0

We are consciousness housed inside a physical form. We started off as the nothingness of the universe ... all potential. Then we were bound to this form just as someone capturing air in a bag. Although we are normally formless and all one big lump of consciousness instead of a bunch of individuals - this circumstance changes that. We are now identified as that bag.

That bag, our body, interacts with the universe and sets wheels and gears in motion every which way. Those movements ripple repercussions both onward and back as cause/effect. There is no "time lag" so a consciousness is just immediately changed and as long as that change deviates it from the whole then it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.

This make sense to me without being bound in mysticism. Where is it incorrect? Or is it? I really think I have something here.

  • 1
    Where is it incorrect? The moment you move from this how I understand/this is my thinking, to this is reality/this is the truth. Knowing reality cannot be know from thinking and pondering upon views (diṭṭhi'nijjhānakkhantiyā). – Kaveenga Wijayasekara Jul 20 '17 at 5:50
4

From a Theravada Buddhist perspective, this theory suffers from the error of an enduring self. It is dependent on their being a persistent consciousness or, at minimum, some sort of enduring higher self. From a Mahayana perspective, this theory establishes an erroneous dichotomy between form and emptiness. There is ultimately no distinction between the bag (i.e. the body), consciousness, and the universe.

  • 1
    thank you so much. I appreciate you pointing these issues out! This is exactly the type of response I seek so I can track down the problems and the logic. Your answer is very helpful. – Kauva Aatma Jul 19 '17 at 21:08
  • 1
    No matter what metaphor you come up with, ultimately it's going to be just that - words pointing to the thing and not the thing itself. Frankly, I think these exercises can be fun, but it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to devote too much time to them. You're better off sitting on the cushion. ;-) – user698 Jul 20 '17 at 1:19
  • I dont see it that way. So far everything I have found in Buddhism was theoretically and often physically possible and not just a matter of faith. I want to know where these ideas come from as I try to duplicate their thinking. – Kauva Aatma Jul 20 '17 at 1:39
  • Start by not thinking! ;-) Seriously, though there are certainly things that one can know namely anything to do with the path leading to enlightenment, the fruits of spiritual practice, the efficacy of morality, etc. Those are not just theories but things that must be counterbalanced by personal experience. Questions regarding the nature of reality are unanswerable; even the Buddha cautioned against pursuing them. – user698 Jul 20 '17 at 12:35
  • @KauvaAatma Buddhism is faith. You just have to build the faith yourself, not blindly have faith in Buddha. It is Buddha's faith, and you cannot steal it via following him blindly. There is no such a thing like just believing whatever Buddha said, because in that way you will never truly understand what Buddha is talking. Thinking and mediating is the two methods Buddha use to develop Buddhism. On the other side, some topics are not related to the relief so Buddha does not discuss about it. Those topics may belong to philosophy, not Buddhism, e.g. starting off as nothingness is irrelevant. – weakish Jul 29 '17 at 7:18
1

Causality in Hindi/Buddhism is not understood as in the Western cause-and-effect - as if - 'I hit something and it gets kinetic energy'.

It is co-arising: a seed and a moist soil may give rise to a sprout.

Karma is an effect of co-arising causality, not of I/O of cause and effect, and it is an extremely complex phenomena;

To be in the "web of illusions" is essentially entangling the mind in these co-arising factors and being suffocated or attached to them, to be liberated from Samsara is ultimately to be unbound from these illusions, thus performing techniques that are extensively used to cut through the chain of delusions, attachment, ignorance, envy etc.

"It is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral." - I agree with your view (not from a "Buddhist" perspective, but personal) - 'nothing is lost in nature' - it is not easy to "disappear" once born into a pre-existent set of relations.

Yet, that is neither misfortune, not a trap, most Buddhists cherished the body as a "treasure to acquire" in the chain of being - on Earth.

0

The matter raised by XXXX is discussed in the following Sutta. -------------------

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html

  • Great answer. In addition, impermanent or permanent is just a concept. One can never know if something is permanent, if it will endure forever. Permanency isn't known in objective reality, only in subjective experience. It is a mental construct. It really points out that it is not 'yours'. – Mike de Klerk Jul 20 '17 at 9:57
0

Adding to xxxx's answer:

The division between the body and the universe is illusory: consciousness doesn't end where flesh ends.

The net of causes works regardless "inside body" or "outside".

Causes acting "inside body" and those acting "outside body" aren't marked as having different owners.

Like a multitude of ants can gather on a spot, creating a crowd of certain form, and then can leave the spot, likewise causes can create body and its activities, not being and not becoming one thing even for a moment.

Thus, body as one thing is illusory.

Likewise, consciousness as one thing is illusory.

Multitude of causes can form in space thicker spots and thinner spots, being interpreted as working of consciousness, but that does not divide more crowded places from less crowded, just like a crowd of people on a holiday usually doesn't have definite border.

Likewise, there is no definite border between "causes creating me" (or "acting as me") and "causes which are not me".

Feelings can be seen as caused by conditions, thoughts can be seen as caused by conditions, actions can be seen as caused by conditions. Where is "me"?

Tracking causes which create "my" feelings, thoughts, actions, we can see endless chains or bundles of causality. Where in those chains could be borders set between "already me" and "not me yet"?

Conditions, "created by different people", intertwine, fusing and creating new conditions. So can makings by different people be physically separated? As causes intertwine, can karma of different people be truly separated?

How karma works, in accumulation and cessation, see:

Problem with the logic of karma

PS:

it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.

There is nothing to release and nothing to balance, because everything is already balanced every moment, and everything is already released.

  • "body as one thing is illusory" Consider a sudden extreme rise in temperature, or falling away of all air pressure. Where would the body be without proper temperature and air pressure. – Mike de Klerk Jul 20 '17 at 9:58
  • Maybe my English is incorrect. Please tell me how to say better. I meant that the body as one whole entity does not exist, just as a crowd of ants is not a single thing. Maybe, I should say "body as one single thing is illusory"? Indeed, if you put it in vacuum, what happens? Particles which were pressed together get their freedom. :) – chang zhao Jul 20 '17 at 16:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.