Rebirth

[Radius]

Well I've read it through a couple of times but still don't know what you're on about.

You appear to be saying you think if someone gets enlightened then soneone else must get unenligtened to preserve the balance.

Is this assumption something you only apply to enligtenment and suffering? Does someone get cancer every time someone is cured? does someone lose their masters degree every time someone attains one?

There comes a time when too much thinking can become an obstacle and it's time to start doing, I suspect you've reached it.

no, I am not saying that when someone becomes enlightend someone else gets unenlightend. Thats crazy.

If you end a suffering within you, another will arise.

To put it simple: When you achieve a goal you will create a new goal for yourself. This is human nature.

I am saying there is no good without evil. How can there be evil if there is no good? Evil = not good and Good = Not evil. It is all about balance.

And I finally get to the core of reality and you people call me nuts, haha. This is the utter simplicity I have been talking about. It is so simple, people don't see it.

One person getting cancer is not related to someone else getting cured. Redicilous statement.

rockyysdt: If everyone is enlightend, how de we know we are enlightend? What can we compare it to?

Answer: Nothing, so there is no enlightment without suffering.

I am aware I am part of infinity, but I still experience suffering. So I am enlightend and yet I am not?

[Brucenkhamen]

no, I am not saying that when someone becomes enlightend someone else gets unenlightend. Thats crazy.

If you end a suffering within you, another will arise.

To put it simple: When you achieve a goal you will create a new goal for yourself. This is human nature.

I am saying there is no good without evil. How can there be evil if there is no good? Evil = not good and Good = Not evil. It is all about balance.

And I finally get to the core of reality and you people call me nuts, haha. This is the utter simplicity I have been talking about. It is so simple, people don't see it.

True enough, you are correct the normal state of things is that if you end a suffering within you another will arise, this is the law of nature and reality of our lives

However the whole point of enlightenment and what makes it so desirable is that it breaks you free from that law, suffering ceases to arise.

The point of Buddhism is not to explain how things are, but to point out how we can go beyond how things are.

I am aware I am part of infinity, but I still experience suffering. So I am enlightend and yet I am not?

If you are aware you are part of infinity then you've taken your first steps, if you still experience suffering you are not enlightened and have a ways to go.

One thing you may not be aware of is the Buddhist definition of suffering, suffering is not the bad experience it's your reaction to it.

So if I stub my toe and think to myself shit happens and carry on unaffected I'm not suffering. But if i stub my toe and think I hate this pain, I can't stand it, get it away from me, why does this always happen to me, my life sucks, now I'll probably get tetanus and die, or worse mum will see the bloodstain in the carpet, and so on and so on.. this is suffering and is generally much subtler and all pervasive than my example.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[rockyysdt]

rockyysdt: If everyone is enlightend, how de we know we are enlightend? What can we compare it to?

Answer: Nothing, so there is no enlightment without suffering.

I am aware I am part of infinity, but I still experience suffering. So I am enlightend and yet I am not?

I suppose we'll never know as we're not enduring.

I thought, only the ego, body, mind (mortal) suffers?

We're a facade.

None of us has ever experienced the enduring.

I also thought we're just a vehicle allowing the infinite to manifest in the finite.

Whilst in this state the infinite loses conciousness of connection to infinity and requires enlightenment to be restored.

[camerata]

b. will the real real you, the enduring one hidden behind the ego and self, reunite with infinity (nibbana) along with the consciousness of all before?

Who can know for sure unless they are an arahant? Apparently, a meditator who reaches the 4th jhana can "read" his past lives. Presumably this seems like experiencing a series of connected lives and at the same time a continuum of existence. It's often mentioned as the standard "proof" of rebirth. I can't imagine it's very helpful in attaining nibbana, though, because that kind of continuous memory would tend to enhance a sense of self. Imagine you woke up and a nurse said to you, "Sorry, rocky, you had a terrible accident and have been in a coma for 30 years. All we could do is transfer your lifetime's memories to this android body." I think you'd still feel a pretty strong sense of identity - very different from how you'd feel if you woke up in rocky's body with total amnesia.

The way I see it, nibbana results in the mind undergoing a radical change from "knowing" it is separate from everything else to knowing it is not. Past lives and past experience are irrelevant. It happens in the present moment and is continuous into the future.

c. or will you (ego & body) immediately die because you serve no purpose other than to carry the real real you (enduring) which is asleep and awakens upon enlightenment?

The body doesn't die on attaining nibbana, but the sense of self disappears forever. I believe this is why nibbana is called The Deathless - there is no one left who can die.

[rockyysdt]

If you are aware you are part of infinity then you've taken your first steps, if you still experience suffering you are not enlightened and have a ways to go.

Bruce.

Is believing "you are aware you are part of infinity" different to having a direct experience of this?

[Radius]

If you are aware you are part of infinity then you've taken your first steps, if you still experience suffering you are not enlightened and have a ways to go.

Bruce.

