infinity, the cycle of suffering, and the present

[NewAgeNerd]

When I was stuying Buddhism, I found much of it fascinating. There was always one question that I wondered. Buddha said that no new souls were being created, that it was possible to liberate all beings from suffering(Lets not diverge into speculation about liberation despite their being no beings to liberate), and that samsara had existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. My question is, assuming infinite time, and a never increasing amount of beings in the system, how is it possible that we are still trapped in samsara? Should we not have been liberated eons ago? Should we not all be in nirvana at this very moment?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste NewAgeNerd,

welcome to the fourm and enjoy your stay.

i won't be able to respond with as much depth as i'd like at this point... other obligations are calling...

. My question is, assuming infinite time, and a never increasing amount of beings in the system, how is it possible that we are still trapped in samsara? Should we not have been liberated eons ago? Should we not all be in nirvana at this very moment?

it's a matter of causes and conditions, mostly. without the proper causes and conditions the experience of awakening will not occur.

now... depending on one's philosophical view.. in particular, if one adheres to the Madyamika view, then samsara and Nirvana are one and the same and, in this view, we take the defilements as the path using the "Lightning Vehicle".

however, in most respects this is due to karma and a few of the other phychological conditions that influence ones rebirth.

 

[Hyozan]

I agree with friend Vajradhara - in the Zen teachings, for example, it is said that Nirvana IS Samsara.

I'd also like to point out that the concept of "Soul" does not exist in Buddhism the way it is usually percieved in the West (nor does it in Hinduism or Taoism, for that matter). Another key word in this statement is that no souls are CREATED. The heart Sutra says that in essence NOTHING is created (no beginning, no end to...)

As to "assuming infinite time", Dogen-Zenji would argue that there is only this moment. The past does not create the present, the present does not create the future. Time is arguably an illusion, a convention of measurement much like a meter or a kilogram. They do not exist, but are merely a convention to meter matter (both words actually come from the same Sankrit root, as well as the latin "Mater" (mother) and the Sanskrit "Maya", illusion; there is no equivalent for "matter" in most Asian languages. The closest you can get in Sanskrit/Pali to my knowledge is "Nama Rupa" (named form), and that says it all)

in gassho,

Bob

 

[NewAgeNerd]

Ahh, I understand. I had forgotten about the doctrine of emptiness and its implications. I was not aware that the zen doctrine proposed that this world is nirvana. I was only a zen practitioner for a short period of time, and as soon as I learned that they were pro-war during world war 2, I quickly rejected their teachings. Thanks for the responses.

 

[julia]

"it's a matter of causes and conditions, mostly. without the proper causes and conditions the experience of awakening will not occur."

But since the proper causes and conditions do arise in certain circumstances - if you accept that Buddha reached the state of enlightenment - shouldn't they have occured for every being during an infinte amount of time, containing an infinite opportunity for these causes to come up?

Thank you°!

Julia

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Julia,

thank you for the post.

But since the proper causes and conditions do arise in certain circumstances - if you accept that Buddha reached the state of enlightenment - shouldn't they have occured for every being during an infinte amount of time, containing an infinite opportunity for these causes to come up?

Thank you°!

Julia

in the Buddhist view of rebirth, there are 6 realms in which a sentient being can take rebirth... three negative ones and three postive ones. there are then, sublayers within... it's a bit complex in most regards... it is very much like the traditional Indian view of the cosmos as existing in multiple levels and planes of existence.

in any event... within the context that we are speaking, the human rebirth is one of the three positive rebirths... in point of fact, it is considered the best possible rebirth that a sentient being can undergo since it is only in this rebirth that we can encounter the Dharma and put it into practice.

the rebirth as a human is also quite rare. the analogy used is that of a world composed of oceans and you are a turtle in the ocean rising to the surface for air. on the ocean, there is a single life raft floating.. and you happen to rise through it when you rise for your air. this is how rare human rebirth is. of course, this is an analogy.. but you see the point, i'm sure.

