B, and C. This is what the void in Buddhism signifies, namely all beings and things are formed as continually convoluted existences rather than as discrete units.
Consequently, the law of kamma can never be decrypted like an eye for an eye because you can’t clearly separate things or events. Each created event or object has been interdependent and interrelated since time immemorial in an extremely complicated network of existence. In a nutshell, each existence would not be totally identical or different from each other; this is known as universal emptiness.
In your illustration of how a stream enterer would attain liberation across lives you claim that the fragmented consciousness would only recombine with other fragments at the same stage of kamma. Is that how it works for everyone that our fragments can only combine with those with the same kind of kamma?
Perhaps you are aware of the law of attraction, namely like attracts like, unlike repels unlike. Our thoughts, feelings, words, and actions produce energies which in turn draw in like energies. For example, if you start with positive thoughts all the time, it will attract favourable energies and things will unfold positively. This is how the call to pray for someone works: the transfer of merit.
In the meantime, the law of attraction would lay down the law of kamma, namely turning the seeds into kamma fruit. For example, Seed A would emit A energy that, in turn, would draw similar energies elsewhere. At maturity, Seed A will attract enough similar energies and then convert Seed A to Fruit A. Eventually, similar subtle-consciousness traits among different individuals would attract and unite together, much like the saying, “Ashes in ashes, dust in dust”.
What was the cause of the first moment of ignorance to arise? Doesn’t everything have a cause? Therefore, what is the cause of the very first moment of dependent phenomena, why didn’t it arise earlier or later than it did?
Ignorance signifies the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed, or lack of knowledge, education, awareness by the mental consciousness itself. This means that mental consciousness is a necessary prerequisite for ignorance to exist. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor of all states and with its maintenance in ignorance, there are elements of suffering in the dependent nature.
Nonetheless, the first link, namely ignorance, in the doctrine of Dependent Origination cannot be regarded as the primary cause. This doctrine does not place emphasis on the importance of the primary cause in the dependent nature, but rather concentrates on the root cause of suffering that arises because of the emerging mental consciousness. Hence, it is incorrect to construct the accounts of Dependent Origination from a series of linear events.
In the end, one would realise that emptiness exists in all dependent phenomena. Therefore, the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the very first moment of dependent phenomena because it does not have a beginning or an end in nature. And since the dependent nature is beginning-less, its oldest phase would be itself.
I think where I disagree is where you say that a moment of ignorance arises from memory. I don’t see why a memory can’t be free of ignorance and why one moment of ignorance can’t be simply said to arise from a previous moment of ignorance.
Ignorance means the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed, or lack of knowledge, education, awareness. While memory refers to the undertakings of retaining and recalling impressions, facts, remembrance, recollection, recognising previous experiences or past events or knowledge. When a person is not educated, unconscious, uninformed of any kind of events, this means past events that have been preserved as references for the present and the future. Without memory, the iterations of fluctuating activities in the dependent nature would be impossible because all the things or events are interdependently co-appearing ad infinitum.
For example, ice, water, and steam appear differently depending on the orientation of H2O properties. Without the subtle recollection of the respective shapes, iterations of ice, water, and steam would not be possible. Moreover, the memory would carry with the seeds and fruits of kamma. Kamma seeds and fruits are comparable to deposits and withdrawals of ripe information. Therefore, the elements of remembrance are responsible for the process of becoming within all beings or things. Consider the early learning abilities of children. If memory is missing, any educational programme learned would be immediately forgotten. More importantly, without memory, the law of kamma in the domains of existence would be regarded as impossible.
I need some guidance on this: Whenever I meditate, I reached the “falling off a step” point..... then it is really very tranquil. Are you familiar with this? There is only the breath at that point. The only thing is that I can’t sustain it, maybe for a minute or so. I have heard it is one-pointedness, but not sure, any advice?
For your information, the mind consists of an amalgam of dominating and subtle aspects. During profound meditation, the dominant mental consciousness would temporarily decouple from the subtle mental consciousness, so the feeling of dropping a step as you mentioned. The main reason for embarking on samatha meditation is to calm the subtle mental consciousness. Subsequently, the dominant mental consciousness enters into a state of pure (conscious) observation without identification over the flow of thoughts brought about by the subtle mental consciousness.
I have one question: If a monk wishes to achieve enlightenment, does it mean that he has desires (to be enlightened)? Is such desire an awakening force or an ignorant force?
Desire is merely an intent to build castles in the air. Enlightenment can never come about through desire. If a monk tells someone he wants or desires enlightenment, then this would be a mistake as it is an ignorant expression. However, should the same monk later realise and express his determination to attain enlightenment, then it is an expression of awakening.
