Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[Paulclem]

Firstly lets think of this clearly, in those days the vocabulary in all languages was simpler. Trouble with todays writers they are all concentrating more on their creative writing skills than getting the true message across. Not only that but translations from one language to the next and books retranslated as time goes on to produce more works. So lets put all that aside and keep it simple shall we.

Bits and pieces - covers a big grey area. One can see our various lives as "bits and pieces" which will eventually make up the whole. So the current self is transient but our old soul is NOT transient. Our old soul is immortal.

Transient:


is quite the opposite to...

immortal:


Your sentence contradicts itself and if you have read it somewhere, its must be a bad translation.

The Old Soul cannot be seen with the naked eye, it can be felt... because its your inner self, your intuition, your guiding Light... its what gives you a sense of purpose. We cannot see it but we know its there. Its our inner child. From one life to the other, we dont recall our memories from before. But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives. The Old Soul is connected to Infinite Source -- where it all began.



Come from what? Our Old Soul came first then it chooses to lives in living bodies over many incarnations. The old soul doesnt arise from anything, our current little self is used by our old soul to progress on many levels, by way of intellectual growth, spiritual growth , emotional growth , physical growth. And I would add intuitive growth too.



You see Buddhism was derived from other older faiths and they added their own bent into their teachings. Its not rare at all to die and be reborn, it will happen to all of us forever. Reincarnation never ceases, its like energy. Energy never dies, it just changes form. I know some Buddhists seem to think we only get reincarnated until we have learned whatever we are supposed to learn and then we are never reincarnated anymore. This is simply NOT true, energy never dies and nor does our Old Soul... it will continue to be reborn into the lives we choose. I dont believe we come back as insects or animals, in fact we dont come back as anything except another human being to my knowledge.



You would have to reword you first sentence, I dont understand it.
The second sentence is true, "we are ignorant of true reality" because true reality is our Old Soul.. in which lies all truth.
I dont understand this section: "precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths" because we are all reborn, sometimes into less fortunate conditions than others.

Thanks for that.

[Paulclem]

I cannot help but think that Paul, your reasons against a permanent self are very little different from the kind any person who doesn't believe in Buddha-nature would use to say that it is simply made up, a fantasy. Buddhism has done a good job of creating a working system of ontology, one which is far better at dealing with phenomena and existence than what the televisions tell us is real. And yet, the ideas of selflessness of phenomena and forms, and other cornerstones of Buddhist ontology are not merely abstract ideas, with no relation to anything else in life. Indeed, another core tenant of Buddhism is inter-dependence. None-the-less, the idea of selflessness of phenomena and forms is not merely an idea which is meant to be abstract and forever remain that way. Rather, it is very intimately connected to the concepts of interdependence, and of unity of opposites. They are related and connected and form part of the "whole" picture of the goal of Buddhist's inner path; that is, enlightenment or realization of reality and mind.

Your constant refusal and rejection and negation of the term of self is not as deep as you think. A simple look at terms will show why. Why is it that you reject absolutely when someone speaks of self, when in any Buddhist scripture or text or writing, the term mind is used throughout. Why do you not pick apart the writings of those masters at every point, and try to correct them, to tell them, "Ah, but Buddhism teaches us that every form's real nature is selflessness - so there is no such thing as 'mind.'" Well you would be correct, legalistically, but you'd be missing the point, especially if these masters were indeed enlightened and had valuable lessons to teach you.

The real nature of self is selflessness - but I will tell you the meaning of this. It is that self has no existence independent of all other forms and phenomena. So here we find the meeting of the concepts of selflessness, inter-dependence, and unity, in a very direct way. If you fail to grasp this, and if you treat these ideas as abstracts and not parts of the mind which can experience enlightenment; then you will miss it as well. If you focus exclusively on the concept of selflessness without context, you will not understand it truly and it will not be ultimately helpful to you. For without discernment of the real meaning of the concept, or knowledge of its context and purpose, its reason, then how will you discern where it should be applied? If you use it for itself alone, without its connection to the rest of Buddhist ontology, it loses its meaning and value. Then it could be used merely for an argument, or an unrelated inquiry, for example to try to understand an isolated case of whether a tree is a tree.