so... though we as sentient beings have undergone countless rounds of rebirth... in some of the Suttas the Buddha uses the analogy of the grains of sand in his fingertip when picked from the Ganges, whose sand is very fine, like a talc in places, we have not always encountered the Dharma, and if we did, we were not always able to complete the path of liberation.

recall that the Buddha had myriad rebirths until his final one... so, though to our normal mode of perception, we see the arising of one Shakyamuni prince named Guatama, we don't have the perception of the continuation of Buddha was he was the mendicant Sudhana and thus it appears as if it were one life.

in the relative sense, that is a correct cognition... it is, in fact, one life. in the Absolute, however, it is a continuation from a previous arising. not to put too fine a point on it, however, this is pretty technical stuff and even many Buddhists disagree on aspects of it. most of this is found in the Abidharma and, frankly, that is only a concern for some types of beings.... turns out, it is ones like me... but that's o.k.

leaving aside particulars for the moment... there is a method of Dharma praxis that is purported to accomplish the path in a single life time. in Buddhism, this is the Vajrayana or Diamond Thunderbolt Vehicle.

there exists a lot of misunderstanding and, honestly, Buddhists are people like everyone else and have the same issues as everyone else... nevertheless, the implicit understanding within the Vajrayana is that we have, in fact, practiced in prior life times which is why we can put the profound teachings of the Vajrayana into practice. my point in relating this is simply, that it is possible within the overall paradigm of Buddhism to accomplish the path within one relative life.

naturally, not all Buddhists agree nor would it be expected for them to do so. Buddhism is, in its' formulations, very open and flexible... sometimes, us practiconers are a bit less flexible

and that was a long winded way of saying that we don't often take rebirth in human forms.. and when we do, we usually don't have good proximate karma to be born in a land where the Dharma is present. causes and conditions.

time.. in the technical Buddhist view, doesn't exist really... well.. it does.. but only in this very moment that is arising. the consciousness is understood, by way of analogy, to be something that is continually arising, thus each moment is continually arising, conditioned by the preceeding moment. some views of rebirth are this very thing... that one is actually being continually reborn, moment by moment, with the preceeding moment of consciousness conditioning the next.

in the Vajrayana Tantric praxis, the focus of the praxis is on the moment when the physical flesh drops away during the moment of the between.. or death, as you might say. at that moment, consciousness still arises based on the precedding moments and.... well...

suffice it to say that the rest is, in our view, a bit technical to get into in depth online

 

[julia]

Thank you very much for the long answer! I have something to think about now...

Thanks!

Julia

 

[truthseeker]

Hi.

I'm not sure of the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. Is there a Supreme Being? My understanding of Nirvana is a release from the cycle of rebirths. Is there an understanding of what happens from there? What happens to consciousness once it reaches Nirvana?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Truthseeker,


thank you for the post.

essentially, the difference between Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma can be found in three areas:

concept of a Creator Being (Sanatana Dharma has one and Buddha Dharma does not)

concept of a permentently existing self or soul (Atman): (Sanatana Dharma has one and Buddha Dharma has Anatman, no permentently existing self or soul)

karma and how it works (Sanatana Dharma essentially posits that we will reap what we sow without mitigation whereas Buddha Dharma teaches that it can be mitigated)

of course there are many more areas where the traditions agree with each other, which is what you'd expect seeing as how they both have the same cultural incubators.

 

[truthseeker]

Thank You for your response, Vajradhara.

You have me quite interested in Buddhism.
I was raised in a Christian atmosphere so the thought of there not being a soul or a spirit is blowing me away. Why would one strive for anything if there is no essence of self? I mean, Christianity teaches to let go of 'self' as well but you really can't help but to be tied to self if your life long struggle is focused on letting it go. It's like a constant reminder that though you aren't worthy of being one with The Creator, your strife should be to get as close as you can. What is inside of me differs.
In Buddhism, if there is no self, or no beginning or end, what is really going on? I guess I'm really wondering, 'what is the reward?' Please excuse my brain storming. Maybe Eastern thought is very much different from Western thought. I'm very curious, now. I love that.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Truthseeker,

thank you for the post.

