GENIUS FORUMS

Carl,

What do you think happens to the consciousness at the death of the body?

Loki,

Her conclusion above strikes me as very smug and silly.

The smug part I don't get at all.

Jehu,

Yes, practice is a good word for it; we must practice awareness.

There is something that worries me a bit. I could easily enough get into a state of being quite nonjudgmental but is it profitable to become like an infant? I recall a time when I was visiting with some young people, and one of the girls told me the young man whose house it was felt embarrassed at the mess. A mess? Why, I hadn't noticed that at all. She was surprised. I suppose it was a mess, but I just was not in a frame of mind to notice that aspect of things. Normally I would. Perhaps I just cared so little about whether the place was a mess or not. But really, we need some categories to be efficient. Of course, many of the times when the past intrudes upon the present, it isn't useful at all. Sometimes, as you pointed out, it is a fantasy entirely, and sometimes, it just reinforces negative patterns if you expect such and such a result simply because it has happened before.

How can a soul that dwells in ignorance know what lessons it requires? It is not the soul that determines its next incarnation, but the Absolute; and the nature of its new life is dependent upon its conduct in its past life. It is far from being a blind process, for there is nothing – no matter how trivial – that escapes the Absolute, and being an inviolable law – well, I think you get the point.

Some people think there is a higher self, although I don't understand it well. But there is no reason to suppose that the other dimensions of existence should lack richness, and there could be entities or places of learning wherein one integrates one's recent life experience and takes advice for the next. But even if it is the absolute (and the two ideas are not incompatible anyway) there is still some intelligence going into the process.

But if the nature of the new life depends upon one's conduct in the past, it seems to me we should at least dispense with the Hindu or Buddhist equivalent of finger wagging Judeo Christian notions. For example, the Hindus suppose that if you are born wealthy, you must have done great things. Yet if this were the case, the rich would have a tendency toward generosity. I rather suppose that a soul can be on a trajectory for a time, playing out greed, for example, to its end. If the entity is greedy for wealth, they may accumulate the talent and increase the greed over lifetimes. It is odd how someone like Mozart seemed to take off musically at such an incredibly early age, and Warren Buffet was studying the stock market at the age of 7!

I can see where being born wealthy might be exactly the sort of trap in which a greedy soul spirals downwards toward lack of empathy and lowered spiritual awareness through the tempations of ego and money.

People may be likened to the electrified bumpers of a pin ball machine,

Well, I don't know of course but it seems likely that just as a person can deteriorate, they can also reach a point where the going is rather downhill (the going is easy and advancing not a struggle). "To him who has, more will be given."

or we can give in to our feelings of hopelessness, and become a source of additional suffering. I highly recommend that you read “Kitchen Table Wisdom”, for the author has much to say regarding your particular branch of health care..

Aright, it may be a good book. I am not feeling hopeless, but I have better things to do than participate in a farce, even though it is in many ways a good opportunity. There are better ways tor reduce the suffering of people. For one thing, most of the people at my ward don't really want to get better I don't think, and aren't learning much. So these are not the people who are ready to learn something.

Iolaus wrote:Carl, What do you think happens to the consciousness at the death of the body?

What I think (my opinion) is of no consequence, except as it may influence my own actions, since I cannot know. I am working as if my consciousness continues.

Carl wrote:Literal within the context of human biology and metaphysical reality. By literal I didn't mean inherent, anymore than humans themselves are inherent. You agreed with Iolaus concerning humans having multiple lives, only insofar, I understand, as lives are a function of our experiencings. People have the experience of multiple lives.

Or, what would you call it?

The “agent” of which Iolaus and I were speaking, and which experiences reincarnation, is not a human being (person) – which are illusory, but a soul or fragment of the one true Being, and as such, is neither born nor subject to death.

Iolaus wrote:There is something that worries me a bit. I could easily enough get into a state of being quite nonjudgmental but is it profitable to become like an infant? I recall a time when I was visiting with some young people, and one of the girls told me the young man whose house it was felt embarrassed at the mess. A mess? Why, I hadn't noticed that at all. She was surprised. I suppose it was a mess, but I just was not in a frame of mind to notice that aspect of things. Normally I would. Perhaps I just cared so little about whether the place was a mess or not. But really, we need some categories to be efficient. Of course, many of the times when the past intrudes upon the present, it isn't useful at all. Sometimes, as you pointed out, it is a fantasy entirely, and sometimes, it just reinforces negative patterns if you expect such and such a result simply because it has happened before.

