7

OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future" No. That's a classic ...


4

why would nature be so cruel "Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that. So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowlege whatever truth there is in it to ...


4

No, that's not the theravāda point of view. That's a fallacy or wrong view called, "He assumes consciousness to be the self", in twenty self-indentification-views. Each arising aggregate is different from the other aggregates, different from e.g. other people's aggregates, past aggregates, far aggregates. They all are the aggregates, but no one is the same....


4

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over ...


3

From Mahayana perspective: "We are all one" is a simplified step in the right direction - but ultimately is not true. It can be used as a stepping stone from the mainstream primitive materialism, but must be transcended eventually. In Mahayana we recognize that things are interconnected and interrelated. In this sense, yes, every thing (implicitly) has (...


2

maybe my English is not good enough, but I think your question is possibly based on a misconception. "Rebirth" – not re-incarnation as Brian Diaz Flores clarified – ist not a kind of "reset", so that you start as a blank paper again so that you step on the same stones again? Which would make Buddhism indeed very sadistic. Due to applying buddhist ...


2

From the explanations I've seen/heard in Mahayana context, and also etymologically, the word "bhava" means "a state of (personal) existence", "being something or someone", "being in a certain configuration or position", "having a specific form/manner of existence" - something like this. The connotation is not just "being", it is a particular manner or ...


1

Above should be revised as: Everything that is conditioned is impermanent (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).


1

The three characteristics are characteristics of phenomena and are not related to mental reactions to things. "Dukkha" here does not mean "getting distraught". "Dukkha" meaning "getting distraught" pertains to the subject of the Four Noble Truths but not to the subject of the Three Characteristics. For example, a motor car is impermanent. Because a motor ...


1

According to Buddhist teaching "being" means the attachment, aversion, and ignorance. There is a Sutta to support this but I can't locate it right now.


1

I think the last paragraph isn't quite right, because it implies: I exist and you exist We're the same because we are consciousness and there is one consciousness There are several cars, each car has a driver, every car has the same driver, the same driver persists across past, present, and future I think Buddhism has a different emphasis, e.g. that, "...


1

Nature is not a personal entity, as far as we know. There are laws of nature, and those laws function independently of any moral or axiological (judgements of value) consideration. Reality is what it is, and it does not care about your evaluation of it. It makes no sense to judge it as "fair" or "unfair", mainly because those are subjective concepts. Kamma ...


1

If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism. The above statement is wrong. Whether Tathagata exists or not after death or Nirvana is not declared by Buddha. Is the existence of life a form of attachment? Existence of life is conditional. One of the conditions is attachment. Therefore it is wrong to say that existence of life is form of condition. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible