Do you really want liberation?

Most of my knowledge of Buddhism comes from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I must admit that I love life now but know it can be easily become sorrowful and dismal, especially if I find myself in the skin of a pretan or hell-being in subsequent incarnations.

Alternative to liberation, I would love to live as a "God" for a million years on some Utopia planet, perhaps the future earth even, but would be risking a great fall and great suffering for the simple reason of forgetting or ignoring the keys to such a level of enlightenment.

The conflict in me between what could be, a glorious incarnation, and letting it all go, dissolving forever into the divine array, is great. At this point, I'm afraid I might actually turn away of the Grand Luminocity, as I have done so many times before.

 

If you have faced the Great Luminosity then you cannot turn away from it.

 

Furthermore, you have either taken Bodhisattva vows or you have not. If you have then you may not give them up. But if you haven't then you have nothing to worry about as you're not as Bodhisattva.

 

I was addressing more the will to escape samsara, but if you would rather debate the path by which this can be achieved, that's also fine.

I believe the Clear Light shines always to all entities but is brightest at the time of death, and to turn away from the harsh transcendence at this crucial moment recommits you to the material realm. Whether you've taken a vow to commit will not make any difference so long as you fail to follow through, and by virtue of our presence, it would indicate both you and I have failed to this point.

Also, recognizing one's own Buddha nature is not the exclusive rite of any sect, religion, race, species, lifeform, or conscious being. IMHO.

 

well i actualy DON'T want "liberation" from what i find interesting; forrests and gardens and even some of the things that are called tecnology, but i would like to exist, experience existing, in a space in which no one robbs anyone else of their calmness.

so i don't fully understand what the "reward" would be to step off the wheel of kharma and rebirth. tangable or nontangable is not so much the thing for me as simply not being robbed of calmness.

i also don't understand the "reward" of "glory" that "western" beliefs persue either.
that is to say, i don't see the "reward" in it.

=^^=
.../\...

 

This is the crux of the matter really.
Buddhism says the universe is a miserable place, existence really a mistake - so the only thing to do is to get out of it. That implies the cessation of individual existence.
Personally, I don't accept the basic premises, and merging into the void or the clear light seems a limited goal.

 

it never says the universe is a miserable place or existence is a mistake

 

1st noble truth?

 

well the first noble truth is suffering or duhkha. First Noble Truth is about how happiness is not permanent and is subject to change. Suffering comes from dissatisfaction.

 

So suffering, etc are seen as intrinsic conditions of existence, hence the goal of liberation/nirvana.

 

Yes. but nothing about the universe is a miserable place or existence is a mistake.

 

Not in those exact words, but that is surely implied in a universe where suffering is seen as an integral part of the structure of things, and the only way out of suffering is escape into a transcendent nirvana.

 

[BlackBillBlake]: This is the crux of the matter really. Buddhism says the universe is a miserable place, existence really a mistake - so the only thing to do is to get out of it. That implies the cessation of individual existence. Personally, I don't accept the basic premises, and merging into the void or the clear light seems a limited goal.

[guitarpeace]: it never says the universe is a miserable place or existence is a mistake.

[BlackBillBlake]: 1st noble truth?

Buddhism, or Buddha never said the universe was a miserable place. Buddhism, or Buddha never said existence was a mistake. Buddhism, or Buddha never taught of a "merging into the void", and never taught "merging into the clear light", and never implied that such were goals.

The First Noble Truth is the truth of suffering. The truth that the four elements of nature is what everything is comprised of, including our senses and the objects of the senses. The truth that these four elements are impermanent, and therefore what is comprised of them is also impermanent. The truth that when our senses and the objects of the senses come into contact with each other a sensation arises. That perceptions arise as a result of repetitious arising of sensations. That mental formations are the result of repetitious arising of perceptions. And that consciousness is the result of repetitious arising of mental formations.

The truth that neither matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness comprise a real "self" but that "self" does not exist separate from these.

The truth that by clinging to these five groups as not changing produces suffering.

So in essence, the First Noble Truth is the truth that we create our own suffering because we crave and cling to things that are impermanent, that are not real and are not lasting.

Majjhima Nikaya, 44, describes a conversation between one Buddhist Nun and her (former) husband, Visakha, where he asks what is this idea of "self-identification", and her reply was clinging to forms (matter), clinging to feelings (sensations), clinging to perceptions, clinging to fabrications (mental formations), and clinging to consciousness.

[guitarpeace]: well the first noble truth is suffering or duhkha. First Noble Truth is about how happiness is not permanent and is subject to change. Suffering comes from dissatisfaction.

