Only followers of a Buddha's Dhamma can attain Nibbana..

[fabianfred]

Sounds like quite a statement doesn't it. There will be a rash of people saying ... Oh no, enlightenment isn't exclusive to Buddhism. Every follower of every faith thinks theirs is the best and only one which is correct.

I shall wait for comments and then explain my understanding.

[fabianfred]

It looks like there are no takers and you are waiting for me to explain myself.

1. Buddha's are extremely rare.

2. Only a Buddha can, without teachers, discover for himself Nibbana and the path to reach it, and thence teach that path for the first time to others whilst no other being in the human realm knows.

3. This knowledge is too profound for any being but a Buddha to discover and realise by themself.

4. Practice of meditation, without knowing or being taught the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, will not lead one to Nibbana.

[hookedondhamma]

I just came upon this, Fred.

I await the forseen comments as well, and the variations to them as well.

[fabianfred]

1. Buddhas are extremely rare..

There is a word unique to Buddhism, called "asongkaya", or some such spelling. It means 'an incalculable period' but in fact can be written as the number 1 followed by 140 zeros!

There are three types of Buddhas. One practices (from the time a vow is made to become a Buddha, until enlightenment) for a period of 4 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; another for 8 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; and the third for 16 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa. The present Buddha (whose teaching is still extant) is of the first type, whilst the next Buddha (Marietreya) is of the third type.

Mahakapa is another term for aeon. Roughly eqivalent to the length of time from the begining, expansion, contraction and destruction of the universe. (After which ...it all happens again).

When asked 'how long is an aeon?' the Buddha replied..."imagine a mountain 10 miles wide, 10 miles long and 10 miles high, and once every 100 years a being appears and wipes the mountain over carefully with a very fine cloth. That mountain would sooner be rubbed away level with the ground before an aeon is completed."

When asked 'how many such aeons have gone past?' the Buddha replied..." Take the river Ganges, from its source to where it reaches the sea..... how many grains of sand lie between? Greater than this are the number of aeons which have passed."

There are two kinds of aeon... the Bare aeon and the Not-bare Aeon. In the Bare Aeon there are no Buddhas; the not-bare Aeon is of five types; those which have a single Buddha,those which have two or three or four or five Buddhas. We are extremely fortunate to be born in an aeon which has five Buddhas. We like to moan at the state the world seems to be in, getting worse not better, more killing and rape, murder, war etc. and we are now in the phase where the Buddhas teaching has been extant for over 2,500 years, so after 5,000 years it shall have disappeared from the earth completely and before that will be corrupted and altered by false monks until the true Dhamma will be difficult to find. Imagine how it will be to live in the world with no light in the darkness.

Some people believe that upon the disappearance of the last buddhas teaching, the next one will be born.....whoa..... not so fast. If five Buddhas are to make an appearance in this aeon, then it would be fair for them to be regularly spaced. Also one of the factors which the Buddha to be has to consider, whilst waiting in the Tushita heavens, before he decides the time is right to be born into his final life, is how long the average lifetime of a human is. If shorter than 100 years, then life would be too full of suffering and strife to be able to listen to his teachings. If longer than 100,000 years, then too pleasureable and with no knowledge of suffering to be able to understand his teaching.

At the Buddhas time the average life span was 100 years, and it decreases by 1 year each 100 years since his Parinibanna. Now after 2,500 years the average is 75 years. it will continue to decrease until the average is 10 years, at which time people will be able to give birth at 5 years. There will be nothing but strife and a time of the knives will happen, when people will go about freely killing each other like animals. Those who flee into the wilderness to hide, will come out after and start to practise morality again and keep the precepts. Lifespan will gradually increase again to 100,000 years, then start to fall. Upon reaching 80,000 years the next Buddha will arise and his teaching will last for 250,000 years.

So, 4 asongkaya and 100,000 mahakapa ago, there was a man called Sumedha living in the city of Amaravatti and on meeting the Buddha at that time vowed to be a Buddha on day. That Buddha saw his intention with his Dhamma-eye and proclaimed to the throng that this man would be a Buddha in the future. That was the third Buddha of four in that aeon, and after that the Boddhisatva received assurance from a further 24 Buddhas he met during the long rounds of rebirths throughout the ages.