Is believing "you are aware you are part of infinity" different to having a direct experience of this?

I 'sort of' experienced it. Within what Buddhism calls meditation. I didn't nessecarely call it that at the time.

Is belief in the existance of enlightment the religious part of Buddhism? Is this why it is a religion and not (just) a philosophy?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Radius

[Brucenkhamen]

If you are aware you are part of infinity then you've taken your first steps, if you still experience suffering you are not enlightened and have a ways to go.

Bruce.

Is believing "you are aware you are part of infinity" different to having a direct experience of this?

Belief and direct experiences are different by definition.

[rockyysdt]

I 'sort of' experienced it. Within what Buddhism calls meditation. I didn't nessecarely call it that at the time.

Is belief in the existance of enlightment the religious part of Buddhism? Is this why it is a religion and not (just) a philosophy?

On a talk given about "Self" (camerata's link within the "rebirth" post):

The Buddha spoke to his pupil and said, "I am the Buddha. I am all knowing. I tell you that there is no Self. Do you believe me?

The pupil replied, "I respect what you say but I don't believe what I do not know."

The Buddha replied, "Very good Ejjjjjjj. You are wise not to believe without personal examination and experience".

Enlightenment can only be proven through self experience.

Ironically, our ego initiates this journey.

Initially without ego there is no reason for the unenlightened to pursue enlightenment, other than for personal gain.

Edited September 15, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Radius]

It seems a bit of a contradiction. If I do not belief I can achieve enlightment, why would I search for it?

How long have you been trying to reach it and how many people do you know that have actually reached it?

I understand personal experience is better (I actually 100% agree) but if I seek this experience I must belief it exists.

[Brucenkhamen]

Is belief in the existance of enlightment the religious part of Buddhism? Is this why it is a religion and not (just) a philosophy?

Oh no, the religious side of Buddhism is a whole nother can of worms.

The Buddha instructed not to believe anything just because he taught it but to find out for yourselves. It's not necessary to believe in enlightenment to be a practicing Buddhist, it's necessary to experience the reduction in suffering that following his methodology produces. When you've seen enough of that then the assumption that total release from suffering is possible becomes a working hypothesis.

[Brucenkhamen]

It seems a bit of a contradiction. If I do not belief I can achieve enlightment, why would I search for it?

How long have you been trying to reach it and how many people do you know that have actually reached it?

I understand personal experience is better (I actually 100% agree) but if I seek this experience I must belief it exists.

One doesn't search for enlightenment as if it were a far away goal, one gradually removes the obstacles step by step, one reduces delusion and suffering in the present moment. Enlightenment is just our natural state if we could only free ourselves of those obstacles.

I've been doing it for 13 years, and no I don't know anybody who has been enlightened, but I do know a lot of people who have a certain presence of mind, contentment, purpose, and genuineness in their lives. Of course if I felt there was something better to do I'd be doing that.

[camerata]

Initially without ego there is no reason for the unenlightened to pursue enlightenment, other than for personal gain.

This desire for enlightenment is dhamma-chanda (righteous desire/intent) as opposed to kama-chanda (sensual desire/intent). For example, if we desire chocolate, when we get it there is short-term satisfaction and then pretty soon we desire more. And on and on it goes. But when we attain nibbana it is the end of desire. So to desire the permanent end of desire is dhamma-chanda, and it's very logical.

[Radius]

Oh no, the religious side of Buddhism is a whole nother can of worms.

The Buddha instructed not to believe anything just because he taught it but to find out for yourselves. It's not necessary to believe in enlightenment to be a practicing Buddhist, it's necessary to experience the reduction in suffering that following his methodology produces. When you've seen enough of that then the assumption that total release from suffering is possible becomes a working hypothesis.

This is something I can live with.

Sorry if some of my questions seem harsh. They are not meant this way, I am just trying to understand.

I really like a lot of aspects in Buddhism. But I don't think I will ever call myself a Buddhist.

Seeking end of suffering (I understand it's meaning quite well) is something I can agree on.

In one way or another we all do this.

But to conclude that one could end all suffering and that that is actually a good thing is difficult if not impossible) for me to accept.

I like some of my suffering. No, I don't like hitting my toe, but I do like to find out things. My lack of knowledge is a form of suffering. But what if I would actually reach a level of 'all knowing'? Seems pretty boring to me and a state of suffering in itself.

Ending all suffering means nothing will have any meaning anymore. I allready know nothing actually means anything (and there is no purpose to/in life).

We ourselfr give meaning to things. And I quite enjoy the meaning I have given to things.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Radius

[camerata]

Is belief in the existance of enlightment the religious part of Buddhism?

No, but it may depend on one's definition of "religious." I would say acceptance of the idea of enlightenment is not religious. One can accept it by logical inference through experience. If reducing the sense of self step by step results in a corresponding increase in equanimity and peace, it stands to reason that achieving no sense of self will result in perfect peace and equanimity. This is supported by a mass of "anecdotal evidence" over the past 2,500 years, starting with the Buddha and his disciples. The key point is that it can be proven by any one of us in this current life. With true religions you get promised something that you may or may not be able to verify in the next life.