You are trying to create a difference where there is none. It does not matter whether the monk uses the word “desires” or “determined”. Desire is desire and if a monk meditates and performs spiritual training with enlightenment in mind, that by it can be considered as desire (to achieve something).
Yes, I agree that it’s pretty hard to define these words clearly in the topic of enlightenment. Maybe we need to replace the word enlightenment with wisdom. As an example, if you are wise, then you are wise. There can never be any desire for wisdom. In the same way, if you’re stupid, then you’re stupid. There can never be any desire for stupidity.
And yet, wise can lead to the ego. Is to know all things consider you are wise? Or to accept that you know nothing is considered to be wise?
No, I hope you’re not thinking of enlightenment as wisdom. I am merely applying a comparison that there is no desire for enlightenment. Likewise, there is no way you can desire wisdom or stupidity. As a matter of fact, wisdom is the consequence of enlightenment, so to speak.
In a sense, while enlightenment is a matter of realisation, wisdom means applying it to day-to-day perspectives and decision-making in a healthy way. Again, you need to learn first, and then apply understanding and experience with common sense and insight – that’s wisdom. Meanwhile, stupidity is knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still trusting the untruth.
If there is no way to desire enlightenment or wisdom, then why commit spiritual acts or practices? It is obvious that not everyone can become enlightened, or we all could become enlightened. So, what are the criteria of a person who can become enlightened over the course of time?
Again, enlightenment and wisdom begin with decisive determination, not strong desire. If you want to become enlightened and wise, you need to walk the talk – that’s the difference between determination and desire.
I don’t see a difference between determination and desire. How can one differentiate between them? A monk can say he is determined to achieve enlightenment and unknowingly, change that into a desire to seek enlightenment, so much so that he refuses everything worldly (including compassion and mercy towards other less fortunate souls). It is a very thin line between determination and desire.
As I said earlier, it’s pretty difficult to differentiate those words for any ordinary person. In fact, there is no absolute condition in anything or circumstance that occurs. Like the yin-yang concept: each one contains the seed of the other, so we see a black yin stain in the white yang and vice versa. Likewise, a saint can transform into a devil and a devil can transform into a saint simply by a moment of reflection. For example, in a moment, a monk has the thought of wishing or longing for enlightenment, so this is an ignorant expression. And from the next moment, he realises and inculcates a resolve to reach enlightenment, so it is an expression of awakening.
Why do universal laws exist in dependent nature?
Mother Nature is universal and infinite in her native disposition and is governed by universal laws. In other words, there are two sides to Mother Nature that can be illustrated in a mathematical equation as follows: -
Both Sides To Mother Nature
The two sides will exist simultaneously and can be illustrated in a mathematical equation, as described below: -
Facet 1 Facet 2
The Realm Of Something The Realm Of Nothing
(Dependent Arising) (Inherent Existence)
… (-2+2) + (-16+16) + (-133+133) + (0) + (-54+54) …, etc. = 0
Key: -
Facet 1
= Dependent arising.
= The prevalence of the mind that evokes perceptions, designs, labelling, etc.
= The fluctuating phenomena.
= The start and end processes.
= All subjects and objects are created.
Facet 2
= Inherent existence.
= No mind at all.
= No start and end process.
= No conditional phenomena at all.
= The Buddha-nature.
Zero (0)
= Intermediation, absence, or emptiness.
= A mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
= Lack of one or all units under review.
... (-2+2) + ... + (-54+54) ...
= Flow values which are dependent.
= This arising, that arises.
... + (0) + ...
= This ceasing, that ceases.
= A phase of enlightenment.
( .... )
= The law of kamma.
= A universal law of balance.
-2+2 or -133+133
= The law of attraction.
Based on the above mathematical equation, the conclusions could be summarised as follows: -
1. Mother Nature is a constant system with an intermediary or absent factor. This means that it will constantly move towards a balanced state.
2. If a scene is made in Mother Nature, the natural law which governs the balance would come into effect through time and the planes of existence.
3. All that exists inherently does not imply change and the created objects cannot exist inherently because it implies change.
4. Dependent nature resembles intrinsic nature.
What regulates these universal laws?
From the above mathematical equation, one might see that nature would always steer towards a balanced state. Generally speaking, every existence (sentient, non-sentient, or any material thing) consists of energy and matter that would orient itself towards a balanced condition. Furthermore, all things would exist only under perpetual conditions where there is a balance.
This means that if one causes a scene, the natural law that governs the balance would come into effect in time and in the planes of existence. This natural law is also referred to as the law of equilibrium. In Buddhism, it can also be referred to as the law of kamma, namely a portion of universal laws that are not shaped by religious beliefs, but simply a natural mechanism that ensures a sustainable balance in nature.