It just goes to show how rare Buddhas are, and how rare aeons which are not-bare are. We are so extreemly fortunate that we mustn't waste a moment in trying to attain the safety of Stream-entry.

Suppose we make a lot of merit and get reborn in one of the deva realms. In the lowest, one day and night is equal to 50 years in the human realm, so after a long lifetime (maybe 500 deva years...just guessing, maybe much more) which would be equivalent to 5 million of our years, one might be reborn as a human.... and what will life be like then??... one might have missed the last buddhas teachings. And then you will have to wait for how many aeons before another chance to hear the Dhamma??

[rockyysdt]

how many aeons before another chance to hear the Dhamma??

In a world which is infinite (no beginning, no end) many things may take aeons to occur.

Also in an infinite universe, why are humans so special.

In countless galaxies scattered throughout the universe there may be countless intelligent lifeforms, all vying for the absolute.

To say that the planet earth is the only staging point for awakening is very limited wouldn't you agree?

Edited June 24, 2014 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

I would Rocky.. i have often said that the one true Dhamma especially the law of karma must apply throughout the Universe to all beings. If there are sentient beings on a planet then they also probably have the different realms and even Buddhas. I imagine that the humanoid shape is very efficient and probably universal.

[fabianfred]

2. Only a Buddha can, without teachers, discover for himself Nibbana and the path to reach it, and thence teach that path for the first time to others whilst no other being in the human realm knows.

3. This knowledge is too profound for any being but a Buddha to discover and realise by themself.

Although other faiths do teach about karma and rebirth in various realms they do not get it correct. The Hindu belief in a permanent atman or soul is what the Buddha taught is misunderstanding and should be annatta, no permanent self. Annatta is probably the cornerstone of the Buddhas Dhamma and no other faiths encompass it. As we know 90% of the world's problems are caused by ego, and in many cultures the cult of the ego is such that one is encouraged and taught to 'push oneself forward' ..' be number one'.. 'be the best' .. 'winning is good, losing is bad..' I lost all interest in team sports long ago because I saw that the original idea of fun and games had become too competitive and mostly about money nowadays. One who realises the truth of annatta and is trying to diminish the ego is a rare person. Such a one will be kind and courteous to all and bear no discrimination of any kind.

The Buddha realised the cycle of Dependant Origination and running through it forwards and then backwards, as he sat and meditated under the Bo tree, attained the wisdom which caused him to break free from Samsara and become Arahant.

A Sammasambuddha is one who is self realised with no teacher. The cycle continues.... 1, A Buddha attains enlightenment. 2. He teaches the Dhamma to those who will listen. 3, He dies and his teachings gradually dissappear. 4. Knowledge of the true Dhamma is lost for a long period and nobody knows about Nibbana and how to attain it... there can be no more Stream-enterers and thence arahants. 5. A new Buddha comes and teaches again after rediscovering the lost truth, the lost Dhamma.

During the long periods between Buddhas, when the truth is lost or misunderstood, there are still many good men who strive for perfection according to their beliefs. Meditation is practiced in many forms, but particularly concentration techniques. Jhanas are attained by some and the supernormal powers which the 4th. jhana can bring are also attained by some. but that is all...

In his life as Sumedha he had already attained the Jhanas and super powers before he met the Buddha Dipankhara on the road and made the Boddhisatta vow to become a future Buddha. This knowledge did not lead him to attain the wisdom necessary for stream-entry. We cannot realise this for ourselves without hearing about it from a Buddhas teachings. It is too profound for us to imagine.

The Boddhisatta then practiced the ten perfections for innumerable aeons before reaching the state where he was able to come and become the Buddha and realise for himself. because the ultimate goal is to become a Buddha and thus self-realise and teach, once the Boddhisatta vow has been made, one is then blocked from further progress. During his innumerable lives and including his last one right up until he attained enlightenment, the Boddhisatta practiced concentration meditation many times, and attained the jhanas many times.