It is one thing to be aware that a house is in disarray, and quite another to judge it. Judging is not discernment, it is the overlaying of a value or merit upon the thing discerned. To the awakened ones, all things are of equal merit, for they are all of the same nature – illusory.

Some people think there is a higher self, although I don't understand it well. But there is no reason to suppose that the other dimensions of existence should lack richness, and there could be entities or places of learning wherein one integrates one's recent life experience and takes advice for the next.

I am not sure what you mean by “other dimensions of existence”; is there another mode of being besides the two we have already identified (i.e., absolute and relative)?

But even if it is the absolute (and the two ideas are not incompatible anyway) there is still some intelligence going into the process.

Yes, of course. The Absolute, being the operative cause of all things, is the intelligent director of all future manifestations within the relative world. However, the Absolute does not have an ultimate goal or plan in mind – as does the sentient being when it acts, for that would imply an eventual end. Nevertheless, the Absolute feels compassion for its sentient creations (which are really only fragments of itself), and so created the enlightening beings, so that they might approach the sentient beings within the dream, and awaken them to their true nature, so that the suffering associated with the cycle of becoming might be eliminated.

But if the nature of the new life depends upon one's conduct in the past, it seems to me we should at least dispense with the Hindu or Buddhist equivalent of finger wagging Judeo Christian notions.

Indeed!

For example, the Hindus suppose that if you are born wealthy, you must have done great things. Yet if this were the case, the rich would have a tendency toward generosity.

What you have to understand is that not all people have the spiritual capacity to understand the metaphysical doctrine that we have revealed during our enquiry, and to try and explain it to such people would merely drive them away. For this reason, wisdom teachers resort to what is sometimes called “provisional teachings” or “skilful mean”, such as the one you cited here. Now, provisional teachings are not untrue, they are “simplifications” that are intended to encourage such people to practice Right Livelihood, even though they are ignorant of the underlying reason for doing so. The reason why the teachers do this is because the practice of Right Livelihood will, even if the practitioner does not understand why they are doing so, contribute to the accumulation of the spiritual capacity (through tranquility of mind) that will eventually enable them to understand the doctrine and to awaken.

Aright, it may be a good book. I am not feeling hopeless, but I have better things to do than participate in a farce, even though it is in many ways a good opportunity. There are better ways to reduce the suffering of people. For one thing, most of the people at my ward don't really want to get better I don't think, and aren't learning much. So these are not the people who are ready to learn something.

There is only one meaningful way to reduce suffering, and that way is to awaken! You can cater to the needs of a person for a thousand lifetimes, and sooth their fears and pains, but the suffering will continue, for its root is ignorance and the cycle of becoming.

Jehu wrote:The “agent” of which Iolaus and I were speaking, and which experiences reincarnation, is not a human being (person) – which are illusory, but a soul or fragment of the one true Being, and as such, is neither born nor subject to death.

I was using human and soul interchangeably, so it seems I am understanding you clearly. You are saying that the soul reincarnates (through a series of bodies). I am asking how do we know this?

Methinks Jehu is a charlatan.

Carl wrote:I was using human and soul interchangeably, so it seems I am understanding you clearly. You are saying that the soul reincarnates (through a series of bodies). I am asking how do we know this?

You are aware, Carl, that there is nothing that is really reborn? We are speaking from the relative point of view here, that is to say, from the point of view of how things appear to the sentient being. The soul does not really inhabit the sentient being, for the sentient being, like the dream persona, is an illusion. And just as the dreaming mind can “appear to” inhabit various different dream personas at different times, so too can the soul appear to inhabit different sentient beings at different times.

So it is the soul that reincarnates. I agree. And the soul does not inhabit the body. But is the soul not an illusion as well, ultimately, for ultimately there is but one Soul? If so, you are still speaking of literal reincarnation, relatively -- that is, from the point of view of the sentient being -- speaking.

