Questions on No Self
-
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
If you mean in medical terms conscious as in waking hours, that's fine and I can understand that. But in Buddhism consciousness is more than just waking hours, and we describe consciousness in a more detailed manner.
I must admit I have a hard time digesting big chunks. So, this small bite is easier:
Yes, I am certainly using the literal meaning though I said the two are not far apart in ordinary usage.
1) Conscious as in awake and able to response (medical term?). There are various levels (states) of consciousness - from asleep to alert. Even unconsciouness (comatose) has different states. For me, if I am totally unconscious, I am certainly not aware of what's going, even if my eyes were opened and my ears were not plugged.
We break it down.. in Waking hours, there's 6 sense (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) faculty and 6 sense consciousness functioning, and also 7th and 8th consciousness. In dream state and deep sleep there is still consciousness, but there's only 7th and 8th, no 1st~6th. 7th consciousness is the self-consciousness and responsible for causing dreams by reviewing seeds in the 8th consciousness, which is like a storehouse. In deep sleep one is so unconscious that one experiences almost no consciousness, nevertheless 7th and 8th consciousness is still present. It is 'pre-conscious' consciousness, pre-conscious means its there even without conscious awareness of our six senses.
Hopefully, my summary helps you understand better about the terms used in Buddhism.
But we must know that Consciousness in Buddhism is about. In Buddhism, there are physical phenomena and mental phenomena, as well as the “consciousness” or mental echo of these, which is also in the category of mental phenomena. It is a mental differentiation of sense objects, a "review", and a dualistic (subject-object) relation with what is perceived by our senses.
Therefore, in Buddhism, Awareness (immediate awareness, presence) comes first, then Consciousness (a review, an echo). Though ultimately even Consciousness is an expression of Awareness, but you get the idea.2) Aware - to know, come to know, take cognizant of. When I am awake (conscious at any states), I can tell what's going on - like its raining, what I have not done, when to travel, etc.
Your description is a little vague. I think you're refering more towards consciousness in terms of Buddhism, becoming conscious of sense objects through interpretation of it. Also, making sense of when to travel has more to do with thinking, logical analysis.
I find it hard to de-link this usage and connect to the Buddhist's terminology. -
Can't help noticing this and to add my rejoinder:Originally posted by Omniknight:now i know that buddhism was a waste of my time.
because there is God but you decided to be smart and tell me there is no God
I think it is better to define one's meaning of God or god when speaking. To the Christians (creator god), to the Buddhists (no creator god but something), to the Atheists (no god or whatever).
We can all argue until the 'End of Eternity', the cows won't go home! To me god or some other or no god is very subjective and is influenced by our upbringing, social environment, exposure, peer pressure, knowledge, rationalization, and finally belief.
To the believer: there is God. To the non-believer: there is no god. For me, I am like a child - if I see the emperor has no clothe, I say he is naked! I know the 'intellectual' will say I am simple-minded. The theologian will say something similar. The Buddhist will say I am ignorant. The Christian will say I have not accepted salvation. And so forth.
But who is RIGHT? -
In Buddhism, we generally explain off by saying there is no creator God whatsoever.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Can't help noticing this and to add my rejoinder:
I think it is better to define one's meaning of God or god when speaking. To the Christians (creator god), to the Buddhists (no creator god but something), to the Atheists (no god or whatever).
We can all argue until the 'End of Eternity', the cows won't go home! To me god or some other or no god is very subjective and is influenced by our upbringing, social environment, exposure, peer pressure, knowledge, rationalization, and finally belief.
To the believer: there is God. To the non-believer: there is no god. For me, I am like a child - if I see the emperor has no clothe, I say he is naked! I know the 'intellectual' will say I am simple-minded. The theologian will say something similar. The Buddhist will say I am ignorant. The Christian will say I have not accepted salvation. And so forth.
But who is RIGHT?
Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that we worship any supreme deities or creator. What it aims is simply a complete inner transformation and insight into what reality is, thus attaining liberation and Nirvana.
Though if you want to dwell on the more mystical aspect of Reality, there are certain aspects of Buddhist teachings that sounds like God (since it's describing something like, source reality, though it's impersonal). But calling it God usually causes more confusion than help, so we don't use the name. Also, the it's also not entirely accurate to explain reality in this way. So, it's better to understand it as: in Buddhism, there is NO God. Buddha never taught that there is God.
Though I appreciate your detailed analysis of things, of what 'God' is all about. Most atheists simply attack 'God' without first understanding what he is attacking about. I would say mostly they are attacking the mythic God.
Do read this article in the Atheism forum: The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake -
Regarding God, I wrote:
Now let's talk about the topic on a personal Creator/God. I posted this in: qns about buddhism:
First of all Buddhism does not accept the Judeo-Christian or Hindu (Hindu however considers the personal God to be under the influence of Maya or Illusion and that the true God is beyond the personal Creator, much like Gnostic Christianity) or other world religions' idea that there is a personal Creator, means the Old Testament kind of God that has a personality of its own.. and you can actually meet him up for coffee
. If there is a personal Creator it brings a lot of questions into mind. Therefore, Albert Einstein said,
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
and..
