Rebirth and endless time

[Aemilius]

Many buddhist paths emphasize the fact that you have to experience most if not all of the Dhyana worlds, they transcend the normal human consciousness to a very large degree. How can you know what is samsaric and what is not ? Without your own experience ?

[Rael]

Many buddhist paths emphasize the fact that you have to experience most if not all of the Dhyana worlds, they transcend the normal human consciousness to a very large degree. How can you know what is samsaric and what is not ? Without your own experience ?

The first time i heard an old Tibetan adage that each and everyone of us has been each other's mother at least 500 times, it made sense to me.
He went on and asked us to think of all the insects and fish and animals as your mothers not just human beings. He then went on to say we all have been gods and demi gods many times as well...we are that old. Add the possibility of other planets, i believe Buddha said somewhere there are at any given time 10 thousand possible earth like realms....i don't know where i heard that statement...

Even a Bodhisattva is still a samsaric being. Bodhisattva Nargajuna has that one last Karmic event, him killing an ant, to live through and asked someone to kill him...am i mistaken or is this someone else.

Are not Dhyana worlds though different than ours still Samsara.

Isn't the one aspect that makes you a samsaric being the fact you are still governed by Karma.
Do Buddhas not choose to be born in samsara...

How can you know what is samsaric and what is not ?

To be honest i don't anything i can only follow the teachings and the parameters they set for us.

I think only a Buddha can actually know anything for only a Buddha has gone past the obscured....lol....

[Aemilius]

Many buddhist paths emphasize the fact that you have to experience most if not all of the Dhyana worlds, they transcend the normal human consciousness to a very large degree. How can you know what is samsaric and what is not ? Without your own experience ?

The first time i heard an old Tibetan adage that each and everyone of us has been each other's mother at least 500 times, it made sense to me.
He went on and asked us to think of all the insects and fish and animals as your mothers not just human beings. He then went on to say we all have been gods and demi gods many times as well...we are that old. Add the possibility of other planets, i believe Buddha said somewhere there are at any given time 10 thousand possible earth like realms....i don't know where i heard that statement...

Even a Bodhisattva is still a samsaric being. Bodhisattva Nargajuna has that one last Karmic event, him killing an ant, to live through and asked someone to kill him...am i mistaken or is this someone else.

Are not Dhyana worlds though different than ours still Samsara.

Isn't the one aspect that makes you a samsaric being the fact you are still governed by Karma.
Do Buddhas not choose to be born in samsara...

How can you know what is samsaric and what is not ?

To be honest i don't anything i can only follow the teachings and the parameters they set for us.

I think only a Buddha can actually know anything for only a Buddha has gone past the obscured....lol....

You can read the wikipedia article Buddhist Cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
It is helpful,...
I have heard this story about Nagarjuna,
The question is not so simple as you might first think. Is the law of gravity samsaric? Is sunlight samsaric? Are biological laws samsaric? Are chemical reactions samsaric?
What if even Devas can control these things ?
It is commonly explained that enlightenment begins on the first Bodhisattvabhumi, then its scope gradually increases, until the full enlightenment of a Buddha. Thus for example Venerable Kalu Rimpoche, and Vasubandhu ( in Commentary on the Madhyantavibhaga of Maitreya).

[Rael]

Is the law of gravity samsaric? Is sunlight samsaric? Are biological laws samsaric? Are chemical reactions samsaric?
What if even Devas can control these things ?

all that is samsaric. the devas are samsaric. i believe that the Vedic system of the gods that produce samsara is valid.But they die and are reborn in other worlds. the great Shiva will be reborn anything but a god. whole other ball of wax, which is samsaric as well....lol...

It is commonly explained that enlightenment begins on the first Bodhisattvabhumi, then its scope gradually increases, until the full enlightenment of a Buddha. Thus for example Venerable Kalu Rimpoche, and Vasubandhu ( in Commentary on the Madhyantavibhaga of Maitreya).

Once one has their Parinirvana they can extinguish all ties to samsara if they are so inclined.

Enlightenment does not assure one of this level .......

[mudra]

Is the law of gravity samsaric? Is sunlight samsaric? Are biological laws samsaric? Are chemical reactions samsaric?
What if even Devas can control these things ?

all that is samsaric. the devas are samsaric. i believe that the Vedic system of the gods that produce samsara is valid.But they die and are reborn in other worlds. the great Shiva will be reborn anything but a god. whole other ball of wax, which is samsaric as well....lol...