You have me quite interested in Buddhism.

i, personally, am always interested in learning, seems that you are as well. the makings of a good friendship

I was raised in a Christian atmosphere so the thought of there not being a soul or a spirit is blowing me away.

i completely understand. though.. we should clarify just a bit.. it's not that there isn't a spirit, per se, it's that said spirit or soul or self, is not permenantly existing from its' own side, not unchanging and static. if your view of a soul is of a bit of discrete energy or spirit that is constantly undergoing change, then i can't imagine many Buddhists disagreeing. the real bit of of this is the unchanging, permenantly existing from its' own side (which is our way of saying that it has no causes and conditions upon which it depends for existence) which is contrary to the ontological reality that Buddha taught.

Why would one strive for anything if there is no essence of self?

great question. the normal answer is that "we reap what we sow". to which the idea of "no-self" seems rather contradictory. within the Buddhist paradigm, which is a bit different than one you may be used to, each sentient being is seen, basically, as having a unique set of characteristics, which we would call capacities. thus, the Buddha taught according to the needs and capacities of the audidence with whom he was speaking.

in a sense, this question can be answered by the phrase "karma". within the context of Buddhism, since there is no soul or self which does the deeds, and thus no soul or self to reap the consequences thereof, what is it that we are talking about? i'm afraid that it does get a bit technical in some of these bits... and, i should say that on many occassions, questions such as these weren't really entertained... but... seeing as how this is a discussion forum... some discussion we should have

how does karma effect us.. or, more specifically, how does a negative karmic deed effect me in my next life? essentially, it is a matter of consciousness. depending on your views of this issue, consciousness is a continually arising process, conditioned by the preceeding moment of consciousness. when the right causes and conditions are present, karmic seeds will ripen, when they are not, the seeds do not and they lay dormant until such time as the right causes and conditions are present.

so.. our negative and postive karmic seeds, then, are like seeds which have been planted in our consciousness, in a very, very subtle level of consciousness at that. in the Varjayana technical view, this aspect of consciousness is called the Alaya consciousness or the 8th progressively subtle level, of which there are 10 in toto.

I mean, Christianity teaches to let go of 'self' as well but you really can't help but to be tied to self if your life long struggle is focused on letting it go.

this is true in our tradition as well. this is actually a very subtle but difficult place to get out of, in our view. we are constantly encouraged not to take the explanation as the reality.. the menu for the food, as it were. as such, if one has the goal of letting go of self, the goal becomes its own obstacle. there are methods and techniques for dealing with this and other issues, in our tradition.

In Buddhism, if there is no self, or no beginning or end, what is really going on? I guess I'm really wondering, 'what is the reward?' Please excuse my brain storming. Maybe Eastern thought is very much different from Western thought. I'm very curious, now. I love that.

hmmm... well... reward wouldn't really be a very accurate term... though, in the relative sense... we could use it and still be somewhat accurate.

so, what is the relative reward? there are several, not least of which is the ending of dukkha. dukkha is an interesting word in the Buddha Dharma... of the meanings that it can have, it is often translated into English as the term "suffering". that term, in English, is a bit narrow, however, to really capture the sense of dukkha that is being talked about.

so, in that sense, you could say that one of the rewards is that whilst living on the earthly plane, the being no longer has the experience of suffering. the other benefits are, perhaps, a bit more tangible... the development of compassion and equanimity towards all sentient beings reduces stress and leads to a pleasant disposition and outlook. i suspect that all spiritual refuges praxis can bring about most of the same relative feelings and sensations as any other.

the "goal" if you will, is to put an end to the rounds of birth, old age, sickness and death, and there are various means to go about accomplishing this very thing.

a very good resource for the interested reader is:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/basic-guide.htm

these are my own views on these things, of course

 

[truthseeker]

Thank you for your own views, Vajradhara

in a sense, this question can be answered by the phrase "karma". within the context of Buddhism, since there is no soul or self which does the deeds, and thus no soul or self to reap the consequences thereof, what is it that we are talking about? i'm afraid that it does get a bit technical in some of these bits...