The famous monk Ajarn Mun realised that he had previously taken the vow, and it was blocking his progress. He decided he didn't want to endure the suffering of countless future lives and so he decided to retract his vow...after which progress to stream-entry and beyond was rapid. Any one of us might have been enamoured with the Dhamma and made such a vow in our past, so if you decide to retract it and make progress to Ariyahood in this life, it is nothing to be ashamed of.

[VincentRJ]

I see a deep problem here related to the definition of the common words we use to tell stories and describe situations.

Science progresses by defining very precisely, specific observations and phenomena. Such observations are consistent amongst all people. If they are not, we scrap the theory and devise another one. A Hydrogen atom is a Hydrogen atom whether one is a Buddhist, an African Pigmy, a Chinaman, or a scientist with a Phd.

Many philosophical disputes exist mainly due to the lack of a precise definition of the common words we use. There is often an assumption that, because the words are common, they must be understood in a consistent manner by all people who speak the language. This is a fallacy, in my opinion.

To illustrate my point, let's consider the following philosophical problem which tends to highlight the differences between the Materialist and the Idealist.

Suppose a tree falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it. Does it make a sound?

One answer says:

Yes, it does make a sound: because a sound is a physical phenomena, perhaps some wave patterns in the air. Those wave patterns can exist even if no one is there to hear them.

The other answer says:

No, a sound is essentially something that has to be experienced. If no one hears it, then it can't be a sound.

Which answer is correct? Well, I would say that both answers are correct in accordance with the different definitions of 'sound'. If one restricts the definition of 'sound' to an experience in the human mind, then clearly, if a tree falls in the forest, it cannot make a sound if no human is there to hear it.

The next question that follows is, which definition of sound is more sensible, more credible, more intelligent, more useful? For example, if one insists that a sound is no more than an experience in the human mind, then that is tantamount to claiming that all the other creatures in the forest (millions of them, ranging from ants to monkeys) are unable to hear sounds. That doesn't seem at all sensible to me. Such a view is often described as Solipsism, the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

On the other hand, to describe a 'sound' purely as a wave pattern or vibration that is transmitted through the air, also does not make complete sense because certain vibrations and frequencies may be beyond the hearing capacity of any living creatures.

My own preferred definition of 'sound' would be any transmitted vibration that can be detected by any living creature, human or not. On the basis of this definition, it would be almost impossible for a tree to fall in a forest without making a sound, but not completely impossible. If the forest had recently been razed by fire, there might not be any living creatures in the vicinity to 'hear' the sound of the falling tree.

I raise this issue as an analogy which I think is relevant to the problems of Buddhism. We have so many key words which are also common words, such as 'enlightenment', 'self', 'mind', 'illusion', 'the absolute' etc.

We try to define these common words using other common words, and basically just go round in circles. 'The Absolute Self'! Crikey! What on earth is that?

If we're talking about temperature, then there should be no confusion about 'Absolute Zero'. It's a temperature that is so low that nothing moves. It's the coldest temperature we can create or observe. We get a clear idea of how cold Absolute Zero is when it is described in precise, or scientific terms. On the Celsius scale, Absolute Zero is -273.15 Celsius, quite a bit colder than the Arctic in winter. No confusion there.

[camerata]

What Fred is talking about here is straight from the Pali Canon, and maybe the Pali Commentaries. Nibbana is the Theravada Buddhist term for enlightenment/awakening, which is different from the Brahmanical beliefs held at the time of the Buddha.

[VincentRJ]

What Fred is talking about here is straight from the Pali Canon, and maybe the Pali Commentaries. Nibbana is the Theravada Buddhist term for enlightenment/awakening, which is different from the Brahmanical beliefs held at the time of the Buddha.

The point I'm making is that such concepts, whatever scriptures they are from, are just concepts that exist in the mind, which is an illusion. There is often no clearly defined meaning and objective existence that these key words describe. Perhaps one can get around this problem by claiming that one can only understand Nibbana, or enlightenment, or awakening when one has reached it or experienced it.

I ask myself if it is possible that two people could have the same experience but argue about it because they are using different vocabulary, or attribute different meanings to the same words.

[camerata]

I guess we'll never know, and I doubt science will be able to tell us.

