Several

That you are right, except the metaphysical isn't fantasy just misunderstood reality. Regardless of which position we take on it metaphysical investigation is not going to lead to realisation and is at best distracting, so for whatever reason stick to practice and let the weirdness alone.

Scholars may have interpreted the word as carcass, but I've found it safer to always take what they say with a pinch of salt. They were convinced Troy was a myth until Schliemann (I think) dug it up. Egyptology is a total disgrace. I have no problem with the rest of the sutta, theres just something about that word being in that place that doesn't jibe. Whatever, the message is the same. Its nothing really.

Its just the use of the word carcass that bothers me. Is it an accurate translation? This thing here typing is an animated body. If it has a major system failure it becomes a carcass, fertilizer.

Buddha was very specific in things he said and the term carcass is plainly inaccurate. If it is actually translated as carcass then I doubt he said it. One of those fake Buddha quotes, an addition by a later monk.

I can understand what is being said, but this use of poetic license smacks if addition. As if looking at a painting by a great master, but being bothered by the presence of a figure in the corner which turns out to be a later addition by an apprentice.

Technically it falls into the expectation of things to come, not here and now, to consider this body already dead. If you are reading this the amalgamation of your various parts are conspiring to keep you alive and perceptive. Death is inevitable, the last lesson we learn is 'How to Die'. There's no hurry to get to class, the teacher will come to you.

I visited the TS bookshop in Melbourne. Its fantastic. Literature on every religion there is or was, just browsing through the shelves you discover all sorts of gems. The Buddhism section is huge. First time I went I found a great little book on Bodhidharma. Not surprising that people 'discovered' Theraveda on their shelves. You go in looking for one thing and come out carrying three others you never heard of. I never got involved with the society itself. The staff were all really helpful and the shop always had a healthy patronage (Despite the fact its hidden away up on the third floor of an old office building).

I agree with IMA_FARANG. Non-duality is not easy to grasp, especially in its implications, which, if not kept in balance, can lead to some strange conclusions.

I agree with you (the OP) that you need a qualified and credible mentor to understand the teachings on non-duality and find your way around the paradoxes. Some mentors, especially in the Japanese Zen and Tibetan traditions, have been found to be wanting in their ability to combine knowledge with wisdom and ethics.

I would think that Thich Nhat Hanh is an estimable teacher, but his understanding of non-duality, though orthodox Buddhism, is not the view put forward in either Dzogchen (Vajrayana Buddhist) teaching or that of the Upanishads, which really do need to be considered. Nevertheless, TNH is easy to read.

Anatta is, as Huli suggests, a form of non-duality in a sense, but is the opposite of oneness, that which is regarded as the essence and totality of non-duality by schools based on non-dualist foundations. Anatta is an unfortunate outcome of the Buddha's self imposed constraints in developing a non-pragmatic philosophical system. He did not wish to enter into discussions on Atman as that which grounds people and other phenomena in a oneness, a unified field that gives rise to and sustains phenomena, and this refusal to debate on matters he said did not conduce to the conquest of suffering gave rise to the dogma that all beings are just aggregates originating in interdependent and ungrounded relationships. There is no whole, only parts, in this view - the opposite of non-duality as the underpinning reality from which all phenomena arise. Anatta, then, is not non-duality, but an infinite plurality of relationships ungrounded in any substance. Non-dualists would argue that the "substance" that grounds phenomena is consciousness, and that this consciousness constitutes a unified field.

The Upanishads are probably the most easily accessible and readable sources for non-dualistic thought. For a Vajrayana (Dzogchen) view, "The Supreme Source" (Kunjed Gyalpo) focuses on non-duality as the natural condition grounded in primordial reality (Dharmakaya). Where I think you would need a mentor is in unpacking this text where it speaks of things like the following:

It is thought that creates the duality of mind and object. It is wisdom that perceives them as non-dual. Meditation means understanding that there is nothing to enter into or exit from. Not grasping what appears is the state of self-liberation.