A tree is a tree, yet in another level of understanding it can be seen as inter-dependent with all other living and non-living forms. The selflessness of the tree has no meaning without understanding the creative energy which is the tree's essence - and it is the same energy which is our body, our clothes, our mind, and all life. As I have said before... it is not only every living being which has Buddha-nature as its real nature, but it is every non-living form of existence as well. This is the sphere of questioning which is related to determining what the quality of energy is - whether it is a personal or an impersonal type.

The important thing is that everyone must discover for themselves what is reality. I engage you in this way, with words, but argument itself is a failed past time. The reality of existence is far, far simpler than you would ever believe. It's such a simple thing and it has nothing to do with any of this. Yes all of these things we discuss have their place - but it's in the back. Again, the reality of experience in Buddhism is Gate Paragate, Beyond, Completely beyond everything else, yet it's also more simple than anything. It may be a paradox to some that the ultimate prize, that experience of reality which is clearest and fullest, which having these qualities is also the most valuable - that this principle of reality is also the simplest and most basic. It is the most universal and it is not kept within Buddhism only.

Not only on our planet does all of this exist or apply to. We are attempting to discover universal and absolute truth. And what the conclusion is - it is a very beautiful thing, and so utterly simple as to escape notice almost always. No, it isn't a simple word, because a word is a concept in itself; and I will suggest you read that book by Inada to get a good understanding of the limitations there involved. Well the conclusion has to do with evolution, peace, harmony, beauty, happiness, and absolute perfection. Perhaps it has to do with knowing the quantum field, as Diz might attest.

Peace.

Quite

[dizzydoll]

I almost missed the last comments on page 1, my thread opened on the last page.

And yet, the ideas of selflessness of phenomena and forms, and other cornerstones of Buddhist ontology are not merely abstract ideas, with no relation to anything else in life. Indeed, another core tenant of Buddhism is inter-dependence. None-the-less, the idea of selflessness of phenomena and forms is not merely an idea which is meant to be abstract and forever remain that way. Rather, it is very intimately connected to the concepts of interdependence, and of unity of opposites.

The real nature of self is selflessness - but I will tell you the meaning of this. It is that self has no existence independent of all other forms and phenomena. So here we find the meeting of the concepts of selflessness, inter-dependence, and unity, in a very direct way.

I agree with you 100%, inter-dependence is most important, just like the tree cannot survive without rain. And as you say about abstract ideas, thats all they are until one puts them into practice. When one studies architecture for example they take that abstract knowledge to work within the parameters of the different circumstances on building sites. One cant call himself an architect until he can ensure his building will stand unhindered.

Nikolai do you believe that other souls can infiltrate your body like Paul seems to believe, unless I have misunderstood him? This leads me to think of the statement "the devil made me do it". We, and we alone are responsible for our actions, no-one else is responsible for us and we are not responsible for others. imo

Then why are you making such a big deal out of it all? You seem to be contradicting yoruself with that statement - on one hand, it's all very personal, but on the other, you're prepared to argue that you're right.

I am simply sharing my beliefs. Paul and I moved to this thread to discover similarities in beliefs, if I come across as argumentative during a debate I dont mean to and I am sorry for it. I understand more of what he believes now, mainly due to his reply to Satan on the Heaven and Hell thread. I dont believe anyone can infiltrate our soul. Like with nature, an Oak tree will remain an Oak, no aspect of our soul will cross purpose, its our journey alone we are responsible. imo. We are on our own journey and we believe whatever makes us feel comfortable. We have a choice in how we think and deal with matters in life., while I prefer to see the roses others might only see the thorns.

I accept your beliefs Atheist, in fact my most recent ex is an atheist.. we just never spoke religion which I am more than happy to do in company, but occasionally I will poke my head in religious forums to read. I dont even know how Paul and I got wrapped up in this discussion, I think it was after I presented my view on the Heaven and Hell thread, in which I only entered very late into the discussion. Anyway I think its a good thing to share our beliefs with others, its certainly better than waring over them and the best way to find tolerance is to be open to others beliefs. You will never remove the faiths that most people adopt as their beliefs.

