tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post2794008772919659993..comments2024-03-18T10:07:38.422+08:00Comments on Awakening to Reality: Actual Freedom - The Third AlternativeSohhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-75295660383246060702015-08-28T05:24:20.520+08:002015-08-28T05:24:20.520+08:00I may add, that chasing experiences, PCE's, is...I may add, that chasing experiences, PCE's, is as deluded as chasing Jesus. The loop of consciousness cannot end until the chasing ends.John Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-21028966608391239482015-08-28T05:21:41.396+08:002015-08-28T05:21:41.396+08:00It is a little strange that so many who declare th...It is a little strange that so many who declare themselves "Actually Free" are very bound up in self expression, self proclaimation, and self protection.<br /><br />They love to talk about their great freedom from emotion and yet, they denigrate and deny others their own experiences as if these have no value as they are not an outcome of the Actual Freedom process. Which as someone above has indeed pointed out, is not so original at all. You can find similar methods in spiritualism/channelling teachings, in Byron Katie's process, in Gurdjieff, etc.<br /><br />I find the closed mindedness of Actual Freedom practitioners most offputting, their defensiveness of "their method", their abhorance of questions from others who have clearly experienced something other than day-to-day consciousness and action (or should i say, reaction). Any question is viewed as an attack, why would someone emotionally free view a question as an attack? Just look on thier forums to discover this for yourself. Ask a few inncocent questions. After a few unnecessary abusive and malicious replies, you may find yourself banned from the forum, as I have numerous times.<br /><br />The whole thing smacks of cultism to me. If you read Richard's site objectively, you can't but be hit by the falsity of it all, the egoitistic indulgence, and yes the blatant contradictions which abound.<br /><br />From taking a simple approach, he has done his utmost to make it as difficult as possible. The results of someone "beyond enlightenment"? I'd rather read J Krishnamurti, at least he gave clarity as to what he was about and made no grandiose claims.<br /><br />Truth, indeed, there can be nothing beyond Truth. John Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-87088240196777311132011-05-09T07:32:49.300+08:002011-05-09T07:32:49.300+08:00To anonymous: while I do have doubts that richard ...To anonymous: while I do have doubts that richard has overcome all instinctual passions (while acknowleding that he does experience an immense degree of freedom from passions), and agree with you that his claims are not new, there is actually a difference where the methods lead.<br /><br />Self-inquiry leads to the I AM realization. I have practiced this years ago culminating in self-realization so I know. But self-realisation is not final. <br /><br />See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html<br /><br />And<br /><br />http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.htmlSohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-56181775211486836272011-05-09T06:36:54.386+08:002011-05-09T06:36:54.386+08:00Richard isn't beyond emotion or the human cond...Richard isn't beyond emotion or the human condition he's totally indulging in it, read the sample chapters of his Journal. He just loves shopping, and can't comprehend why so many "belittle" the capitalist consumerist society (so much for enlightenment). He also love to fuck his new lover. Isn't fucking instinct??? So many contradiction, so much waffle. Trying to impress with obscure words and verbose is not the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-41132722392890528012011-05-09T06:19:58.456+08:002011-05-09T06:19:58.456+08:00It's si amusing how people take on all this ru...It's si amusing how people take on all this rubbish, the silly slogans... flesh & bloody body, what is the body - it is beyond flesh & blood. Richard is a delused fool who tries so desperately to convince but without any real conviction. His words are empty. His claim is not even original, just a mash up of many sources.<br /><br />You could ask yourself "What am I" and still get the same results. You could ask as did Rama Maharishi "who am I" and still get the same results. The fact is, whever attention is held, consciousness must be. When consciousness is fixed, there is error of perception. Free yourself indeed, but only via understanding is there freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-16650404305791814492010-08-09T02:41:44.091+08:002010-08-09T02:41:44.091+08:00On a light note, this is what experiencing a rainb...On a light note, this is what experiencing a rainbow in PCE mode might be like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI<br /><br />just kidding! you aren't suppose to cry in PCE! that's probably an ASC ;)Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-70257913709283641892010-08-05T02:45:43.472+08:002010-08-05T02:45:43.472+08:00By the way, our body is renewing its cells every m...By the way, our body is renewing its cells every moment. As a matter of fact every 7 years our body has completely changed in terms of cell renewal.