Buddhism And Free Will

[lungmi]

And then Enlightment is at least non material...........................................................

When it is,......... just send a picture or a movie of it.

I am no missionary, because I have no mission to convert anybody, I just now participate in a dialogue as anyone else overhere with my opinion as others do

And I just have my own opinion about: a buddhist tries not too judge other and just mind his own mind.

I will not recall certain parts of " Broken Buddha" to write how Buddhists can behave, I have done before.

This doesnot mean I like to generalise Buddhists, but on the other hand do not generalise Buddhists by telling they do not judge and just mind their own mind.

Even Buddha had some clear opinions that could well be explained as judgements.

I also see many friendly faces in Thailand, not only in Thailand, I have seen this from Chinese , Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese.

I just happen to know why you so often see so many friendly smiling faces in Asia.

That is cultural and I could explain here why but all people realy interested in Asian culture and traditions will already know, so most people, overhere now.

I do not think Thailand has a lot to fear with regard to imposed values of western culture. It could be even an insult of Thai culture to even suggest the Thai would allow imposing of western values to Thai culture.

Buddha however was no Thai and his teaching with regard to compassion and love were not specific 'cultural' but extremely universal.

And so I do not think to impose the value of compassion and love as teached by Buddha in actions of compassion and love within Thai society would become a problem.

I think actions out of the wisdom - knowledge - awareness - of compassion and love would make Thai people more free.

I happen to know a number of Thai that are not, but they are friendly, relaxing, smiling and................... suffering people.

Authentic Theravadabuddhisms and Culturulal Historic Buddhism are not the the same. The Teaching of Jesu as Buddha Teaching (as an awakened - not enlightened One) is not the same the Catholic Church used to justify the mass murdering of non- Christians. Buddhists (except Japanese Kamikaze Pilots) never did in in the name of Lord Buddha

Edited October 5, 2010 by camerata
Fixed broken quotes.

[Xangsamhua]

No I, no self, no ego, no thoughts ... just "being", etc? This is nihilism, not Buddhism. The Buddha, as I understand, did not teach that there is no I, or that there is no self, but that these things cannot be found as essences. There is no essential I or essential self; however, there is identity in relative terms, as a dynamic compound of all the components (aggregates) that comprise a human being.

Dualistic argumention. You are wrong and right at the same time.

Lungmi, can you clarify a little? Your comment is dismissive, but enigmatic.

I had made no attempt to put an argument of my own, dualistically or otherwise, but to state what I thought the Buddha's and later sages' teaching was in regard to self, identity, phenomena and so on.

I think my own personal views on these matters are probably of little interest to anyone. My interest is in interpretation, in understanding what the sages have taught.

Anyway, whether with reference to the Buddha's or later Buddhist teaching or my possibly erroneous interpretation of it, I'm not always sure what the term "dualism" means. Accusation of "dualism" seems to take on the character of a knock-down argument, but begs the question of what one means by it. I understand the Buddha's teaching to be, in effect, dualistic, but at the relative level. If one is to try and teach in a relentlessly non-dualist way, one will have a very small audience. The Buddha was primarily a teacher, not a philosopher, and teaching requires "skilful means" to be understood by one's students; hence simplification, not mystification.

In any case, although the implications of the Buddha's, and later, the Yogacarya and Madhyamikha teachings may well be non-dualist (a Buddhist "mystery" on a razor's edge between eternalism and nihilism), the dhamma as taught by the Buddha strikes me as vigorously dualistic. When asked questions that would take him into "ultimate concerns", i.e. non-duality, the Buddha would not be drawn. The distinction between relative and ultimate truths, e.g. in relation to "self" is an attempt to make sense of what is, after all, a profoundly reductionist and counter-intuitive teaching.

Am I right or not? I'm a learner, not a guru, and am happy to be instructed.