[Paulclem]

Nikolai do you believe that other souls can infiltrate your body like Paul seems to believe, unless I have misunderstood him? This leads me to think of the statement "the devil made me do it". We, and we alone are responsible for our actions, no-one else is responsible for us and we are not responsible for others. imo

No I don't believe that - I'm a buddhist, and therefore souls don't exist. they are - in the Buddhist view - a symptom of the misguided view about our natures. The whole basis of suffering depends upon a misguided view about a permanent self.

It's also not about belief. the cornerstone of Buddhist ideas is investigation by meditation. Now of course i'm not very far along the path, but what I have been told and practiced has proved to be true in my experience. It's not about wordplay, or philosophical deduction. it's about the experience passed on by Masters. The idea then is that if a master teaches it, they don't say - I've said this so it must be true. They say - this is what i've found - here's a method to investigate it. Find it for yourself.

I find that to be a sincere approach. You can't present proof as such to a person, but you can say, try this and see what you experience. if it is valid, then it is trustworthy. I've found enough validity in the teachings to make me take the stuff I don't know and understand yet on trust.

Mere words and associations are meaningless without a method to test them out in my view. In some ways it is easy to adopt a set of beliefs and then live by them. I'm not saying it is negative - the religious traditions share very positive views on many things, but many people, including myself, cannot accept a worldview that will affect the way they live theri life on faith alone.

This is an important facet of the teachings that I have neglected to mention before.

For me Buddhism rocks - in a calm way.

[dizzydoll]

The karmic impetus takes a being to their next reincarnation, which may be fortunate of unfortunate. So the state of mind at death is seen as very important.

Sorry Paul, I misunderstood this quote on Heaven an Hell thread. I thought you would take over other "beings". I misread it, I must have been tired. It seemed to me you meant we must be careful to protect our state of mind due to this. lol. Damn sorry there mate! What was I thinking? Thanks for clearing this up, I was quite taken aback in my misunderstanding, thats why I asked Nikolai to clear it up. lol. Gosh what a dufus! Please forgive me.

[Paulclem]

Sorry Paul, I misunderstood this quote on Heaven an Hell thread. I thought you would take over other "beings". I misread it, I must have been tired. It seemed to me you meant we must be careful to protect our state of mind due to this. lol. Damn sorry there mate! What was I thinking? Thanks for clearing this up, I was quite taken aback in my misunderstanding, thats why I asked Nikolai to clear it up. lol. Gosh what a dufus! Please forgive me.

No worries.

[Paulclem]

Reincarnation in the Buddhist worldview is represented by The Wheel Of Life. This is a Tibetan representation, but it is similar to earlier ones.



The 6 realms are - going clockwise from 12 o'clock is the Heavenly realms, the Demi-God or Titan's realm, the Hungry Ghost realm, the Hell realm, the Animal realm, the Human realm.

Three are fortunate - Human, demi-god and Heavenly God realm. The human realm is the most fortunate , as it is said that here humans suffer enough to be able to realise the unsatisfactory nature of this wheel of life. Gods live a very peaceful happy life, until the positive karma runs out and they again are subject to rebirth in a lower realm. Titans are engaged in fights and disputes constantly - a bit like the Greek or Norse gods.

Three are unfortunate - animals live in fear, and often lack food, water and warmth. they cannot learn the Dharma, as they do not have the capacity in their minds. They can receive blessings though. The Hungry Ghost realm is characterised by terrible hunger and they suffer too much to be able to receive the dharma. The hell beings undergo intense suffering, so much that they cannot focus upon anything else.

The literality of these realms is often the subject of discussion. Are they real places, or do they represent states of mind? The modern westerner finds it difficult to accept the actuality of hell and such suffering. Clearly hellish conditions do sometimes appear on earth with fire quake flood war etc. They can also manifest in the minds of people with mental health concerns where they really do suffer and cannot break from this without help.

The figure of the Buddha standing to the right represents the Enlightened One's escape from samsara.

The whole worldview is being consumed by Mara - represented as a demon - death/ ignorence.

[Paulclem]

The process of reincarnation is said to begin with a dissolution of the self, as this has no permanent prescence beyong the life of the person. Tibetans have contributed the view that there is an in-between state called the Bardo, which traditionally lasts up to 49 days, but not necessarily.

In fact - the circumstaces of death - perhaps in a sudden accident- may mean that a person may leave after breakfast and be in another life by lunchtime. This Buddhist view of reincarnation is downright uncomfortable, but contains the uncomfortable truth that you or I may die today.