[Radius]

Is belief in the existance of enlightment the religious part of Buddhism?

No, but it may depend on one's definition of "religious." I would say acceptance of the idea of enlightenment is not religious. One can accept it by logical inference through experience. If reducing the sense of self step by step results in a corresponding increase in equanimity and peace, it stands to reason that achieving no sense of self will result in perfect peace and equanimity. This is supported by a mass of "anecdotal evidence" over the past 2,500 years, starting with the Buddha and his disciples. The key point is that it can be proven by any one of us in this current life. With true religions you get promised something that you may or may not be able to verify in the next life.

This is one of the main reasons I am so interested in Buddhism. But the concept of enlightment remains something I am struggling with to accept.

To be quite honest, I don't see a reason to continue to struggle with it. I will just learn more, experience and see where it leads me. Some good always comes from following such paths.

[camerata]

Good idea. You may not have heard the well-known story of the man and the poisoned arrow. If the man insists on knowing every detail about the arrow (what type it is, who shot it, etc) before letting a doctor touch him, he'll be dead before the doctor can save him.

[rockyysdt]

It seems a bit of a contradiction. If I do not belief I can achieve enlightment, why would I search for it?

How long have you been trying to reach it and how many people do you know that have actually reached it?

I understand personal experience is better (I actually 100% agree) but if I seek this experience I must belief it exists.

It's been written that of those who reach enlightenment, some reunite with the divine and escape the cycle of rebirth, whilst others continue in their human form destined to teach others.

The enlightened ones, no longer having any attachment to ego, won't be heard talking amongst us about their status. They will more likely possess extreme humility.

Each of us has a different reason for being drawn to the values of Buddhism. Some may have suffered much in their life, others maybe looking for meaning, whilst others are drawn by Buddhas teachings.

Whatever the reason, initially our journey is ego driven as we're all very much attached to our egos.

Those who seriously practice meditation will reward their egos when they experience periods of great bliss, ecstasy & joy. Transforming as these are, the difficulty is to realise these states are not our goal. There are much higher levels to be scaled on our path to enlightenment.

Each state can be a trap for the ego as we journey through higher realms of love, tranquility, equanimity, divine inspiration, union with the divine and complete awareness.

The theory being that Buddhas teachings give you a system to personally experience these states for yourself and not just blindly believe them.

Until you have personal experience it should all be theoretical and up to you whether it's worth expending your time to explore.

The key being, it's possible in your lifetime.

Regarding my practice, the late Ainslie Meares personal assistant Vera once advised me, "It's in the doing that counts".

Edited September 15, 2008 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

It's been written that of those who reach enlightenment, some reunite with the divine and escape the cycle of rebirth, whilst others continue in their human form destined to teach others.

Since Radius is new to Buddhism, let's just clarify that the above is a garbled version of Mahayana Buddhism's bodhisattva ideal (postponing final nirvana/nibbana in order to help other beings) and doesn't relate to the Theravada Buddhism that's mostly been discussed in this topic. Also it's incorrect to describe enlightenment as reuniting with the divine, since "divine" means "of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being."

[Radius]

Thank you camerata. I am able to see that there are always differnet opinions and explainations in religion.

But I am seeking the fundamentals and work from that.

The fundamental in Christianity is God. I have chosen to not believe in such a beeing and I can most certainly say that I am therefor not a Christian (or a supporter of any other religion with one or more supreeme beeings).

The fundamental in Buddhism seems to be nirvana/nibbana not rebirth. And I am still trying to give that a place, but it seems to conflict with my own idea's. I am unsure how much and if there is a way to reconcile the two.

At first I didn't think this was possible with the concept of rebirth either, but this can be done in a way I can accept.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Radius

[rockyysdt]

The fundamental in Christianity is God. I have chosen to not believe in such a beeing and I can most certainly say that I am therefor not a Christian (or a supporter of any other religion with one or more supreeme beeings).

The fundamental in Buddhism seems to be nirvana/nibbana not rebirth. And I am still trying to give that a place, but it seems to conflict with my own idea's. I am unsure how much and if there is a way to reconcile the two.

Even though the dictionary lists God as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe", I'm confident that God is what you find when you reach nibbana.

I think the dictionary meaning of "God" is well overdue for an update.

What will you experience when you reach Nibbana?

No one can ever verbalise infinity so I call it God.

In the Bible it's quoted that man was made in Gods image. That's why people have an image of God as a wise powerful human like being with a wispy white beard.

They are unaware that the bible also quotes that, if you seek me look within yourself. This suggests that Gods image was not referring to our physical image, but to the enduring power within.

We and God are one thing. Infinite, enduring, and all encompassing at experienced when nibbana is reached.

This is my hypothesus. There is only one way to prove it, and I've started the journey.

Edited September 18, 2008 by rockyysdt