[christiaan]

Lungmi:

Authentic Theravadabuddhisms and Culturulal Historic Buddhism are not the the same. The Teaching of Jesu as Buddha Teaching (as an awakened - not enlightened One) is not the same the Catholic Church used to justify the mass murdering of non- Christians. Buddhists (except Japanese Kamikaze Pilots) never did in in the name of Lord Buddha.

Christiaan:

Yes Lungmi I also suspect there is some difference in authentic and cultural Buddhisme, for Thailand described in publications as a Buddhisme with lots and lots of traditional concepts out of the times long for Buddhisme, the so called animistic Buddhisme.

The teachings and the 'message' of Jezus are also not the same as the way the Catholic Church handled this in most part of their history. Also here you can see what happens when humans put their hands on certain important 'happenings' in the world with their selfish ego's.

But it depends on the culture in the country nowadays to be allowed to talk and write about the facts.

Today the powerfull Catholic Church has to face more and more confrontations with their black side in many countries, and the 'power of this church will continue to slowly? dissapear .

When will cultural Buddhisme have to face some confrontation so people can have more personal freedom?

[Joop50]

To lungmi: Is there non-dualistic argumentation?

Any argumentation, any spoken word, any agitation is by definition dualistic.

One can only direct, point to That what is Nondualistic.

Perhaps you meant dual?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Joop50

[dutchguest]

I give my two cents:

When talking about monism and dualism I think we are talking about how you see existence, the universe in the ultimate sense:

• dualism: as matter and spirit as two essentially different "things" c.q. "non-things" governed by their own laws and playing their own separated role in the evolution of the universe and life. Mostly it is thought by the supporters of this view that the spirit is immaterial, immortal and lives on after death, can go to heaven or be reborn in an other body. Also it is thought often that the spirit is free and not subject to the laws of cause and effect and that matter is not free, but determined by the laws of cause and effect.
• Monism: matter and spirit are essentially the same. Both are material, forms of matter or energy. It does i.m.o. not necessarely mean that after death not some energy can leave the body and find another body, so karma and rebirth are theoretically possible. It does i.m.o. mean that there is no immaterial spirit and that there is nothing excluded from the laws of cause and effect.

So i.m.o. Buddhism is monistic and although we don't (yet) know all the laws of cause and effect the whole universe is ruled by those laws.

From our position on this earth (relative) there is north and south, day and night; from a position outside this universe those polarities loose their absolute value and become relative; for us there is day or night as two mutual excluding situations, from a position far away they are both the case. In the absolute sense the same goes for all dualities, yes and no are both the case.

The human mind can (at the moment?) only function in a relative, dualistic sense. To go back to freedom: the human mind thinks in mutual excluding categories: one is either free or not. From an absolute point of view both can be true. As well everything is ruled by laws of cause and effect as one is free.

An enlightened mind has transcended this relative mind with all his dualities.

[Xangsamhua]

I give my two cents:

When talking about monism and dualism I think we are talking about how you see existence, the universe in the ultimate sense:

• dualism: as matter and spirit as two essentially different "things" c.q. "non-things" governed by their own laws and playing their own separated role in the evolution of the universe and life. Mostly it is thought by the supporters of this view that the spirit is immaterial, immortal and lives on after death, can go to heaven or be reborn in an other body. Also it is thought often that the spirit is free and not subject to the laws of cause and effect and that matter is not free, but determined by the laws of cause and effect.
• Monism: matter and spirit are essentially the same. Both are material, forms of matter or energy. It does i.m.o. not necessarely mean that after death not some energy can leave the body and find another body, so karma and rebirth are theoretically possible. It does i.m.o. mean that there is no immaterial spirit and that there is nothing excluded from the laws of cause and effect.

So i.m.o. Buddhism is monistic and although we don't (yet) know all the laws of cause and effect the whole universe is ruled by those laws.

From our position on this earth (relative) there is north and south, day and night; from a position outside this universe those polarities loose their absolute value and become relative; for us there is day or night as two mutual excluding situations, from a position far away they are both the case. In the absolute sense the same goes for all dualities, yes and no are both the case.