Carl G wrote:So it is the soul that reincarnates. I agree.

So that's what it is that reincarnates! All along I thought it was the left nipple.

Ignorance is a bitch.

So it is the soul that reincarnates. I agree. And the soul does not inhabit the body. But is the soul not an illusion as well, ultimately, for ultimately there is but one Soul? If so, you are still speaking of literal reincarnation, relatively -- that is, from the point of ]view of the sentient being -- speaking.

Yes, when we speak of a soul we mean that fragment of cognizant awareness which has become cut off from the whole (through ignorance), and then imagines itself to be a separately existing entity abiding among a multitude of other separately existing entities. Only that which imagines is real (absolute), while all that is imagined is mere appearance(relative).

In Buddhism, at least in its early stages, the prospect of reincarnating from body to body was regarded as a kind of prison sentence, while nirvanic consciousness was considered a blessed release. Nowadays, Buddhists regard reincarnation with a big smile on their face, happy in the thought that they will keep on living after death.

A clear sign, if one is needed, of how much Buddhism has regressed.

-

David wrote:In Buddhism, at least in its early stages, the prospect of reincarnating from body to body was regarded as a kind of prison sentence, while nirvanic consciousness was considered a blessed release. Nowadays, Buddhists regard reincarnation with a big smile on their face, happy in the thought that they will keep on living after death.

Indeed, but practitioners such as these have not yet realized that the essential nature of all relative existence is suffering – though I am certain that they have heard it said.

A clear sign, if one is needed, of how much Buddhism has regressed.

Buddhism (the religion), like all things (relative entities) that are born, must eventually undergo degeneration and death; there are no exceptions!

Jehu,

It is one thing to be aware that a house is in disarray, and quite another to judge it. Judging is not discernment, it is the overlaying of a value or merit upon the thing discerned. To the awakened ones, all things are of equal merit, for they are all of the same nature – illusory.

I had rather say things are of equal merit because all things are in their place and are reacting perfectly. At any rate, you had once said that only infants see the world as it is.

I am not sure what you mean by “other dimensions of existence”; is there another mode of being besides the two we have already identified (i.e., absolute and relative)?

I mean where the fairies live. I mean that I cannot see your soul, I cannot see a lot of things which exist. I cannot see gamma rays. The body dies and the soul continues to have experience. What sort of experience? Likely, experiences relative to its recent embodiment and perhaps a plan or preparation or advice for a next one.

Yes, of course. The Absolute, being the operative cause of all things, is the intelligent director of all future manifestations within the relative world. However, the Absolute does not have an ultimate goal or plan in mind – as does the sentient being when it acts, for that would imply an eventual end. Nevertheless, the Absolute feels compassion for its sentient creations (which are really only fragments of itself), and so created the enlightening beings, so that they might approach the sentient beings within the dream, and awaken them to their true nature, so that the suffering associated with the cycle of becoming might be eliminated.

Well, this is a plan of sorts. And, the whole setup could simply work towards awakening.

What you have to understand is that not all people have the spiritual capacity to understand the metaphysical doctrine that we have revealed during our enquiry, and to try and explain it to such people would merely drive them away. For this reason, wisdom teachers resort to what is sometimes called “provisional teachings” or “skilful mean”, such as the one you cited here.

A pious fiction, then.
Well, but for deeper thinkers the pious fictions are often quite a stumbling block. Perhaps that is why in ancient times there were esoteric teachings that were not for the masses. Perhaps Christianity and maybe Hinduism are too democratic.

Iolaus wrote:I mean where the fairies live. I mean that I cannot see your soul, I cannot see a lot of things which exist. I cannot see gamma rays. The body dies and the soul continues to have experience. What sort of experience? Likely, experiences relative to its recent embodiment and perhaps a plan or preparation or advice for a next one.

If you want to know what it is like where the fairies live you need only imagine, however, if you wish to know what it is like to dwell in the Absolute, you must dwell there – for it is beyond the imagination.

Well, this is a plan of sorts. And, the whole setup could simply work towards awakening.

Clearly, awakening is the plan (purpose) for the human being, for it would not be possible to awaken were in not in our nature to do so; however, this is not the ultimate goal of the Absolute.