At the end of the day, the Energy Conservation Law says that energy in a system cannot be created or destroyed and the sum of all energy is constant or never changes. This implies that the dependent nature needs to be balanced at all times, or otherwise, a constant factor could not be reached in any way.
What initiates thoughts?
Let’s think about the cycle of Dependent Origination as follows: -
Equanimity (E0) leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkling. Sparkling leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to discomposure. Discomposure leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to equanimity (E1).
In the illustration above, we would notice that the conscious elements inside the sentient beings would trigger thoughts or actions. This means that in the case of thoughts or deeds, a new equal opposing force would arise both through the stream of time and the planes of existence. Iterations of fluctuating thoughts or actions would make up the wheel of life in Mother Nature.
Why are thoughts stronger than other vibrations?
The brief answer is because of the emergent mind. In general, the mind is known as consciousness in individuality. It is something more objective and involves clear discrimination that distinguishes and comprehends the characteristics of objects. The mind is used to understand things since it understands the manipulation of consciousness; thus, self-deception arises among sentient beings in dependent nature. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor to every state. This means that without the mind, things would appear as the deepest facts in itself, namely, without label, without boundary, without name, without activity, without form, without description, etc.
Why does magnetism exist?
It comes from the mechanisms of the law of balance in the dependent nature. As mentioned previously, Mother Nature is a constant system with an intermediary or absence factor. Somehow, if one provokes a scene, the natural law which governs the balance would apply through time and the planes of existence. Otherwise, there is absolutely no way that a constant factor can be achieved.
Have any Buddhist writers explored whether lack of attachment might be a bad thing? Personally, I don’t mind enduring some suffering from time to time that comes with an attachment, because I would not want to miss out on the joys that come from attachment. I don’t see completely ending all of my sufferings as a good thing. I think it takes courage to take risks: to enter into and develop attachment because you know you may experience suffering, but the joy of the attachment is worth the risk. I believe it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Could someone point me in the direction of discourse or dialogue discussing this exact issue?
In Buddhism, it is revealed that all worldly desires or attachments would ultimately result in suffering. And desire or attachment is not something that is a sin or something strange that comes into our lives. As humans, we naturally have cravings or attachments and there is nothing to be ashamed of. What Buddhism taught is the realisation of the ultimate reality, that is to say, that desire or attachment would lead to suffering. It’s about the second Noble Truth, namely acknowledge the cause of suffering.
Consequently, if we want to stop suffering, we need the resolve to see through the origin of suffering. Then we need to work diligently on the right path to end the suffering. However, if we choose to recognise the cause of suffering and let the condition of suffering continue in our lives, so be it. There is nothing sinful about such a decision. In the end, Buddhism is an alternative approach to those in need of spiritual comfort and liberation. It may not be acceptable for those who cannot live without dependants. Again, there’s no right or wrong here, just an individual choice.
Buddhism hasn’t lived up to its promise for me. I haven’t devoted my life to the Dhamma, but I’ve invested a significant amount of time in studying as much as I’m able to and invested a significant amount of time into meditating. I’m not seeking some profound religious experience or even jhāna. I’m just seeking peace. Do I need to join a monastery to find it?
I assume you have everything wrong with Buddhism. There is nothing superficial about Buddhism and the earth would still rotate 24 hours a day according to cosmic laws, even if you have achieved enlightenment. The first thing to take care of is your behaviour. It is sufficient to look at things or questions from a profound or interior perspective rather than from a conventional or superficial one. In other words, Buddhism is not a question of circumstances, but of attitude towards circumstances. Simply change the way you view your environment and you can glimpse a totally different perspective.
There is a “Big Logical Flaw” in saying everything is changing or impermanent. Please see...
A motion is always with reference to something that is not moving. A change means with reference to something that is not changing. So, the earth is moving with reference to the sun/stars. Earth cannot be moved without a “Frame of Reference” that is stationary. So, when I say, “Everything is moving...who recognises that change?” If the recogniser is also changing... who recognises this change in the recogniser?
A change... or a movement... is always with reference to changeless entity. So, with reference to what is this changing? “Change is the only thing that is constant”... is a logical flaw... because what about the truth value of this statement then?
By convention, humans would see things for what they are, rather than what they actually are. For example, the moon rotates on its own axis, although it may appear contrary to what our naked eyes might observe. In another case, seeing the earth from a distance and very closely would give a different result to the observer’s perception.
Also, all that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing ever existed in its own quality, that is to say, nothing is permanent and immutable. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances which, in turn, vary with the perceptions of the spectators. In the end, it is difficult for most people to see that ultimate truth because the mind is intrinsically dependent.