The human mind can (at the moment?) only function in a relative, dualistic sense. To go back to freedom: the human mind thinks in mutual excluding categories: one is either free or not. From an absolute point of view both can be true. As well everything is ruled by laws of cause and effect as one is free.

An enlightened mind has transcended this relative mind with all his dualities.

Well put. :jap:

I was tempted to use the term "monism" rather than "non-dualism", but didn't want to create another contestable category, and I wasn't sure what the Buddha really thought. There are various forms of Monism, some of which have been attributed to the Buddha and to subsequent Mahayana schools, but these attributions are contested. Perhaps the Buddha was philosophically a neutral monist, but his teaching presented a dualistic cosmos and life-world. And I doubt, if he was a neutral monist, that he would see the underpinning source, of which physical and mental phenomena are manifestations, as something "other" to these manifestations.

I really don't know how helpful it is to anyone to get bogged down in discussions of duality and non-duality. If people can experience non-duality through meditation and a heightened consciousness that would be as close as one could get to it. Discussion of non-duality has to be dualizing. Duality implies non-duality and vice versa.

[Joop50]

I give it a try to expresswhat Non-duality contains. I realise it will be known by some allready and it shall not be compleet but it can also be interesting in the context of there excist free will or not.

In Non-duality is all One (which is not a numerall) because nothing exist outside the One.

Everything is One and Here and Now, in this place and at this moment. In me.

It's always today, always the present, always right Now. I am always today, always the present, always right Now.

But the Now is not something, no thing, no time moment, it's All, it's an indication of the ever present life, of consciousness, of knowing of being, of Being, the Comprehensive. Concentrated in me, because Now I do not know anything about there. But without any boundaries, because ' me ' is not a point but unlimited space. Our thinking can not comprehend this message, because the thinking needs observed differences and concepts to function.

The split one make between the observer and the seen seems to cause a fracture in the now, but in essence I always stay in the Now. I can never get out of it. The Essence, the Consciousness, the Now that I am, always stays in the Now, it will never cease. I stay – how far my thoughts and theories fload away – always in the present. I'm not not that combination of body, thinking, feeling, but Consious Presence. In that ever present Knowing (the fact is never the word ...) appears the body, the thinker and the world. These are in constant change, but I am always present. Only thinking requires explanations but cannot function without Awareness.

It is veryimportant to understand this, not only intellectual but for the very reason of our (Buddha) Heart.

One more comment, "I" have to excist as condition for live but cause and effect are only from the mind.

At last this quote from Rupert Spira:

Love, peace and happiness are always non-dual.They are the experience of non-duality.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Joop50

[sabaijai]

Love, peace and happiness are the experience of non-duality.

This sounds very much like a description of samatha (samadhi in Sanskrit), which is only a preliminary stage to vipassana and sati in the Theravada Buddhist view.

[christiaan]

Dutchguest:

An enlightened mind has transcended this relative mind with all his dualities.

Christiaan:

I realy wonder where in the story suddenly "The enlighted mind" comes from.

It is the effect of seeing, seeing with the material mind?

So the effect of a cause of material origin?

As I have to understand I have to see this all as material in some way, whithin a view of physical monism. (By the way, there is also mental monism)

And the "enlighted mind" has to be there before the transcending?

The transcending to what?? Some mysterious strange world of undefined energy? A strange world of supermaterial no-one can ever see or measure with material senses? A world to be sure about?by what? A world to believe in since it cannot be showed in any material way?

A world where we are so enlighted to see just matter that we are eternally happy?

What is happiness by the way in this view, a specific state of material existence ?

When this all would be a material proces of cause and effect what to do with the sample of cause and effect of the life of Buddha?

We all have to be born as sons of important very rich figures and to be raised as princes or princesses protected to any confrontation with all kind of suffering?

Then we all after this state have to be confronted suddenly with the main forms of suffering to realise we before could not find the real meaning of life (?)

And this all by the age of about 30 years old? (Well there was another important historic figure that changed dramatically about that age).