A pious fiction, then.
Well, but for deeper thinkers the pious fictions are often quite a stumbling block. Perhaps that is why in ancient times there were esoteric teachings that were not for the masses. Perhaps Christianity and maybe Hinduism are too democratic.

Those with the capacity to understand at a level beyond the provisional teachings will naturally find there way – for there is nothing that is hidden, while those who do not have the capacity must be instructed in whatever manner will most benefit them. For this reason, it is said that there are “eighty-four thousand” (i.e., innumerable) paths which lead to enlightenment.

Jehu,

If you want to know what it is like where the fairies live you need only imagine, however, if you wish to know what it is like to dwell in the Absolute, you must dwell there – for it is beyond the imagination.

You are smugly assuming that there are no fairies, but you do not know that. I think that there are, but I also do not know, for I have not (yet) seen them. But my point was that there are regions of existence that our physical eyes do not see. Our perceptions are limited to what our bodily senses are able to give us. And we already know that there is more to the world than our senses can tell us. If you think that a fragment of awareness which cannot be seen is real, then there is no reason at all to assume that there are not other types of awareness that are embodied differently, out of our usual electromagnetic perceptive range.
I'm not interested in imagining about fairies, but I am interested in seeing them. If they exist. However-- what do you mean about dwelling with the Absolute? What do you have in mind?

however, this is not the ultimate goal of the Absolute.

Do you think the Absolute has a goal?

Those with the capacity to understand at a level beyond the provisional teachings will naturally find their way – for there is nothing that is hidden, while those who do not have the capacity must be instructed in whatever manner will most benefit them. For this reason, it is said that there are “eighty-four thousand” (i.e., innumerable) paths which lead to enlightenment.

Well, a lot of people have very little capacity to understand, and yet see through some of the ridiculous or negative teachings of religion. In general, I don't see a lot of difference in their spiritual advancement level compared to a lot of religious people. But they do get hung up for a long time in disbelief. And perhaps that is fine, perhaps they need to be hung up in that state for a time. Perhaps it would not help them to either be a believer of low level or be given better teachings. But I suspect that the false teachings of Christianity, specifically, has held many people back, both believers and nonbelievers.

Iolaus wrote:You are smugly assuming that there are no fairies, but you do not know that. I think that there are, but I also do not know, for I have not (yet) seen them. But my point was that there are regions of existence that our physical eyes do not see. Our perceptions are limited to what our bodily senses are able to give us. And we already know that there is more to the world than our senses can tell us. If you think that a fragment of awareness which cannot be seen is real, then there is no reason at all to assume that there are not other types of awareness that are embodied differently, out of our usual electromagnetic perceptive range.
I'm not interested in imagining about fairies, but I am interested in seeing them. If they exist.

When you say that you believe that fairies exist, I assume that you mean that they exist in actuality, as apposed to merely in one’s imagination – for there is no intermediate alternative. If this is the case, then you must ask yourself if the notion of a fairy conforms with the laws that govern the actual (objective) universe. For example, although there are no actual unicorns inhabiting the Earth at this time (that I am aware of), there is no logical reason why they could not exist in the future, or on some other planet – given the right conditions. However, there are many things that we can imagine, that are simply not possible in the objective world. The character Superman, for example, is simply not permissible, for many of his essential characteristics are in direct contradiction of the laws which govern the physical universe.

However-- what do you mean about dwelling with the Absolute? What do you have in mind?

I am simply saying that the Absolute cannot be neither imagined nor described, but be directly experienced – by means of one’s dwelling immediately within it.

Do you think the Absolute has a goal?

Being, of which the Absolute is the real aspect, is its own goal. As Parmenides said: “It is because it is possible for it to be and it is not possible for it to not be.”

Well, a lot of people have very little capacity to understand, and yet see through some of the ridiculous or negative teachings of religion. In general, I don't see a lot of difference in their spiritual advancement level compared to a lot of religious people. But they do get hung up for a long time in disbelief. And perhaps that is fine, perhaps they need to be hung up in that state for a time. Perhaps it would not help them to either be a believer of low level or be given better teachings. But I suspect that the false teachings of Christianity, specifically, has held many people back, both believers and nonbelievers.