It is commonly explained that enlightenment begins on the first Bodhisattvabhumi, then its scope gradually increases, until the full enlightenment of a Buddha. Thus for example Venerable Kalu Rimpoche, and Vasubandhu ( in Commentary on the Madhyantavibhaga of Maitreya).

Once one has their Parinirvana they can extinguish all ties to samsara if they are so inclined.

Enlightenment does not assure one of this level .......

Gravity, sunlight, chemical ractions samsaric? LOL. Samsara is a phenomena with its beginnings in the mind, not in matter. It is the relationship to matter that is samsaric. Not the physical phenomena.

And enlightenment doesn't ensure one of extinguishing ties to samsara? So before the Buddha passed into parinirvana he couldn't be assured of extinguishing ties to samsara?



Maybe some study of the 12 links and also paths and grounds might help.

[Aemilius]

Is the law of gravity samsaric? Is sunlight samsaric? Are biological laws samsaric? Are chemical reactions samsaric?
What if even Devas can control these things ?

all that is samsaric. the devas are samsaric. i believe that the Vedic system of the gods that produce samsara is valid.But they die and are reborn in other worlds. the great Shiva will be reborn anything but a god. whole other ball of wax, which is samsaric as well....lol...

It is commonly explained that enlightenment begins on the first Bodhisattvabhumi, then its scope gradually increases, until the full enlightenment of a Buddha. Thus for example Venerable Kalu Rimpoche, and Vasubandhu ( in Commentary on the Madhyantavibhaga of Maitreya).

Once one has their Parinirvana they can extinguish all ties to samsara if they are so inclined.

Enlightenment does not assure one of this level .......

Well, I mean for example, if you attain a samadhi that will last for two minor kalpas, how could you know that it is not permanent ?

[Aemilius]

Gravity, sunlight, chemical ractions samsaric? LOL. Samsara is a phenomena with its beginnings in the mind, not in matter. It is the relationship to matter that is samsaric. Not the physical phenomena.

And enlightenment doesn't ensure one of extinguishing ties to samsara? So before the Buddha passed into parinirvana he couldn't be assured of extinguishing ties to samsara?



Maybe some study of the 12 links and also paths and grounds might help.

According to Mahayana there is no physical world independent of the perceiver, independent of mind. So there is no gravity, no sunlight and no chemical reactions, they are empty of inherent existence.
Neither is there an independently existing samsara "out there". In Mahayana it is a false view to think that you leave a truly existing samsara behind and enter a Parinirvana.

[Rael]

just a note; i seemed to be misquoted inAemilius' above post

Here's where confusing emptiness and Sunyata and trying to impose obscured views with terms meant to point to something becomes some sort of science of matter and existence.

sorry folks..to those who detract from what I am saying...and my samsaric view

All beings caught in the six realms of Samsara are bond to samsaric bodies....

as one leaves the human body and gains a Bardo body is that body, though not of this Earth convention, still samsaric....yes indeed.

Are the gods and demi gods living in their realms not of samsaric bodies.are they not part of samsara...uuuuu he used the word part...as if it is inherent.....see ...he doesn't get it.....rofl!!!

all this stuff of the existence and it's conventions are all contained in samsara of which unless you attain the prize of Buddhaood ...you are bound to....

According to Mahayana there is no physical world independent of the perceiver, independent of mind. So there is no gravity, no sunlight and no chemical reactions, they are empty of inherent existence

you are missing the point of sunyata...once you over the step the conventional reality we dwell in and impose a false view of Sunyata....you end up denying your reality....is this sort of grasping at sunyata helping you...i doubt it...
your using a teaching to misconstrue reality...for what gain?


Also;
it's not meant to be scientific theory....

Our Lord had no discourses on gravity and such...you want to detract from my view of what samsara is, with this sort of thing...knock yourself out...hope it helps you with your grappling with sunyata...

It won't though...you attachment to the sentences and their literal meaning will not aid you...

they are meant to be given to people in a real time situation....and to shock the student into a view....

Have you seen what new agers are doing with the Buddhist concept of emptiness lately...
it actually hurts me to listen to and read....


You do realize Sunyata is a beautiful philosophy of life....it's not meant to be used in scientific theorem....lol....


anmyway...we all are supposed to be helping one another towards the Prize ...if my words are not kosher then explain it to me for real....i don't want to mislead anyone.....which is far more important than me being misled by my view.....

any help would be appreciated...

