Do you know anyone who has found spiritual liberation/complete enlightenment? In this life? If I meet the Buddha on the highway, shall I kill him? And the inevitable rhetorical question: If I need a thousand lives to be liberated, doesn’t Buddhism divert real solutions back and forth where it’s conveniently unsavoury? Just like any other belief system does?
On a personal note, I did. In general, the Buddha is only a title attributed to someone who has fully awakened to the ultimate reality of things, just like doctoral degrees in academic fields. Maybe you heard the expression, “Rome was not built in one day”. And at any time, all would pass through a continuum of rebirth processes. The marvel of nature is that nothing remains unchangeable for a little while. Basically, you’re here and now: thinking, analysing, writing, or talking not because you showed up like this. The I, he, she, you, us, or they are intimately associated with the process of becoming (renaissance) and subject to fluctuating activities, as do iterations of wavy patterns that oscillate in both directions.
And Buddhism makes no promises, yes, nothing! The Buddha has not promised the earth, or we would surely go to heaven with holy thoughts or acts, etc. The Buddha simply laid out the reality of the circumstances and advised us to live healthily. This means that Buddhism supports experience and recognition firsthand. As a result, a leap of faith can never be found in Buddhism.
It seems in the first quoted sentence you are saying that letting go is good and not the same as giving up hope. In the next breath, you’re saying that not hoping is to stop clinging/suffering. These seem contradictory. In your final sentence, you are saying that the choice is to hope and not to hope.
The only conclusion I can draw is that you’re making some kind of distinction between “not hoping” and “giving up hope”. Would you care to elaborate on that? Because I don’t off-hand see a substantive difference, given that hope is by its very nature, wishing for what we care about. I don’t know that it can be turned off like a switch, with no sense of loss, unless you consider 100% of human hopes, dreams, and aspirations to be unworthy and ignore-able.
The subtle difference resides in the moment of the gripping activities. In other words, “not to hope” is called pure disengagement, while “abandoning hope” is about the disengagement that comes after entanglement.
Could there ever have been an absolute first cause? For a few reasons I don’t think so, but please don’t take that to mean I am completely atheistic because that’s not the case. There could never have been nothing because there must always have been the potential for change. If there is potential, a process is unfolding. Even empty space is not a nothing because something is pulled out of space itself preventing absolute vacuum.
When certain conditions come together a thing will rise or manifest... cause and effect. Nothing can predate its own potential to manifest... All effects need their causes. Without conditions, there would be no causes... All causes are also effects. Manifestation is precisely potential and potential is precisely manifestation.
Just a thought.
To begin with, dependent nature is inherent nature, and anything that exists intrinsically would mean no change. Nonetheless, there are cause-effect iterations that manifest themselves in dependent nature. These are two separate aspects of the same thing, namely, the cause is effect and the effect is causation. In other words, cause and effect are events that intertwine in an intricate network of existence. This means that it is improper to construct narratives from a series of linear events, namely establishing the initial causal link. In the end, dependent nature by itself is absolutely the primary cause as it is an inherent system.
I’m so confused... what connects us all, what is “passed” kammically from one life to the next, if not the essence of an eternal cosmic force? I believe the Universe and everything within it are subject to change, yes, but I don’t believe its existence came out of non-existence. Our kamma influences our future lives, but how can this be so if the self does not exist, and nothing of a past self remains? Your thoughts, Dhamma brothers and sisters?
By convention, the so-called self refers to a person’s individuality. However, Buddhism teaches non-self, that is, not self-ownership. That means that there is no fixed entity in the context of oneself, that is to say, the principle of emptiness. In other words, everything is not immutable at all times. As the proverb goes, “Now you see it, now you don’t”. That’s why not two minds are the same, namely your past mind is different from your present mind and your present mind is different from your future mind.
In fact, your mind stream would continue after the grave, but it is not transmigration of your mind. For example, a flame is transferred from one candle to another, or a fire spreads from one field to another. In the same way that it depends on the original fire, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next; they are not identical but neither are they completely distinct. Ultimately, the fundamental cause of this constantly reappearing individualist mind or personality is the consciousness that remains in ignorance; when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases.
How come there is no transmigration? Of course, you can say that the mind does not transmigrate but when we perceive with our mind to be this body, “I am”, we could say that the mind has transmigrated into this body, and if we are in this delusion when we die, it will happen again.
Well, Buddhism completely dismisses the word transmigration or reincarnation, but why? Literally, trans- is a prefix signifying through and through and transmigration means moving or transporting from one place to another. If we talk about a soul being transmigrated from one body to another body, it means that the same or unchangeable soul makes the movement or transmission throughout the flow of time: past, present, and future.
Nevertheless, in conventional reality, no immutable soul would transmigrate from one body to another. As such, Buddhism sustains the term to be reborn or resurrected. The Buddha sees in no transmigration of anything or matter, but on the contrary the constant and continuous transformation of everything or matter by permeation or diffusion process. This is like the orientation of energy in the cosmos, which is energy would just transform.
The applicable principle: transformation is change, change is becoming, and becoming is reborn. This means that energy is constantly reborn in dependent nature. In Buddhism, rebirth means the evolution of a person’s consciousness or current of consciousness and the new consciousness that arises in the same person (in the new person at death) is not identical or completely different from the old consciousness, but it is part of a continuum of causation or flux with it.
For example, a flame is transferred from one candle to another, or a fire propagates from one field to another. Just as it depends upon the original fire, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the other; they’re not identical, but they’re not entirely separate. In addition, rebirth can occur from a single source with different identities, as can the way the genetic line steers through generations. And that explains the fate of becoming brothers and sisters, life partners, or common friends in a person’s life.
At the end of the day, it is the wonder of nature that each created object or thing is neither identical nor entirely different from one another. It is in this way that conventional reality operates interdependently. This means that everything exists conditionally without a perpetual essence and is created as continually convoluted existences rather than discrete units. The interdependence of everything is relevant to the principle of emptiness set forth by the Buddha.
I read that all five aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are annihilated upon attaining nibbāna. If consciousness is annihilated, isn’t that basically the same as death, since there is no awareness of anything? I’m also confused because I have seen nibbāna described as the ultimate happiness, but how can it be without perception or consciousness?
The ultimate goal in Buddhist practice is to seek eternal bliss (nibbāna) which is unconditional through enlightenment. This means the only way to end the suffering (dukkha) once and for all is to switch to nibbāna, namely a totally neutral, unlimited, timeless, and permanent state of affairs. All other celestial states or realms might simply promise conventional happiness, which is conditional and impermanent. Therefore, the lifestyle choice is yours ultimately, in pursuit of the ultimate happiness that is unconditional and the permanent or conventional happiness that is conditional and impermanent.
Energy - is it a form of consciousness?
Consciousness is more than energy, it is synergy. This means that it is energy that develops through cooperation and that it becomes the key to the geometrical expansion of consciousness. As a result, one could witness the predominance of the prevailing and subtle mental consciousness. In the cosmos, energy is a fundamental element because all things and events would involve it, without exception including consciousness.
Incidentally, have scientists discovered what inertia is? For example, why doesn’t a bowling ball stop dead when it leaves our hands? We know it rolls onward because of the inertia in it, but what is inertia? Is inertia some kind of energy in the ball?
Inertia typically refers to the resistance of an object to a change in speed. And the object is no more than vibratory energy. In a system, the sum of all energies is constant or does not change. This means that there is a need for balance or otherwise, a constant factor could not be achieved at all, in accordance with the Energy Conservation Law. In other words, if one provokes a scene, the natural law that regulates the balance would come into force over time and the planes of existence. Such a law is not shaped by religious beliefs, but merely by a natural mechanism that assures a lasting balance in nature.
Ultimately, each existence (sentient, non-sentient, or any material thing) consists of energy and matter that would steer towards a balanced condition within the framework of universal laws. It means that all things would exist only in perpetual conditions where a circumstance is balanced and composed. The following principle applies: -
Under balanced phenomena, one could witness the prevalence of forms, while one could witness the lack of forms under imbalanced phenomena.
Why is there suffering? I was thinking about the question of why is there suffering in the universe? From the nuts and bolts of the mind, the answer is craving. But why is it there? If you take craving and suffering as pieces of the puzzle, then my asking why there is suffering includes the question, “Why is there craving?”
It’s because of an emerging mind. By exploring the mind, we could discover the elements of information, knowledge, representation, memory, compulsion, ignorance, blindness, disorientation, confusion, irrationality, impulse, volition, awareness, and consciousness. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor to every state. This means that the mind is the prerequisite to the existence of suffering; without it, suffering will not be possible. In the end, if one could neutralise the mind, everything would collapse and cease to exist or be. This is the advent of a new paradigm, that is, a completely neutralised state of affairs (nibbāna).
What’s stopping us from seeing the truth?
The truth is not out there because it comes from within you. That is to say, you are the truth. You’re creating truths, not somebody else. Literally, it is hard for anyone to see the truth because his eyes could not see his own eyes.
If one person identifies a shape like a duck and another person at the same time identifies the same shape as a cow, are both created truths, true?
Yes, both duck and cow are created truths. In fact, it is also known as the conventional truth which is subjective-cum-relative. This means that the orientation of truth depends upon the observer, namely the mind of the subject to nourish the description, definition, recognition, valorisation, etc. And the final conclusion varies from one observer to another.
For example, if you introduced an iPhone to a caveman, he would describe it as an unnecessary hard object. And by showing it to an ant, it becomes a gigantic object. Likewise, concurrently, you may be named as a human, a son, a father, a preacher, a student, a Caucasian, an American, a thin man, an old man, a buyer, a supplier, a stranger, etc. In the end, the observer gives the definition or recognition according to their respective perception of the same object or matter.
What are ideal ways of living in relation to enlightenment?
The middle path is a perfect approach to life in relation to enlightenment. It is about focusing on the core, neutrality, equilibrium, and righteousness. Our mental consciousness needs to investigate and break through the core of life and all things without any attitude of favouritism. All investigations must start on the basis of impartial motives, namely on neutral and right positions. Ultimately, enlightenment would evoke the realisation that desire or attachment is not a matter of good or evil for individuals, but a gateway to suffering. All you have to do is learn to see all things or events as they truly are all the time.
On a personal note, I did. In general, the Buddha is only a title attributed to someone who has fully awakened to the ultimate reality of things, just like doctoral degrees in academic fields. Maybe you heard the expression, “Rome was not built in one day”. And at any time, all would pass through a continuum of rebirth processes. The marvel of nature is that nothing remains unchangeable for a little while. Basically, you’re here and now: thinking, analysing, writing, or talking not because you showed up like this. The I, he, she, you, us, or they are intimately associated with the process of becoming (renaissance) and subject to fluctuating activities, as do iterations of wavy patterns that oscillate in both directions.
And Buddhism makes no promises, yes, nothing! The Buddha has not promised the earth, or we would surely go to heaven with holy thoughts or acts, etc. The Buddha simply laid out the reality of the circumstances and advised us to live healthily. This means that Buddhism supports experience and recognition firsthand. As a result, a leap of faith can never be found in Buddhism.
It seems in the first quoted sentence you are saying that letting go is good and not the same as giving up hope. In the next breath, you’re saying that not hoping is to stop clinging/suffering. These seem contradictory. In your final sentence, you are saying that the choice is to hope and not to hope.
The only conclusion I can draw is that you’re making some kind of distinction between “not hoping” and “giving up hope”. Would you care to elaborate on that? Because I don’t off-hand see a substantive difference, given that hope is by its very nature, wishing for what we care about. I don’t know that it can be turned off like a switch, with no sense of loss, unless you consider 100% of human hopes, dreams, and aspirations to be unworthy and ignore-able.
The subtle difference resides in the moment of the gripping activities. In other words, “not to hope” is called pure disengagement, while “abandoning hope” is about the disengagement that comes after entanglement.
Could there ever have been an absolute first cause? For a few reasons I don’t think so, but please don’t take that to mean I am completely atheistic because that’s not the case. There could never have been nothing because there must always have been the potential for change. If there is potential, a process is unfolding. Even empty space is not a nothing because something is pulled out of space itself preventing absolute vacuum.