Let us not confuse the provisional teachings of the enlightened within a given religion with the erroneous ramblings of the ignorant. The fact that a person becomes a teacher within his or her given faith does not necessarily mean that they have achieved true awakening, for most have acquired only that kind of knowledge which enters in through the ear and goes out again through the mouth, but has affected no transformation within. Nevertheless, so long as these teachers speak the truth, their words may still bring another to a state of awakening – given that the other has the capacity. Nevertheless, given the rarity of such capacity, there is a tendency for the truth to become distorted and even lost over time. For this reason, all religions will eventually degenerate and die – just as all things that are born must.

Jehu,

I am supposing that fairies may exist in actuality, and not in contradiction to the laws of science.

But we have no doubt drifted off into some non-necessity. Where shall we go from here.

Iolaus wrote:Where shall we go from here.

Since you seem to have no further questions regarding the path that leads to tranquility, let us now consider the elements which constitute the manifestation body of Tranquility, and how it relates to that which is called “Wisdom”.

The form or appearance of Tranquility is what the Buddhists call “the cessation of suffering”, its essence is “renunciation”, its embodiment is “relinquishment”, its potency is “release”, and its function is “letting go”. To understand the cessation of suffering, it is important to first understand what the term “suffering” (dhuka) means; and to do this we must first examine the elements that constitute its manifestation body of that which is called “Becoming”; which is to say, the ongoing cycle of personal existence.

The form or appearance of Becoming is the “sentient life”, and this life is marked by four distinct stages: birth, maturation (aging), degeneration (sickness) and death.

The essence of Becoming is “suffering”, though the sort of suffering (dhuka) that is meant here is not the physical variety, but the emotional.

Becoming is embodied in “lamentations”, that is to say, some overt bodily expression such as weeping or sobbing.

The potency which underlies Becoming is “pain”, and here we mean physical pain, be it from injury (physical or emotional) or loss.

The function of Becoming is “distress and despair”.

Becoming, in other words, is the existence of an ego-personality, and so long as the ego-personality exists, so too does distress and despair exist.

Tranquility then is the cessation of all psychological distress, wherein the mind rests in a state of equanimity, and is completely free of preference.

Jehu,

Well it is all logical, and at least largely true. But this is something I have always resisted, or that simply doesn't appeal to me. I may be unwilling to remove my rose colored glasses.

Perhaps it is true, but yet only one side of the reality coin.

What about happiness? And what is there to hope for? The cessation of living as a being? There is too much dismality in this view.
It does bother me that this beautiful nature is set up for a constant hunting of how to eat one another, and babies are a main dish. Insect babies, turtle babies, wildebeest babies. An explosion of fecundity, mostly all doomed.

Now, if the animals participate in an oversoul, and if the endorphins produce pleasure once the worst of the fright and flight are over, and life goes on and on and on without any break, it might not be as sad as it appears.

Regardless, one thing I have noted is that our reality here is both a heaven and a hell. It depends upon how you squint. There are those mostly in heaven, and there are those in hell. This philosophy doesn't seem to make note of that.

Basically, I am a Sufi. I'm involved in a love affair with the divine. I'm an advaitist, panentheistic, Taoist, monist mystic.

Fully deluded, according to the enlightened gurus here.

Iolaus wrote:What about happiness? And what is there to hope for? The cessation of living as a being?

Certainly not, for Being is what we are. It is not the cessation of living beings that brings an end to suffering, it is the cessation ignorance; which brings with it the dissolution of the ego-personality – that imaginary sufferer of our own making.

It does bother me that this beautiful nature is set up for a constant hunting of how to eat one another, and babies are a main dish. Insect babies, turtle babies, wildebeest babies. An explosion of fecundity, mostly all doomed.

Now, if the animals participate in an oversoul, and if the endorphins produce pleasure once the worst of the fright and flight are over, and life goes on and on and on without any break, it might not be as sad as it appears.

It is not sad, it is simply the way it must be: life and death are the interdependent and complementary aspects of sentient being.

Regardless, one thing I have noted is that our reality here is both a heaven and a hell. It depends upon how you squint. There are those mostly in heaven, and there are those in hell. This philosophy doesn't seem to make note of that.