[Aemilius]

just a note; i seemed to be misquoted inAemilius' above post

Here's where confusing emptiness and Sunyata and trying to impose obscured views with terms meant to point to something becomes some sort of science of matter and existence.

sorry folks..to those who detract from what I am saying...and my samsaric view

All beings caught in the six realms of Samsara are bond to samsaric bodies....

as one leaves the human body and gains a Bardo body is that body, though not of this Earth convention, still samsaric....yes indeed.

Are the gods and demi gods living in their realms not of samsaric bodies.are they not part of samsara...uuuuu he used the word part...as if it is inherent.....see ...he doesn't get it.....rofl!!!

all this stuff of the existence and it's conventions are all contained in samsara of which unless you attain the prize of Buddhaood ...you are bound to....

According to Mahayana there is no physical world independent of the perceiver, independent of mind. So there is no gravity, no sunlight and no chemical reactions, they are empty of inherent existence

you are missing the point of sunyata...once you over the step the conventional reality we dwell in and impose a false view of Sunyata....you end up denying your reality....is this sort of grasping at sunyata helping you...i doubt it...
your using a teaching to misconstrue reality...for what gain?


Also;
it's not meant to be scientific theory....

Our Lord had no discourses on gravity and such...you want to detract from my view of what samsara is, with this sort of thing...knock yourself out...hope it helps you with your grappling with sunyata...

It won't though...you attachment to the sentences and their literal meaning will not aid you...

they are meant to be given to people in a real time situation....and to shock the student into a view....

Have you seen what new agers are doing with the Buddhist concept of emptiness lately...
it actually hurts me to listen to and read....


You do realize Sunyata is a beautiful philosophy of life....it's not meant to be used in scientific theorem....lol....


anmyway...we all are supposed to be helping one another towards the Prize ...if my words are not kosher then explain it to me for real....i don't want to mislead anyone.....which is far more important than me being misled by my view.....

any help would be appreciated...

Thanks for your interest and your views. I think it is a false and misleading tendency in modern Dharma to separate and categorize "dharma" and "science" into two isolated and divorced entities . They both describe the same reality, the same world of existence. It is certainly wrong to claim that Dharma has never said anything about the material universe !

It is also wrong to conclude that everything except buddhahood is samsaric. We have for example the 37 Bodhipakshas, the 37 Bodhifactors, the 37 Factors of Enlightenment. These are the 4 Mindfulnesses, the 4 Right Efforts, etc... till the Noble 8- Fold Path. Thus in this life, as well as in the Antarabhava, the Bardo, your practice of the Factors of Enlightenment makes you non-samsaric. From small seeds big trees grow, you may feel that your practice of Mindfullness is nothing, but it is the seed for the Stages of Bodhisattvas and the Full Enlightenment of a Buddha.

In Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan Shakyamuni says a lot of things concerning materalists and philosophers. You have to study it carefully, I feel that many things in it are meaningful for the world of today.

[Rael]

Thanks for your interest and your views. I think it is a false and misleading tendency in modern Dharma to separate and categorize "dharma" and "science" into two isolated and divorced entities . They both describe the same reality, the same world of existence. It is certainly wrong to claim that Dharma has never said anything about the material universe !

It is also wrong to conclude that everything except buddhahood is samsaric. We have for example the 37 Bodhipakshas, the 37 Bodhifactors, the 37 Factors of Enlightenment. These are the 4 Mindfulnesses, the 4 Right Efforts, etc... till the Noble 8- Fold Path. Thus in this life, as well as in the Antarabhava, the Bardo, your practice of the Factors of Enlightenment makes you non-samsaric. From small seeds big trees grow, you may feel that your practice of Mindfullness is nothing, but it is the seed for the Stages of Bodhisattvas and the Full Enlightenment of a Buddha.

In Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan Shakyamuni says a lot of things concerning materalists and philosophers. You have to study it carefully, I feel that many things in it are meaningful for the world of today.

Thanks for your interest and your views.

thank you , and i hope everyone recognizes that it is MY view and not necessarily Truth .....

I think it is a false and misleading tendency in modern Dharma to separate and categorize "dharma" and "science" into two isolated and divorced entities .

science is soooo well scientific and stuff....true sometimes we tend to try to meld the too...Take Quantum Physics...wow it's like they are talking about physics like it is acting like thought and consciousness....particles disappear when one is conscious of them....but then we go further and it's a whole other theory and on and on.....