<br /><br />So it can also be said that our body is being reborn continuously even in this life.<br /><br />So in fact, your "this flesh and blood body" is not in fact "this singular/permanent flesh and blood body" but an "this ever-changing and ever-evolving flesh and blood body".<br /><br />Yet, we still say "I was," etc.... That's fine as far as it goes, it is understood that there is no self or soul or a permanent body, but it is used for convenience.<br /><br />Rebirth does not contradict No-Soul, Anatta.<br /><br />"I was a fisherman in a past life" is simply a convenient statement. There is no "I" that lasts even a moment, there is no continuous "I" from just now till now, in the same way the body is renewing itself entirely every 7 years.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-4917291533209887172010-08-05T02:42:00.972+08:002010-08-05T02:42:00.972+08:00"And how is Richard using the term different ..."And how is Richard using the term different from the Arahant?"<br /><br />If an arahant says "I was a fisherman in a past life" he/she is obviously not referring to "this flesh and blood body".Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-17505882339546072162010-08-05T02:37:56.268+08:002010-08-05T02:37:56.268+08:00And how is Richard using the term different from t...And how is Richard using the term different from the Arahant?<br /><br />It is clearly stated that the Arahant has clearly seen through any notions of a self, or a soul, or an identity.<br /><br />Of course the word "I" is refering to the body and mind - in Buddhism, the body and mind is all there is (the five skandhas). The "I" is simply a convention for the five skandhas, it cannot be found as an inherent identity, like the word "weather" is not an inherently existing entity but simply a process of clouds, rain, wind, etc. As I explained already in my document.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-51946911350277529792010-08-05T02:34:58.099+08:002010-08-05T02:34:58.099+08:00"A quick look at Richard's personal histo..."A quick look at Richard's personal history - http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm - shows just how many 'I had', 'I lived in...', 'My'... 'Me'.... he used."<br /><br />But Richard explains that he uses the term I to mean the physical body only ("this flesh and blood body"). When he means an identity, he usually uses scare quotes around the pronoun (example: "'I' as ego and 'me' as soul"). So he is not using it the same way as an arahant.<br /><br />Richard: "Before I was born, I was not here. Now that I am alive, I am here. After death I will not be here … just like before birth. Where is the problem?"Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-85830167337292214192010-08-05T00:59:55.973+08:002010-08-05T00:59:55.973+08:00A quick look at Richard's personal history - h...A quick look at Richard's personal history - http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm - shows just how many 'I had', 'I lived in...', 'My'... 'Me'.... he used.<br /><br />Even though he no longer believes in a self/Self/soul, it is a necessary convenience. It would not make sense (or at least it will be silly) to say, "The body mind used to live in ...." "The body mind is going to the toilet now."<br /><br />..............<br /><br />Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?<br /><br />Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:<br /><br /> "Consummate with taints destroyed,<br /> One who bears his final body,<br /> Would he still say 'I speak'?<br /> And would he say 'They speak to me'?" <br /><br />This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.<br /><br />The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:<br /><br /> "Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,<br /> He uses such terms as mere expressions." <br /><br />The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:<br /><br /> "No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;<br /> For him all knots of conceit are consumed.<br /> When the wise one has transcended the conceived<br /> He might still say 'I speak,'<br /> And he might say 'They speak to me.'<br /> Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,<br /> He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-60384267073255519092010-08-05T00:48:39.962+08:002010-08-05T00:48:39.962+08:00You said: "When someone recalls a past life, ...You said: "When someone recalls a past life, they may say "I was a fisherman in a past life" or "I was raped in a past life", etc. There seems to be some sense or feeling of "This happened to *me* in a past life"."<br /><br /><br />There is no problem using "I was" if it is just for convenience, conventional purpose.<br /><br />Like, Richard even though is actually free can still say "I am Richard", "I was born on this planet in on [insert date]", "I once had [insert past experience]" - even while knowing that these are for convenience whereas no real 'self' can be found.<br /><br /><br />You said: "There is no "Presence" in actual freedom."<br /><br />I am aware that Richard does not use the term 'Presence' to describe Actual Freedom, however I am pointing out that Richard's definition of 'Presence' is different from Thusness's.<br /><br />Whereas Richard is using the term 'Presence' to mean 'Presence of Being', Thusness is using the term 'Presence' to mean 'Presence of Sensations'. No sense of being is involved at all. It is like saying: Sensations are present. Universe is present. (obviously) You cannot say they are absent.<br /><br />Whereas Presence is used to mean Being in Stage 1 and 2 and even up to 4, it is no longer referred that way in Stage 5.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-16930607653256892172010-08-05T00:43:39.910+08:002010-08-05T00:43:39.910+08:00"I don't understand what do you mean by &..."I don't understand what do you mean by 'Because otherwise how is one going to be able to associate the process that was going on before in a certain body and is now continuing in the other body.' - why is 'association' necessary?"<br /><br />When someone recalls a past life, they may say "I was a fisherman in a past life" or "I was raped in a past life", etc. There seems to be some sense or feeling of "This happened to *me* in a past life".<br /><br />"Thusness's term 'Presence' is different from Actual Freedom's 'Presence'."<br /><br />There is no "Presence" in actual freedom.Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-28086517370506677212010-08-04T23:34:24.945+08:002010-08-04T23:34:24.945+08:00Hi,
There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of af...Hi,<br /><br />There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action. As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.<br /><br />And the primary affliction/delusion is the conceit of 'I am' (asmi-mano). This conceit is false and delusional.<br /><br />And when ignorance is removed through awakening of Insight, until all fetters and afflictions are dissolved, there will be no more conditions for Birth to arise.<br /><br />The dissolution of the conceit "I Am" was described by the Buddha as "nibbana here and now," and it cuts to the root of all contentions.<br /><br />So in short, with this conceit "I Am" thoroughly and completely removed from our psyche, there is no more 'fuel' for further rebirths. Such a person is known as 'Arhant', a conquerer, someone who is liberated from the cycle of rebirth.<br /><br />Nevertheless, even while rebirth is happening, there is no 'self/Self/soul' that transmigrates - that is an illusion, what is actually happening is that thoughts/illusion /conceit of "I Am" and other afflictions and karma which are all processes are conditioning the process of rebirth.<br /><br />I don't understand what do you mean by 'Because otherwise how is one going to be able to associate the process that was going on before in a certain body and is now continuing in the other body.' - why is 'association' necessary? Rebirth is simply a selfless process, there is no transmigration of a single identity/soul involved - you are neither the same person (that would imply a soul) nor a totally different person (because there is a causal/interdependent link) from the past life, in the same way that you are not the same person nor a different person from yesterday. Every moment is a fresh, new moment, a new experience, even though conditioned by the previous moments. You don't need to associate/identify with a 'soul' that persists from yesterday to today, and yet, you can still remember what happened yesterday isn't it. Each experience is actually experienced without a feeler/soul - even if we are deluded to think otherwise.<br /><br />Thusness's term 'Presence' is different from Actual Freedom's 'Presence'. Thusness is aware that Presence can be mistaken as an Ultimate Identity or Ultimate Being in the earlier stages of enlightenment, but starting from Stage 5, Presence/Awareness/Consciousness is simply understood to be 'all vivid arisings/sensations', the pure sensations from all consciousnesses (the five senses plus thinking). All sensations are simply present, vivid, alive of itself, and this is the meaning of 'Presence' (not talking about a sense of Being).Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-37481530621739055392010-08-04T19:36:35.505+08:002010-08-04T19:36:35.505+08:00Thank you for the detailed reply, it clarified som...Thank you for the detailed reply, it clarified some of my doubts, at least in regards to what the Buddhist position is.<br /><br />Assuming rebirth occurs even though there is no entity, even though there is actually no fixed "me", is there a feeling of being "me"? Because otherwise how is one going to be able to associate the process that was going on before in a certain body and is now continuing in the other body. Please note that I am not asking if there is a "me", but rather if there is a basic "feeling of being me".<br /><br />Some enlightened beings report that after enlightenemnt all that remains is "the feeling of being" or "there is only being", would you say that this "feeling of being" does remain, and would you say that it is the same as "the feeling of being me" that I mentioned above? I notice that Thusness/PasserBy often uses the term "Presence", would you say that "Presence" is the same as "Being" or "the feeling of being"?Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-25664617158606540752010-08-03T15:25:12.582+08:002010-08-03T15:25:12.582+08:00As for what you said about rebirth, I wrote a long...As for what you said about rebirth, I wrote a longer reply that is too long to be posted in blogger, so I'll attach a link to the document: http://www.box.net/shared/kdim1v35me<br /><br />I might ask Thusness for his opinion on this matter tonight. I am not sure if I represented the Buddhist view accurately enough, but that is just my understanding so far.<br /><br />I will inform here again if I wanted to update any errors in my document.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-76310445742515477032010-08-03T00:01:42.860+08:002010-08-03T00:01:42.860+08:00"With regards to the Buddha's rules as be..."With regards to the Buddha's rules as being "subject to revision", unfortunately, I see people still quoting the Buddha's rules and relying on them/him as an arbiter of what is right and wrong"<br /><br />As a lay Buddhist, we are asked (not forced or threatened) to follow the 5 precepts, not for the sake of Buddha, but for our own sake:<br /><br />1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.<br />2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.<br />3. I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.<br />4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech. <br />5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.<br /><br />Obviously, all these precepts are for one's own good. Just these five precepts will do for a lay Buddhist.<br /><br />The Buddha did not say 'righteous vs evil' (that is Christianity not Buddhism), he said 'wholesome, skillful', what leads to benefit and happiness of humanity, and 'unwholesome, unskillful', which leads to harm and suffering.<br /><br />Therefore we are told to avoid whatever is condusive to harm and suffering, and perform whatever is wholesome and beneficial. This is morality 101 of Buddhism.<br /><br />Killing, stealing, etc, leads to harm and suffering for oneself and others, and therefore obviously should be avoided.<br /><br />These are generally agreed upon and that is why the Buddha set these basic 5 precepts for lay Buddhists. It is for our own good.<br /><br />Btw, the Buddha did not tell people to blindly follow him, but to use their own judgement:<br /><br />http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html<br /><br />..."When adopted & carried out, do they lead to welfare & to happiness, or not?"<br /><br />"When adopted & carried out, they lead to welfare & to happiness. That is how it appears to us."<br /><br />"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said....<br /><br />(Kalama Sutta)<br /><br /><br />As you can see, the Buddha encourages use to see whether a teaching is sensible, leads to happiness, rather than following blindly.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-87619739462254496882010-08-02T21:02:48.729+08:002010-08-02T21:02:48.729+08:00Richard makes a clear distinction between physical...Richard makes a clear distinction between physical and non-physical (often called metaphysical or spiritual), and says that the the non-physical, the psychic realm, although very real, does not exist in actuality. He does not explicitly talk about recollecting his past lives, but he does mention that he used to access the akashic records.<br /><br />Ether; Etheric; Akasha; Akashic<br />http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/catalogue/ether.htmGuilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-18617546458090880262010-08-02T20:35:57.345+08:002010-08-02T20:35:57.345+08:00To clarify. With regards to the self/soul and rebi...To clarify. With regards to the self/soul and rebirth/reincarnation, what I am trying to say, is that your argument for the non-existence of a soul, which is a non-physical entity, in not valid because what you are using as an example, that a person remebers something that happened yesterday, can already be easily explained as not needing a non-physical entity and happening purely by physical means, as the body is recalling information that was present to its physical senses (that is, locally), in a similar way that a piece of paper can retain a poem, or a camera can retain a picture. Whereas in the case of rebirth, information moves from one body to the other, without any obvious physical clues or physical explanation, which is hard to explain without the existence of a non-physical entity. I have a related question. Do you, and/or your teacher, make or not make a distinction between physical and non-physical? I have read about cases, true or false I don't know, where information has been transmitted from one person to the other mentally from a distance (that is, telepathy), but even if that happens, it has not been determined to be through physical means, although one could argue that it happens through a medium (some may say "akasha" or "aether"), whether physical or non-physical, that science has not been able to explain, in a manner akin to, say, radio waves. I don't know.Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-84609910639387615702010-08-02T19:20:32.682+08:002010-08-02T19:20:32.682+08:00Regarding the rules, I did not mean to imply that ...Regarding the rules, I did not mean to imply that there shouldn't be laws. I was specifically talking about morality and the precepts and rules in buddhism which defines things as "right and wrong", which is not the same as "legal and illegal" in law, or "silly and sensible" in actualism. First of all, I think religion and law should be separated, because clearly, different religions have different ideas of reality. A large number of countries have democracy as the form of government nowadays. For instance, no one wants to be killed, so most people agree that killing another person should be illegal. With regards to the Buddha's rules as being "subject to revision", unfortunately, I see people still quoting the Buddha's rules and relying on them/him as an arbiter of what is right and wrong, in fact I have seen that in your forum, in a similar way that Christians quote the bible to prove that something is right or wrong. The main problem I see with the concepts of right and wrong, is that they often prevent rational thought, usually relying on what someone else said, and usually appealing to emotions like guilt and shame, instead of sensible thought.<br /><br />Regarding the soul, I did not actually say that "the fact of reincarnation means that consciousness is a soul, since if rebirth is possible then it implies that consciousness is not material based", what I said what that your argument about the non-existence of a soul was invalid because you were extrapolating from physical to non-physical in your example where you said "Just because you can remember an event yesterday, does that imply that there is a soul? No!". I think that this argument is as valid as me saying something like "I write a poem on a piece of paper. Later, the poem is available to be read. Does that imply that there is a soul? No!" (example only). Neither I nor the piece of paper need to have a soul for the information to be stored there. Not even consciousness is necessary for the paper to retain the information. And a camera can even record a picture or a scene on film to be accessed later.Guilhermenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-8410624646241268942010-08-02T18:05:00.660+08:002010-08-02T18:05:00.660+08:00http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/207.html
II. The Doc...http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/207.html<br /><br />II. The Doctrine<br /> <br />Rebirth Is Not Transmigration<br /> <br />1. Translated from the Milindapañha (7116)<br /> <br /> <br />SAID the king: “Bhante Ngasena, does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating [passing over]?” 1<br /> “Yes, your majesty. Rebirth takes place without anything transmigrating.” 2<br /> “How, bhante Ngasena, does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating? Give an illustration.” 3<br /> “Suppose, your majesty, a man were to light a light from another light; pray, would the one light have passed over [transmigrated] to the other light?” 4<br /> “Nay, verily, bhante.” 5<br /> “In exactly the same way, your majesty, does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating.” 6<br /> “Give another illustration.” 7<br /> “Do you remember, your majesty, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your professor of poetry?” 8<br /> “Yes, bhante.” 9<br /> “Pray, your majesty, did the verse pass over [transmigrate] to you from your teacher?” 10<br /> “Nay, verily, bhante.” 11<br /> “In exactly the same way, your majesty, does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating.” 12<br /> “You are an able man, bhante Ngasena.” 13<br /> <br />2. Translated from the Milindapañha (465)<br /><br /> “Bhante Ngasena,” said the king, “what is it that is born into the next existence?” 14<br /> “Your majesty,” said the elder, “it is name and form that is born into the next existence.” 15<br /> “Is it this same name and form that is born into the next existence?” 16<br /> “Your majesty, it is not this same name and form that is born into the next existence; but with this name and form, your majesty, one does a deed—it may be good, or it may be wicked—and by reason of this deed another name and form is born into the next existence.”<br /><br />(click on link to continue)Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-37807142769390141712010-08-02T17:29:59.945+08:002010-08-02T17:29:59.945+08:00By the way a common question that arises is... &qu...By the way a common question that arises is... "if there is rebirth, then WHO/WHAT is it that is reborn?" This question is wrong because it presumes that for rebirth to take place, there must be a self, an entity, a soul, but this is not the case for Buddhism.<br /><br />In Buddhism, the question 'Who is reborn' is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"<br /><br />The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity.<br /><br />For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada ( http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/mahasip.htm )<br /><br />The Buddha taught that at any moment, Consciousness is an ARISING that has *Conditions* - it never arises without a condition. As such, how can it be a soul?