I would prefer not to use the term “reality” in this context, for the degree to which one suffers or does not suffer in the relative world is purely a subjective matter.

Basically, I am a Sufi. I'm involved in a love affair with the divine. I'm an advaitist, panentheistic, Taoist, monist mystic.

Do you see how quickly we revert to old habits? When you define yourself as a Sufi, Taoist or monist mystic; it is not your true self that you are describing, but your apparent self (ego-personality)? Are preferences not the essence of ego-personality?

Jehu,

Certainly not, for Being is what we are. It is not the cessation of living beings that brings an end to suffering, it is the cessation ignorance; which brings with it the dissolution of the ego-personality – that imaginary sufferer of our own making.

It is not sad, it is simply the way it must be: life and death are the interdependent and complementary aspects of sentient being.

So if I put these two comments together it woud seem that we are to continue as beings, but not as sentient beings.

Regardless, one thing I have noted is that our reality here is both a heaven and a hell. It depends upon how you squint. There are those mostly in heaven, and there are those in hell. This philosophy doesn't seem to make note of that.I would prefer not to use the term “reality” in this context, for the degree to which one suffers or does not suffer in the relative world is purely a subjective matter.

But I used the word reality to refer to the actual reality we have here, whatever it is, and not the various experiences people are having within it. By reality, I mean existence.

Do you see how quickly we revert to old habits? When you define yourself as a Sufi, Taoist or monist mystic; it is not your true self that you are describing, but your apparent self (ego-personality)? Are preferences not the essence of ego-personality?

Yet you refuse to identify as a Buddhist but you are one!
I am not sure I would refer to them as preferences. They resonate as true, or truer than other things I have run across, that's all.
I don't really know where my ego personality leaves off and my true self begins. I tend to prefer life, safety, fun, beauty, music and relaxation to grunt work, war, lies, sickness and confusion.

Iolaus wrote:So if I put these two comments together it woud seem that we are to continue as beings, but not as sentient beings.

Sentient beings are two-fold in their nature, that is to say, they have both a real self (soul), and an imaginary self (ego-personality). Awakening to one’s true nature does not put an end to the objective world, but only to the subjective world.

But I used the word reality to refer to the actual reality we have here, whatever it is, and not the various experiences people are having within it. By reality, I mean existence.

Yes, but the objective (actual) world is not real (absolute), it is only apparent (relative).

Yet you refuse to identify as a Buddhist but you are one!

Though I am well educated in Buddhist metaphysics, I do not identify (my self) with this knowledge – this is not what I am.

I am not sure I would refer to them as preferences. They resonate as true, or truer than other things I have run across, that's all.

It is quite another thing to say that the doctrine of a particular philosophy rings true, than to identify one’s self with that doctrine.

I don't really know where my ego personality leaves off and my true self begins. I tend to prefer life, safety, fun, beauty, music and relaxation to grunt work, war, lies, sickness and confusion.

Yes, of course, every ego-personality is constituted in its own particular set of preferences – things which it finds pleasant and unpleasant.

Jehu,

Awakening to one’s true nature does not put an end to the objective world, but only to the subjective world.

I'm trying to envision it, but I am not sure living without a subjective world is compatible with human life.

Though I am well educated in Buddhist metaphysics, I do not identify (my self) with this knowledge – this is not what I am.
It is quite another thing to say that the doctrine of a particular philosophy rings true, than to identify one’s self with that doctrine.

Perhaps you don't identify as a Buddhist simply because you know intellectually that it does not fit with your philosophy to do so. Whereas I am more casual.
It is one thing to identify as a Catholic or a Shiite Muslim in the usual way, meaning exclusively, but I don't quite see calling myself a Sufi in the same light. Sufis are nominally muslim, but they know better. I see a Sufi as one who does not judge other people by outward titles and who feels a connection to the divine, and perhaps has a certain flair in expressing this. Those things fit me. But it is true that it is not "me" in some absolute, eternal sense.

Yes, of course, every ego-personality is constituted in its own particular set of preferences – things which it finds pleasant and unpleasant.

If all of us were completely devoid of ego personality then each person would be identical to the next. That is the truth of our true nature. All perfect, all pure, incorruptible.

But what are we doing here?