I don't think we are at the stage of the Jedi Knight using Dharma to fight the foe with light sabers in the dark.....


separate and divorced we must or we confuse the whole issue and cause more distraction...

They both describe the same reality, the same world of existence. It is certainly wrong to claim that Dharma has never said anything about the material universe

like the above led one to write stuff like the Tao of Physics...a debunked book that i read with wonder at one time....


When buddhists talk of the material universe it isn't to prove particle physics or string theory....or am i missing something....

It is also wrong to conclude that everything except buddhahood is samsaric. We have for example the 37 Bodhipakshas, the 37 Bodhifactors, the 37 Factors of Enlightenment. These are the 4 Mindfulnesses, the 4 Right Efforts, etc... till the Noble 8- Fold Path. Thus in this life, as well as in the Antarabhava, the Bardo, your practice of the Factors of Enlightenment makes you non-samsaric. From small seeds big trees grow, you may feel that your practice of Mindfullness is nothing, but it is the seed for the Stages of Bodhisattvas and the Full Enlightenment of a Buddha.

I see our Lord's teachings as non Samsaric...all beings studying them in samsara and reaching levels till the final full blown buddhahood are still governed by the numa one Samsaric law ....Karma.....therefore are Samsaric...

sugar coating the reality to feel unSamasara like is not doing you any good....

In Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan Shakyamuni says a lot of things concerning materalists and philosophers. You have to study it carefully, I feel that many things in it are meaningful for the world of today

there is as much danger in the above statement

trying to mind meld modern day science with the words of the Buddha in order to feel modern for some odd reason that eludes me is dangerous....

your saying i have to study it carefully with your intent to read between the lines to meet up to some modern day paradigm???


wow your complicating matters and i think it's dangerous....

[mudra]

Gravity, sunlight, chemical ractions samsaric? LOL. Samsara is a phenomena with its beginnings in the mind, not in matter. It is the relationship to matter that is samsaric. Not the physical phenomena.

And enlightenment doesn't ensure one of extinguishing ties to samsara? So before the Buddha passed into parinirvana he couldn't be assured of extinguishing ties to samsara?



Maybe some study of the 12 links and also paths and grounds might help.

According to Mahayana there is no physical world independent of the perceiver, independent of mind. So there is no gravity, no sunlight and no chemical reactions, they are empty of inherent existence.
Neither is there an independently existing samsara "out there". In Mahayana it is a false view to think that you leave a truly existing samsara behind and enter a Parinirvana.

A. In Mahayana in fact you have differing views of reality - Cittamatrin, Prasangika etc - and then you get into subdivisions. Some believe that there is certain "reality" in the mind, others not. The mind too is dependent.
BTW I never discussed whether these phenomena are empty of inherent existence or not, you have taken off on a diversion suggested only by yourself. To use this argument to say there is no difference whatsoever between mindstream and matter is a simplistic argument.

B. To reiterate, the mind too is empty of inherent existence, so what? It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a dependent mode, just as gravity sunlight etc exist in dependent modes. And yes samsara is not "truly existing", but nor does that make it all encompassing.

C. The definition of samsara is to have experiences (yes, not inherently existing ones) that arise as a result of mental distortion of reality. Simply put, klesha>karma>result, 12 links etc. This in fact is only one aspect of cause and effect if you like. What happens in the samsaric condition is that how you experience/feel phenomena is caused by your (non-inherently existing self's) karmic imprints. Samsara is not the referent phenomena which 'arouses' this feeling, even if such phenomena are merely labels (a very simplified presentation of prasangika madhyamika view) or presented as having a reality within the mind (a simplified presentation of cittamatrin view).

D. You also, equally importantly, don't address my reaction to your statement regarding enlightenment not extinguishing ones ties to samsara. Hence the urging to read up on paths (marga) and and the grounds (bhumis) contained therein (at least from the third path up).

[ground]

According to Mahayana there is no physical world independent of the perceiver, independent of mind. So there is no gravity, no sunlight and no chemical reactions, they are empty of inherent existence.

However there are appearances that happen to the perceiver and appearances that are produced by the perceiver. To say that those that happen to the perceiver are not independent of mind causes doubt and such a statement cannot be proven at all.

The question actually is one of the "first cause" of perception. Since the first cause might not be accessible to perception at all to say that even this first cause is not independent of mind is problematic.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

However there are appearances that happen to the perceiver and appearances that are produced by the perceiver. To say that those that happen to the perceiver are not independent of mind causes doubt and such a statement cannot be proven at all.