Having died, the being is "directed" by their Karma to their next life - which may be fortunate or unfortunate. (See Post above).

The aim of the Buddhist is to at least avoid an unfortunate rebirth in Hell, the Hungry Ghost realm or in the Animal realm. To do this requires a grasp of the effects of negative and positive actions upon oneself, and a weakening of our ignorent inclinaton towards cherishing ourselves above others.

[NikolaiI]

Any real mystical knowledge gives first and comes first from the experience of a peace beyond anything felt before. Non-duality with it itself contains this peace; for if the self is the same as the other, the heavens, the earth, and everything, then there is no death, no pain, and no suffering. This is what is contained in the Heart Sutra. This is the peace which comes before everything and takes the highest impotance of anything. It is the peace which by its very being begs to be remembered, to be shared, to be given and lived. It's not the final experience but merely the first real one. It's what Buddhist masters achieved, those such as Tilopa, Naropa, Seng Ts'an, etc. In other cultures it comes as the Divine, as a message from the Divine saying, "Do not have any fear, all is mine." And in the Buddhist sense, it may not have a personal Divinity saying this, and yet it is the same awareness and experience. In the words of Black Elk, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe, will they know peace in their souls."

Not self means in this sense, not the self we think: I see a computer, in reality there is a Lotus-throned Buddha. It is related to inderdependence, and Buddhist logic in geeral. Things are not static; there are no independent things. Everything is flowing and everything is connected; when one part changes the pattern of the whole is also changed, as the parts and the whole are one identity.

Everything is flowing towards the Ideal, which is the Source. There is no death in this reality. One is never separated from reality. The branch is never separated from the tree; and you are never cut off from the Source. How can you be?

It is not that those who jokingly say they would not like to live again after this life will suffer because they didn't get what they wished. The reason any of us suffer is ultimately, our own choice. It is possible to be free of many types of suffering merely by one's own effort.

[Paulclem]

Any real mystical knowledge gives first and comes first from the experience of a peace beyond anything felt before. Non-duality with it itself contains this peace; for if the self is the same as the other, the heavens, the earth, and everything, then there is no death, no pain, and no suffering. This is what is contained in the Heart Sutra. This is the peace which comes before everything and takes the highest impotance of anything. It is the peace which by its very being begs to be remembered, to be shared, to be given and lived. It's not the final experience but merely the first real one. It's what Buddhist masters achieved, those such as Tilopa, Naropa, Seng Ts'an, etc. In other cultures it comes as the Divine, as a message from the Divine saying, "Do not have any fear, all is mine." And in the Buddhist sense, it may not have a personal Divinity saying this, and yet it is the same awareness and experience. In the words of Black Elk, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe, will they know peace in their souls."

Not self means in this sense, not the self we think: I see a computer, in reality there is a Lotus-throned Buddha. It is related to inderdependence, and Buddhist logic in geeral. Things are not static; there are no independent things. Everything is flowing and everything is connected; when one part changes the pattern of the whole is also changed, as the parts and the whole are one identity.

Everything is flowing towards the Ideal, which is the Source. There is no death in this reality. One is never separated from reality. The branch is never separated from the tree; and you are never cut off from the Source. How can you be?

It is not that those who jokingly say they would not like to live again after this life will suffer because they didn't get what they wished. The reason any of us suffer is ultimately, our own choice. It is possible to be free of many types of suffering merely by one's own effort.

The key to suffering is ignorence of our state. Beings are deluded into thinking that they are a complete entity in the perception of themselves. This leads to the three poisons hatred, attachment and the key poison of ignorence. This is not to say that merely thinking that one has no self will solve it. It has to be realised at a deeper level than th intellectual -through meditation.

It is also such a hidden idea. You only have to reflect upon how the Western celebrity culture for example builds up the idea of the individual. But every being is subject to this pervasive myth, and as a result of this clings to their own idea of self - at a fundamental level. It is due to this that negative karma is created - the protection of the self, the promotion of the self above others. It leads to attachment to worldly things such as places, people, jobs etc which are subject to transience and in which no permanence will continue. This leads to much suffering as we cling to situations etc that have moved beyond us.