Simply abiding in the state of total relaxation, effortlessly, and without correction or alteration, one achieves realization.

Many teachers advise to "meditate without meditating", and this is the precise truth; there is nothing on which to meditate.

Realization is not achieved by striving for it; it arises spontaneously when one abides in the natural state without seeking anything.

Do not turn what is one into two! Happiness and suffering are one in the state of enlightenment ... Do not accept happiness, do not reject suffering! Remain in the natural condition and you will attain everything.

So, does this mean that there might be Atman, its just one of those things Buddha found to be fruitless to discuss? (my brain is also hurting now)

Just a thought. Does non-duality have its own name (monoality?) or is it described as 'not two'?

Monism.

Ah. Of course. I guess the OP is looking for a monistary then.

Is it not about bringing that 'ideal' place into the present?

I hear of the way, I endure the way, I become the way.

Not sure what the astrological aspect is, but I've never had much time for it. Even if you knew your future to the second I suspect it would indeed distract you from here and now.

Not sure how a carcass can expire either. Sounds metaphysical to me.

Just a thought. Does non-duality have its own name (monoality?) or is it described as 'not two'?

Duality seems to be two things. Conceptual, where we define an idea or perception. Hard if not impossible to avoid if we want to communicate this to another. Unless we all follow the Zen way and start slapping each other. (I'm all for it, but alas, Vinaya)

Duality is also my favourite song by Slipknot.

Interestingly in Genesis duality begins when Adam eats the fruit of knowledge, yet prior to that he had been tasked with naming (describing) everything. So duality is the cause of the 'fall of man', but conceptual thinking is not.

So it would seem with enlightened masters of any Buddhist branch. They are not struck dumb by overcoming duality, though a dualistic mind attempting to concieve what a non-dualistic statement means experiences difficulties. 'Like having a red-hot iron ball in your mouth that you can neither swallow nor spit out' as Zen says. Even when the greats write poems about not thinking etc, they are still forced to use language. Though I do love the Zen poets.

For me it always comes back to the first lines of the Tao Te Ching; "The name that can be named is not the eternal name, the word that can be spoken is not the eternal word..."

So a rose is still a... Mu!

This is one of those things that makes wonder what the point of merit is. Its not a bojjhanga so it does not lead to enlightenment. Mr. Jobs is a toothy giant living in the same zip code for a few aeons until he's reborn as what? An angry midget? Many monks 'sell' it as though it were a stock comodity. Oh, you could be born the son of a millionaire who owns, say, Red Bull. Then drive your ferrari into a policeman at 200 kph while drunk. Hooray.

Cynical? Totally. The very idea of merit creates desire and the cash aquisition of it too often inflates the ego of donors, who then believe they are better than others.

If you're going to suffer, then suffer mindfully. Telling the laity they can postpone it in some costa-del-Loka timeshare resort is wrong, insidious and not aimed at ending suffering.

Just as a side rant, saying a being is a half-yak is idiotic. It implies parentage, geneology. As said before, Deva type beings don't procreate. So whats the other half? Naga? Human? Rat? I certainly smell one.

Thinking does not necessarily mean talking about it. Try to come up with a strategic rather than a diplomatic solution.

Its not really possible to change a persons cultural backround if they don't want to, and if you did manage it they would become alienated from their own people.

Compromise will most likely be viewed as weakness and an invitation to take further advantage of you. What a Thai says today may change tomorrow. Or even in the next hour.

Try to read or learn more about Thai culture and history. Understand that this has been their way for a long time. What seems insane to a farang is perfectly rational to a Thai. Never make them lose face, that is more important than anything you have to say.

Its not really a Buddhist thing to ignore the past at all. The Kamma we live with now is entirely the result of it. Buddhas teachings and all the commentaries are better understood in the context of the time they come from.

Show her love, compassion and understanding. Learn from her that letting things go will ease your own suffering. Love her for who she is, not who you want her to be, or let her go so that you both avoid suffering.

Good luck.