When certain conditions come together a thing will rise or manifest... cause and effect. Nothing can predate its own potential to manifest... All effects need their causes. Without conditions, there would be no causes... All causes are also effects. Manifestation is precisely potential and potential is precisely manifestation.
Just a thought.
To begin with, dependent nature is inherent nature, and anything that exists intrinsically would mean no change. Nonetheless, there are cause-effect iterations that manifest themselves in dependent nature. These are two separate aspects of the same thing, namely, the cause is effect and the effect is causation. In other words, cause and effect are events that intertwine in an intricate network of existence. This means that it is improper to construct narratives from a series of linear events, namely establishing the initial causal link. In the end, dependent nature by itself is absolutely the primary cause as it is an inherent system.
I’m so confused... what connects us all, what is “passed” kammically from one life to the next, if not the essence of an eternal cosmic force? I believe the Universe and everything within it are subject to change, yes, but I don’t believe its existence came out of non-existence. Our kamma influences our future lives, but how can this be so if the self does not exist, and nothing of a past self remains? Your thoughts, Dhamma brothers and sisters?
By convention, the so-called self refers to a person’s individuality. However, Buddhism teaches non-self, that is, not self-ownership. That means that there is no fixed entity in the context of oneself, that is to say, the principle of emptiness. In other words, everything is not immutable at all times. As the proverb goes, “Now you see it, now you don’t”. That’s why not two minds are the same, namely your past mind is different from your present mind and your present mind is different from your future mind.
In fact, your mind stream would continue after the grave, but it is not transmigration of your mind. For example, a flame is transferred from one candle to another, or a fire spreads from one field to another. In the same way that it depends on the original fire, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next; they are not identical but neither are they completely distinct. Ultimately, the fundamental cause of this constantly reappearing individualist mind or personality is the consciousness that remains in ignorance; when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases.
How come there is no transmigration? Of course, you can say that the mind does not transmigrate but when we perceive with our mind to be this body, “I am”, we could say that the mind has transmigrated into this body, and if we are in this delusion when we die, it will happen again.
Well, Buddhism completely dismisses the word transmigration or reincarnation, but why? Literally, trans- is a prefix signifying through and through and transmigration means moving or transporting from one place to another. If we talk about a soul being transmigrated from one body to another body, it means that the same or unchangeable soul makes the movement or transmission throughout the flow of time: past, present, and future.
Nevertheless, in conventional reality, no immutable soul would transmigrate from one body to another. As such, Buddhism sustains the term to be reborn or resurrected. The Buddha sees in no transmigration of anything or matter, but on the contrary the constant and continuous transformation of everything or matter by permeation or diffusion process. This is like the orientation of energy in the cosmos, which is energy would just transform.
The applicable principle: transformation is change, change is becoming, and becoming is reborn. This means that energy is constantly reborn in dependent nature. In Buddhism, rebirth means the evolution of a person’s consciousness or current of consciousness and the new consciousness that arises in the same person (in the new person at death) is not identical or completely different from the old consciousness, but it is part of a continuum of causation or flux with it.
For example, a flame is transferred from one candle to another, or a fire propagates from one field to another. Just as it depends upon the original fire, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the other; they’re not identical, but they’re not entirely separate. In addition, rebirth can occur from a single source with different identities, as can the way the genetic line steers through generations. And that explains the fate of becoming brothers and sisters, life partners, or common friends in a person’s life.
At the end of the day, it is the wonder of nature that each created object or thing is neither identical nor entirely different from one another. It is in this way that conventional reality operates interdependently. This means that everything exists conditionally without a perpetual essence and is created as continually convoluted existences rather than discrete units. The interdependence of everything is relevant to the principle of emptiness set forth by the Buddha.
I read that all five aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are annihilated upon attaining nibbāna. If consciousness is annihilated, isn’t that basically the same as death, since there is no awareness of anything? I’m also confused because I have seen nibbāna described as the ultimate happiness, but how can it be without perception or consciousness?