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc. Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory? Clinging to the idea of a permanent self can also seem to excuse negative traits such as anger in a person with such thoughts like - "I'm an angry person like my father", or "it's just me". This is just an excuse as we are all rsponsible for our own actions.

The idea that there is no self is liberating in the sense that there is no self to defend. The ideals of compassion and putting others first can thus be enhanced by this. It is an interesting take on self sacrifice. There is no self to be offended, no self to promote in an egotistical sense. Thoughts like "What about me" and "My time" and "My space" cease to have meaning. There is no need to grasp after possessions etc because who would they be for? It doesn't mean you give away your stuff or start living oddly in society, but mitigates against unnecessary acquisitiveness - which is often a round of getting the next, better, best, biggest, newest thing.

To approach the idea of reducing suffering and increasing happiness is the aspiration of beings - human or otherwise. To approach this ideal realising non-self is quite a difficult achievement, but the awareness of the idea is helpful, as are the consequences of actions with karma, an awareness of transience and the interconnectedness that Nik mentions. You do not need a mystical awareness for this. That may be the result of the practitioners efforts, but the everyday practice of Buddhists is much more grounded in our everyday experience. Otherwise Buddhism would only be relevant and accessible to the practising elite - the Monks and Nuns - and be difficult for the ordinary person to engage with.

[dizzydoll]

After reading just the first short bit, I definitely await Nikolai's response. Here we look at the difference between theory and practicality. Its should not be forgotten we live in a practical environment and theory must be equated to "idealistic" conditions. Oh boy if only we lived in an ideal world, who knows one day we just might. I'm interested to know Paul, what are your your views on living in denial? I believe to deny any aspect of life is the most delusional choice of all. Lucky me, I look to nature and if something isnt consistent with nature... its not real, its a man-made concept. Nature embraces everything which comes its way, it doesnt cling to ideals or "get in its own way" as humans tend to do. Nature desires life and adapts to all living conditions, fortunate or otherwise.

Its a good discussion and even if we agree to disagree, what is revealed opens our minds a little further, hopefully that is, unless one has already decided they are Mr. or Ms. know-it-all's before they read others views.

[Paulclem]

After reading just the first short bit, I definitely await Nikolai's response. Here we look at the difference between theory and practicality. Its should not be forgotten we live in a practical environment and theory must be equated to "idealistic" conditions. Oh boy if only we lived in an ideal world, who knows one day we just might. I'm interested to know Paul, what are your your views on living in denial? I believe to deny any aspect of life is the most delusional choice of all. Lucky me, I look to nature and if something isnt consistent with nature... its not real, its a man-made concept. Nature embraces everything which comes its way, it doesnt cling to ideals or "get in its own way" as humans tend to do. Nature desires life and adapts to all living conditions, fortunate or otherwise.

Its a good discussion and even if we agree to disagree, what is revealed opens our minds a little further, hopefully that is, unless one has already decided they are Mr. or Ms. know-it-all's before they read others views.

I think you're right about theory and practice. there is a danger that theory takes precedence over practice, and it just becomes an intellectual pursuit. From the Buddhist point of view, there has to be a good balance - study that depens your practice.

As for denial, then it is clearly a negative thing if you mean the willful attempt to avoid problems, situations, events illness etc. The problem with life is that situations, people etc change, and so events eventually move even if a person does not. Denial in this case is just suffering waiting to happen. Clearly a person in denial is trying to avoid suffering, but may in fact make it much worse by doing so. Life's sometimes a tough deal.

[NikolaiI]

The key to suffering is ignorence of our state. Beings are deluded into thinking that they are a complete entity in the perception of themselves. This leads to the three poisons hatred, attachment and the key poison of ignorence. This is not to say that merely thinking that one has no self will solve it. It has to be realised at a deeper level than th intellectual -through meditation.

It is also such a hidden idea. You only have to reflect upon how the Western celebrity culture for example builds up the idea of the individual. But every being is subject to this pervasive myth, and as a result of this clings to their own idea of self - at a fundamental level. It is due to this that negative karma is created - the protection of the self, the promotion of the self above others. It leads to attachment to worldly things such as places, people, jobs etc which are subject to transience and in which no permanence will continue. This leads to much suffering as we cling to situations etc that have moved beyond us.