<br /><br />In Buddhism, as Thusness said, Consciousness/Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting (a feeler/observer) but rather a manifestation. Luminosity (vivid awareness) is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is without subject and object separation.<br /><br />One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-23421476751405443972010-08-02T17:29:46.080+08:002010-08-02T17:29:46.080+08:00You said that the fact of reincarnation means that...You said that the fact of reincarnation means that consciousness is a soul, since if rebirth is possible then it implies that consciousness is not material based.<br /><br />However, you have no proof that consciousness must be limited or confined to one physical body. How do you know that? It is just an assumption, a mere inference. It is not your direct experience. Yes, in direct experience, when you experience a PCE you clearly experience that there is no self/Self/soul, only the Universe experiencing/seeing/hearing itself as this body and mind without an observer/feeler. But how do you know that this can only be experienced in this physical body and not in future bodies and future lives? That is an inference, an assumption, not a direct experience.<br /><br />There are many people who had near death experience who reported witnessing their body from a different location, and witnessing the medical procedures the doctors were doing, accurately, all the while he was announced medically dead (and then later revived). These things are well-known in medical science, even though they are unable to fully explain them.<br /><br />Well, I am suggesting that yes, consciousness need not die with the physical body.<br /><br />*But I am not suggesting that consciousness is thus, as a result, a soul*<br /><br />Thusness commented on someone's out of body experience 4 years ago, he wrote:<br /><br />"Thusness: On feeling lightness and experiencing ‘astral traveling’:<br /><br />(quote from website)<br /> "My own experience is that the density of the body seems to change. Years ago I experienced the phenomena of ‘astral traveling.’ During this experience you have the feeling of leaving the coarser body and floating. At some stage you have to return to the body, and the feeling is not very pleasant. You are going from a feeling of freedom and ‘lightness’ back into what feels like cold, dense, clay. This ‘clay’ is the collective emotions, experiences, and holding of the body. After some AMness has fallen away, the body feels lighter and less dense. You just keep feeling lighter and freer."<br /><br />Thusness: The “density” and “lightness” is the weight of “losing her identification with certain aspect of the self”. The power of this “identification” cannot be underestimated.<br /><br />Next is her experience of ‘astral traveling’, if she is in a stage of absorption and then out of a sudden awareness, the eyes of awareness may allow her to witness something that is altogether different from the physical place but this does not necessary mean that ‘consciousness’ has left and re-enter the body. Consciousness is propelled by causes and conditions. According to her conditions of absorption and clarity, just IS.<br /><br />But then everyone has their own experiences. Just my 2 cents. :)"<br /><br />Consciousness (seeing, hearing, thinking, etc) is a process, a manifestation, that dependently originates, that is interdependent with the physical body (while we are alive), but may not be limited by it. There could be other conditions for consciousness to arise. Nevertheless consciousness is never understood to be a soul in Buddhism.<br /><br />Why? In direct experience - in hearing, there is always just sounds, no hearer, in seeing, there is always just scenery, no seer, etc etc...<br /><br />This truth continues even into death. Which means if you are having an out of body experience, if you realized anatta, you will realize that even though you are having an out of body experience, you are still seeing without a seer, hearing without a hearer, etc.<br /><br />So you see, even if you are being reborn, even if you are experiencing out of body experiences, the truth remains that whatever you experience IS the Universe experiencing itself, seeing and hearing itself, without an observer/self/Self. That is why it is not contradictory.<br /><br />The truth of no-soul, no-self/no-Self applies everywhere, whether you are in Australia, or in U.S., or you are in another planet, or you are dead and transiting to another life.Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-82832336712549282872010-08-02T16:37:05.326+08:002010-08-02T16:37:05.326+08:00Hi,
The rules first, since it is an easy one.
