How exactly is there a momentariness of consciousness ?

[FiveSkandhas]

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit,to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

At least you are honest, lol. I have never heard this aspiration expressed before.

Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha vowed not to leave the Saha world until all beings without exception are liberated. He will get to you eventually, if another Bodhisattva doesn't.

[Bristollad]

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit, to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

And this is another reason why it would be inappropriate for you to practise Buddhist tantra - this aspiration is insufficient for that practice.

[Malcolm]

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit, to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

And this is another reason why it would be inappropriate for you to practise Buddhist tantra - this aspiration is insufficient for that practice.

Yes. As Mañjuśṛī said to Sachen,

If you are attached to this life, you are not a Dharma practitioner.
If you are attached to samsara, renunciation is lacking.
If you are attached to your own goals, bodhicitta is lacking.
If grasping arises, the view is lacking.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I value my consciousness.

Well, now you have me confused.
Do you mean to say that your consciousness values itself?

Or, are you saying, “I” value “my” consciousness, meaning that consciousness belongs to “I”
...and if that’s the case, then which one gets reborn in the deva realm...
You or Your consciousness?

Do you and your conscious both take rebirth, and does that mean there are actually two of you, that yourself and your consciousness are two different things,

Or, if you are saying that you and your consciousness are the same thing, how can you say, “my consciousness”? How can such an experience arise in the mind?

Is your consciousness aware of “I” (self) or is “I” (self) the thing that’s aware of your consciousness? Which is the subject and which is the object?

If you could clarify that for me, I’d really appreciate it.

[haha]

Because not everyone will extinguish themselves and attain nirvana and not everyone even wants to do that.for them the alaya is a permanent entity.

One enters into the cinema hall and watches the same movie again and again every time. For those who are, somehow, aware that they have been watching the same movie again and again, their behavior/desire will be different. But those who are forgetful and cannot remember anything, for them that movie would be interesting and new. Some people definitely want to stop watching that movie, no problem. Some people want to enter the cinema hall to inform other that they have been watching same movie, it is also not the problem. And, forgetfulness is also fine.

Conception of liberation in Mahayana is much different (i.e. someone missed the concept of the three or more kayas).

As for the merit part, Buddha has taught that, too. This sutta might have addressing some points. (Apology for quoting sutta.)

22. Meritorious Deeds
This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, do not fear meritorious deeds. This is an expression denoting happiness, what is desirable, wished for, dear and agreeable, that is, ‘meritorious deeds.’ For I know full well, bhikkhus, that for a long time I experienced desirable, wished for, dear and agreeable results from often performing meritorious deeds.

“Having cultivated for seven years a mind of loving-kindness, for seven aeons of contraction and expansion I did not return to this world. Whenever the aeon contracted I reached the plane of Streaming Radiance, and when the aeon expanded I arose in an empty Brahma-mansion. And there I was a Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Unvanquished Victor, the All-seeing, the All-powerful. Thirty-six times I was Sakka, the ruler of the devas. And many hundreds of times I was a Wheel-turning Monarch, righteous, a king of righteousness, conqueror of the four quarters of the earth, maintaining stability in the land, in possession of the seven jewels. What need is there to speak of mere local kingship?

“It occurred to me, bhikkhus, to wonder: ‘Of what kind of deed of mine is this the fruit? Of what deed’s ripening is it that I am now of such great accomplishment and power?’ And then it occurred to me: ‘It is the fruit of three kinds of deeds of mine, the ripening of three kinds of deeds that I am now of such great accomplishment and power: deeds of giving, of self-mastery, and of refraining.’”

One should train in deeds of merit
That yield long-lasting happiness:
Generosity, a balanced life,
Developing a loving mind.

By cultivating these three things,
Deeds yielding happiness,
The wise person is reborn in bliss
In an untroubled happy world.

https://suttacentral.net/iti22/en/ireland

[Johnny Dangerous]

Because not everyone will extinguish themselves and attain nirvana and not everyone even wants to do that.for them the alaya is a permanent entity.

Makes one really wonder why someone like that would be posting on a Buddhist discussion board.

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit,to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

Why would you practice Buddhism for this? Lots of religions lead to this end, most of them have something like this as a goal. According to the Buddhadharma, should you attain this, you will spend a long time in this sort of existence, enjoying the highest bliss attainable in samsara, to the degree that you basically forget about suffering. Then one day your skin will crack and you will fall into the lower realms upon exhausting your merit.

So in Buddhism, having this as a final goal is just not a great idea. As far as your fear of annihilation, you should jut do some actual practice. You will see that what you are most afraid of losing never really existed the way you thought it did, so freaking out about losing what was never yours in the firsts place is a little silly. I also think (that despite your protestations to the contrary) you haven't studied the Mahayana much.

A least, you haven't studied it appropriately, with a teacher or some kind of guidance. You don't seem to understand that the Mahayana conception of enlightenment is different from Sravaka nirvana.

[FiveSkandhas]

Even though the above post is correct, I think in the "real world" there are many, many people who practice for merit rather than for enlightenment or out of compassion for all beings. So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Even though the above post is correct, I think in the "real world" there are many, many people who practice for merit rather than for enlightenment or out of compassion for all beings. So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

Those people are not practicing with a severe aversion to the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, nor with a pronounced disagreement with the tenets of Buddhism, so it is not the same motivation.

I guess you could argue that there are many who are simply ignorant of said tenets and so it is similar, but that is basically defining a religion by the people who most fail to practice it , and is not a good path to take in my opinion.

[Bristollad]

Even though the above post is correct, I think in the "real world" there are many, many people who practice for merit rather than for enlightenment or out of compassion for all beings. So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

I agree with you, it is quite common I think, especially when someone is new to the teachings or comes to Buddhism because it is part of their culture. It is a valid place to start from but it shouldn't stay the end goal once one learns and meditates on the nature of samsara.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Even though the above post is correct, I think in the "real world" there are many, many people who practice for merit rather than for enlightenment or out of compassion for all beings. So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

I agree with you, it is quite common I think, especially when someone is new to the teachings or comes to Buddhism because it is part of their culture. It is a valid place to start from but it shouldn't stay the end goal once one learns and meditates on the nature of samsara.

Everyone has doubts for sure, that's a normal part of it.

However, that is not in the same category as actually claiming Buddhist tenets are incorrect, continuing to form arguments against them, and then deciding you will only practice based on your own goals. That is not just doubt, but acting on and affirming one's doubt. Whether or not it is justified contextually, obviously it is a big roadblock for practicing Dharma.

A psychological analogy would be if you had a negative thought about say, your mother. In one case you might simply have these negative thoughts, notice them, form no attachment either way, refute or anaylse the thoughts, etc. On the other, you might decide the negative thought about your mother is in fact true and continue to proliferate further negativity based on it towards Mom. If someone does this with Dharma in a prolonged fashion, they are conditioning themselves against it, not simply experiencing normal doubt.

In this case, holding to a belief that the Buddha simply experienced annihilation upon enlightenment, and that rebirth in samsara is preferable to this; this is a completely different thing than what either of you are talking about.

[Bristollad]

Even though the above post is correct, I think in the "real world" there are many, many people who practice for merit rather than for enlightenment or out of compassion for all beings. So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

I agree with you, it is quite common I think, especially when someone is new to the teachings or comes to Buddhism because it is part of their culture. It is a valid place to start from but it shouldn't stay the end goal once one learns and meditates on the nature of samsara.

Everyone has doubts for sure, that's a normal part of it.

However, that is not in the same category as actually claiming Buddhist tenets are incorrect, continuing to form arguments against them, and then deciding you will only practice based on your own goals. That is not just doubt, but acting on and affirming one's doubt. Whether or not it is justified contextually, obviously it is a big roadblock for practicing Dharma.

A psychological analogy would be if you had a negative thought about say, your mother. In one case you might simply have these negative thoughts, notice them, form no attachment either way, refute or anaylse the thoughts, etc. On the other, you might decide the negative thought about your mother is in fact true and continue to proliferate further negativity based on it towards Mom. If someone does this with Dharma in a prolonged fashion, they are conditioning themselves against it, not simply experiencing normal doubt.

In this case, holding to a belief that the Buddha simply experienced annihilation upon enlightenment, and that rebirth in samsara is preferable to this; this is a completely different thing than what either of you are talking about.

Yes, a good point.

[Malcolm]

So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

It’s also not Dharma practice.

[PadmaVonSamba]

So much of lay Buddhism revolves around merit and hopes for a better reincarnation, this-worldly benefits, or filial piety such as to transfer merit to deceased relatives and ancestors, etc. It may be shortsighted but it's a motivation for millions.

It’s also not Dharma practice.

The BuddhaDharna is like a great ocean.
Some people go to the ocean and just sit on the beach, watching the waves roll in.
Others wade up to their ankles, while others swim further.
Then there are those who surf, or navigate boats and fish, or cross the water on great ships.
And some plunge the depths in scuba gear and submarines.
But can you say that any one of these people has a more valid experience of the ocean than the other one?

I think it’s fair to say that these days, in the west, while there are many “deep-sea diving” Dharma students, particularly within Vajrayana, whose aim is to escape samsaric rebirth, that there are many more people who simply want to live life with some kind of ethics and compassion, and have turned to Buddhism as the source for that, whether they’ve taken refuge or not. They have a couple of books by HH Dalai Lama, or maybe Thich Nhat Hanh, spend a few minutes a day trying to be mindful, or even meditating, and they apply that to their own lives, where they are now, according to where their own karma has brought them up to this point.

Buddhist teachings are practiced one way or another by lots of non-buddhists, thank goodness.

[Malcolm]

I think it’s fair to say that these days, in the west, while there are many “deep-sea diving” Dharma students, particularly within Vajrayana, whose aim is to escape samsaric rebirth, that there are many more people who simply want to live life with some kind of ethics and compassion, and have turned to Buddhism as the source for that, whether they’ve taken refuge or not.

People inspired by Buddhism, who practice ethics and meditation for this life are not Dharma practitioners, no matter how nice, kind, or good they may be, whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not.

I would venture a guess and say that most people in the world who self-identify as Buddhists are not Dharma practitioners.

[Artziebetter1]

Actually the alaya is not permanent as it’s made up of cittas that arise and cease instantaneously and there are sources for this.

Anyway,I am scared of nirvana yes because there is no subjective awareness.I don’t see that as desirable from my personal point of view.
Subjective awareness is what distinguishes the living from the dead .
And the alaya ceases upon nirvana anyway so nothing that could be said to be sentient.

And the sutras promise a good life until enlightenment for those that read them wich I have so unless Buddha was being attributed something he didn’t actually say as the Theravada say about the sutras,I believe the sutras.

[Artziebetter1]

Makes one really wonder why someone like that would be posting on a Buddhist discussion board.

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit,to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

Why would you practice Buddhism for this? Lots of religions lead to this end, most of them have something like this as a goal. According to the Buddhadharma, should you attain this, you will spend a long time in this sort of existence, enjoying the highest bliss attainable in samsara, to the degree that you basically forget about suffering. Then one day your skin will crack and you will fall into the lower realms upon exhausting your merit.

So in Buddhism, having this as a final goal is just not a great idea. As far as your fear of annihilation, you should jut do some actual practice. You will see that what you are most afraid of losing never really existed the way you thought it did, so freaking out about losing what was never yours in the firsts place is a little silly. I also think (that despite your protestations to the contrary) you haven't studied the Mahayana much.

A least, you haven't studied it appropriately, with a teacher or some kind of guidance. You don't seem to understand that the Mahayana conception of enlightenment is different from Sravaka nirvana.

How is it different from sravaka nibbana?the only difference is that a bodhjsattva Buddha has past merit and volition (I don’t know how this would actually work without a storage for that past merit and volition and how a unconscious being can complexly interact but That’s the belief)to make him act while he is also unconscious of anything subjectively.any sources wich say he is aware mean it in a different sence.

[Artziebetter1]

The only reason to practice for me is to gain merit, to be born in the deva realms as long as possible
I value my consciousness.

And this is another reason why it would be inappropriate for you to practise Buddhist tantra - this aspiration is insufficient for that practice.

Yes. As Mañjuśṛī said to Sachen,

If you are attached to this life, you are not a Dharma practitioner.
If you are attached to samsara, renunciation is lacking.
If you are attached to your own goals, bodhicitta is lacking.
If grasping arises, the view is lacking.

I never wanted to practice tantra just be able to call myself vajrayana because I believe it’s the highest path and the bodhisattvas like Tara etc exist

[Malcolm]

I never wanted to practice tantra just be able to call myself vajrayana because I believe it’s the highest path and the bodhisattvas like Tara etc exist

I think you are really confused.

[Astus]

People inspired by Buddhism, who practice ethics and meditation for this life are not Dharma practitioners, no matter how nice, kind, or good they may be, whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not.

How about what is called "the least capacity" or "lesser scope"?

'Know that those who by whatever means
Seek for themselves no more
Than the pleasures of cyclic existence
Are persons of the least capacity.'
(Lamp for the Path, v 3, in Illuminating the Path to Enlightenment, p 69)

'Given the distinction between virtue and nonvirtue as laid down in the teachings, it is important to rely on virtue. The ten virtues tending to happiness will produce happy destinies, while negative action will precipitate a fall into the states of loss. To understand this distinction correctly, according to the karmic law of cause and effect, and to adopt positive rather than negative behavior is the so-called path of beings of lesser scope.'
(Treasury of Precious Qualities, vol 1, p 151)

[PadmaVonSamba]

How is it different from sravaka nibbana? the only difference is that a bodhjsattva Buddha has past merit and volition (I don’t know how this would actually work without a storage for that past merit and volition and how a unconscious being can complexly interact but That’s the belief)...

Perhaps that isn’t the belief, which would certainly explain the difficulty in figuring out “how that would actually work”. You keep asserting that a Buddha has no awareness. You continue to confuse the extinction of attachment (to the illusion of self) with total elimination of awareness itself.

By the way, I’m still waiting to find out from you exactly who gets reborn ...you, or your consciousness?