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc. Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory? Clinging to the idea of a permanent self can also seem to excuse negative traits such as anger in a person with such thoughts like - "I'm an angry person like my father", or "it's just me". This is just an excuse as we are all rsponsible for our own actions.

The idea that there is no self is liberating in the sense that there is no self to defend. The ideals of compassion and putting others first can thus be enhanced by this. It is an interesting take on self sacrifice. There is no self to be offended, no self to promote in an egotistical sense. Thoughts like "What about me" and "My time" and "My space" cease to have meaning. There is no need to grasp after possessions etc because who would they be for? It doesn't mean you give away your stuff or start living oddly in society, but mitigates against unnecessary acquisitiveness - which is often a round of getting the next, better, best, biggest, newest thing.

To approach the idea of reducing suffering and increasing happiness is the aspiration of beings - human or otherwise. To approach this ideal realising non-self is quite a difficult achievement, but the awareness of the idea is helpful, as are the consequences of actions with karma, an awareness of transience and the interconnectedness that Nik mentions. You do not need a mystical awareness for this. That may be the result of the practitioners efforts, but the everyday practice of Buddhists is much more grounded in our everyday experience. Otherwise Buddhism would only be relevant and accessible to the practising elite - the Monks and Nuns - and be difficult for the ordinary person to engage with.

At least you are writing now. I guess first let me say you are certainly right that understanding these ideas can help one have more effort to be more tolerant and a better person. But I have several points of contention still. First you say it is difficult - this is a relative type of thing to say. For one it may be difficult, and yet for a Tulku it may be easy. And what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment, and yet had to go back into the illusion, knowingly, yet unable to prevent being conditioned into thinking again about "I and mine?"

Again you talk of theory a lot, and you disregard what I said about mystical experience as being the "extras," but I will flip this on you. You are the one who is speaking about ideas and concepts, abstracts, without the direct, and thus practical experience, of these concepts. After all, experience of reality is the goal, for oneself and others. Although I will admit that this is always counter-balanced by the relief of more basic sufferings. Ideally all should be free of delusions, sickness, and as well they sould be able to experience enlightenment.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas.

Only - be careful about making forgone conclusions. For instance

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc.

It would be helpful if you were more specific as to who you are talking about when you are detailing the negative emotions and how they result in terrible actions. (When you say what leads to murder). My reasons for this are 1) it is almost impossible to prove causality in philosophy, anyway, and 2) be careful not to come to too negative of a conclusion about the world, and 3) you should specifically say who you're talking about, as in, beings which are suffering in hell, or those who are experiencing hellish conditions in this life because of their own actions, or perhaps, not because of their own actions.

If you are mindful of these, you might not as casually throw in a statement how the mind-set of one who commits a heinus crime will come about. I'm not saying never talk about something like that - in Milarepa's songs he describes the sufferings of beasts, and people who do evil - but be clear about who you are talking about and why.

After all, even when Buddha Shakyamuni spoke the Dhammapada, in the twins, the first chapter for example, every time he gave a negative statement he gave a positive one as well.

Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory?

Well - again, you should realize that even your very words, every single word!! - affects reality. For me, when I go back to a happy place of my beginning, or I try to repeat happy circumstances - it usually works! I usually have a wonderful feeling of nastalgia, or a very glad feeling of satisfaction.

You see! Even your own experiences and everything you say - everything is connected. And if you did try to go back to a place of beauty from your childhood, and you did not experience joy but sadness, then what is the way out of this! The way out is to find and create within yourself the space for the joy you wish, and to create within yourself all the conditions necessary for you to attain whatever joy, peace, love, you desire. The more successful one is at doing this... the better.

And the only reason I comment! is because I believe that everything you say has an effect, whatever suggestion, formation, or thought or action - and in fact this is an integral part of life and spiritual seeking, and the success of those.

[Paulclem]

At least you are writing now. I guess first let me say you are certainly right that understanding these ideas can help one have more effort to be more tolerant and a better person. But I have several points of contention still. First you say it is difficult - this is a relative type of thing to say. For one it may be difficult, and yet for a Tulku it may be easy. And what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment, and yet had to go back into the illusion, knowingly, yet unable to prevent being conditioned into thinking again about "I and mine?"