I always understood karma as 'you reap what you sow'. The way you speak of karma it is much more complex than that.

how does karma effect us.. or, more specifically, how does a negative karmic deed effect me in my next life? essentially, it is a matter of consciousness. depending on your views of this issue, consciousness is a continually arising process, conditioned by the preceeding moment of consciousness. when the right causes and conditions are present, karmic seeds will ripen, when they are not, the seeds do not and they lay dormant until such time as the right causes and conditions are present.

I agree with that understanding of consciousness.

so.. our negative and positive karmic seeds, then, are like seeds which have been planted in our consciousness, in a very, very subtle level of consciousness at that. in the Varjayana technical view, this aspect of consciousness is called the Alaya consciousness or the 8th progressively subtle level, of which there are 10 in total.

Wow! This thing that you are talking about sounds almost scientific. Well, anyhow it is definately well far beyond my level of understanding at this time.

10 levels of consciousness?! You know, I believe in different levels of consciousness and that those levels are reached or awakened or something like that as different things are experienced in life. I also believe that what I understand as consciousness can become dormant if it doesn't continue to 'fed' with the proper 'food'. I may be a bit off of what you are talking about. But I am trying to open my mind to this concept. I believe in the Christian view, but there are some things that I know are real and Christianity doesn't support that understanding.

this is true in our tradition as well. this is actually a very subtle but difficult place to get out of, in our view. we are constantly encouraged not to take the explanation as the reality.. the menu for the food, as it were. as such, if one has the goal of letting go of self, the goal becomes its own obstacle. there are methods and techniques for dealing with this and other issues, in our tradition.

Ahhhhh.....

so, what is the relative reward? there are several, not least of which is the ending of dukkha. dukkha is an interesting word in the Buddha Dharma... of the meanings that it can have, it is often translated into English as the term "suffering". that term, in English, is a bit narrow, however, to really capture the sense of dukkha that is being talked about.

I feel like I have to learn every language to understand the religion. I'm not particularly religious and it is probably because I haven't found a group yet that isn't fanatical, or outright close-minded, or trying to snatch the dogma of another religion and claim it for themselves once they have discredited their predecessor.

the "goal" if you will, is to put an end to the rounds of birth, old age, sickness and death, and there are various means to go about accomplishing this very thing.

Not with the intention of sounding like a bone-head, but does Buddha Dharma put the various means into a formula? Or as years are put into the understanding is it somehow revealed?

 

[Vajradhara]

Thank you for your own views, Vajradhara

I always understood karma as 'you reap what you sow'. The way you speak of karma it is much more complex than that.

there is a discussion on the various aspects of Karma and so forth here:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259

which you may find to be of some value.

I agree with that understanding of consciousness.

excellent

Wow! This thing that you are talking about sounds almost scientific. Well, anyhow it is definately well far beyond my level of understanding at this time.

well.. it is scientific in a limited sense of the term.. in that the techniques are well established and produce a repeatable experience in the practioner.. though it's not really 'scientific' in that it's not really measurable in the right way.. and i would imagine that you really can't falsify it.

the salient point to bear in mind with these and all of the Buddhist teachings is that these are guide posts, tools if you will and as such, not all beings will need the same tools to get the same result

10 levels of consciousness?! You know, I believe in different levels of consciousness and that those levels are reached or awakened or something like that as different things are experienced in life.

indeed, 10 is how my school explains it. i understand that there is another forumlation that only has 8. the important bit isn't how we parse it into discrete bits so we can talk about them, it's the experience of actually accessing the subtle levels that is really what we are on about.