Whats going on? I wasn't concentrating.

Everything requires belief. Knowing is seperate. You can convince yourself you know something but you're really just cheating yourself of experience. The world is round. Is it? From my perspective it looks flat if somewhat bumpy. I have heard convincing arguments it is round(ish) so I accept that as true. But I do not know for sure. Hearing what the Buddha taught compared to what other systems of self-realisation state, I believe his way to be the most effective. But I am no Arahant, so I do not know for sure. By this I also consider science to be a religion, much to the disgust of the scientific faithful.

Having a good description of a thing is as far from truly knowing it as a virgin professor writing a thesis on sex.

Hence I believe in the advice of those who seem wisest.

Personally I call Buddhism a religion because it requires belief in the teachings and then becomes reality through practice.

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

Everyday trinketry, statues, music etc., is not Buddhism. It's culturism. The Buddha didn't promote that stuff. Buddhism is like most other religions, it got organized and commecialized. You have to do like I do, cut through the fluff to get to the core.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

I'd probably be even more skeptical if gangsters dodging bullets was the only example this teacher had regarding the 'power' of amulets. I'd be looking more for stories of amulets that healed sick people or provided food or water, some kind of positive benefits. But, for dodging bullets....I don't think so.

Oh I've seen more than one monk here claiming that an amulet or tattoo actually makes their skin bullet or knife proof. If its true they'll be in trouble if they ever need surgery.

Yeah, I know. Its not that I'm clinging to one idea as much as allowing it as a strong possibility. As I say, I could be wrong. And I apologise if I misinterpreted what you said. I agree totally with one thing though, practice, practice, practice.

Ok. The matter is dropped. You seem to have good reasons for presenting your case, there is too much 'hocus pocus' going around and every bit of sobriety helps. My dismissive statements were only in response to what seemed to be dismissive in yours, so c'est la vie.

And remember, its never too late to turn to the dark side.

"I thought the problem was the word reincarnation."

True, but I'm getting the feeling the term 're birth' is going the same way.

"Then are you saying that what you are aware of as you ("l", "ego", "self", "your consciousness"), passes on an kharmic influence, which generates a re birth, but apart from this there is no association between the old life and the new life?

Could we then say that your input in life allows another independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') the opportunity for a better life, but as far as you are concerned it is all over?"

Again I and Not I simultaneously.

"Even memory is illusory.

Memory, and moment to moment "contact = perception = reaction", so quick that it gives the illusion of consciousness (as a movie reell brings to life a set of frames/pictures).

Even if some kind of memory is passed onto another re birth life, it is illusory, impermanent, and conditioned.Let's say that the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') achieves awakening causing the process of re birth to stop.

What is awakened?

If there is no longer any re birth, upon death, unless there is soul, isn't it the end of the line for the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') as you aren't acknowledging the existence of anything else?"

Am I not? Conscious and subconscious are aspects of the same phenomena.That which is awakened must be all that Buddha described a human to be.

" This is the nub of the issue we're discussing.

On one hand the Buddha taught that there is nothing inside which is permanent or unconditioned, and that "l", "me", "ego", and "consciousness" is illusory.

Consciousness is a by product of the 5 skhandas and the speed at which one frame of contact/perception/reaction, moves onto the next, giving us the perception of consciousness.

There is nothing inside to be conscious.

This is what the Buddha taught."

Right enough, consciousness (Vinanna) is a product of this being, but subconscious (Bhavanga) is like the stream that Camerata quoted. Or from the analogy I used previously consciousness is the individual waves, subconscious is the entire ocean. It is here that all the stuff you object to takes place. The good old Pali Dictionary says; "Bhavanga Sota, stream of consciousness, basis, undercurrent. From it can be explained memory, paranormal psychic phenomena, mental and physical growth, Karma and re-birth. Life-continuum." or words to that effect. Not a soul, not permanent, always changing, fluid. Everything changes, making change itself permanent.