[rockyysdt]

The point I'm making is that such concepts, whatever scriptures they are from, are just concepts that exist in the mind, which is an illusion. There is often no clearly defined meaning and objective existence that these key words describe. Perhaps one can get around this problem by claiming that one can only understand Nibbana, or enlightenment, or awakening when one has reached it or experienced it.

I ask myself if it is possible that two people could have the same experience but argue about it because they are using different vocabulary, or attribute different meanings to the same words.

A friend described a place of interest to me last night.

As we left our location he pointed to the premises in question indicating that this was the place.

When initially described, I mentally produced a map of where this place was.

It turned out to be in the opposite direction and considerably further along.

I would never have found it based on my understanding of the original directions.

Words, phrases and sentences can have totally different meanings, and arouse completely different feelings and responses in each of us.

Edited June 25, 2014 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

I often taught that the Dhamma is like a map...how to get to nibbana.... no need to waste time pondering what Nibbana is like... you'll find out when you get there... but for now you only waste precious time which should be spend walking the path.

If you have a map of how to travel to London... photos of Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus are interesting but ultimately useless... stop admiring them and get going...

[rockyysdt]

I often taught that the Dhamma is like a map...how to get to nibbana.... no need to waste time pondering what Nibbana is like... you'll find out when you get there... but for now you only waste precious time which should be spend walking the path.

If you have a map of how to travel to London... photos of Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus are interesting but ultimately useless... stop admiring them and get going...

But, until we have some level of wisdom, the photos of Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus give us impetus.

Without them we may take a detour or discontinue.

[VincentRJ]

I often taught that the Dhamma is like a map...how to get to nibbana.... no need to waste time pondering what Nibbana is like... you'll find out when you get there... but for now you only waste precious time which should be spend walking the path.

If you have a map of how to travel to London... photos of Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus are interesting but ultimately useless... stop admiring them and get going...

Whenever I use a map to travel to any place, I find it essential to be very clear about at least two locations;

(1) The location of precisely where I am on the map, before I start travelling.

(2) The precise location of my destination on the map.

Photographs of significant landmarks at my destination, or along the way, might help in the absence of adequate road signs.

[sabaijai]

I don't think the map analogy quite works, if followed to its logical conclusion.

In the world of cartography there are many maps to the same destination. Some are better than others but it's not always easy to know which is best if you haven't used it already.

No one, not even an arahant, can know for sure if buddhadhamma is the one and only way. One doesn't need a map to know where the present is.

[dutchguest]

I think the Buddha was, like everybody else, a unique person. There can be no second one and it would be a sad and useless event if there came another one exactly the same. By following him blindly, repeating what he has said, trying to become like the Buddha yourself, you can only become a caricature. In nature not two leaves are the same and the same goes for people. History can repeat itself but nature never repeats. That is why unlike with worldly teachings in the spiritual world everybody has to invent the wheel again for himself. I read that the Buddha's last words were: be a light unto yourself. So in this sense the Buddha's nirvana was unique for him and it can not be repeated in the same way: people, times, circumstances are not the same.

So in this ultimate sense there can be no “Buddhist” path leading to nirvana, there can only be “fingers pointing to the moon”. There are as many paths as there are people. And what name is given to that path and the destination is not so relevant. The paradox is that we can learn a lot from the way other people went and from all the spiritual traditions but in the end is more a question of unlearning, deconditioning, emptying yourself. And emptiness is emptiness, whether you call it nirvana, enlightenment or selfrealisation. And I think some mahayana and zen teachings, with which I agree, say that in the end the conclusion is that there is no path and no destination and that nirvana and samsara are one and the same.

[trd]

The unique personality of the Buddha is completely irelevant as far as liberation is concerned. The Buddha nature of the Buddha is no different to the Buddha nature of anyone else, whether realised or not. If the Buddha's nirvana would be unique to him, it cannot be nirvana.

Although it may seem that there are many paths, in reality there is only one path, and that is to be still. Various paths may seem different in their wording, rituals and presentation, but that is just a cosmetic veneer. As you say, emptiness is emptiness, regardless of individual attributes.

Edited July 11, 2014 by trd

[VincentRJ]

The unique personality of the Buddha is completely irelevant as far as liberation is concerned. The Buddha nature of the Buddha is no different to the Buddha nature of anyone else, whether realised or not. If the Buddha's nirvana would be unique to him, it cannot be nirvana.