The ultimate goal in Buddhist practice is to seek eternal bliss (nibbāna) which is unconditional through enlightenment. This means the only way to end the suffering (dukkha) once and for all is to switch to nibbāna, namely a totally neutral, unlimited, timeless, and permanent state of affairs. All other celestial states or realms might simply promise conventional happiness, which is conditional and impermanent. Therefore, the lifestyle choice is yours ultimately, in pursuit of the ultimate happiness that is unconditional and the permanent or conventional happiness that is conditional and impermanent.
Energy - is it a form of consciousness?
Consciousness is more than energy, it is synergy. This means that it is energy that develops through cooperation and that it becomes the key to the geometrical expansion of consciousness. As a result, one could witness the predominance of the prevailing and subtle mental consciousness. In the cosmos, energy is a fundamental element because all things and events would involve it, without exception including consciousness.
Incidentally, have scientists discovered what inertia is? For example, why doesn’t a bowling ball stop dead when it leaves our hands? We know it rolls onward because of the inertia in it, but what is inertia? Is inertia some kind of energy in the ball?
Inertia typically refers to the resistance of an object to a change in speed. And the object is no more than vibratory energy. In a system, the sum of all energies is constant or does not change. This means that there is a need for balance or otherwise, a constant factor could not be achieved at all, in accordance with the Energy Conservation Law. In other words, if one provokes a scene, the natural law that regulates the balance would come into force over time and the planes of existence. Such a law is not shaped by religious beliefs, but merely by a natural mechanism that assures a lasting balance in nature.
Ultimately, each existence (sentient, non-sentient, or any material thing) consists of energy and matter that would steer towards a balanced condition within the framework of universal laws. It means that all things would exist only in perpetual conditions where a circumstance is balanced and composed. The following principle applies: -
Under balanced phenomena, one could witness the prevalence of forms, while one could witness the lack of forms under imbalanced phenomena.
Why is there suffering? I was thinking about the question of why is there suffering in the universe? From the nuts and bolts of the mind, the answer is craving. But why is it there? If you take craving and suffering as pieces of the puzzle, then my asking why there is suffering includes the question, “Why is there craving?”
It’s because of an emerging mind. By exploring the mind, we could discover the elements of information, knowledge, representation, memory, compulsion, ignorance, blindness, disorientation, confusion, irrationality, impulse, volition, awareness, and consciousness. In Buddhism, the mind is the precursor to every state. This means that the mind is the prerequisite to the existence of suffering; without it, suffering will not be possible. In the end, if one could neutralise the mind, everything would collapse and cease to exist or be. This is the advent of a new paradigm, that is, a completely neutralised state of affairs (nibbāna).
What’s stopping us from seeing the truth?
The truth is not out there because it comes from within you. That is to say, you are the truth. You’re creating truths, not somebody else. Literally, it is hard for anyone to see the truth because his eyes could not see his own eyes.
If one person identifies a shape like a duck and another person at the same time identifies the same shape as a cow, are both created truths, true?
Yes, both duck and cow are created truths. In fact, it is also known as the conventional truth which is subjective-cum-relative. This means that the orientation of truth depends upon the observer, namely the mind of the subject to nourish the description, definition, recognition, valorisation, etc. And the final conclusion varies from one observer to another.
For example, if you introduced an iPhone to a caveman, he would describe it as an unnecessary hard object. And by showing it to an ant, it becomes a gigantic object. Likewise, concurrently, you may be named as a human, a son, a father, a preacher, a student, a Caucasian, an American, a thin man, an old man, a buyer, a supplier, a stranger, etc. In the end, the observer gives the definition or recognition according to their respective perception of the same object or matter.
What are ideal ways of living in relation to enlightenment?
The middle path is a perfect approach to life in relation to enlightenment. It is about focusing on the core, neutrality, equilibrium, and righteousness. Our mental consciousness needs to investigate and break through the core of life and all things without any attitude of favouritism. All investigations must start on the basis of impartial motives, namely on neutral and right positions. Ultimately, enlightenment would evoke the realisation that desire or attachment is not a matter of good or evil for individuals, but a gateway to suffering. All you have to do is learn to see all things or events as they truly are all the time.