"On this can't but not agree:

"Either, re birth is moment to moment, or moment to moment and involve re birth to future lives, or it doesn't exist at all."

Isn't attaching oneself to only a single possibility fixing oneself or displaying rigidity?

Isn't this the opposite to the practice of unattached awareness where we don't control what we see, but allow us to become aware of what is?"

Only if I wasn't responding to...

"And if there is non self and the "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is illusory, then isn't an illusory life with dukkha preferable to non existence?

We can't have it both ways.

Either there is something permanent and unconditional (soul, spirit, call it what we like), or there isn't?"

...and saying "But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it." is fairly indicative of an open mind.

Good work on the frugal use of first person! Great discussion too. You're really getting the grey matter going here. Looking forward to your next post.

"Luke. Use the force Luke..." Obi-Wan Kenobi

I think this problem comes from the word rebirth. So we have tried to avoid the problem of soul by not using the description 'reincarnation', but the idea of an immortal element is so deeply ingrained in westerners that the term 'rebirth' now causes the association of 'I, immortal' to rise phoenix-like from the ashes of old arguments.

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

I thought the problem was the word reincarnation.

The word re birth was adopted to remove any association with a soul or spirit being reincarnated.

As you say, lighting a candle, from the flame of another candle, but this is skirting around the question.

If you contend that there is non self, and the only association with the previous lives is a kharmic force then:

what no longer suffers when you end suffering by ending birth?

And if there is non self and the "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is illusory, then isn't an illusory life with dukkha preferable to non existence?

We can't have it both ways.

Either there is something permanent and unconditional (soul, spirit, call it what we like), or there isn't?

But ego and consciousness are not the same thing. The 'I' who I have convinced myself to be is no more than a character created by choice and circumstance. The one who is conscious of this experience is the true being. It may be that this consciousness is only created in this body. I am absolutely sure it is not immortal. But it is this being that can learn to exist without suffering. Beyond greed, hatred and lust.

Consciousness cannot be weighed or measured but there it is none the less. There are innumerable people who have died briefly, and yet retained consciousness of what happened. To simply disregard this won't help.

So I must respectfully disagree that there either is or is not a spirit or soul. It is quite possible that consciousness can survive death of the flesh and yet not have the immortal magical qualities of a soul, or the overwhelming burden of an ego.

As before when I compared it to waves in the ocean, the ocean is indeed a single thing but the waves are both part of it and individual simultaneously. This may seem paradoxical but thats just a failing if language. There is I and not I at the same time. The state of consciousness at re birth is determined by Kamma.

So I'd say you either accept re birth or reject it entirely. You can't have moment to moment and not life to life. But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it.

There are many Zen masters who gained realisation without transmission. I think what the genuine ones are saying is that realisation is easier if you have a living example to learn from. I don't like the 'you must have a guru' ideology, its far too open to abuse. My brother is a Vajrayana practitioner which is entirely about transmission. But its hard to learn everything from a book so true masters become invaluable to the majority of us. Also I reckon transmission is possible but not necessary.

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

Everyday trinketry, statues, music etc., is not Buddhism. It's culturism. The Buddha didn't promote that stuff. Buddhism is like most other religions, it got organized and commecialized. You have to do like I do, cut through the fluff to get to the core.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

I think this problem comes from the word rebirth. So we have tried to avoid the problem of soul by not using the description 'reincarnation', but the idea of an immortal element is so deeply ingrained in westerners that the term 'rebirth' now causes the association of 'I, immortal' to rise phoenix-like from the ashes of old arguments.

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

I like your avatar Brother. And I know its not really you, its a digital representation.

Is it possible that rebirth can be moment to moment and life to life? If beings are like waves in an ocean, each seeming to be seperate but in fact part of the whole, the size, speed, direction changing moment to moment. But when it finally crashes on some shore another wave is created elsewhere, seperate from the first but certain characteristics of its behaviour were determined by the existence of the first wave.

So as an individual rebirth is moment to moment, and as part of everything rebirth is life to life.

Midichlorians.