This is an inferior view. You're conflating lower and higher exegetical systems. There are no "appearances that happen to the perceiver." If this were true it would mean that deluded sentient beings see correctly and that buddhas see incorrectly.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

However there are appearances that happen to the perceiver and appearances that are produced by the perceiver. To say that those that happen to the perceiver are not independent of mind causes doubt and such a statement cannot be proven at all.

This is an inferior view. You're conflating lower and higher exegetical systems. There are no "appearances that happen to the perceiver." If this were true it would mean that deluded sentient beings see correctly and that buddhas see incorrectly.

Open your eyes, empty of thought, and there is perception (of eye sense data). This happens to the perceiver ... whatever the origin/ first cause of this perception may be.
It is just that you are attached to speculative views about "seeing correctly" and "buddhas".

The question actually is one of the "first cause" of perception. Since the first cause might not be accessible to perception at all to say that even this first cause is not independent of mind is problematic.

Do I expound a view, inferior or superior or in between? No. I am conceptually and retrospectively referring to experience everybody may confirm if empty of speculation about this experience. I am not saying "what happens is this or that" I am just saying "it happens" and to say that all of this that happens is dependent on mind or independent of mind is speculation.
What we can differentiate however is that there is perception caused by thought/synthesis and there is perception not caused by thought/synthesis. The latter is what "just happens" in the context of a perceiver regardless of whether this perceiver is empty of thought or not. However one may perhaps be in a position to confirm that thought is what actually alters that what "just happens" resulting in the appearance of "that what not just happens".


Kind regards

[Jnana]

Do I expound a view, inferior or superior or in between? No. I am conceptually and retrospectively referring to experience everybody may confirm if empty of speculation about this experience. I am not saying "what happens is this or that" am just saying "it happens" and to say that all of this that happens is dependent on mind or independent of mind is speculation.
What we can differentiate however is that there is perception caused by thought/synthesis and there is perception not caused by thought/synthesis. The latter is what "just happens" in the context of a perceiver.

Yes, you are proposing a realist view. Sorry, but there is no Mahāyāna realist view. What you are proposing is contrary to the Mahāyāna sūtras and completely incompatible with the Vajrayāna tantras. Moreover, this has nothing to do with a "first cause." All mundane cognitions are conditioned by ignorance (i.e. pratītyasamutpāda: conditioned arising). Buddhas aren't deluded.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Do I expound a view, inferior or superior or in between? No. I am conceptually and retrospectively referring to experience everybody may confirm if empty of speculation about this experience. I am not saying "what happens is this or that" am just saying "it happens" and to say that all of this that happens is dependent on mind or independent of mind is speculation.
What we can differentiate however is that there is perception caused by thought/synthesis and there is perception not caused by thought/synthesis. The latter is what "just happens" in the context of a perceiver.

Yes, you are proposing a realist view.

No. I am not. Just rest instead of falling (to an extreme).

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Just rest instead of falling (to an extreme).

Yes, this is correct. But this resting necessitates the arising of gnosis (jñāna). In a sūtrayāna context there is no innocence of "appearances that happen to the perceiver." This is why the differentiation is made between consciousness and gnosis. And in a vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga context, just resting involves resting in, and sustaining the view.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Just rest instead of falling (to an extreme).

Yes, this is correct. But this resting necessitates the arising of gnosis (jñāna). Thus, there is no innocence of "appearances that happen to the perceiver." This is why the differentiation is made between consciousness and gnosis. And in a vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga context, just resting involves resting in, and sustaining the view.

All the best,

Geoff

Why being interested in al this "vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga"? Just fabrications.

Clinging aggregates.

When there is no fabrication about what just happens qua perception to the perceiver, why the talk about innocence or non-innocence?

Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Why being interested in al this "vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga"? Just fabrications.

Clinging aggregates.

Why are you interested in trying to call down Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings? This seems to be the thrust of a number of your posts. Got a bone to pick?

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Why being interested in al this "vajrayāna mahāmudrā or atiyoga"? Just fabrications.

Clinging aggregates.

Why are you interested in trying to call down Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings? This seems to be the thrust of a number of your posts. Got a bone to pick?

There is no such interest. But when there is the arising of insistence on "this is that" and "that is this" then there arises the showing of lack of any support.

Kind regards