It makes me realise that in general most people that suffer and realy suffer in general only have one desire: to survive, and that especially the people who are very rich/fortunate very often cannot give even that meaning to life.

I would say denying life on earth or diminishing life on earth i.m.o. doesnot give this life any meaning at all.

It does make me think of the young philosopher Philip Mainlander 5 october (!) 1841 - 1 april 181 child of wealthy parents

“Our world”, writes Mainlander in his 'Philosophy of Redemption' “is the means and the only means of achieving nonexistence”.

It is known Phillip Mainlander studied Schopenhauer very well

Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) based his philosophy on a belief in a blind, impelling force, which compelled all humans to live. The world was seen as a constant conflict of individual wills, resulting in frustration, misery and pain. Similarly to the teachings of Buddhism, Schopenhauer advocated abstention from all desires as a means of reducing human suffering. The essence of his philosophy can probably be summarized in the following statements: “We can regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness. Human existence must be a kind of error: it is bad today and every day it will get worse, until the worst of all happens”, and also, “In my seventeenth year, without any learned school education, I was gripped by the misery of life as Buddha was in his youth when he saw sickness, old age, pain and death. The truth was that this world could not have been the work of an all-loving Being, but rather of a devil, who had brought creatures into existence in order to delight in the sight of their suffering”.

Mainlander died by hanging himself

I am sorry for my questions but I see many 'holes' in this preferred view. And I would like to see these holes filled with some 'material'.

[christiaan]

well, reading back my contribution above I suddenly realise if I see well when I notice the way Buddhisme is interpreted as monism it could be a big problem

When all reality is only seen as material reality, a reality we have to reject (?), to end in some, to material detaching, way, fullfilling our suffering material life originating out of some situation of material cause and effect, to come to a material state of being where we are materially enlighted and not delused anymore, to enter a material view of the ultimate truth of pure matter, I could bring up some understanding for someone hanging himself.

[christiaan]

Joop50

Thanks for this interesting view.

excuse me for writing text inside your text, my intention is to prevent repeating your contribution.

I give it a try to express what Non-duality contains. I realise it will be known by some allready and it shall not be compleet but it can also be interesting in the context of there excist free will or not.

In Non-duality is all One (which is not a numerall) because nothing exist outside the One.

(then the question still stays: What is this One?)

Everything is One and Here and Now, in this place and at this moment. In me.

It's always today, always the present, always right Now. I am always today, always the present, always right Now.

But the Now is not something, no thing, no time moment, it's All, it's an indication of the ever present life, of consciousness, of knowing of being, of Being, the Comprehensive. Concentrated in me, because Now I do not know anything about there. But without any boundaries, because ' me ' is not a point but unlimited space. Our thinking can not comprehend this message, because the thinking needs observed differences and concepts to function. You first write concentrated in me, then you write me is not a point but unlimited space, these facts however, as you write them, seem to show a contradiction and that is not to comprehend.

The split one make between the observer and the seen seems to cause a fracture in the now, but in essence I always stay in the Now. I can never get out of it. The Essence, the Consciousness, the Now that I am, always stays in the Now, it will never cease. I stay – how far my thoughts and theories fload away – always in the present. I'm not not that combination of body, thinking, feeling, but Consious Presence. In that ever present Knowing (the fact is never the word ...) appears the body, the thinker and the world. These are in constant change, but I am always present. Only thinking requires explanations (?) but cannot function without Awareness. I wonder, I would say observing you are thinking is awareness. thinking about your thoughts is awareness. Animals also think (instinct), but they do not observe their thinking and they do not think about their thoughts.

It is very important to understand this, not only intellectual but for the very reason of our (Buddha) Heart.

One more comment, "I" have to excist as condition for live but cause and effect are only from the mind.

I would say there is cause and effect in the material world and there is cause and effect in the spiritual world. So there is not only cause and effect in the mind. Even when I do not think about this, even when it is not or cannot be in my mind, a floading in Chiang Mai will have the effect people have to withstand the rising water.