Trd,

I would say that is a matter of faith or belief. I do not find it reasonable to assume that there is a totally objective, unvarying state called 'Nirvana' which is uninfluenced in any way by human individuality.

As you say, emptiness is emptiness, regardless of individual attributes.

From a rational, logical, and scientific perspective, complete emptiness cannot exist. There are only degrees of emptiness. I imagine what one person considers to be emptiness, might not be considered emptiness by a more fastidious, discerning person.

One might think that a vacuum represents emptiness. But it doesn't really. Even a vacuum contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

What about a vacuum at a temperature of Absolute Zero? Surely that's truly empty? Apparently not. Both theory and experiment have shown there is non-thermal radiation in a vacuum even at a temperature of Absolute Zero. It's sometimes called 'zero point radiation'.

Also, there is a consensus of opinion among astrophysicists that all the matter and energy we can see or detect in any shape or form represents only about 5% of the total matter and energy in the universe. The rest, which is totally invisible and undetectable (so far), is called Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

[trd]

I would say that is a matter of faith or belief. I do not find it reasonable to assume that there is a totally objective, unvarying state called 'Nirvana' which is uninfluenced in any way by human individuality.

Not objective - it is the subjective that is the true reality. What you see as the so called objective real world, I see as unreal. It is only the unconditioned subjective knower that is real, not bound by individuality which has no real substance and is ultimately false. Objective reality is based on relationships between things, but it is not THE reality which transcends all differences.

From a rational, logical, and scientific perspective, complete emptiness cannot exist.

You are talking of the physical world where such relative rules apply. The emptiness of which I speak is a place where science cannot go. Science does not have an answer or explanation for everything, as much as I suspect you wish to believe that.

[dutchguest]

The unique personality of the Buddha is completely irelevant as far as liberation is concerned. The Buddha nature of the Buddha is no different to the Buddha nature of anyone else, whether realised or not. If the Buddha's nirvana would be unique to him, it cannot be nirvana.

Although it may seem that there are many paths, in reality there is only one path, and that is to be still. Various paths may seem different in their wording, rituals and presentation, but that is just a cosmetic veneer. As you say, emptiness is emptiness, regardless of individual attributes.

The topic was: only the followers of a Buddha's dhamma can attain nirvana.

In that context I don't think it is irrelevant to point at the fact that this is more or less a tautology: the Buddha set the rules of the game, defines what nirvana is and what the path is to reach it on the basis of his experiences. What I am trying to say is that his experiences can not be the experiences of somebody else, so they will necessarily have to find their own way.

I get the impression you have a rather essentialistic, Hinduistic idea of a trancendental Buddha-nature, that is the same for everybody. As if nirvana is something ontological different from samsara, which means a dualistic worldview. I think everybody who has found back his own nature under the many social masks and conditionings, who has become himself, has realized himself.

[VincentRJ]

From a rational, logical, and scientific perspective, complete emptiness cannot exist.

You are talking of the physical world where such relative rules apply. The emptiness of which I speak is a place where science cannot go. Science does not have an answer or explanation for everything, as much as I suspect you wish to believe that.

Trd,

Of course science doesn't have an answer for everything. Only religions claim to have an answer for everything.

What you see as the so called objective real world, I see as unreal.

I wonder if you mean you imagine and understand and accept that the so-called objective and real world has unreal or illusory components, rather than actually seeing it as completely unreal. If so, perhaps in a similar way, I understand that the greenness of a leaf is no more than a sensation in my mind. However, I find it a bit absurd to claim that neither the sensation of greenness exists, nor the external, physical object known as a leaf, exists.

What I understand is, although the sensation of greenness is my sensation and therefore to an extent unique to me, it is sufficiently similar to other people's sensations of greenness to enable a sharing of the experience and a discussion about it.

However, I'm prepared to accept that one could 'still' the mind to such a degree that one would be able to stare directly at a leaf, wide-eyed, and not have any conscious awareness of the leaf. Whether or not one had an 'unconscious' awarenesss of the leaf, is something that science could probably find out, with a bit of co-operation from the subject.