The First Noble Truth is not suffering, nor is the First Noble Truth dukkha. The First Noble Truth is a description of how self-identification and clinging to the notions of self-identification result in suffering because of clinging to such ideas, because of clinging to concepts, clinging to forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications and consciousness. And, yes, clinging to things that are not only "subject" to change, but whose very notion or idea of existence "is" change.

[BlackBillBlake]: So suffering, etc are seen as intrinsic conditions of existence, hence the goal of liberation/nirvana.

Suffering, in itself, is not the very nature of the conditions of existence. Clinging to notions and ideas of self-identification is suffering. Existence is a result of a condition ... Existence arises as a result of Clinging. Clinging arises as a result of Craving. Craving arises as a result of Feelings. Feeling arises as a result of Contact. Contact arises as a result of the Six Senses. The Six Senses arises as a result of Mental and Physical formations. Mental and Physical formations arise as a result of Consciousness. Consciousness arises as a result of Volition (action, kamma/karma). Volition arises as a result of Ignorance. Ignorance is self-identification, or the idea or notion of self-identification due to greed, ill-will, and delusion (confusion).

Greed, Ill-Will, and Delusion perpetuates Ignorance, which in turn perpetuates Volition ... Existence, Birth, and Death.

This is the Second Noble Truth, the origin of suffering.

The Third Noble Truth is the cessation of suffering.

And the Fourth Noble Truth, the Noble Eightfold Path, is the path that leads to the cessation of suffering, the path that leads to a realization of the Third Noble Truth.

Nibbana/Nirvana is not a goal. It is a result. A result of liberation from Greed. A result of liberation from Ill-Will. A result of liberation from Delusion. In essence, a result of liberation from all three. This is the uprooting of Ignorance. Once Ignorance is uprooted, volition ceases, consciousness ceases, name and form ceases, the six base senses ceases, contact ceases, feelings ceases, craving ceases, clinging ceases, existence ceases, birth ceases, and death ceases. It doesn't mean that while ones body is still alive it will just simply vanish and cease to exist, it simply means that once the body has finished its present and current existence there will be no further rebirth, no further continuation of cyclic-existence, no further reincarnation.

[guitarpeace]: Yes. but nothing about the universe is a miserable place or existence is a mistake.

[BlackBillBlake]: Not in those exact words, but that is surely implied in a universe where suffering is seen as an integral part of the structure of things, and the only way out of suffering is escape into a transcendent nirvana.

Suffering was never implied as "an integral part of the structure of things". Rather, it is implied that craving self-identification is suffering. Clinging to self-identification is suffering. That Existence as a result of self-identification is suffering. That Ego is suffering. That self-identification is a result of clinging to forms, a result of clinging to feelings, a result of clinging to concepts, a result of clinging to fabrications, a result of clinging to consciousness. That self-identification is a result of all this, yet all of this is not self-identification.

So, basically, the universe is not a miserable place at all. It is the way we view the universe that makes it either plesant or miserable. We either like or dislike, or are unsure of our feelings that give rise to suffering. We either like what we see (greed), or don't like what we see (ill-will), or are unsure of whether we like or don't like what we see (delusion). We either like what we hear (...), don't like what we hear (...), or are unsure of whether we like or don't like what we hear (...). We either like what we taste ... smell ... feel ... think (...), or don't like what we taste ... smell ... feel ... think (...), or are unsure of whether we like or don't like what we taste ... smell ... feel ... think (...).

Based on whether we like the experience of the contact with an external object we create our own suffering, or become the causal factor for someone elses suffering. Based on whether we dislike the experience of contact with an external object we create our own suffering, or the causal factor for someone elses suffering. Based on whether we neither like or dislike the experience of contact with an external object we create our own suffering, or become a causal factor for someone elses suffering.

This doesn't imply that suffering is the intrinsic condition of existence. Rather that our own craving for greed, ill-will, and delusion is the intrinsic condition of existence, and the intrinsic condition for suffering. And that greed, ill-will, and delusion are the causal factors for self-identification, and also that greed, ill-will, and delusion in itself is not self-identification.

So it's not that the universe is suffering, but rather we create our own suffering because we either like, dislike, or are unsure about the contact we have with the universe.

And there's no mistake there ...

To even imply there's a mistake, is to imply you are not mindful of your mental, verbal or physical actions, nor your intentions to think, speak or act. Therefore you suffer, and you become a causal factor of suffering for someone else because you, from being unmindful in body, speech or mind, do things others either like, dislike, or are unsure of whether they like or dislike.

So we create our own suffering. In being a causal factor we do not make the other person suffer, nor do we create their suffering, they create their own suffering just as well, and they also become a causal factor in someone elses suffering. A causal factor is not a cause, just a factor for a cause.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Thanks Darrell.

 

Thanks again Darrell.