At last this quote from Rupert Spira:

Love, peace and happiness are always non-dual.They are the experience of non-duality.

Love , peace and happiness are qualities of the spirit (stones, bikes and coins are not happy), at some point they are/were dual, they are of another quality as the world of matter. They became non-dual starting with the life and 'works' of Siddharta Guatama, he brought love , peace and happiness inside the world of matter, by his spirit living in his body, it came through his physical existence and efforts as wisdom in this world, and with his life he started to dissolve that duality.

I hope you all see my additions not as criticism but as a parts of dialogues

[christiaan]

I hereby give my 2 cents opinion.

First there was a non-dual entity.

A non material, spiritual entity.

Then this entity 'split up'.

A part of the entity started to become manifest in material existence.

The reality of this world is as follows.

Some spiritual entities only manifested themself to some limited existence, then we have, amongst others, to think about qualities as minerals, metals, and so on.

Some other spiritual entities manifested themself more and plants are part of these entities, they live, have organic life.

Some other spiritual entities manifested them self further more, then we have to think about animals, organic lifes with a soul, where feeling, will and instinct are living in.

The general characteristics of all these entities is that every entity is a complete specimen on earth. So the Quarts is the manifestation of 1 entity, the silver is the manifestation of 1, and so on.

Every plant species is as with animals 1 manifested spiritual entity in the world.

So, the Oak is in its total number of trees, the manifestation of one specific spiritual entity, as the lion is in all its members the manifestation of 1 spiritual entity.

The consequense of this is that all these manifestation normally do not die.

Minerals and metals cannot die and they do not just dissapear from the world as we know .

Plants and animals only dissappear when the specimens are extinct., only then they are not present anymore in this world.

As long as the lion lives on earth THE lion doesnot die and will not have returned to complete spiritual existence,

This has some consequenses looking at animal Karma

The human is the most manifested spiritual entity in the world, and by its evolution the entity, the spirit, the individual spirit, the I , at some moment entered the soul of the human and became aware of itself in the soul. A human is a specimen within him or her self.

When a human dies, this spirit is removed from physical life on earth (for some time or in the case of Buddha, for ever) and come to live in the world of spirit completely again.

One can see the difference - between human and animal entity - when one can realise it is possible to write a specific biography of a single baby lion in advance, but it is impossible to write a specific biography of a baby human in advance.

In all this manifesting of spiritual entities and non manifesting spiritual entities, the world is still ONE, as Joop wrote and it is all NOW, every moment.

But in the human existence on earth the spirit can more and more enter life and lift the dualisme in the world.

With regard to this, 2500 years ago Siddhartha Gautama turned out to be a unique pioneer in awareness bringing by his efforts, in my view spiritual efforts, the wisdom about compassion and love in this world.

These things could , can and will continue to happen when the human will more and more become spirit inside physical existence and at the end even dissolve physical existence as we know now.

When this happens the human spirit will be manifested completely as a spirit on earth and completely have transformed his physical existence.

In fact the spirit works from two sides,

From the material side and from, the spiritual side.

Both sides have its laws and so its laws of cause and effect.

Karma is part of the law of the spiritual world, and gravity is part of the laws of the physical world.

Where the duality started with manifestations of the spiritual world into physical existence, the dissolving of the created duality is happening with the entering of the spiritual world inside human existence wich at the end will lead to a transformed spiritual world.

This life on earth has a meaning, a meaning that will be fullfilled with a growing spirituality of mankind, that has started with seeing thoughts, seeing the living ideas of this world, thinking about thoughts, all awareness and selfawareness, and there will be an increasing of awareness in future, an awareness we at this moment cannot even imagine.

But we could have some understanding of this when we imagine we could go back in time and try to explain our notebook to the father of Siddhartha Gautama.

Well this was some sketch of my opinion, I wait and see.