You are talking of the physical world where such relative rules apply.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this concept you describe as the physical world, as though this is a known entity. If one includes all forms of energy and invisible radiation, Science admits that it can only speculate on what 95% of this physical world consists of. What any individual can experience of such a physical world in a lifetime, can be no more than a tiny, almost infinitesimally small part of it.

[trd]

The unique personality of the Buddha is completely irelevant as far as liberation is concerned. The Buddha nature of the Buddha is no different to the Buddha nature of anyone else, whether realised or not. If the Buddha's nirvana would be unique to him, it cannot be nirvana.

Although it may seem that there are many paths, in reality there is only one path, and that is to be still. Various paths may seem different in their wording, rituals and presentation, but that is just a cosmetic veneer. As you say, emptiness is emptiness, regardless of individual attributes.

The topic was: only the followers of a Buddha's dhamma can attain nirvana.

In that context I don't think it is irrelevant to point at the fact that this is more or less a tautology: the Buddha set the rules of the game, defines what nirvana is and what the path is to reach it on the basis of his experiences. What I am trying to say is that his experiences can not be the experiences of somebody else, so they will necessarily have to find their own way.

I get the impression you have a rather essentialistic, Hinduistic idea of a trancendental Buddha-nature, that is the same for everybody. As if nirvana is something ontological different from samsara, which means a dualistic worldview. I think everybody who has found back his own nature under the many social masks and conditionings, who has become himself, has realized himself.

The answer to the implied question that only followers of a Buddha's dhamma can attain nirvana is of course, No. But then again, it assumes you know what the Buddha's dhamma is and you know what nirvana is to be able to make such a statement with authority.

By using labels such as "Hinduistic ideas" you get no nearer to the truth. You just get trapped in concepts. The comfort given to you by labelling something as not the truth you think you know is adding further to your own illusion. You may as well have said Mahayana Buddhist principles of the transcendent Buddha nature. That would have kept it within the Buddhist family which gives you comfort, but may be at odds with your Theravada "beliefs" which doesn't take the transcendental route. Too complicated. So better to pick on Hinduism. Isn't it a wonder how the mind works?

The mistake you make is to speak in terms of "experiences" which must involve a subject/object relationship and which is dualistic. Human beings have been discovering their true unconditioned nature long before Budddha was born. What you call nirvana is and always has been your natural state. There is no path to it, but is the removal of ignorance that reveals what is already there. You, like many others have been affected too much by the reverance attached to a seemingly unreachable state lost in the mists of time and shrouded by historical mythology. I would argue this is the greatest impediment to realization.

[trd]

However, I'm prepared to accept that one could 'still' the mind to such a degree that one would be able to stare directly at a leaf, wide-eyed, and not have any conscious awareness of the leaf. Whether or not one had an 'unconscious' awarenesss of the leaf, is something that science could probably find out, with a bit of co-operation from the subject.

Science is trying to provide an answer as to what consciousness is. They will not succeed because they will never find out what the question is. What can science tell you about consciousness that you do not already know?

[VincentRJ]

However, I'm prepared to accept that one could 'still' the mind to such a degree that one would be able to stare directly at a leaf, wide-eyed, and not have any conscious awareness of the leaf. Whether or not one had an 'unconscious' awarenesss of the leaf, is something that science could probably find out, with a bit of co-operation from the subject.

Science is trying to provide an answer as to what consciousness is. They will not succeed because they will never find out what the question is. What can science tell you about consciousness that you do not already know?

Sure! We all understand what consciousness is to the extent that we need to for survival. We think of it in terms of being awake, or being aware of what's happening around us.

It would be very strange, and very disadvantageous to our survival, if we could not distinguish between being asleep and being awake, although some people would appear to have had that confusion, in particular a certain Chinese philosopher by the name of Chuang Chou (or Tzu), or Zhuangzi or Zhuang Zhou.

"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou (or Tzu), dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

I wonder what he was drinking.

If one starts asking questions about the true nature of consciousness, then one might as well ask, 'Why are we here?', or, 'Why does stuff exist?', or, 'Is there a God?'. Science can't answer such questions.

What science can tell us about consciousness are the activities in the brain that take place when we are conscious, or unconscious. On a practical level, that defines consciousness. Philosophical speculation can be interesting, but is still mere speculation.