What I am referring to is the fact that realising non self is difficult because it is a hidden wisdom. Ordinary people need the teachings because the idea is counter-intuitive. It seems to go against all sense. As for Tulkus, they may rediscover the methods and find it easier than ordinary people, but not necessarily. Steven Segal is supposed to be a Tulku, as is HH The Dalai Lama's brother, who did not follow the ordained path. I don't know about Steven Segal - perhaps he has this attainment, but I know that HH The Dalai Lama's brother found the path difficult.

what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment

The highest Enlightenment consists of te realisation of The Two Truths, and being able to perceive ordinary and ultimate reality at the same time. This can be seen in the mudra of The Buddha below where his hand in his lap represents meditative equipoise, whilst his raised hand and finger gesture indcates teaching. he is simultaneously perceiving Emptiness and the ordinary world.



After all, experience of reality is the goal, for oneself and others. Although I will admit that this is always counter-balanced by the relief of more basic sufferings. Ideally all should be free of delusions, sickness, and as well they sould be able to experience enlightenment.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas.

It's true that an appreciation of the goal is necessary to make a commitment to the path, but the main focus has to be on everyday experience. This is where the teachings really come to life for the practitioner - in solving the problems we make for ourselves.

Ideally all should be Enlightened - sure, but people have to start somewhere. The reason for taking up the path is that we are full of delusions, and will definately experience sickness and death. It is uncertain as to when a person will attain Enlightenment. It depends upon individual conditions. It took The Buddha many lifetimes.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas

These are not my ideas - they are what I have learned from attending teachings, and they can be read by anyone in Buddhist texts.

It would be helpful if you were more specific as to who you are talking about when you are detailing the negative emotions and how they result in terrible actions. (When you say what leads to murder). My reasons for this are 1) it is almost impossible to prove causality in philosophy, anyway, and 2) be careful not to come to too negative of a conclusion about the world, and 3) you should specifically say who you're talking about, as in, beings which are suffering in hell, or those who are experiencing hellish conditions in this life because of their own actions, or perhaps, not because of their own actions.

Everyday experience and access to the news gives us plenty of examples of disgruntled men - usually - who kill their partners, their children and themselves, for example. What causes this? How can a man kill his own family? The Buddhist view is that his own self cherishing- his own feeling that; I can't be happy in different situations; and perhaps the deluded view that his family would suffer without him; or even anger at his family for taking away his stability.

Negative conclusion about the world - well the Buddha's first teaching to his former ascetic friends detailed the Four Noble Truths - that all life is suffering in Samsara. I'll go with that, though it is a pretty negative view except that it contains the path to liberation Perhaps you mean be cheerful? I am that also.

If you are mindful of these, you might not as casually throw in a statement how the mind-set of one who commits a heinus crime will come about. I'm not saying never talk about something like that - in Milarepa's songs he describes the sufferings of beasts, and people who do evil - but be clear about who you are talking about and why.


There has to be reasons for improving the mind, and giving examples of what the results of different minds may result in is how you do this.



Well - again, you should realize that even your very words, every single word!! - affects reality. For me, when I go back to a happy place of my beginning, or I try to repeat happy circumstances - it usually works! I usually have a wonderful feeling of nastalgia, or a very glad feeling of satisfaction.


I'm glad your nostalgia works for you, but it doesn't for everyone. It's just an example of attachement to former happiness and how it is often unsatisfactory.

You see! Even your own experiences and everything you say - everything is connected. And if you did try to go back to a place of beauty from your childhood, and you did not experience joy but sadness, then what is the way out of this! The way out is to find and create within yourself the space for the joy you wish, and to create within yourself all the conditions necessary for you to attain whatever joy, peace, love, you desire. The more successful one is at doing this... the better.


People need instructions to be able to achieve inner peace - thus The Buddha's path was explained. Saying it is not enough - there has to be a method and a practice.

[The Atheist]

People need instructions to be able to achieve inner peace - thus The Buddha's path was explained. Saying it is not enough - there has to be a method and a practice.

Fascinating discussion you have going here, but I'll just take issue with this one bit at this stage, because it doesn't add up.

How did Buddha find the path without instruction?

If it can be done once without instruction, what changed to make the path invisible to others?

It seems very similar to the circular reasoning of theists:

The bible is the word of god.
How do we know he's god?
The bible says so.