[dutchguest]

Let me start with saying that we -at least I- know nothing about the ultimate truths. This is the field of religion which goes beyond science and is of a different order. Science is from the mind. Religion deals with the totality of existence, including feelings, the heart. Science can try to describe love, but this has little to do with experiencing love. Science can try to describe the colour green, but this has little to do, is of a different order then seeing a green tree. So all words, all rationalisations have only a very limited significance. And if we confuse the rationalising mind with reality or truth we are deluding ourselves and are entangled in the games of the mind. Nevertheless I have to use words and the rationalising mind to communicate on this forum and to cover up my ignorence, but I hope the silences between the words will speak their own language.

Christian asked how somebody could become enlightened; in an other post I said how I see this:

“One more remark about the evolution proces: i.m.o. it is a dialectical proces. One of the laws of this proces is that by adding quantities of energy at a certain point the quality can change. If you heath water to certain point, add quantity of energy to water, the quality changes at a certain point into steam. The same might have happened and is still happening to the human brain, mind. If you focus your energy on mindprocesses, instead of on fysical efforts like climbing trees, there can be qualitative changes in the mind, e.g. the faculty of abstract thinking, some forms of creativity etc. I.m.o. when somebody becomes enlightened there is also such a qualitative change, “quantumleap” of the mind.”

At the moment we live in a consciousness full of paradoxes: does a nation, a religion, an “I” exist or not? Yes and no. It all exists in the mind, as a kind of dream of the mind. If somebody asks: show me a nation, a religion, an “I”, you can not point at a certain place, thing. Nevertheless because of a believe in those dreams as if they are the reality many wars have been fought. So the dreams do have consequences in reality. Those minddreams separate us from each other and from nature and lock us up in a mind full of abstract ideas like the idea that there exists an “I”. A human exists, a tree exists and you can show it. It is not a dream, an illusion of the mind.

In a state of enlightenment you have dropped the dreams, you see the dreams as dreams and you see reality as reality, you can see things as they are. Also i.m.o. animals, flowers, stones do not live in a consciousness full of paradoxes and abstractions. So this is a similarity between enlightened persons and the rest of nature and this is why enlightened persons can feel one with the world and nature while the rest of mankind at the moment lives in confusion, alianation from nature, also alianation from his own nature.

So i.m.o. the idea of “I” is a product of the process of civilisation, may be a necessary step in the evolution. The original oneness with nature is lost, transcended and makes it possible to study nature as a science, as an object of consciousness. This brings necessarily the idea that we are essentially not nature ourselves but somehow separated, above nature. This is the illusion that enlightened persons have transcended again, the duality of mans consciousness and nature become one again. So animals live in a monistic world, consciousness, ordinary people live in a dualistic consciousness and enlightened people live again in a monistic consciousness.

[Xangsamhua]

Emmanuel Levinas, the phenomenologist, once wrote a book called Totality and Infinity, which seems an impossibly comprehensive theme to deal with, and perhaps the reason Levinas has had so little influence outside Europe, where BIG questions are the order of the day. “Continental philosophy” thrives on these questions whereas Anglo-American schools are more empirical and pragmatic. I see this being manifested on this forum and tend to think that Buddhism, at heart a pragmatic philosophy, gets marginalized – a mere tributary to the profound and far-reaching world-views and hermeneutical approaches of the European schools.

Not that I mind much. As a philosophical school, Buddhism in its various manifestations has to take its place as either a participant or object of study in any symposium without the magisterial status that it has for its religious adherents.

Nevertheless, I would prefer that this forum be Buddha-centric than primarily speculative. I think people visit the forum with a view to learning something about Buddhism, both its theory and practice, to help them live rational lives, or possibly just out of curiosity.

So back to the point. We have been distracted, perhaps constructively, by speculation about duality and monism in regard to the ultimate questions. Constructively in that Right View requires one to acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependence of things, but a distraction if the discussion moves beyond phenomena (dharma) – the things that we need to see in interdependent relationship to each other – to para-phenomenal and meta-cosmic possibilities that we really can only surmise.