[trd]

Sure! We all understand what consciousness is to the extent that we need to for survival. We think of it in terms of being awake, or being aware of what's happening around us.

When you say, we all understand what consciousness is, what you are really saying is that you momentarily acknowledge your own self awareness as a direct knowingness, when the mind is doing nothing other than experiencing itself, and then immediately conceptualise about what it "means". When you do that, the mind is then diverted away from just experiencing itself, to experiencing something other than itself as it entertains ideas about, to use your examples, survival and ideas of being awake or being aware of what's happening around us. When I say the mind experiences something other than itself, I mean that the mind is no longer just resting in a state of knowingness, but is now actively identifying with thoughts, objects and sensory perceptions to formulate all kinds of ideas about what consciousness "means". In that state, the mind forgets the simple knowingness when it was doing nothing other than experiencing itself and now identifies with ideas that are seen as "my" ideas. This feeling of "my" is also just an idea. So both the ideas and the feeling that I am the owner or thinker of these ideas is when the mind is experiencing something other than itself. It is this wrong identification with the false idea that you are a person who is a mind and body that is the root cause of ignorance and suffering.

What Tzu was saying about the interchangeability of identity with man and butterfly in his dream was quite profound, so you may want to consider drinking what he was having. There is absolutely no difference between the reality of the dream state and the reality of the waking state as the perceiver. Both are perceived to be real as they are being experienced. This cannot be denied. But when you step out from the dream state to the waking state, you say the dream was unreal. Similarly, when you step out from the waking state to the transcendental state, the waking state is also seen as unreal because it appears and disappears like your green leaf example, unlike awareness which is permanent and unchanging.

You don't understand the significance of that because there is no practice in your life, no willingness on your part, no faith in the veracity of these teachings you profess to have an interest in, to take you towards the truth. Instead, you would rather put your faith in an MRI scanner to define consciousness for you "in practical terms" because you are bound to the ignorance of separation and it doesn't seem to occur to you that what you seek is within. But you are fearful of discovering yourself and instead take comfort in endlessly describing the world of phenomena. You can continue for an eternity describing every aspect of the universe in all its diversity and its scientific laws, and you can continue to see yourself as a mind endlessly accumulating facts and information that you believe adds to the sum total of knowledge of who you think you are. But you will never be free until you realise that truth lies beyond that, not just as another concept, but as a direct knowingness which cannot be defined by the rules of a dualistic world. Unfortunately without practice, you will never know it.

[VincentRJ]

Sure! We all understand what consciousness is to the extent that we need to for survival. We think of it in terms of being awake, or being aware of what's happening around us.

What Tzu was saying about the interchangeability of identity with man and butterfly in his dream was quite profound, so you may want to consider drinking what he was having. There is absolutely no difference between the reality of the dream state and the reality of the waking state as the perceiver. Both are perceived to be real as they are being experienced. This cannot be denied.

Dear me! Do you really believe that, Trd?

The butterfly dream is an amusingly absurd story which attempts to make a philosophical point that everything that we observe and think is real when we are awake, may not be as real as we imagine. To that extent the story makes a valid point.

To me, the story makes no sense as a factual account of what really happened, without some explanatory context of Zhuangzi having taken some mind-altering drug.

In order for any serious confusion to have taken place, as to whether Zhuangzi in his awakened state was actually a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi, his dream as a butterfly would have had to be have been a lot more vivid and detailed than any dream that I've experienced.

Your claim that there is absolutely no difference between the reality of the dream state and the reality of the waking state as the perceiver, is simply not credible, at least to me. I can only speak for myself, but none of my dreams have had the clarity of detail and the 3-dimensionality of my waking life.

When I'm awake, I remember (usually) the broad outline and major activities in the dream that occurred a few minutes or hours ago. I can analyse the dream and contemplate upon its significance. However, when I am dreaming I do not recall the details of the previous day's activities. Dreams are nebulous and fuzzy, compared to experiences when awake. The dreams may relate to some broad theme of the previous day's activities and events, but always lack a certain coherence and perception of fine detail in the surroundings, which typifies our awakened state.