 

Well, I guess you'd know Darrell - obviously all the books I've read on Buddhism are incorrect, inc. 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', which does definitely speak of merging into the clear light of the void. Perhaps the translators got it wrong.

However you look at it, I'm afraid that so far as my own reading goes, the first noble truth does seem to me to say that suffering is intrinsic in our existence here - the actual mechanisms through which this is so are secondary to this main claim.

Generally, Buddhist philosophy seems very over constructed to me, even hair splitting. The idea that we create our own suffering can't stand up without a huge amount of philosophy in the background to prop it up. EG - A child gets a painful disease whilst only a few days old. I know the idea is that the child created this for itself in a previous life - but I just don't believe that is the way things work.

Perhaps I will cease to post in this forum as I really don't want to get into disputes about all this.

 

Don't despair. I don't subscribe to every word he said, then again I am not a hardline Buddhist. I just thought it was a well-crafted and enlightening treatise on consciousness.

 

Now you're just being rediculous ...

And this is just my own perspective/view of your statement ...

Don't suppose it's because you're just looking at one aspect of Buddhism? Perhaps the Tibetan Mahayana aspect? After all, it is Tibetan Mahayana where "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" originates.

Unfortunately, Tibetan Mahayana is one of several Mahayana sects within the Mayahana school of Buddhist thought. And so with the Vajrayana and Hinayana schools of Buddhist thought.

So you're going to say that all schools of Buddhist thought are compiled and have its basis within "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"?

Not so!

Theravada (Hinayana) Buddhist thought is there is no Bardo where one migrates to before the next realm of existence. That once one ceases to exist in this realm they are immediately born into, or spontaneously arrise within the next realm of existence based on their present and previous actions.

To judge all schools of Buddhism on one is a bit presumptuous.

That is the nature of self-identification. We all have perspectives as varied as a snowflake ... no two are alike. And this is all due to the experiences we each have from our moment-to-moment contact with sense-object relationships. It's this moment-to-moment sense-object relationship where self-identification arise. It is this moment-to-moment sense-object relationship that we crave so much where our own ideas and views are born. And it is this moment-to-moment sense-object relationship where we have our own ideas of how things should be sensed, seen, viewed, and understood.

So I would exect nothing less than for you to see things the way you do, or anyone else for that matter.

It's easy to read and remember ... and form our own ideas and opinions.

Now this I just don't get. First your "in fact" about the Mahayana view of Tibetan Buddhism based on one book - "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" - yet your not ready to accept the very premise of Tibetan Buddhism and that all things are a result of Past and Present Karma ... including a painful disease a child gets whilst only a few days old.

Tibetan Buddhism does have beliefs in the idea that if a life is cut short in a present life that the next life will be shorter by a factor equal to a full life that was supposed to have been lived in the present life ... or ... if a life is cut short in this life it was because it was prematurely cut off in the previous life and that the present life is completing its lifespan from the previous life.

Not that I subscribe to this thought, but it does point out that there are vast and various differences in each school of Buddhist thought, yet their is one similarity that remains in each school and that is the Four Noble Truths and the fourth truth being the Noble Eightfold Path.

Your choice.

No one can make it for you.

And as Old_Crone is fond of saying ... We are the choices that we make ...

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Assuming a kernel of identity persists, I think the quality of rebirth (or no birth) is largely determined by decisions made after corporal dissociation. However, this decision will be greatly dependent on the decisions made in life. Of course, if the "kernal" is reborn back into the material system it just left, its previous karma would likely impact the quality of rebirth, since its environment has already been altered by said karma, whether positively or negatively.

 

Dear Darrell -

The reason I say perhaps I will quit the Buddhism forum is this: First, I have no axe to grind with Buddhists - I'm not convinced of the basics of it myself, and yet it is my firm belief that people are free to follow whatever path they choose on the basis of their own needs, their own process.
I have read more than the Tibetan view of Buddhism. I've read teachings from different schools, mainly mahayana, but also read books on the basics of Theravada. All this some years ago, since when I've gone a different route.
So in a way, I don't want to be a source of disruption to those who may be getting benefit from Buddhism of whatever school.

Secondly - and this is more obscure perhaps - I don't want to create a psychic disturbance in others as it will surely rebound on me. I am an empathic type of person, and sometimes, I have picked up negative emotional stuff with regard to these forums in general. So both for my own peace of mind, and that of others, I think it's best to avoid creating negative reactions where possible.

Since I tend to view most things critically, I prefer to stick to other areas with which I have more of a personal connection, where I feel more confident that I know what I'm talking about.

My criticism of Buddhism is certainly as nothing compared to problems I see in other religions I've looked at.

So Darrell, and all on the Buddhist path, I wish you well. Love and peace is the main thing.