What was the point? Something to do with free will and its possibility or otherwise in relation to karma. What the discussion on dualism has achieved, in my view, is to take the focus away from acts and their consequences as micro-events and turned us toward the significance and tentativeness of the volitionality of these events when viewed from a long way off. As Dutch Guest said, there’s not much duality to see when we focus on human events from far out in space. However, that doesn’t deny the possibility of free will, of volition, occurring in a microscopic event involving a human being. If we extent the boundaries of space infinitely, however, duality becomes impossible, but what about freedom? In an infinite universe there is no centre and no boundary; no beginning and no end. All or most (?) propositions become ultimately meaningless because our language assumes these boundaries. To quote Wittgenstein’s famous aphorism: “The limits of my language are the limits of my world”. (He later backtracked on this, but only by abandoning the limits of logic, at least in regard to metaphysical language.) With regard to freedom, then, specifically freedom of volition, any act that occurs in the context of infinite causation (origination doesn’t make sense any more in this context) must have an infinite chance of being determined and an infinite chance of being free, so the discussion becomes meaningless, doesn’t it?

[rockyysdt]

This is the illusion that enlightened persons have transcended again, the duality of mans consciousness and nature become one again. So animals live in a monistic world, consciousness, ordinary people live in a dualistic consciousness and enlightened people live again in a monistic consciousness..

This may be part of it, but living in monistic consciousness doesn't sound like a quantum leap, unless there is an aspect of nature we are unaware of.

Could it be the consciousness of infinity & timelessness, aspects of nature beyond our comprehension, and not the garden variety of nature we see all around us?

Is the inference, monistic consciousness and enlightenment are synonymous? If animals, living in a monistic world, are enlightened as the Buddha described and experienced, somehow I think they would behave a little differently.

Edited October 6, 2010 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

Hi Rocky,

I think you misunderstand me:

- Animals live according to their true nature (have an monistic consciousness).

• Ordinary people are alianated from their true nature (have a dualistic mind).
• Buddha lives again according to his true nature (has a monistic consciousness).

The difference between Buddhas and animals is indeed in awareness.

I agree with Xangsamhua that we dwell to far away from buddhism in daily life.

[christiaan]

It is always interesting to dwell away a little, especially when one is aware one is doing. It is also interesting to see every individual has its own preference for a certain way of thinking (an aware or unaware philosophy, nowadays most of the time a philosophy inspired by material thinking) and by this a preference for some kind of 'religious activity'.

So, coming back to the daily life of Buddhisme.

The dreams some Farang have and project to Buddhisme have little to do with the reality of daily life of most of the Thai population.

As far as I understand from the Thai I met by now they are not very much interested in monistic or dual systems, they even know little about Buddhisme , just what they are 'learned to think' by their education, becos many of them, are just suffering to survive.

And even from a far far distance in space this situation on earth stays the same.

the person moving far far away from earth far in space in fact becomes totally irrelevant for the reality of daily life on earth.

I realy am astonished to read the reality - on earth or for the earth - changes when an individual sees the reality from a very very far distance . Is there more proof necessary to show how ego centered a mind can be in looking at the reality of the Other?

Yes my dear friend in outer space, your reality did change or does it just show you have been in outer space all the time before?

Do you think reality changed for a young girl who has been suggested or even told - by some orange clothed male human - it is her Karma to become a prostitute in Bangkok when you are far away in space?

Are you aware you, being far far out in space have become completely irrelevant to earth?

What an attitude. A real human living by his deep inner feelings (not just emotions) in awareness cannot be or stay in far distance when he is confronted with the suffering of people in a country in a world where this kind of suffering cannot be accepted anymore in this time of history.

How would Buddha have dealed with the reality of life when he would have lived now?

A world where corruption, money, prostitution and childpornography, abuse of power, alcoholism, disinterest, 'mind your own business', extreme wealth and extreme poverty are the characteristics of daily life?

Maybe we better continue to have some intellectual

[christiaan]

some intellectual conversations about the meaning of the Self, of attachment and detachment.

Excuse me.