Now, I admit, if I were to dream I was a butterfly and experience a sense of the persona of a butterfly, and an awareness of my wing structure and the stresses of certain breezes, and could experience the taste of the nectar of different flowers, and see in fine detail from very close-up, the shape and texture of the stigmata of various flowers, and experience the sensation of tasting with my feet (as butterflies do), and feel the alarm when I encountered predators such as frogs, lizards, snakes and birds etc, and experience the sensation of a frog's tongue narrowly missing me as I fluttered too close because I was attracted by my reflection in its eye, and so on and so on, then I just might have a doubt when waking, if I were really a butterfly dreaming that I was a man.

There's another very strong indicator of the difference between the reality of a dream and the reality of the waking state, and that is the continuum of experience from day to day in our awakened state. We begin the day at the point where the previous day ended. If the dishes were not washed the night before, they remain unwashed in the morning. If we are surprised to see the dishes washed when we awake, then there's always a rational explanation. The maid came in early whilst we were still asleep, for example.

By contrast, dreams do not begin each night where the previous dream ended, in my experience. Perhaps your experience is different.

This butterfly story attributed to Zhuangzi reminds me of a similarly absurd, but very amusing story from another Taoist by the name of Li Po (or Bai). It is claimed that he drowned in the Yangtze River when he leaned too far from his boat to grasp the reflection of the moon in the water. He must have been very drunk.

[trd]

Your claim that there is absolutely no difference between the reality of the dream state and the reality of the waking state as the perceiver, is simply not credible, at least to me. I can only speak for myself, but none of my dreams have had the clarity of detail and the 3-dimensionality of my waking life.

This is all in your imagination. Where is the objective proof of your waking life? If you mistake a rope for a snake, you will say it is an illusion. There was no snake. If you had a face to face conversation with someone yesterday, it too has disappeared. What is the difference. Where is the proof that it happened. You can recall a memory. It too will disappear. You can contact the person to ask him to verify you had such a conversation. So what. It too will disappear. It is not enough to simply say it is a given that your waking life is real. That is just an assumption. You say it is real because it appears to have continuity in time and space. But it is your mind which is creating a sense of time and space. Just as it does in a dream. To say that a dream does not appear real at the time is just not true. Most people would disagree with you.

So what is the point of all this? The point is as I've said many, many times, is that if the world appears to be real, but yet also appears and disappears from moment to moment, the best you can say is that it is neither real or unreal. It seems to have substance, yet it is for ever changing. It is impermanent to use the term used in both Vedanta and Buddhist teachings. So once you have this starting point of understanding the impermanence of the relative world, you can then look for that which is unchanging, that which does not appear and disappear. That involves diving within and I've said plenty about that already.

You are quite a challenge Vincent. It's very difficult to break through your extremely protective shell. I sense there is a lot of fear to overcome.

[ricklev]

Kill the Buddha.

Be a light unto yourself.

Edited July 14, 2014 by ricklev

[rockyysdt]

When you say, we all understand what consciousness is, what you are really saying is that you momentarily acknowledge your own self awareness as a direct knowing ness, when the mind is doing nothing other than experiencing itself, and then immediately conceptualise about what it "means". When you do that, the mind is then diverted away from just experiencing itself, to experiencing something other than itself as it entertains ideas about, to use your examples, survival and ideas of being awake or being aware of what's happening around us. When I say the mind experiences something other than itself, I mean that the mind is no longer just resting in a state of knowing ness, but is now actively identifying with thoughts, objects and sensory perceptions to formulate all kinds of ideas about what consciousness "means". In that state, the mind forgets the simple knowing ness when it was doing nothing other than experiencing itself and now identifies with ideas that are seen as "my" ideas. This feeling of "my" is also just an idea. So both the ideas and the feeling that I am the owner or thinker of these ideas is when the mind is experiencing something other than itself. It is this wrong identification with the false idea that you are a person who is a mind and body that is the root cause of ignorance and suffering.

When talking about the "Mind" doing nothing, thus allowing it to rest in a state of knowing-ness, does this resting state cease with the cessation of body?

Theoretically, the mainstream view that "awareness" requires mind/body.

Edited July 14, 2014 by rockyysdt