I also believe that what I understand as consciousness can become dormant if it doesn't continue to 'fed' with the proper 'food'. I may be a bit off of what you are talking about.

perhaps in a technical sense it's a bit off... however, for our conversation it seems to be right on. i suppose that we can say that we can choose to water or feed the postive or negative aspects of our consciousness and we can 'starve' those aspects which we find to be harmful.

But I am trying to open my mind to this concept. I believe in the Christian view, but there are some things that I know are real and Christianity doesn't support that understanding.

i appreciate it there are many beings that feel as if their minds are open when they are, in fact, closed. even with the intention of approaching things in an open manner, our habitual energies can tend to make us close up and stress the situation more so than it has to be.

that delimma is an essential one to encounter, in my view. in a very real sense, it is the single most difficult thing to resolve... which takes precedence.. our beliefs or our knowledge? this is a question which each being must resolve for themselves... and, as Rush sang... if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

I feel like I have to learn every language to understand the religion. I'm not particularly religious and it is probably because I haven't found a group yet that isn't fanatical, or outright close-minded, or trying to snatch the dogma of another religion and claim it for themselves once they have discredited their predecessor.

to a certain extent, you are correct. for a variety of reasons, some of the terms are not translated into English... though they are a few specific ones, learning just what they mean can be a bit daunting. one of the harder aspects of it, in my view, is changing your world paradigm. Buddhism has a radically different paradigm than most religious traditions and alot of our teachings are presented from within the Buddhist point of view. in some cases, it can be quite frustrating to get a simple answer to a question put to a Buddhist... and mostly, that is due to having differing world views... in my opinion.

it is, perhaps, a bit of a shame that humans all too often are not able to live up to the teachings of their religious paths. very few religious paths that i'm aware of actually advocate being fanatical and dogmatic about their views.. yet... plainly there are plenty of beings that are.

Not with the intention of sounding like a bone-head, but does Buddha Dharma put the various means into a formula? Or as years are put into the understanding is it somehow revealed?

to a certain extent, yes, there are formulations of praxis that one can use.. depending on ones' individual tradition. in my Yana of Vajrayana Buddhism, for instance, we have what are called the Lam-Rim teachings. Lam-Rim, basically, means "Stages along the path" and, thus, the Lam-Rim teachings start from the beginning and take the practiconer to the completion stage practices, in a step by step methodological and, in my view, logical progression.

of course, one can also reach the goal quite suddenly.. and, i would say that even if you are engaged in years of practice, the "entering" is still quite sudden... you are usually a bit more prepared for it if you've engaged in the practice for awhile. in a sense, it's not so much that we are trying to have a transcendental experience which changes our lives... rather, we are trying to have said transcendental experience and then maintain the awareness of that experience throughout our life.

you've heard of the Zen Koans, i'm sure. there is also a teaching style called a "mondo", of which the following is representative:

Before we understand
1,000 books of scripture are not enough.
Once we understand
even one word is too much.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I think a big problem with understanding Buddhism is that all of the original texts were written in Sanskrit, an ancient Indian language for which no complete translation to any modern language has ever been made. For this reason there are many words which are very difficult to traslate. The idea of infinite time on this world for example is logically nonsensical in English, because if we can achieve enlightenment the time on this world will end and how can the infinite come to an end?

In my humble and incredibly ignorant opinion, buddhism is something which has to be cotemplated long and hard to truly understand, the truth is in all of us, the subtle mind, the Buddha seed, but no words exist to express it.

If anyone has read the Book '1984' by George Orwell that would help to express my point. The concept of Newspeak, the new language concieved by Big Brother and his administration removes the posibility of revolution by removing the word from the language. This makes it very difficult to concieve a revolution. Same principle.