“If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
Regarding the question of Personal God in Buddhism,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Slightly edited from the first topic in our forum regarding Creationism: How the Brahma believed He was God?
In Buddha's days there were many many different teachings, one popular one was Brahmanism. In fact the Brahma was still worshipped nowadays. Brahma was known to be "The Supreme One, the All-mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of All".
In Buddhism, the Mahabrahma resides in the 1st Jhana plane, the first plane among the 8 jhanic planes. There were higher realms above where he lives that he was unaware of, and above it all, beyond the 8 Jhanic planes and all Samsaric planes, is Nirvana. Nevertheless all the devas below the 1st Jhana planes considered him as the Creator God. Buddha did not subscribe to the belief of such a notion that the Universe and its Inhabitants were the Creation of the Mahabrahma. He met with the Brahma, asked him questions which he could not answer. Eventually he has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
The Buddha was also known to have said this,
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
When the previous universe was destroyed and this universe was formed, the Mahabrahma was first to be reborn. Other subsequent brahmas/devas were to be reborn.
'On this, brethren, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: " I am Brahmà , the Great Brahmà , the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that are and are to be. 'These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, 'Would that they might come!' And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came." DN 1 2:5
In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma.
The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, a highly renowned Myanmar scholar-monk of the first part of this century, gave a careful analysis of the powers of Maha Brahma in his Niyama Dipani (MB pp. 138-39). He states that although Maha Brahma can perform all sorts of transformations, he cannot actually create independent creatures, change the kammic law of cause and effect, or keep anyone from growing old or dying. Brahma can use his special powers to transport a man to the brahma plane for a short visit, but he cannot ensure that someone will be reborn there.
from http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:
When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"
The king replied, "Yes, it is."
Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"
The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."
Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."
Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens. -
(continued from previous post)
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
Therefore in Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant and not given importance. Instead, like a scientist, the Buddha encouraged the Buddhist practitioners to find out for themselves the truths that the Buddha said, to put it to test, and to see for ourselves, and to get enlightened. Buddhism does not encourage any blind belief and dogmas (see Kalama Sutra), and also encourages analytical questioning -- whether this teaching actually helps us.
"To those who talked about the first cause of this world, the Buddha responded by saying that it is impossible to find a first cause since everything is changing, interdependent and conditioned by other things. Something that acts as the cause in the present may become the effect in the future. Later that same effect may again become the cause. Such phenomenon continues ad infinitum. It is called the universal law of Anicca or impermanency.”
However, Buddhism is largely Agnostic rather than Atheist. We believe that pondering over such things brings no benefits at all to our spiritual practice, enlightenment, and liberation from samsara.
Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
-- DN 2
Ten wholesome topics of conversation
"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
-- AN X.69
-------
"Malunkhyaputta Sutta stresses that whether the universe was created or uncreated, finite or infinite, is irrelevant to our main spiritual concerns: the cause and cessation of suffering:
"Therefore Malunkhyaputta, bear the undeclared as undeclared. Malunkhyaputta, what are the not declared? The world is eternal, is not declared by me. The world is not eternal, is not declared by me. They are not essential for the principles of the holy life, they do not lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, what are the declared by me? This, is unpleasant, is declared. This, is its arising, is declared. This, is its cessation is declared. This is the path to its cessation, is declared. Malunkhyaputta, why are these declared by me? These are the essentials for the principles of the holy life; they lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, I declare them." MN 64"Kalama Sutra
There are countless enlightened persons from Buddha's times till today, some of them even posting in this forum (not me), who have awakened to the ultimate reality and seen for themselves the truths that the Buddha taught. Beliefs in divine etc are not important and irrelevant in Buddhism, Buddhism being a man-centered (means having great love and compassion for all sentient being, as well as to practise for one's own spiritual development) rather than God-centered teaching, which is a reason why it is the only religion that does not have a history of having fought religious wars, --
"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
Note: this is just a summary, please read the entire sutra here: http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/kalama_sutra.htmlOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism" -
It really depends on you. If you have a strong faith in God and have strong synchronisation with God, you are free to choose. Remember, you have your free will to choose.Originally posted by Omniknight:because there is God but you decided to be smart and tell me there is no God
All religions have something in common. That is to produce good and kind-hearted men and women. As for free thinkers, there is nothing wrong with them too! They can be good and kind-hearted if they can find non-religious moral and ethics codes of conduct.
For myself, IMHO Buddhism is the correct, if not, perfect way of life. -
Thought I must state that the difference between Buddhism is that Buddhism leads to liberation, enlightenment and purification of the mind, not only avoiding evil, doing good, accumulating good karma, going to heaven, etc.Originally posted by oldkid:It really depends on you. If you have a strong faith in God and have strong synchronisation with God, you are free to choose. Remember, you have your free will to choose.
All religions have something in common. That is to produce good and kind-hearted men and women. As for free thinkers, there is nothing wrong with them too! They can be good and kind-hearted if they can find non-religious moral and ethics codes of conduct.
For myself, IMHO Buddhism is the correct, if not, perfect way of life. 
Anyway, omniknight always write like that one lah since the beginning, I know his style.. in fact he's the creator of this forum and my forum account (An Eternal Now). I just took over it.