Th...Hi,<br /><br />The rules first, since it is an easy one.<br /><br />The rules are not fixed - Buddha did not set rules in the beginning, but as time goes by, his community/sangha did foolish things, so the Buddha had no choice but to set some rules to prevent folly from being repeated. Buddha's rules were 'subject to revision'.<br /><br />Now.. I understand that AF does not have precepts and rules and prefer people to exercise their common sense. This is also the case in certain schools of Buddhism - Dzogchen, for example, teaches not blind adherence to rules but to exercise our awareness.<br /><br />Even non-buddhist teachings like Eckhart Tolle also claim that rules are not necessary if one acts with awareness and wisdom. (not suggesting that Eckhart Tolle is teaching the same things as AF, just pointing out that the 'no rules' thing is not perculiar to AF at all)<br /><br />Of course... that is IF that person has 'awareness' and 'wisdom' to begin with.<br /><br />Some people just don't! So how do you, for practical purposes, prevent criminals from killing, from stealing things?<br /><br />You set up laws. Well, yes, understandably as AF so clearly said, the rules and laws have not solved the problems of humanity from its roots - the attachment to the self/Self that leads to the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, etc, the source of all the sufferings of the world. This is in line with Buddhist understanding.<br /><br />Yet, having laws are still necessary because at least it helps maintain some level of orderliness in society (even though not to the level of perfection). You can't deny that the vast majority of society are still un-free, and therefore, quite capable of being harmful.<br /><br />You can't expect everyone to attain Actual Freedom immediately - I do not believe it can be achieved even in ten thousand years time. Certainly not in our lifetime, I can assure you. So in the meanwhile, while we wait for a utopian society (in an unreachable future) where everyone becomes actually free, do we just let society run lawless and let the murders and rapes go uncontrolled? Do you see my point?<br /><br />So why do away with laws and rules? It is necessary, for the time being. It is not the ultimate solution, I agree, but a practical interim (and imperfect) solution to some of society's problems. After all who would want to live in a lawless land? Everyone prefers to live in a lawful, safe, low-crime society. Tell me honestly: would you even dare let alone want to live in a lawless society where murders, rape, robbery go unchecked?<br /><br />Similar for Buddha - his Arhants were no longer capable of transgressing the rules (like killing, stealing, etc) even if the rules were non-existent. Why? They have removed the delusion of a self/Self and the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, fear, etc etc. They can no longer do harm to themselves and others.<br /><br />But the rules are necessary for beginners/non-Arhants.<br /><br />It is for practical, pragmatic purposes. To safeguard the happiness of mankind and prevent the world from becoming a living hell, precepts and rules are still a 'transitory necessity'.<br /><br />Buddhism has a higher goal - freedom from all sufferings. Precepts and rules are not going to achieve that, it only ensures that you do not make your deluded life even worse - but it does not remove your delusions (of being a self/Self). Nevertheless, precepts are still helpful for practical purposes.<br /><br />Also, precepts help ensure that if we do not become an Arhant/liberated yet, at least we do not make so much bad karma for ourselves...<br /><br />Which comes to the question of karma and rebirth.<br /><br />How can there be rebirth without a soul?<br /><br />(to be continued)Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-49714625944737939162010-08-02T03:27:05.829+08:002010-08-02T03:27:05.829+08:00Hi. I read your whole article "Actual Freedom...Hi. I read your whole article "Actual Freedom and Buddhism" and I think it is generally a well made criticism. It is visible that you took the time to investigate actual freedom, instead of ignorantly dismissing it, or pretending it doesn't exist, or censoring the subject, like others have done, and I want to thank you for that.<br /><br />I claim neither "enlightenment" nor "actual freedom", but from what I read, I think you may have a valid point about "anatta" being misinterpreted/misunderstood. I hope that an actually free person will clarify any misunderstandings. I still have doubts and objections, especially regarding rebirth/reincarnation and morality/rules.<br /><br />Regarding rebirth, and the existence of a self, you say "Just because you can remember an event yesterday, does that imply that there is a soul? No!" and similar things. I think this argument is not valid because there is a physical brain to store the information that will be recalled later by the same body, whereas in the case of rebirth, if it really happens, it seems like something non-physical is moving from one body to the other.<br /><br />Regarding morality, buddhism has a large set of precepts/rules, very specific rules, about things that should or should not be done, whereas actualism does not have the same requisites. In buddhism, there is a lot of talk about "right and wrong", and many judgements that seem to be fixed, whereas in actualism judgement is made on a basis of "silly or sensible", which are more flexible appraisals that depend on the situations rather than being fixed.Guilhermenoreply@blogger.com